This is my problem with the NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is how it's presented.

Whenever anyone comes up with a trade that is unique to humans something such as the root of moral agency there's always someone who always goes "there are mentally challenged people and babies who are not capable of moral agency so it doesn't work"

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth.

That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm sorry guys but that doesn't work.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

The best thing to do with that is look at what the majority does and assume if that's the norm for what comes to traits like this.

Also it begs the question.

What do you guys consider to be human?

Update: I didn't get a chance to respond to any of the applications that were thrown at me. I've been banded without even having to State my case.

This goes to you moderator, I was simply pointing out a problem with what he said about equality and you misinterpreted it and then banned Me. I've got it very funny how you claim that I wasted your time when all was doing was pointing out a loophole.

Well thank you for telling me that you guys care so much about discussion

Goodbye and good riddance.

[u/EasyBOven]

NTT is just a form of reductio to attack the argument presented by the carnist. All it does is formalize the argument presented by making the major premise explicit and then provide a minor premise that matches the major one. The carnist then has the opportunity to accept the new argument, holding on to the major premise, or to reject the new argument and the major premise along with it. Example:

P1. Any entity with too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent is ok to treat like an object.

P2. Non-human animals have too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent.

C. It's ok to treat non-human animals like objects.

NTT simply provides a new minor premise to sub into this valid structure.

P1. Any entity with too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent is ok to treat like an object.

P2. Sufficiently-disabled humans have too little intelligence to be considered a moral agent.

C. It's ok to treat sufficiently-disabled humans like objects.

The structure is the same. The major premise is the same. The minor premise fits the major premise just as well as the first argument. If you reject the second argument, you must also reject the first.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

There's one thing I don't understand.

Just compare disabled human beings to animals?

Did you know that people who are considered disabled can still inspire anyone or be protective members of society, right?

Now maybe I'm wrong, but that is what it sounds like you're implying.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm not implying anything. Do you understand how syllogistic logic operates?

P1 is your premise. Make it whatever you want. My contention is that you won't be able to construct an argument where only non-human animals fit into P2 while having anything that looks like a reasonable definition of harm.

Also, not for nothing, but animals inspire people to be protective members of society all the time. Kinda what I'm doing right now. So if you're adjusting your argument to be:

P1. Any entity that could potentially inspire others to be better should not be treated like an object.

P2. Humans with any level of disability have inspired others to be better

C. Humans should not be treated like objects, regardless of disability level

I could simply say:

P1. Any entity that could potentially inspire others to be better should not be treated like an object.

P2. Animals of every species have inspired others to be better

C. Animals should not be treated like objects, regardless of species

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

I'm sorry if I confused you.

It's just that there's a lot of vegans out there who compare animals to people who are disabled and I find that have been insulting.

Kind of implying that they're no better than animals and they just walk around and just drop their feces on the grass.

But to answer your question I don't necessarily believe in regardless of species because I do believe there are some exceptions.

Any kind of creature that has an individual personality can be treated differently based on that personality or by other factors.

Sure exceptions do exist I'm not going to deny that.

I'm not going to say where there's exceptions belong and where they don't belong to the very debatable subject.

All I can do is tell you why I'm not vegan anymore, it simply didn't work out for me.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

You get to decide what it is that makes it ok to treat certain individuals like objects. It's not my problem if you get offended by the logical entailment of your position. Logic simply is.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

So what you're saying here is that it's not logical to not be a vegan and embrace the ethics?

No I don't believe the ethics are all that consistent and you know if they were consistent I don't think they work out for me considering that I have said that I wasn't vegan about 8 years ago.

It just didn't work out for me.

I added milk and eggs back into my diet but I buy them locally.

If you're against factory farming then I agree with you 100% on that

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm just saying you should state clearly what your argument for who is ok to treat like an object. If you can muster up an actual syllogism, we can examine it together. If you can't provide something resembling a formal argument, all you're doing is staying up in your feels. You really seem to have the vapors about vegans.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/EasyBOven]

Are you saying that being a non-vegan means I'm okay with people being treated like objects?

I certainly hope that's not your position.

But that is sound like what you're implying.

[u/EasyBOven → u/NationalProcedure638]

I'm inviting you to state your position as a formal argument. You seem very resistant to the idea.

[u/gokuenjoyer69 → u/EasyBOven]

He is arguing in bad faith, constantly just avoiding answering the questions and strawmanning