File: IMG_0499.png (263 KB, 691x683)

263 KB PNG

>>18456104
That’s what arguments like name the trait are for

Do androids dream of electric sheap? Is a good argument for veganism
>rights are only for humans

Define human.

If an animal is living a mostly bad life, suffering massively in a factory farm and experiencing little wellbeing then it’s wrong to breed them into existence.

If an animal is living a mostly good life, perhaps on a pasture then it’s wrong to cut their mostly good life short by executing them when they’re a healthy teenager.

https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3D

If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)

File: Cruel.mp4 (2.55 MB, 480x854)

2.55 MB MP4

>>18456108
https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Species_maximum

There are 3 ways to go about dismantling how inconsistent this named trait is.
1. When having 'low intelligence' is named as trait to justify animals' farming and consumption, there's another reduction ad absurdum that can be easily done.
P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.
C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter mentally handicapped people (low intelligence).
P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.
C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter humans, but not super-intelligent alien/AI beings.
P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.
C1. It's OK to harm and slaughter super-intelligent alien/AI beings, but not hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings.
This begs the question: when beings of higher intelligence are discovered, would it then suddenly classify the beings of previous highest intelligence (that were *not* morally OK to harm and consume) OK to harm and consume?
2. 'Low' intelligence is very vague, and it's arbitrary.
Low intelligence can be applied to pretty much anything, as intelligence is a very vague term and is best used in a comparative way to see who's more intelligence in what, rather than an objective view of who's of high intelligence and who's of low intelligence.
Low intelligence compared to what?
It could even be argued that humans are of low intelligence, since it doesn't have any comparison and it's arbitrary. And when there's something more intelligent than humans, humans could easily be considered 'low intelligence' in the same way.

File: Dairy.mp4 (2.31 MB, 480x854)

2.31 MB MP4

>>18456118
P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.
P2. High intelligence is determined by the current being of highest intelligence, and less intelligent beings are low intelligence.
C1. When super-intelligent alien/AI beings are discovered, it's OK to harm and slaughter humans, but not super-intelligent alien/AI beings.
P1. It's OK to harm and slaughter beings with low intelligence, but not the ones with high intelligence.
P2. High intelligence is determined by the current being of highest intelligence, and less intelligent beings are low intelligence.
C1. When hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings are discovered, it's OK to harm and slaughter super-intelligent alien/AI beings, and of course humans as well, but not hyper-intelligent alien/AI beings.
And so on.
'Low intelligence' is arbitrary, and so can't be used in an objective and consistent way.
3. While higher intelligence sometimes correlates with a higher level of sentience, what people would normally consider 'low intelligence' can still retain very significant levels of sentience. Intelligence =/= morality.
Basing morality on 'intelligence' (instead of sentience) leads to absurd conclusions.
Are plants of moral significance, because they have a level of intelligence, even though they have no sentience and therefore can't feel or subjectively experience?
Are non-sentient super-computers of higher moral significance than humans, because they have more intelligence?
And so on.
A reductio ad absurdum would be:
P1. Moral worth is based on intelligence.
P2. Current computers have a higher intelligence than humans.
C1. Current computers have a higher moral value than humans.
Instead it should be:
P1. Moral worth is based on the level of sentience (ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively).
P2. Current computers have no sentience, while humans do.
C1. Current computers have no moral value (lower) than humans.

File: Medi.mp4 (3.06 MB, 644x576)

3.06 MB MP4

Species maximum
Or belonging to a species with at least one member attaining some trait (intelligence or language or rationality at a certain arbitrary level)
It's ultimately an absurd claim in itself, but not very hard to counter.
To highlight the absurdity: So if we're looking for one individual who is 'smart' in the species, and there are two islands of 'stupid' people thousands of miles apart, on one Island somebody is born who has that arbitrary x level of higher intelligence to qualify as 'smart'. Suddenly the people on the other island thousands of miles away gain moral value where before that instant of realizing that arbitrary level of intelligence on the other island they had none?
It's a very silly claim that begs justification for both WHY that particular arbitrary level of intelligence, but also for why it grants other people moral value. I'll address the latter:
If the argument is that it grants others moral value because they can breed together as per the definition of species (and presumably are potential mates to spread that intelligent gene) why would it grant moral value to people on an island thousands of miles away who are not potential mates? It's also a fundamentally eugenic argument: people on average might have some moral value as potential mates, but people with genetic diseases or very low IQs who would dilute or damage the offspring of the intelligent people would actually have negative moral value.
That's probably enough to discredit the argument to most people's satisfaction. But if you want: What if a human who didn't reach that level of intelligence were transported to a parallel dimension with no humans. Would that human lose moral value?

>>18456104
>Did two non humans or one human and a non human give birth to a human?
If you arbitrarily set a clear cutoff for human, then both would have happened. Two not-yet-humans created the first just-yet-human, who then created more humans with nonhumans.
In practice, species are a natural continuum that just has most of the intermediaries die out at some point, and we're better off saying "these are humans, these were nonhumans, these were inbetween" (no need to assign a percentage or something because these semihumans are all long dead).
> Would it have been moral to kill , eat and or factory farm that humans parents or parent but not their child?
No because these semihumans would have been of almost human intellect and emotional richness.
Matter of fact, factory farming of basically any higher mammal is immoral by the same arguments we use to give humans rights. We just do it anyway because they are tasty and we are in no danger of ever becoming one of them.

File: Hens.mp4 (2.77 MB, 720x1280)

2.77 MB MP4

>>18456123
If not, then all remotely intelligent animals have moral value as per multiverse theory where every possible universe exists, so there are universes with pigs and cows and chickens (genetically the same species) with a couple different genes giving them that level of intelligence. There's a fair chance there are no universes in which something could be intelligent and have genetic composition making reproduction with a plant or bacterium possible, but anything with a brain it could. If the person admitted that somebody would lose moral value if transported to another universe if it made procreation impossible, that comes back to the island question, and a question of the elderly who can no longer procreate, and of those who are infertile, and of the eugenics issue.
Species Normalcy
This claim is similar to the Species Maximum claim, but asserts value of the entire species is based on what is normal for the species, or supposedly whatever represents more than 50% of the species. This claim suffers from the similar issues to that of Species Maximum, but the threshold for having or lacking moral value results in devaluation all of the beings that DO have that trait when they represent less than 50% of the species population. Thus, following from this, if somebody set up a factory farm on Mars and bred 8 billion humans with mental retardation to fall below the intelligence threshold (or whatever trait was associated with moral value for the species), then all of the humans on Earth would lose moral value because of this.
Reformulating the claim to Species Maximum is a common response to demonstrating this issue with the Species Normalcy claim.

>>18456104
Why are there no videos of evolution? Just drawings.

>>18456108
It's ok to kill an animal and not a human because we are human and dislike being killed. And we kill people who kill us, so you better come around to our point of view. Animals are animals and cannot do shit about being killed.

>>18456104
No to all your questions.
We didn't shift from hominid to human in a generation, we couldn't identify a specific point where the child is suddenly human.
And even if we could, the children wearing the parents risk prion diseases, so not eat your parents.

>>18456135
>It's ok to rape a woman and not a man because we are men and dislike being raped. And we kill men who rape us, so you better come around to our point of view. Women are female+not male and cannot do shit about being raped

>>18456139
60 second short

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ZhD9Rsn6BO8

Feminism vs force doctrine
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/zJN8MI8Wsd8

>>18456139
Not raping women has other advantages.
But yeah. Many cultures worked like that, some still do. Raping a female was a property crime against her father or other male family members.

>>18456173
>>18456173
It also has disadvantages

I believe raping women should be treated as more than a property crime, it’s still very bad if the woman being raped is a stateless orphan non virgin with no husband. The issue I have is it seems to me if the justification for animal agriculture is just might makes right + ingroup preference I don’t see how it doesn’t also allow for treating women as property especially in extreme circumstances in which treating women as property is in male humans best interests.

>>18456176
You make a compelling argument and I will consider converting to islam now.

>>18456139
>It's ok to kill a plant and not a human because we are human and dislike being killed. And we kill people who kill us, so you better come around to our point of view. Plants are plants and cannot do shit about being killed.

>>>/sci/

>>18456187
No the reason is plants are not conscious but humans and all birds and mammals definitely are, there’s lots of evidence that all birds and all mammals are conscious such as the Cambridge declaration of consciousness.

The idea is to grant rights to all animals who are at least as conscious, intelligent, able to experience wellbeing, able to suffer, or whatever trait or traits you care about as the least intelligent, conscious, able to suffer, able to experience wellbeing, or whatever trait or traits human you care about. For many people this will probably be a fetus that is a few months old possibly younger

>>18456184
The Quran is supposed to be the word of God directly. Unlike with the Bible, the Quran is supposedly dictated directly from Allah, rather than mediated through potentially errant human prophets. Thus, if there are errors, either moral or factual in the Quran, they come directly from God. Unfortunately, there are a lot of very implausible things in the Quran. For example, the teachings about hell:

"...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!"

Additionally:

They will go back and forth between fire and scalding water.

And:

But those who disbelieve and deny Our signs will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.

Even the food is bad!

"Surely the tree of the Zaqqum is the food of the sinful, like dregs of oil; it shall boil in (their) bellies, like the boiling of hot water."

People’s skins will melt off, only to grow back so that they melt again:

(As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/islam-is-very-implausible

>>18456138
>risk prion diseases, so not eat your parents
only if you eat the brain
and only if they already have said prion disease in the brain

>vegan
>uses creationist logic
Checks out.

>>18456104
Human is a made up category.
>would it have been moral
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?