Thanks, Alias for your support.
I know it reads as if you sided with Chatterbears, but in effect you aided my side.
I appreciate it.
Philosophy for Philosophers
Thanks, Alias for your support.
I also believe he is also incapable of cherry-picking his facts and arguments without being noticed as he does it.
I think you might do better if you read more carefully.chatterbears wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 6:32 pmI can't even tell if you're serious anymore. Carbohydrates are causing autism, ADHD and epilepsy?ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 4:53 amThe environment is being destroyed by wheat farming. Children are suffering mental deficiencies from too much carbohydrates; ADHD, autism, epilepsy. And adults are suffering an epidemic of coeliacs disease and diabetes. All of these ailments are cured or mitigated by moving to a highfat lowcarb diet. I advocate more grazing on the land which mimics the natural cycle of the carbon and nitrogen cycles, rather than dumping megatonnes of nitrates on to the land to which we have become dependant, as billions of hectares have lost their soil.
I think you might do better if you read more carefully.The environment is being destroyed by wheat farming, but apparently not animal factory farming?
I think you might do better if you read more carefully.You don't need to eat a lot of carbs on a Vegan diet, so your point is irrelevant.
I find it absurd that you still cannot answer this simple question. And for good reason, because you know that it would portray a flaw in your ethics. My question could not get any more simple than that.-1- wrote: ↑May 25th, 2018, 2:38 pmIf you only think in black-and-white, if your only acceptable answers are yes or no, if to you the world is divided by a very definite line between YOU and THEM, then you are not cut out to be a philosopher.
Where have I declared what you claim I declared? You are out of your mind.Alias wrote: ↑May 25th, 2018, 8:52 pmChatterbears, you're being baited.
You bring up a hypothetical question of morality, which you assume would be applied as a general rule, while -1- has declared that their ethical universe consists of only -one- person, whose preference is the absolute standard of their morality.
As long as this is the situation, you can't get a meaningful response.
Okay. One simple question to you: Do you eat human meat raw, or do you eat human meat cooked? I will only accept one or the other of two answers:
I've never given you my position on whether or not I eat human meat. If I did, then it would make sense for you to ask if I eat it raw or cooked.
Yeah. I think he may be trolling, but I am not completely sure yet. Either way, he doesn't understand basic logical consistency within his own argumentation. He thinks my question is the equivalent of asking someone a question that asserts their position which they have never even stated. Yet, he is the one who has stated a position, and I am asking for clarification on if other people can use his same reasoning, or is only HE allowed to use it to justify his actions.
You have, actually. "I am not a cannibal and I never stated I was." a couple of pages back.
Not exactly that, I think. The style is strongly reminiscent of an individual whom/which I've encountered before, with whom/which verbal engagement proved unfruitful. I believe this individual to be disingenuous in their posts, for reasons beyond my ken or concern.Yeah. I think he may be trolling, but I am not completely sure yet.
This is true, but still goes against his question. If he is aware of my position on eating human meat, to asking whether I eat it cooked or raw is inaccurate and flawed. If I said, yes I eat human meat, then it would make sense for him to ask whether I eat it cooked or raw.Alias wrote: ↑May 26th, 2018, 11:39 amYou have, actually. "I am not a cannibal and I never stated I was." a couple of pages back.
Mode of preparation was not, and cannot be, at issue in the context.
I know what you've been trying to do.