The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we as good as we think? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
James writes; "Someone in the earlier thread mentioned the law I am speaking of and even gave us the name of it."

Really? I've read every post in this thread and fail to see the information you claim is there. Would it be too hard for you to show me where this is? It is possible I overlooked it, though I doubt it.

I've never read Singer and don't plan to. You wrote:
"Singer, as already stated, believes in equal consideration for all animals (that includes humans), especially on the topic of pain. All animals can feel pain, and pain is bad. We should avoid pain whenever possible. Now, take a chimp and a disabled baby. Singer is simply saying that there is no significant difference between them and there is no difference in how they feel pain. Therefore, when it comes to pain, they should have equal consideration. So, if you are willing to subdue the chimp to un needed pain (electric shock used in testing perhaps), then you must also be willing to subdue the baby to this pain as well. Saying this is wrong is specieism. Much the same as racism or sexism, it is an ARBITRARY difference between then two."

So your quote or understanding of Singer is that he believes in equal consideration of animals,(that's a comma)especially on the topic of pain. Not to do so is specieism, per the lets not use human babies in pain tests scenario. Doesn't appear to me that I've taken anything out of context.

Wanted to know the definition of specieism and found no reference to it. Did find speciesism is though. This sums it up:

"Speciesism is to species as racism and sexism are respectively to race and to sex: the will not to give no consideration (or to give less consideration) to the interests of certain individuals to the benefit of others, while putting forward as a justification differences that may be real or imaginary but are always deprived of a logical link to what they purport to justify.

In practice, speciesism is the ideology that justifies and imposes the exploitation and use of animals by humans in ways that would not be accepted if the victims were human.

Animals are raised and slaughtered to furnish us with meat; they are fished for our consumption; they are used as biological models for our scientific interests; they are hunted as a game.

The struggle against these practices and against the ideology that supports them is the task taken up by the animal liberation movement."

Animals are not people too. They are animals.

I anxiously await the post proving, "Someone in the earlier thread mentioned the law I am speaking of and even gave us the name of it."
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
Jerrine,

Yes, really. It seems you did indeed overlook the post I am speaking of. Here it is, posted by the Café member Leland Stone:

"and holds that "depraved indifference" [the legal principle by which one may be charged with a crime for failing to aid another whose life is at imminent risk] is an illegitimate moral claim."

didn't take anything out of context? Perhaps you yourself did not make the claim, but you surely made a comment about it. Here it is:

"The Monster is amused to learn that Singer is O.K. with disposing of a disabled child."

Neither Singer, nor I said this. How much more out of context can you get? This is something a lot of people think about Singer that is not true. Much the same with the cows and jews post. This also is not true. We are talking PAIN here, NOT LIFE. There IS a difference.

Also, I have attempted to look up more on "Depraved Indifference" and havent had much luck. Perhaps this isn't the correct term. I will continue looking, however, because I know it is a law. I either need to look harder or find out the correct name. But don't worry, Ill find it.

Finally, people are animals too. We all feel pain equally (at least the animals we are speaking of such as Dogs and Chimps) and none should have to feel this pain for no reason.

James
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
James:
I overlooked that as I was searching for someone mentioning a law, which no one did. A legal principle is not a law.

Concerning context I was referring to your statement: "Also, Singer does NOT claim "all animals are equal." Again, you're taking his beliefs and views out of context."
and then mine, "So your quote or understanding of Singer is that he believes in equal consideration of animals,(that's a comma)especially on the topic of pain. Not to do so is specieism, per the lets not use human babies in pain tests scenario. Doesn't appear to me that I've taken anything out of context." Nothing to do with Singer being for or against the disposing of a disabled child.

While it is true that people are animals, animals are not people, which is what I stated. Animals are not people and shouldn't be treated as such. Animals are not people, it's a fact. Again, animals are not people. We hunt animals, not people.(Save Osama and a few other animals)We eat animals, not people. (Save a few whack jobs and tribes that think they gain strength of their enemies) We keep animals as pets, not people.(Save Hefner and few other such types)In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "Animals are not, I say not, people."(Cartoon animals get to speak and be funny, also they don't die often even after getting blown up and such)
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Quote:
On 2006-12-30 15:25, James F wrote:
Just shrugging it off as "Bovine Scatology" seems a bit foolish.

James


Then I will be foolish. To some I am right, to others I am not I could really care less. Singer discussed infant euthanasia in his book Practical Ethics. Read parts for academic reasons. I would never read it again nor would I purchase such drivvel. I also have not forgiven the professor for requiring us to read any part of it and held him to account with the Dean. It is a political agenda put to paper and an extreme one at that.
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
Jerrine,

You are correct, you didn't take anything out of context in what you are referring to. I was referring to the comment at which I quoted. However, what you commented on WAS taken out of context. (Not by you, but by whoever you were commenting on)

Yes, animals are not people and should not be treated as such. That isn't what I am arguing about. I am saying that they do not need to be subjected to unneeded pain. Pain is bad and all the animals we are talking about should not be subjected to it.

Honestly, Im not THAT big into the animal thing. I started this post about poverty and I really would like it to stay on this topic. I honestly do not know enough about the animal subject to even try and argue. I don't even know if I have anything I want to argue ABOUT. My point in this post was to talk about world poverty.

Also, it IS a law. From what I have heard, it is a law only in certain countries and states. I am still trying to find out more. I wish there was a lawyer here who could chime in. I will report back when I know.

James
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27148 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2006-12-26 01:21, Payne wrote:
Little good comes from simply feeding the poor. Without the ability to sustain themselves they will be hungry tomorrow and the day after that. Also giving them free food and assistance does little to motivate them to take care of themselves. Most of those who are starving to death are the end product of war, famine, and economic adversity. Simply feeding them offers them no aid. We must tackle the root of the problem not the symptom. There are no easy answers and simply throwing money at the problem isn't going to make it go away. The poor will always be with us,


Fine, and perhaps we can ease their suffering by means of some modest proposals offered by Jonathan Swift some time ago? Ah what the heck, why not just offer them Soylent Green?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
rossmacrae
View Profile
Inner circle
Arlington, Virginia
2447 Posts

Profile of rossmacrae
Quote:
On 2006-12-30 18:45, James F wrote:
Also, it IS a law. From what I have heard, it is a law only in certain countries and states. I am still trying to find out more. I wish there was a lawyer here who could chime in. I will report back when I know.

As I have been given to understand "depraved indifference", to which you referred earlier, it does not give anyone a duty to take any action to prevent harm - you can stand by and watch someone drown or step into traffic without any duty to act.

"Depraved indifference" has traditionally referred to taking an action without regard for the likelihood that your action would cause injury - to the extent that such an action is, by this principle, reasonably equated with an actual intent to do harm. Some of the "classic" examples of depraved indifference are firing a weapon in a crowded place, dropping a heavy object from a height onto a busy street or driving a speeding vehicle down a sidewalk.
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
If we have so many people dying of starvation and disease, why do we always have more? Shouldn't we have less? I've heard the old: "Well, there isn't anything else for them to do...." stuff.
Of course I am kind of heartless.

I am making sure 3 other people don't starve and have adequate medical care and housing, I am a hero!

I have a hard time taking advice from someone on the Internet, presumably owning a computer. Regardless of that wasted expenditure, they are also spending time on a web page devoted entirely to spending money on unneeded pleasure. There are poor that need us.

Here we had to make a law that makes it hard to sue someone FOR helping you, because people wouldn't help for fear of litigation. Giving is a two way street.

As far as preaching personal ethics seemingly believing them to be law, well a lot of people have the same problem.

Eventually I may look back on my life with regret. But it won't be due to some family who had bad luck and couldn't get a weekly allowance from me.

Of course that's me. I just don't like poor people Smile.....
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
James,
Show me a law, stop merely stating that it is. Saying grapefruits can build atomic reactors doesn't make it true. Even if I capitalize CAN and GRAPEFRUITS.

I know from poverty. I'm talking sleeping in the street poverty. Going to jail for simply not having any money on you and a residence. Not breaking laws, not stealing from others, not endangering anyone, just being poor, penniless. The Feds classify me as a Native American. My understanding is I could get all kinds of handouts if I stood up and said Hey! I'm an Indian! I didn't do that. Wanna know why? It's not the Feds responsibility to take care of me or anyone else.
Personal decisions and unfortunate circumstances can put a person on the street with nothing. I took care of business. I worked hard, spent frugally(lived in a 5'x10'self storage unit for 8 months. Hey, it said self storage so I did. Best sleep I ever got, climate controlled, quiet), saved money, learned from past mistakes. Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves, especially in the U.S.A.
My view is handouts don't help, they hurt. I take care of mine and myself. Didn't ask anyone to support me and don't care for propaganda, no matter what its source, that attempts to shame people into giving up their hard earned cash. If you want to discuss poverty some more I'll be around.
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Grapefruits can build atomic reactors? I'm going to the store!
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
James F,

In regards to your original post, the author: Peter Singer, is doing what to help any one? What are you doing to help these people, you so want to help? So many of these socialist use this type of propaganda to destroy, demean, and put down the American way of life and then site how good we have it here. Do you not see the irony in this? Most of these places are either dictatorships, communist based, or socialist forms of governments where the poverty is devastating. Don’t you think it would do more good to spread our system to those places so they can feed them selves forever than bring their systems of failure to the U.S.?

Respectfully,
Tom Bartlett
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Or we could send them a bunch of baby seals to skin and eat.
Meybe some monkeys and car batteries, like a video game. The kids need fun too.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
It is nice that I am not alone. I guess there are a lot of foolish people in this forum.
Bob Clayton
View Profile
Loyal user
245 Posts

Profile of Bob Clayton
Quote:
On 2006-12-30 18:50, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fine, and perhaps we can ease their suffering by means of some modest proposals offered by Jonathan Swift some time ago? Ah what the heck, why not just offer them Soylent Green?

I was just about to bring Jonathan Swift's classic A Modest Proposal into the discussion, but I see that you beat me to it Jonathan. ;-)
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
Quote:
On 2006-12-30 09:09, James F wrote:
Ok, a few things. First of all, Singer NEVER says it is ok to kill disabled babies.

Actually, James, he does say such a thing, here: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pro......6409.ece

"Would you kill a disabled baby? KAREN MEADE, Dublin

Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

It really isn't necessary to misquote or improperly contextualise Singer's statements in order to understand that he is not a sound source of moral or ethical guidance.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
The Monster is still amused to learn that Singer is O.K. with disposing of a disabled child.

Still waiting for that legal schmegal update, 6 days and counting.
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
"Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves, especially in the U.S.A."

Im not talking about people in the USA! Have you people not realized this yet? Im talking about children born in places like Darfur who are starving to death and dying of malnutrition. These children have no blame. They cannot help what they were born into. All I am saying is that instead of buying a new car or going on a cruise, why don't you donate that money to save some of these people. Im not talking about the homeless guy begging for food on the side of the highway. Im talking about children born in countries whose families are so poor they cant prevent their children from dying of diarrhea and starvation. 15,000 a day.

About the law, I was somewhat correct, but also mistaken. (As far as I can find. Perhaps I am right, but from what I have found, Im slightly mistaken.) The law states you do have an obligation if you started the situation. If you saw a child drowning in a pond and you were somehow the cause of this, then you are obligated to try and help. However, if you just wandered by and saw the child, I do not believe you are legally obligated to do anything. Here is where I read this:

http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/125/125-25(2).pdf

on page 3, second paragraph down. However, this means nothing. Morality is not set by laws. Having the fact that not saving the child as being illegal would certainly help my case, but it does not decide it. This is why I don't see the huge importance you placed on this. It may not be against the law to lie, but we still believe it to be a bad characteristic (most of the time, that is). I think if you walked by a lake and you saw a child drowning and did nothing, must people (I hope including yourself) would think you did something gravely wrong.

Anyway, the point of the argument is to put you in a situation where you feel you have some moral obligation to do something. It is then pointed out that that situation is the same as a current situation. You will then conclude you must change the way you react to the current situation. However, if you feel Bob is within his moral right to not save the child, then there is nothing more for us to discuss here. However, I stand strongly by the fact that that makes you a monster. Putting your own material wealth ahead of life is, to me, horrible.

So to those who do not believe Bob was wrong to let the child die, I believe we are done discussing this topic.

To those who believe he was wrong in letting the child die, you must therefore conclude that you are wrong in not giving to famine relief and the like. If you don't, you must provide some logical reason for not. So far as I have seen in this post, no one has done such. The only person with a reasonable argument was Jerrine. I say reasonable in the sense that if he feels Bob is ok to let the child die, then the argument no longer holds. That does not mean I think the idea of letting the child die is reasonable in any sense.

One last thing, I have not read the article posted above (I will), but Im assuming it says what you say it says. To that, I admit I was mistaken. However, this does not mean Singer's views on world poverty are wrong. You can be very wrong on some issues and very right on others. His views on animals and what not does not mean his views on world poverty are wrong.

James
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2006-12-31 15:21, James F wrote:
"Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves, especially in the U.S.A."

Im not talking about people in the USA! Have you people not realized this yet? Im talking about children born in places like Darfur who are starving to death and dying of malnutrition. These children have no blame. They cannot help what they were born into. All I am saying is that instead of buying a new car or going on a cruise, why don't you donate that money to save some of these people. Im not talking about the homeless guy begging for food on the side of the highway. Im talking about children born in countries whose families are so poor they cant prevent their children from dying of diarrhea and starvation. 15,000 a day.

About the law, I was somewhat correct, but also mistaken. (As far as I can find. Perhaps I am right, but from what I have found, Im slightly mistaken.) The law states you do have an obligation if you started the situation. If you saw a child drowning in a pond and you were somehow the cause of this, then you are obligated to try and help. However, if you just wandered by and saw the child, I do not believe you are legally obligated to do anything. Here is where I read this:

http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/125/125-25(2).pdf

on page 3, second paragraph down. However, this means nothing. Morality is not set by laws. Having the fact that not saving the child as being illegal would certainly help my case, but it does not decide it. This is why I don't see the huge importance you placed on this. It may not be against the law to lie, but we still believe it to be a bad characteristic (most of the time, that is). I think if you walked by a lake and you saw a child drowning and did nothing, must people (I hope including yourself) would think you did something gravely wrong.

Anyway, the point of the argument is to put you in a situation where you feel you have some moral obligation to do something. It is then pointed out that that situation is the same as a current situation. You will then conclude you must change the way you react to the current situation. However, if you feel Bob is within his moral right to not save the child, then there is nothing more for us to discuss here. However, I stand strongly by the fact that that makes you a monster. Putting your own material wealth ahead of life is, to me, horrible.

So to those who do not believe Bob was wrong to let the child die, I believe we are done discussing this topic.

To those who believe he was wrong in letting the child die, you must therefore conclude that you are wrong in not giving to famine relief and the like. If you don't, you must provide some logical reason for not. So far as I have seen in this post, no one has done such. The only person with a reasonable argument was Jerrine. I say reasonable in the sense that if he feels Bob is ok to let the child die, then the argument no longer holds. That does not mean I think the idea of letting the child die is reasonable in any sense.

One last thing, I have not read the article posted above (I will), but Im assuming it says what you say it says. To that, I admit I was mistaken. However, this does not mean Singer's views on world poverty are wrong. You can be very wrong on some issues and very right on others. His views on animals and what not does not mean his views on world poverty are wrong.

James

James F,

Did you not read my last post. It is not the fault of the poor in those places. The fault falls on the system of the government! Change their government and you will change their lives. Being able to own property and reaping the fruits of ones labor produces prosperity!

Look at the real history of what led up to the first” Thanks Giving”. They tried commune type living first and it almost killed every one. Then they tried capitalism and it worked. It works every time it’s tried!

Give these people the tools they really need and they will do great things.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
Suppo
View Profile
Regular user
Indianapolis
101 Posts

Profile of Suppo
Get ready for a lifetime of diappointment. Ah, but I am a fool. Heres to all the fools who are no longer disappointed in the realities of the world.

I guess the argument really is we should let people posting on an easily accessible and reaonsably aonoymous forum be our moral compass.
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1096 Posts

Profile of James F
The realities of the world can always change. You make it sound as if we shouldnt try because this is just "how things are". Well, maybe things need to change. Besides, I already said you don't have to give money directly to the people. Give money to groups that will help the cause, not just the problem.

And I am not trying to be anyones moral compass. I am trying to give more people access to an argument that I thought might convince some, or at least get them thinking. How else could I reach every person on this board?

All I am asking for is a reasonable argument against the article I posted. As stated, no one has done such. (Except simply denying the needed premise of Bobs situation)

James
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we as good as we think? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL