@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Right, so that would be a contradiction; "it is and is not the case that humans having the feeding efficiency and meat yield of cows would make world b permissible".
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I never made the claim it was. As i said, you dont want an actual conversation with actual answers, you want a strawman to burn. Keep acting like cows are the same and theres no reason we choose cows other than our imagined hatred for animals and you will keep your movement small
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Okay, then answer the question clearly if you want to be understood. https://x.com/upRootNutrition/...
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy It's unclear in that case. Could you tell me again? Perhaps rephrase?
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy "you didnt provide the answer i wanted, now i will act like you were not clear enough when you said you are against cannibalism because thats somehow an unclear statement" Honest question, are you in some way retarded? Did i use words you dont understand? Pls tell me your problem
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I didn't ask you if you were against cannibalism. Now I'm thinking you didn't understand the question. Please reread it carefully and name the trait that makes the morally relevant distinction between both worlds, please.
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Cannibalism makes a difference. Funny how you think there is only one reason why we cultivate cows instead of humans. It feels like you dont understand your own question or you just pretend to not understand my answer if it inst the one you want.
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy So the trait is that cannibalism is not occurring in world a? So world a is permissible?
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy A trait is that we dont practice mass cannibalism now, yes. Do you want to ask the same question again now because i didnt gave the answer you want for your gotcha moment?
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Okay, cool. I will take that as a yes. In your view, how would you define cannibalism? Homo sapiens eating homo sapiens, or something else?
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Arent you old enough to use google on your own?
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I asked you for your definition, not Google's definition. But if your definition aligns with Google's definition, then Google's definition is fine. We can work with that definition. Hypothetically, let's say that we ran some genetic tests on a bunch of school children, and we
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy should suffice as an answer
@Babefly1_YT @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I'm not reading all of that. The question called for a yes or a no, and a yes or a no will do. Anything short of that is a dodge.
@upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy as expected. you dont want a discussion, fuck off
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy The question doesn't need such a long answer. I skimmed it anyways and maybe it helps if the question is rephrased: What is the ethically relevant difference between humans and animals? Your answer stated "humans and cows are not the same". But this doesn't answer the question.
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy but that isnt what bro asked, if he did i would have given another answer.
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy He phrased it differently, but I'm pretty sure thats what @upRootNutrition's scenario boils down to. If you understand what I'm asking, and understand that "they are different" isn't answering the question, can you provide a trait that differentiates world A and B?
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I'd appreciate if you could be more concise, there is a lot of irrelevant information in there. To get to the point: Do you value human beings that lack: Smartness, Speech capabilities, dominance? There are many disabled humans that lack those traits. Would you mass farm them?
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Apparently its not irrelevant information, otherwise you wouldnt ask me to provide it again. I said humans as a species. There are weak individuals and as a society we should provide for them and protect them.
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy So for those individuals the traits you named don't seem to actually matter, rather species itself. What exact trait determines 'species'? DNA?
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I'm not asking for a biologists opinion. I'm asking for you to name the morally relevant trait that *you* use to treat cows different from trait adjusted disabled people. Vaguely saying "human" fails to provide relevant information, like in the example https://x.com/toxx1220/status/...
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Listen, when you can't name the relevant trait you use to differentiate between two species (and rather have to refrain to "everyone/biologists know how to.."), you're simply violating the principle of equality. This is exactly what I stated, vague and not adding information.
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy So you do think a blind human is the same as a cow?
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Although you're derailing with this, obviously not. There is a ton of differences, like DNA, visual appearance, even sentience (The ethically relevant trait for me). But for me none of those allow to put one species in gas chambers. Both are sentient, I slit the throat of neither
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Let me clarify: The principle of equality differentiates between ethically relevant properties. Cow: Sentient Human: Sentient When you treat those two differently, you have to provide the *ethically relevant* property that allows for unequal treatment. "Human" doesnt provide info
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Human does provide info, you simply dont like that info. But thats not even the point because i provided more than just human, you simply choose to ignore it again
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy "I treat humans different, because they are humans" No, that doesn't provide any information. Feel free to ask anyone with knowledge in philosophy or logic, or even an LLM. This logical fallacy is very well known (As either tautology, begging the qustion, or repeating the claim)
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Thats not what i said. Again, you chose to ignore what i said and build a strawmen instead of interacting with my point
@Babefly1_YT @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy I know you gave 2-3 other traits, but when trait equalized (a disabled person unable to speak) the only standing differentiator was "species". From this point you couldn't clarify further what property determines species other saying "Everyone/biologists know what a human is".
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Because you know what a human is. Why should i base my worldview on exceptions? Humans as a species are smarter, capable of speech and are the dominant mammal race on earth, it doesnt matter if you have disabled people because they dont make the species.
@toxx1220 @upRootNutrition @endofallnigs @MadamSavvy Its the same as if you wanted to make an argument that men are better based on their physical strength, there are obviously weak men and disabled men but in general men are stronger. That point doesnt become irrelevant just because you dont like it