Myq Kaplan and I have a fight.

[Jesse P-S]

Sorry guys. I thought saying that I had a comedian come on to make jokes and instead we accidentally "fought" over topics was correct usage. I have learned my lesson and am better for it.

The things that Jesse has said are true!

Also, yeah. Myq was incredibly nice, even after the show and the weird discussion (see? I did it right!) I don't think he thought he was indulging me though. But good of you to put those words in his mouth. You lot are, after all, the ones who know the proper usage of "fight".

Those of you who didnt care for it, its not how the show usually goes, so maybe listen to a different episode? Those of you who commented and have you own podcasts, I listened to at least two episodes of each of them before I made my decision that they were absolutely terrible.

[smartbunny]

I am pretty sure Myq and Brodie could convince me to be vegan by using their adorbs charm. I would picture them as cartoon animals with big shiny eyes and I would be all, "So! Tofurkey, then?"

[myq]

Let's not.

Oh no you didn't!
I mean, oh no we aren't?
Or, maybe we are just a little?

At first I did not want to respond about the actual points, but now I will:
You're completely correct on the solipsism/idealism. You cannot know the apparatus of perception and computation that we commonly call brain. It does not matter if you knew less before. You cannot even tell what is going on with whatever is you. So speculating and relating it to something that is experience and calling it remembrance or whatever, is probably not applicable. Speculation about that matter is pretty futile.

That's what I thought! Thanks for the reinforcements, other part of my existence maybe.

...you cannot tell a meat-eater that what they are doing is morally wrong...

Real quickly, BFH* covered a response to this fairly well.
I just wanted to add that
1) anyone can tell anyone anything (not helpful), unless you mean that i'm the only person that exists and thus there ARE no meat-eaters and it's thus impossible to tell them anything because they don't exist (even less helpful?)
2) if you can tell anyone that they're behaving immorally in other instances, then you can in this one (because wouldn't your absolute mandatory morality break down for treatment of humans as well as for non-human animals? if not, why not? or let's not)
3) my simple way of indicating it is less moral to harm animals unnecessarily in the food creation process than it is to not do that: if you believe that animals feel pain and pleasure, and if you believe that it is moral to aim for more pleasure and less pain in the world (which both seem like reasonable things that most people would accept, on their faces, with their brains from behind their faces), then why isn't it that simple to say causing more pain is more wrong than causing less?

Oh no we didn't!
Or did we?
Are we?

Let's if you want to let's, and let's not if you want to not.

* Big Friendly Helper?

[The9mm]

Oh no you didn't!
I mean, oh no we aren't?
Or, maybe we are just a little?

That's what I thought! Thanks for the reinforcements, other part of my existence maybe.


Real quickly, BFH* covered a response to this fairly well.
I just wanted to add that
1) anyone can tell anyone anything (not helpful), unless you mean that i'm the only person that exists and thus there ARE no meat-eaters and it's thus impossible to tell them anything because they don't exist (even less helpful?)
2) if you can tell anyone that they're behaving immorally in other instances, then you can in this one (because wouldn't your absolute mandatory morality break down for treatment of humans as well as for non-human animals? if not, why not? or let's not)
3) my simple way of indicating it is less moral to harm animals unnecessarily in the food creation process than it is to not do that: if you believe that animals feel pain and pleasure, and if you believe that it is moral to aim for more pleasure and less pain in the world (which both seem like reasonable things that most people would accept, on their faces, with their brains from behind their faces), then why isn't it that simple to say causing more pain is more wrong than causing less?

Oh no we didn't!
Or did we?
Are we?

Let's if you want to let's, and let's not if you want to not.

* Big Friendly Helper?

I'm happy that you even read my post and i know i'm probably stretching the thin layer of civility on the internet too far, but i'm still gonna respond for one last time (cheeky) :

Putting solipsism aside and working from realist axioms:

1) Of course you can tell anyone anything is immoral, but you would be incorrect in telling anyone anything is immoral. If a prescriptive pronouncement is incorrect, restating it with all your conviction won't make it correct.
2)Just to address, what you have put in the parentheses: The domain of applicability of objective morality (like in any religion) is huge problem. One of the many paradoxes. If objective morality applies to everyone, then why not an inanimate object? That opens another can of worms about choice, free will, consciousness which i won't open up here.
3)Again, just because you feel like it does not make it correct. Just because you feel causing pain is wrong does not make it correct in an objective sense and you would be incorrect, if you were to suggest it to someone else feeling differently about it, because you cannot back up your prescriptive statement with a proof. An intersubjective consensus must not be taken to be objective morality. You work from a perceived intersubjective consensus, that most find more harm to be less good, but why is that a point anyone should have to adhere to. Just because it is reasonable to most does not make it objectively prescriptive.

It has been a delight to have received, two posts from Myq Kaplan and now I shall be silent.
Also: I very much enjoyed you on Comedy Bang Bang.

[myq]

Just because it is reasonable to most does not make it objectively prescriptive.

It has been a delight to have received, two posts from Myq Kaplan and now I shall be silent.
Also: I very much enjoyed you on Comedy Bang Bang.

Three posts! And you needn't be silent, though I believe we may have said enough that we understand each other. (More perceived intersubjective consensus.)

I am not overly concerned with objective prescriptivism (because as I understand it, there can be none).
I'm happy enough with reasonableness (which has gotten us pretty far along, in terms of advancing in the areas of rights and justices in parts of the human animal experience, at least).

And I appreciate your kind words. (Comedy thank thank you.)

[The9mm]

I am not overly concerned with objective prescriptivism (because as I understand it, there can be none).
I'm happy enough with reasonableness (which has gotten us pretty far along, in terms of advancing in the areas of rights and justices in parts of the human animal experience, at least).

Wow, i thought this discussion would drag on ( like it usually does when I kick it off) but you got it exactly right.
We do understand each other!
Thumbs Yes!

[Trial]

There are so few conditions to being my friend that I'm not sure why people don't kiss me constantly.

[Jesse P-S]

I'm glad the podcast started a discussion on something, even if you didn't like it. My podcast is like medicine.

[Jixby Phillips]

Animals are stupid and deserve to get killed for being so stupid

You don't have to eat them, but you should kill them every chance you get. I've owned over 500+ dogs in my life and the animal shelter does not suspect a thing. Most dogs taste gross, but you'd taste gross too if you were dragged from a car's bumper for 30 miles.

pg--Blastin' "Holiday Road" the whole time. Strapped a dead old lady to the luggage rack, too--seattle