5ac5c33d   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.education, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: rec.pets.cats.misc   
   From: lojbab@lojban.org   
      
   Rupert  wrote:   
   >You don't have any reasonable grounds for saying this ethical issue is   
   >not worthy of serious discussion.   
      
   No ethical issue is worthy of serious discussion without shared   
   systematic assumptions about the ethical framework.  "Shared   
   systematic assumptions" = "ideology"   
      
   >> There are no arguments that I would consider, since I consider the   
   >> subject to be silly.  (Indeed, I consider the topic of ethics to be   
   >> not subject to serious theoretical discussion - in order to make it   
   >> theoretical, you have to make assumptions, and I reject unnecessary   
   >> assumptions).   
   >   
   >Well, that's completely absurd. You've never thought seriously about   
   >ethics.   
      
   I've thought seriously enough to realize that thinking seriously about   
   it is a waste of time.   
      
   >No, it's not true that you have to "make assumptions".   
      
   Without assumptions, you cannot exercise logic.  But logical thinking   
   is only as good as the quality of the assumptions.  If one assumption   
   is actually false or even inaccurate, then the whole intellectual   
   framework is meaningless.   
      
   >You're not qualified to dismiss the entire field of ethics.   
      
   Of course I am.  I dismiss the entire field of philosophy as well.   
      
   >> >Yes, well this really is incredibly stupid.   
   >>   
   >> The topic is, indeed.   
   >   
   >Well, if you think so, why bother to talk about it? Your attempts at   
   >criticizing the ethical vegetarian position are a joke.   
      
   It is intended to be a joke.  But of course only people who take   
   themselves too seriously can't take a joke.   
      
   >> I don't much care what someone else eats.  If   
   >> they tell me what to eat (or tell me what to do in general) based on   
   >> their personal choices of assumption, my *least* offensive response is   
   >> to laugh.   
   >   
   >If someone has an argument for an ethical position that they think is   
   >worth considering,   
      
   Arguments are based on assumptions.  Assumptions might be incorrect,   
   therefore arguments are worthless.   
      
   >you can either make a serious attempt to engage   
   >with the argument, or you can acknowledge that you haven't considered   
   >that argument yet and you don't know if you have a satisfactory   
   >response to it.   
      
   I don't need a satisfactory response to it.  It's only an argument.   
   It is "theory".  I prefer to deal with reality - that which works most   
   effectively (effectivity being a subjective evaluation based on   
   personal preferences).   
      
   >Good. So just acknowledge that you're not qualified to make fun of my   
   >views and move on to something else.   
      
   I don't care about your views.  But you posted them to this forum, so   
   I will respond to them.   
      
   lojbab   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)