/lit/ - Literature

>>16643299
I wonder what the draw is, is it sanctioned egoism?

>>16643308
*rationalism

sounds based

>>16643299
Can you write a coherent review without using buzzwords? Get off this board and read a book.

>>16643308
How did you get egoism from this? Kek

>>16644446
I really hope you are kidding.

>>16643299

>>16643299

wtf it was possible to be rational and compassionate a thousand years ago?

>>16645176
Based

>>16645176

Extremist cope. All they're doing is proving him right.

>>16645271
They didn't prove anything, it's just a statue. He wouldn't give a hoot about his statue being destroyed n years after his death, if he truly was a vegan, anti-natalist, whatever the fuck. How precisely did they prove him right?

>>16643299
>antinatalist, pessimist, vegan, antitheistic
Seems more like proto-reddit. Incels would refuse veganism because they think plants will turn them into women.

>>16645301
*proto Schopenhauer
dumb fag

>>16643299
Sounds based ngl

>>16645282
He was a poet during Islam's golden age. Now look at the Islamic world. It's full of gangs of predatory young men who autistically follow their dogmatic religion to the letter, rape and murder their own people and have no good ideas for human flourishing.

>>16643299

>In al-Ma'arri's later years he chose to give up consuming meat or any other animal products. He wrote:

Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up,
And do not desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,
Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught
for their young, not noble ladies.
And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking eggs;
for injustice is the worst of crimes.
And spare the honey which the bees get industriously
from the flowers of fragrant plants;
For they did not store it that it might belong to others,
Nor did they gather it for bounty and gifts.
I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I
Perceived my way before my hair went gray!

So veganism is something else "white Europeans" stole and claimed as their own. This guy was fucking legendary and I want to read more about the golden age of Islam, since this guy and his views were a product of that time.

>>16645343
There have been plenty of poets and intellectuals during "Islam's golden age" that did not at all share his sentiments. I cannot speak for Islam, as I am not a Muslim, but I doubt their religion tells them to "rape and murder" their own people, or that their predicament is caused more by their religion than by the years of American and Israeli aggression and wars you ignore, not to include other things. If Islam could produce great things in the past, then its torpor today is due to something other than it simply being Islam.

>no good ideas for human flourishing
Ironically, those people with the "good ideas" end up causing the most harm. Those "scientist's best approximations" and "best hypotheses/theories" that, when applied, always end up being exposed as detrimental flukes or, at best, short-lived successes (so the media can spew articles about "another stunning win for science" and bury the matter so we don't notice the ensuing dysfunction many years later). A pessimist should know this- every mass utopia is just a slaughterhouse.

>>16645434
Every man and his view are a product of his times, but also his upbringing and life. If you look at the Wikipedia article OP quoted, you'll find that his blindness from small pox greatly influenced his pessimism.

These vegan "arguments" are uncharacteristically weak, but that's a consequence of unskilled poeticism. I cannot eat fish because it is unjustifiably "unjust?" I cannot desire the flesh of animals I slaughter? I cannot nourish the cow's young, as well as use its milk for my own nutrition? I cannot take unfertilized eggs from chickens because it is "unjust?" Is it also unjust to steal turds from the cow to use for compost? Spare the honey that bees industriously collect? Let them eat pollen and nectar, and leave them some honey, as I protect their hive from wild animals. He washes his hands? Why is it not fine to steal from an intelligent entity that feels pain, but it is fine to chop down and eat great masses of plants and fruits? Both are alive.

>>16645437
Islamic militant groups recruit incels. They have established systematised rape, take sex slaves etc. They destroy elements of their own culture and religious sects they deem heretical.

Everything they do, this guy was calling out 1000 years ago. I don't deny western intervention, but what they do to their own people is the worst of the atrocities.

>>16645492

>BUT PLANTS ARE ALIVE REEEEE

Don't even go there.

>>16645343
Could Western imperialism have stunted the intellectual development of the Middle East? I wonder...

>>16645513

100% has, but the ideology Islamic militants follow is not itself a product of western imperialism.

>>16645492
>shitting on a great poet who wrote thousands of pages, on the basis of some poem's section in shitty english translation
Just fucking nuke this shithole

>>16645512
>>16645492

Eh, vegans assume you hold the same pleasure/suffering ethics and the same ideas on justice and intelligence as they. I personally would have no problems with consuming the cooked and served flesh of some human and I think many other people would try it just for the absolute exotic oddity of it. If I am willing to eat the flesh of my fellow humans why would I not eat the flesh of animals? And this isn’t some kind of edgy rant, the consumption of humans is a traditional global phenomenon.

https://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellified_man

Again though, if your ethics don’t align with their assumptions the vegan argument falls flat.

>>16645513
The Ottoman Empire was the foremost imperial power for centuries.

>>16645540

No shit sherlock. Not everyone has compassion at all, so you can't 'get them on moral hypocrisy. The point is, you'd have to admit to being effectively a psychopath, which means shit optics, which means people listening in aren't going to side with your counter-arguments.

>>16645434
what are you talking about lmao he's hardly the first person to express this opinion

>>16645317
reddit has a huge community of people who subscribe to vegan anti-natalist pessimism.

>>16645493
So we shouldn't destroy anything that we deem dangerous? Do you want to forfeit your right to social reform and revolution? Or do you simply disagree with what they deem to be "heretical?" Why do we even have Islamic militant groups?

>>16645512
So it's not life that matters, but the presence of pain. Can't we genetically engineer animals that don't feel any conceivable amount of physical or mental pain or anguish? That would completely undermine the appeal to emotion that presupposes all of this utilitarian veganism

>>16645524
Think of it as more of a reaction

>>16645535
That poem section shows that he is a vegan, and I disagree with that. I also disagree with his anti-natalism, pessimism, and the general maverick "bad boy" persona everyone gives him. Fuck yes I'm going to shit on him, great poet or not. Have you ever had a strong opinion on anything? I can appreciate his poeticism while disagreeing with him and disliking him as a person, no?

>>16645540
I would disagree with consuming human meat on a religious basis, but that's a different argument entirely.

>>16645574

I'm aware of vegetarians going very far back, but not forgoing milk and honey. This is the earliest example of someone not eating milk and honey for ethical reasons I've personally heard of.

>>16645540
This negro of Europe with inferiority complex have very edgy opinions.
It's pretty clear why most Europeans and high caste South Asians hate your disgusting breed.

>>16645575
Do does /lit/

>>16645607
And? /lit/ has overlap with various other pseud communities like esoteric twitter, that one forum, anti-woke leftism, etc.

>>16645602
No, but open-mindedness probably belongs to his "spiritual" and "enlightened" milieu. He probably looks up to Aghori. No sins exist to them, save for whatever they believe Christianity is doing

>>16645301
Plants do turn you into a womb tho. It's full of estrogen. Stay low in the hierarchy. You cannot grow without bringing others down. You cannot fight without testes. It's the competitive nature of capitalism and life in general.

>>16645595
Having opinions after reading an excerpt from Wikipedia and when you haven't even read his single book is peak subhuman shit. People like you should be shot and dumped into mass graves.

>>16645595

Obviously it's about pain and suffering. I've not read his works and don't claim to know the nuances of his positions, but if you cared only about life, why would you avoid milk?

You don't have to kill a cow every time you harvest milk. He wasn't religious, so why would he care about life? I doubt this guy would have cared about abortion, for instance.

>>16645620
So does plebbit

>>16645631
I suppose he is not actually a vegan, anti-natalist, pessimist, anti-religionist, as the Wikipedia article states? I can have an opinion on him, because I know his beliefs.

>>16645630
>plants are full of estrogen but my hormone filled milk and meat are not

>>16645434
How could you stay healthy on a plants only diet? Mind you he didn't live in an era in which you can order plants from the other side of the planet. You need that B12 to think properly.

>>16645667

That's a question nobody can answer. As for variety, you don't actually need a bajillion different types of plants. It's another weird idea people get about plant-based diets from observing hipsters who choose to eat a bunch of weird exotic plants.

>>16645667
B12 used to be more readily available, but industrialized agriculture depleted the soil. Most B12 supplements go to farm animals.

>>16645654
Just get milk and meat from a farmer that doesn't use shit, ditto for vegetables and fruits.

>>16645667
They probably had the privilege to exploit the labor of fellow men, because they do not see the justice of taking honey from the bees, but they do not care about the justice of taking a share of a harvest from the farmer, when both are similar for reasons I discussed

>>16645650
He is known for his aesthetics not for his philosophy you stupid faggot. The way he used vocabulary, meters, multidisciplinary references, motifs, metaphors, created new images etc. Take his poetry away and he and his message is nothing. Somewhere in the thread you were calling his translated shit "bad poetics" and that is the proof of your pseudness. Poetry is an aesthetic medium and all the philosophical shit is secondary.

>>16645654
I only eat Kobe's Wagyu beef that's been nourished with organic beer, listened to Mozart and got daily massages his whole life. Things you can afford when you climb the hierarchy high enough.

>>16645573

So it’s not about actually changing the persons opinion it’s just making the other person look bad so onlookers will change? That’s not the best strategy. And who cares about optics you’re proposing people change a key part of their every day life.


>>16645595

Completely understandable.

>>16645602

Nothing edgy about it, i simply don’t hold any moral issues in my ethics with eating previously living creatures no matter their intelligence level. It’s simply not something I consider as bad/good and logically taken to its extent I would try it out as would many others.

>>16645624

Eh open your mind too much and your brain falls out, I am a Christian esotericist but I do practice Vamachara and do consider the Aghori good mystics, Dalit/gypo and shivaism go together well.

The meat of my argument remains, people dont all share ethical axioms, I can point to multiple times and places globally where folks were fine with eating human flesh to show it isn’t a matter of universal compassion or universal ethical actions, and If I can point to folks eating literal humans why should animals be any different? Why should eating animals be some grand moral universal when most people eat meat just fine everyday ? The vegan argument only works if you agree to their framework which most people don’t.

>>16645727
Anon, I have bad news. Kobe died in January.

>>16645711
Bad poetics in that the poetic medium diminished the quality of his arguments.

>He is known for his aesthetics not for his philosophy
The purpose of the thread is to discuss his beliefs, ergo his philosophy.

>Take his poetry away and he and his message is nothing
Not if he had presented his message in another format

>proof of your pseudness
If my life was centered around disproving my "pseudness" to others, or proving to others that they are as such, it would be a sad life.

>poetry is an aesthetic medium and all the philosophical shit is secondary
No shit, a good poem is skillfully written, and a purely philosophical poem would be better off as non-fiction. My point was that his poeticism diminished his "philosophy," which was the point of that poem- to transmit a message.

>>16645738
Fuck your baka English langage m8.

>>16645733

If someone is incapable of compassion, then you will never move them towards the goal of animal liberation. There's simply no reason for them to ever care. They're the type who'd kill or abuse human beings if it suddenly became more convenient to do so.

I think most people have an understanding that animals are sentient, they realise a pig is equivalent to a dog etc. For a variety of reasons, they are moral hypocrites, but I can't be bothered going through it all, I just wanted to stan for Al-Ma'arri

Also, one more point. I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting, but when you equate eating man to eating beast, I assume you don't mean actually farming and killing humans for their meat... Vegans don't care about the actual meat or secretions, we care about the killing and abuse that goes on. We care that animals suffer.

>>16645711
>>16645631
That poem of his teems with philosophical stances, even though it is dumb and retarded. Just like most vegan activists hold the same radical position and support abortion. Ironic that he considered himself a rationalist.

>>16645793

Not supporting abortion rights is supporting the oppression of women. An adult woman is sentient and a foetus isn't, what's the contradiction?

>>16645746
Kek. Stop embarrassing yourself please.
How you aren't even noticing the massive blunder in your replies?

>>16645771
>f someone is incapable of compassion, then you will never move them towards the goal of animal liberation.

Cut the emotional rhetoric, by compassion you mean valuation of animals and valuation of animals can be put up against any number of things, some of which are compassionate. (Ranging from simple hedonistic pleasure, compassion for ones cultural dishes, economic reasons, compassion for farmers and so on and so forth.)

>There's simply no reason for them to ever care. They're the type who'd kill or abuse human beings if it suddenly became more convenient to do so.

Not really, most humans eat meat and aren’t compassionless psychopaths. You can have different values and passions, you have passion about animals, I don’t particularly have passion for animals I have never known because I don’t consider animals inherently more important.

Your argument is again just moral hypocrisy but humans have a range of values and moral compositions, and my argument on eating humans is simple, I think many people if they went to a foreign country and were offered a dish that they were told had human in it, many humans would try it. It would be bad optics to say publicly but many would, so if many humans would take a taste of a human, in comparison to that what is the value of an animals life or pain ?

Again it comes down to a calculation within your desires, values and conceptions. Humans have been compassionate in Arabia and China yet they’ve eaten humans, humans are compassionate today yet they eat meat. It’s not about hypocrisy, it’s people valuing things differently.

>>16645822

>compassion for one's cultural dishes

>Compassion: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it"

I'm not a panpsychist bro.

>>16645733
In many cultures people are okay with incest, rape, honour killings, child marriage, drugs, orgies, polygamy etc.
So I guess you should be okay with that too

>>16645822

You either have compassion or you don't. Compassion for only one's own group is chauvanism. Pretending to have compassion but not acting compassionately is virtue signalling.

>>16645834

> incest, rape, honour killings, child marriage, drugs, orgies, polygamy etc.

If I lived in those cultures I probably would, my culture practices arranged marriage and begins as early as 12 years old, it works out for us and I consider it a fine thing because That’s my cultural value.

>>16645806
Is sentience where you draw the line? Is it okay to kill a human being because he is sleeping, or comatose? Slowly, you see that what matters is the capacity for a being to have sentience, which is what makes one a human.

>not supporting abortion "rights" is supporting the oppression of women
Women who have abortions perpetrated upon their body are oppressing themselves- it is an invasive and disgusting procedure, and allows for the perpetuation of all the things that enslave and objectify women- career bugmanism, wanton sex, etcetera.

>>16645807
If you saw a blunder in my replies, you'd seize upon them immediately and point them out. The fact that you aren't makes me doubt that any such indefensible blunder exists, making it just a bluff on your part. His presentation of a tranche of arguments in a poeticized manner made those arguments weak because the format of poetry does not allow for the making of convincing arguments, especially if you're a sub-par poet.

>>16645831
> of others' distress
Just kill it quickly.

>>16645831

Perhaps you feel that the obliteration of this cultural item is one step to the death of your culture and thus the death of your people.

>>16645854

Compassion isn’t some universal, if I have compassion for my relative this does not mean I automatically have compassion for some stranger, there’s nothing inherently wrong with chauvanism, in fact I believe everyone values the groups they know higher than the ones they don’t, and they value these groups in a hierarchy. Surely you’d prefer the well-being of your daughter to a stranger, the stranger’s life to a kitten’s life and the kitten’s Life to some ugly bug-like creature on the other side of the planet.

>>16645858

>Just kill it quickly.

We're not just talking about slaughter here, so you're missing the point.

>>16645877

If you'd condemn a black man to slavery and early death so you can enjoy a sandwich, you're just not compassionate. We're not talking about your daughter's life vs the life of a cow, we're talking about literally a burger lmao

>>16645878
You can kill an animal quickly out of compassion, it's not always the case that compassion would cause you to not kill the animal at all. Such a person could also find killing a human being difficult due to their compassion and the similarity the human has to them (intelligence, upright walking, looks) as opposed to the animal they slaughter

>>16645903

If I were a slaver and I didn’t value the life of blacks but I did value my stomach, if that was my moral composition I don’t see the contradiction. Again humans have different compositions of values and ideas.

>>16645806
Regardless of a 18 week baby already being partially sentient, there is no justification for terminating a life that is developing naturally. You people hate human beings and have no compassion at all, all this animal rights is just a veil and most don’t even care about animals themselves.

>>16645912

The only people who legitimately opposed euthanasia as a concept are fanatic religious Americans, I don't think anyone who's likely to hold vegan viewpoints would dispute this.

>>16645930
Atheist utilitarianism/veganism/pessimism and its mentality (if God is good how could He make this world and allow it to be as such) is just one revelation/ deep thinking session away from anti-natalism and efilism. The polar opposite is amor fati and the like, as I see it

>>16645926

Yes, I don't care. Not becoming sentient is not equivalent to dying. If you never experience life, you can't have a preference for living. If I thought that I'd kill myself out of guilt for all the spunk I've wasted in socks and towels over my lifespan.

>>16645944

Interesting you brought that up. I noticed a lot of vegans online moving towards efilism. Personally, I'm already an anti-natalist. I can't commit to the position that we should glass the planet of all animals, for whatever reason, I can't think of a rational argument against it from a negative utility perspective..

>>16645971
>life entails suffering
>suffering must be avoided, even if it is necessary for the furtherance of some goal
or
>suffering for the furtherance of some maximum pleasure will never amount to anything, and no utopias will ever happen, therefore this world will always get worse and worse
>so, we need to eliminate life, because life entails suffering, or boredom if there is no emotion at all

>>16645945
Life precedes sentience.

>>16645630
It’s good to see you’re doing better, Dr. Peterson.

>>16644446
This.

>>16645513
Nah, Mongols did way more damage, but USA needs to fuck off from the region already. USA doesn't speak for all of the West.

>>16645630
How come is it the natural state of man when capital has existed for only 3% of humanity's existence?

>>16646000

Yes, but life only matters to me once something is experiencing it. I simply don't extend moral consideration to non-sentient life. I don't see them as any different than the autonomous cellular processes carried out in my own body. I have no awareness of them, because there's no nervous system. No sentience.

>>16646130
What are you talking about? Tools = Capital, Knowledge = Capital. These have existed for a very long time.

Stupid central up in this bitch, a congregation of pseuds and mongs

>>16645437
i>>16645540
>I personally would have no problems with consuming the cooked and served flesh of some human
Only if it’s a cute girl

The world's first Redditor.

>>16646165

This. Cannibalism is an inherently sexual act, therefore has the potential to be gay.

>>16646230
>>16646165

This goes without saying.

>>16643299
>go to Heaven and get to meet all of history’s greatest philologists!
Oh fucking boy! That sounds so exciting. And here I thought I would just get to meet a Neanderthal.

>>16645434
Porphyry wrote about veganism 500 years before this. Al-Maʿarri is alright but at his foundation, he is just an anti-natalist retard.

>>16645434
>So it's not life that matters, but the presence of pain.
No retard. Can you rape a person that doesn't feel pain? Maybe read some of the prominent animal rights philosophers instead of the new age utilitarian veganism of Singer.

>>16646397

I've never read Peter Singer. I don't care about the concept of rights inherently. If someone doesn't even suffer from being raped, then what's the actual issue?

>>16645271
>muh proving right
>muh refutation
>muh logic and reasoning
Try to "debunk" the bullet flying towards your head when we meet :3

>>16646423
Oh, you are just the utilitarian autist projecting onto animal rights.

>>16646148
Not the guy you're replying to but you don't understand what capital means in Marxist theory. Read Wage Labor and Capital

>>16646437

Oh no, not an ad hom. Fuck it, might as well kms.

>>16646139
Yeah we know you don’t care about things in general, but that is not even like someone in coma with the potential to wake up but like someone asleep who will for sure wake up.

>>16646509

Was never conscious, never had a preference to be alive, not the same thing at all.

Someone in a coma was previously sentient, they most likely had a preference to avoid death.

>>16646474
It's a literature board retard. Read animal rights philosophy if you actually want the answers.

>>16646534

I am perfectly okay with fucking over the few for the benefit of the many and I see rights, e.g. property rights, as an unhelpful concept.

I will support certain rights for animals if it leads to fewer animals suffering, otherwise there is literally no point.

In my view, human rights will have to be violated to truly bring about animal liberation as I understand it. What will I gain from reading books about animal rights? I will maybe read anyway, but I've already got a fat stack of reading to get through as it is.

>>16646578
>I don't care about the concept of rights
>human rights will have to be violated to truly bring about animal liberation
This is your brain on utilitarianism

>>16646592

>human rights will have to be violated to truly bring about animal liberation

"I own these pigs, they are my property and I can do with them as I please. You cannot violate my right to property."

>>16646608
Hey retard you said >>16646423
>I don't care about the concept of rights
So why are you using any concept of rights?

Even if you walk this back, your conception of property rights would violate your own conception of human rights.

"I own this person, they are my property and I can do with them as I please. You cannot violate my right to property."

>>16646636

Yes, I don't care about rights.

I gave an example of where human rights will need to be violated in pursuit of animal liberation.

You think I care about property rights? Not in the least.

>>16646636

If rights are a tool that can bring about greater utility, then I support rights, otherwise I don't see a value in it. Why is that such a reprehensible position to you?

>>16646666
>>16646676
I don't know if you are 2 separate retards but you didn't give an example of human rights being violated. You just assumed that property rights = human rights. Again, even if we accepted this autistic claim, property rights would violate human rights in the example I gave.

>>16646730

>You just assumed that property rights = human rights.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

>"I own this person, they are my property and I can do with them as I please. You cannot violate my right to property."


Your example is incomprehensible to me. You cannot "own" a person. Animals are property. You cannot own a person as property.

>>16646783
>legality = morality
Utilitarians are actually autistic. If that declaration of human rights said "Everyone has the right to rape children" that is what would be a human right in your mind?

>Your example is incomprehensible to me. You cannot "own" a person.
Why can't you own a person but you can own an animal?

>>16646801

>If that declaration of human rights said "Everyone has the right to rape children"

It would contradict itself...

"Why can't you own a person but you can own an animal?"


"Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages."

>>16646859
>It would contradict itself...
Answer the question retard. You can remove everything else and only include that clause if you want.

"Children would be considered human and violate their rights"

No, the new declaration says children aren't considered a person until their brain is fully developed.

>>16646884

Then yeah, since rights are granted by the law. Ultimately they're enforced or else they are meaningless. The yanks fought a civil war to grant slaves their human rights. Prior to that, they didn't have any.

>>16646929
I will pretend that this is all bait for my own health.

>>16646953

So you're against measurable utility, i.e. outcomes and you don't care about rights that are enforced/legally binding, just some abstract notion that isn't actually affecting our current reality? How does that help animals? Do you have any reading suggestions while we're at it?

>>16646519
This makes no sense. The fetus is already a life and it has a preference (natural unfolding) for its utmost potential that is conscious life.

>>16646966
The fetus has no experience until 20-24 weeks (earlier possible is 16 weeks, but the consensus is 20-24 weeks). There is no experience that can be destroyed.

>>16647034
I already told you that with 18 it starts to develop sentience. In any case, this is irrelevant for the preference for life and conscious life exists since the fecundation.

>>16647079
I'm a different anon but I don't know why I would care about a 'preference of life'. The grass has a 'preference to life' in the same way a pre-20 week fetus does. I computer could be programmed to have a similar preference and reaction to the world but it is not subject to its preference. Why should we be concerned about the fetus' potential or a blade of grass' potential to become the subject of a life?

>>16647109
Well do you see no difference between the natural preference for the unfolding of life in its full sense (conscious, self reflective, life) and life in the grass?

>>16644446
big agree

>>16647136
Of course, I see a distinction, just not one that is in need of moral consideration. The fetus has a greater potential to become a subject of life than a blade of grass; both remain logical possibilities. If a fetus, like a blade of grass, is not subject to life, why should I grant it moral consideration? Perhaps you can persuade me.

>>16646397
>No retard. Can you rape a person that doesn't feel pain? Maybe read some of the prominent animal rights philosophers instead of the new age utilitarian veganism of Singer.
Why don't you give me the quick rundown on these ground breaking "prominent anal rights philosophers" if you think they have anything meaningful to say? Ultimately it's all about pain and pleasure, and different ethical systems prioritizing different groups, or one state over the other, and so on.

>>16647109
The fetus is human and has the potential to grow into a sentient human being. Of course, this is a point that atheists have to argue for or against, it's all solved from a theistic position. If I can abort children, what else can I kill? What trait do fetuses lack that allow me to kill them? What trait do animals lack that allow me to kill them? Would a utilitarian murderer drug his victims and make sure his victims aren't people that will be missed, or whose murders will be found out?

>>16647185
>What trait do fetuses lack that allow me to kill them?
>What trait do animals lack that allow me to kill them?
The capability to be subject to a life, or phrased colloquially an experience (not to be conflated with a reaction/response to stimuli).

>>16647209
Not true about animals retard

>>16647229
Perhaps you misread the original post you replied to. I am saying you shouldn't kill animals and shouldn't kill fetus post 20 weeks. Prior to the capability to be subject to a life, as in the case of a pre-20 week fetus I see no reason why it would be wrong to destroy the fetus.

>>16647209
Fetuses are already subjects of life because it is a human life and human life is human because it is personal, “hypostatic” life. It can be valuably sacred compared to animal and other kinds of life because it participates in the fullness of being-life-intellect

>>16647243
Are you saying that the fetus can be killed because it does not have a high potential of living to see birth? Or what do you mean?

>>16647243

sorry same anon I'm tired and therefore mentally impaired.

>>16647256
Fetuses are not "subject to a life" pre-20 weeks (16 weeks if you want to take very fringe positions). It has the 'potential' to achieve the capacity to be subject to a life, along with the other potentialities you mentioned, but it does not have them at the time of its destruction. It merely has the potential for these things. A blade of grass also has the potential for these things.

>>16647263
No, I am saying potential is irrelevant, or at least I am currently unpersuaded by any argument of potential that has been presented. If the fetus or anything thing is not subject to life, that is the capacity to experience, I fail to regard it as something for moral consideration. I see no distinction between killing a fetus that has no experience and a blade of grass that has no experience. Whether they have the potential for experience, or that they have a "preference for life" in that they react to stimuli of the world, seems irrelevant.

>>16647286
Human beings as I said are inherently hypostatic, that is, personal with personality. In the moment of fecundation there is already the formation of the fetus’s personality.
The potential already contains the actualized, the potential to being-life-intellect is qualitatively (the quantitative measure as you say 20, or 18 or 10 is meaningless) different from the potential to being-life of a grass. End of story.

>>16647286
Why does a fetus merely have the "potential" to achieve the status of living? A fetus is a living being, but it has the potential to achieve consciousness; meanwhile, a blade of grass does not have such a potential, or the potential is very far-fetched and could only occur in some evolutionist's pipe dream.

> If the fetus or anything thing is not subject to life, that is the capacity to experience,
So "life" is merely the "capacity to experience" something? You are not using the biological definition of life, that is:
Order
Response to stimuli
Reproduction
Growth and Development
Homeostasis and Regulation
Energy Processing

or something of the sort


If I, an adult, cannot experience anymore, then I am no longer regarded for moral consideration? Or is an entity that has no experiences able to be morally killed?

>>16647286
What is an experience? Why does having no experiences allow you to kill me? If I am a grown adult with no experiences, and you wished to kill me, would you do it?

>>16647343
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to present here. That a fetus is determined to have certain traits once it develops an experience?

>>16647348
>A fetus is a living being, but it has the potential to achieve consciousness
>a blade of grass does not have such a potential, or the potential is very far-fetched
This is essentially my argument. Why is the greater potential of a fetus becoming a subject of a life a trait that should be under moral consideration but lesser potentials, such as a blade of grass or other living things is not? Both seem to possess the trait of potentiality, the fetus just has a greater potential. Is there an 'amount of potential' that you can quantify as morally relevant?

>If I, an adult, cannot experience anymore, then I am no longer regarded for moral consideration?
Yes. For a practical example, say your family member was in a coma and could not regain their "their life". I would have no issue with you ending their life. I am not concerned with life (a blade of grass has that) I am concerned with "their life", "someone's life", the subject of a life.

>>16647353
So if something grew as a human like a tree or grass grows? Yes, I would have no problem with killing that human but I would reject the phrase "you" or "I" for that human; a tree isn't a "you" or "I"; they are not subject to a life. If there is a "you"/"I" there is an experience.

>>16647429
>Why is the greater potential of a fetus becoming a subject of a life a trait that should be under moral consideration but lesser potentials, such as a blade of grass or other living things is not
Because the lesser potentials of the blade of grass or other organisms that have above average intelligence (octopi, supposedly) are very unlikely to eventually evolve a human-like intelligence, and even then the organism that would have such an intelligence would no longer be a blade of grass, or an octopus, while a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human being throughout its existence, it just has no yet reached maturation. This is not quantifiable, but qualitative; the fetus has the potential of attaining a human intelligence in its life, a blade of grass or octopus does not, not even in a naturalist's wildest dream.

>Yes. For a practical example, say your family member was in a coma and could not regain their "their life". I would have no issue with you ending their life. I am not concerned with life (a blade of grass has that) I am concerned with "their life", "someone's life", the subject of a life.
Are you fine with taking the life of someone who is asleep? After all, a coma patient has a chance of recovery. As you see, there exists the possibility of them attaining a human-like intelligence, as with the case of the fetus. If your memory is impaired, or you no longer can consciously experience reality, am I able to kill you? It's nice to know that all that's standing between me and a moral killing is a bludgeoning to the head, and a cessation of their experiencing. Why would it be wrong to bludgeon them, especially if they do not experience the bludgeoning?

>So if something grew as a human like a tree or grass grows? Yes, I would have no problem with killing that human but I would reject the phrase "you" or "I" for that human; a tree isn't a "you" or "I"; they are not subject to a life. If there is a "you"/"I" there is an experience.
A tree has its own experience. Or am I not allowed to kill something that has a human experience? Therefore, I should be allowed to kill animals, no? Or is there a distinction between the types of experiences that a living being can have? Ex: a human's experience, an animal's experience, a tree's experience. What is an experience, according to you?

>>16647490
>This is not quantifiable, but qualitative
>a blade of grass or octopus does not
I don't care about human intelligence and an octopus would be a subject of a life (which I am concerned with) but I understand what you are getting at. I would reject this premise. It seems a logical possibility that, say a tree, gains consciousness. I do not perceive of any rules of logic that would prevent this from occurring - this is not equivalent to the possibility of a square circle.
>Are you fine with taking the life of someone who is asleep?
>After all, a coma patient has a chance of recovery.
For the coma patient, I said:
>and could not regain their "their life"
If "their life" can be regained their experience was never destroyed just suspend, much like sleep (though to be specific, sleep is only semi-unconscious).

If you want to make it as analogous to the fetus as possible, if the coma patient was to gain a new, currently, non-existing experience in the future (their previously existing experience being destroyed), developing this new experience like a fetus does I would have no issue killing this human prior to that brand new experience beginning development.

>A tree has its own experience.
No, you are using a different definition of experience here. A tree does not have 'an experience', it has a reaction to stimuli, much like a fetus pre-20 weeks. There is no subject of the tree experiencing these reactions.

>>16645630
posci is a huge mistake, isn't it

>>16645630
>It's the competitive nature of capitalism and life in general.
retard, then start doing whatever the "natural" animals are doing.
stop using internet, stop living in a civilisation and return to monkey.

>>16648866

He won't do any of that. How many absolute spackers have you heard make these same shitty fallacious arguments? This MFer literally thinks capitalism is human nature, he's too far gone.