James Dean

When I fist heard about this app, I thought "great now feminists have taken the fun out of sex. nothing kills the mood faster than legal documents." It's even more funny that feminists are against it for literally not giving women the power to ruin the lives of anyone they've had sex with in the past. Like seriously? What if she changes her mind afterward? Oh my gosh, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. Keep the Feminists talking, the more shit they say, the more obvious the bullshit is.

Kevin, I'm glad you liked it. I was thinking that if the feedback here was positive, I might turn it into a script for a YouTube video. Do you think it was too heavy on the jokes? I was concerned there weren't enough hard facts, it was just so difficult since the comic basically provided anti-facts.

That's an excellent point! Would you mind if I added that in? The great thing about the IP.Board software is that you can take a post and quote it so the other person knows exactly what you're referring to. So if you could please quote where I say, "Fuck poor people, they aren't really that disadvantaged, they just aren't trying hard enough." instead of creating a strawman, I'd really appreciate that. I, in fact, point out that Paula's parent's must try very hard working two jobs effectively raising them out of the lower class! This is problem that socialists always seem to fall into, everything is always so collectivist. It is impossible for "the poor" to be disadvantaged since things like "the poor" and "the upper class" don't exist; there are only individuals making choices. So when I criticize one hypothetical poor person and you say that it reflects on my attitude towards all poor people is just silly. It's the exact same thing feminists do when you criticize one woman, you are criticizing all women. That's just not how philosophy works. Of course the environment you grow up in effects your outcomes in life. Are you really going to come on to this board and lecture me about that? So the standard that the class you are born into has nothing to do with where you end up is a fallacious standard, as it is almost unquestionable that your early childhood experiences are a major factor in your life outcomes. To set that as a standard, then point to the fact that reality does not comply with your standard isn't proof, it's actually evidence against your standard. But it has nothing to do with genetics (except the small IQ part) and it has nothing to do with class fundamentally, it has everything to do with parenting. Remember, correlation does not equal causation, people's parenting styles are often correlated with their economic status, but it is not that which most influences the outcome. It's well known that the single most relevant predictor of a child's future is weather they were from a two parent home or raised by a single parent, often the mother. Children from single mother households are far more likely to commit crimes, to use drugs, to have unwanted pregnancies, you name it! Much more single mothers are from the poorer classes, so there is a correlation, but not in the way you suggest. People cannot control the circumstances of their birth, but they can choose how to deal with it. Stef was born very very poor. He could have chosen to follow the path laid out for him, but he chose to try to make a better life for himself. This is how the poor are liberated, when they realize the power is in their hands! That it's no one's "fault" that they're poor, they're not the victims of anything besides the randomness of life; which we are all victim to. Of course the government is making life miserable for everybody, especially the poor, so I do not dismiss their suffering, but it is an inherent problem with statism, not capitalism. for the love of Thor, provide a quote of where I have advocated such a way of thinking or retract your statements. Continuing to degrade my character without providing evidence is not only quite insulting but very corrupt. You assume that I have no idea of the ramifications but you know nothing about me. You make blind assertions and don't back it up with evidence. Support your claims with facts, not appeals to emotional manipulation. And just cuz it was bugging me. This sentence makes no sense. If anyone is defending the current system, they are not defending capitalism. Capitalism is by definition free and un-coerced so it's impossible to have an "unfree" capitalism... the same way you cant have "non-voluntary" sex, it's just called rape since sex is by definition voluntary. I suggest that before you go on posting on a board that is generally very well educated on capitalism, that you learn a little more about it.

fixed now.

fixed now.

It's hard to discuss assertions made by the comic, since it in fact only insinuated or hinted at things. I never said poor people were lazy, no one could ever assign an individual attribute like lazy on to a collective like "the poor" it would be as ridiculous as saying all black people are lazy. What I did say was, even assuming the comic represented some small sect of the poor that work really hard yet are still poor, someone who has two parents working two jobs is making a decent living, and they are well above the poverty line. Did you even read my whole piece? This is not an accurate representation of the poor in America who are mostly unemployed or underemployed, and I pointed out in the post why this is the case. Let me quote it for you, seeing as you probably neglected to read it the first time. Yes the comic supported the idea that poor people work as hard as they can and the evil capitalist is just keeping them down, but it backed this up with rehtoric and no evidence. You again make the claim that poor people are just "disadvantaged" (whatever that means) and proceed to back it up with exactly 0 facts. The comic postulated a hypothetical situation which is highly atypical where a girl has two parents who both work two jobs. If this actually were the case, even in today's highly oppressive government run market, their family would not be poor by any stretch of the imagination, making more money than half of America... and in a global context, their family would be close to the top 10% of wealth. So their point fails in their own hypothetical universe because if poor people were out working two jobs, they wouldn't be poor. I in no way "defend the society as it stands" Please provide me with quotes from my post where I defended current society. What do you mean social mobility is not 100%? Do you mean that not all people can be rich? of course they cant, but this is a result of individual preference, not some genetic superiority. Not all people can be master chess players, that is because most people don't want to spend the time and energy required to master the game of chess. Oh, and I'm interested in how this is "vulgar" libertarianism, I tried not to use too many swear words. Adding the word "vulgar" to something isn't an argument against it, it just shows that you place more value on emotional arguments than logical ones. "2+2=4??!! that's vulgar mathematics!!"

Oh dear, it's time to dive into the misty mountain caves of contradiction and poor logic called Tumblr and feast on one of their tasty fisheses....juicy sweet! About a week ago, my social media was flooded with this comic about "income inequality" and I don't want to go too much into it at first, because I fear that might poison the well. Oh god I can't resist, it turned my brain to mush and if I don't rip it a new one, I'm not gonna be able to get to sleep tonight. Ok, here we go. Before I even start, I would just like to point out that it's fascinating how so many sophistry-laden feminist/socialist propaganda is now in comic-form. Like this comic on white privilege (http://goo.gl/OhI0ap) I think it's because making an emotional argument with no intellectual content is easier with images than with just text. Im probably still poisoning the well here, on to the comic. There's not much that we can gather from this first page, except that it's a comic about privilege and perhaps the author is not very careful with their flatware. I'm fairly certain that the author is from Auckland, NZ, but since everyone I saw that shared it was American, they must have thought it applied to American society... and seeing as how that the place I happen to live, I will be comparing the comic (mostly) to America. This is a story about two babies, one normal looking one, and one freak “Benjamin button” style old-man baby... who apparently just escaped from a jail of some sort. For all of this comic's egregious faults, it did inspire me to imagine what the movie “Shaw-shank Redemption” would have been like entirely cast by babies, and this made me giggle for a bit, so that's one positive thing! Notice what it says about Richard's parents, “[they're] doing ok.” ok. ok. OK. Just keep that in mind as we go forward, Richard's parent's aren't rich or anything, they're just middle class folks. I mean for god sake, they're just doing OK. The next two panels begin a pattern that this comic falls into regularly, and I'm amazed at how easy it is to brush over. I'll explain it more later on, it happens a lot. First we see Richard, the strange baby trapped in an 80-year-old convict's body, sitting in a fairly normal looking room with alphabet blocks that include a “#” symbol and paintings the exact same color as the wall. His parent's are just doing OK, I see. Now for Paula. First off, I'd bet my house that this guy wrote the comic first with the poor character being a guy, named Paul, but thought the “evil white man” trope to be better served by a poor female character so he changed all the names to Paula and added pig Tails and ear-rings to Paul. Seriously, look at all the depictions of Paula and its mostly a dude with a pony tail and earrings added on. Unforgivable. Now listen to the description of Paula's home life. “Paula's house is filled with people and not much else.” What did she grow up in a tenement around the turn of the century? Her parent's are seriously so poor that they can't even afford blocks that cost 15 USD? (http://goo.gl/aRUytf) And she keeps getting sick. Also it's damp, whatever that means. So her parent's are so poor that also can't afford any medical care, even though all of those things are heavily subsidized. So if her family can't afford toys, carpets, furniture, alphabet blocks, or medical care, her parents must both be unemployed drug addicts who squat in a crack house with other people. So in the first page we are lead to assume that Richard is a middle class kid and Paula is the bottom 1% living in either a third world nation or 120 years in the past. Let's see if this theme stays consistent. Oh my lord, what just happened? Richard has seemed to wise up and ditch his chain-gang outfit, and say goodbye to alphabet blocks, say hello to alphabet chart. In all honesty, I think Richard might be the least privileged here because in what seems to have been 10 years he is still struggling to master the alphabet. Hang in there, Richie, you'll get is someday! However Paula's family has jumped at least 3 socio-economic classes and/or returned to the 21st century. She has furniture, a lamp, soda-pop, and a flat screen TV. Paula is gonna do just fine now that she's at-least got a place to sit, she's got a TV so she can watch the seizure channel that she seems to like, and maybe they even bought a dehumidified to take care of that... dampness. But the plot thickens, we now learn that both Paula's parents both work two jobs. Now the fun part, let's do some math. Lets even be generous with our numbers, so generous that it almost borders on the absurd, but even with this exaggerated situation it makes no sense. With 2 people working minimum wage jobs for 60 hours a week, their net income is $50,400 gross annually. The median household salary in America is $50,500. Like I said, this is a pretty ridiculous situation to begin with, people who fall into the low income bracket are either unemployed or under-employed. I'd say seeing as how they're making more gross income than 49.5% of the country, they're doing pretty well, at the very least they're doing OK... OH so they're on the same level as Richard... oh wait, let's go to the next panels. Richard's parent's either won the lottery, or the author's definition of "doing ok" is really skewed. Richards parent's can afford to send him to private school with fancy shirt-and-tie uniforms, to hire private tutors, and they still have enough time to help little Richie with his homework while Paula's parent's have to work. I'd say that makes Richard if not the top 5% than at least the top 10%. I think this theory is vindicated later on. I find it appropriate to stop here and marvel at the cognitive dissonance in the author. While he never comes out and actually says it, I assume that he is using this slimy eel of emotional manipulation to advocate a redistributive society, when in reality, all of the problems faced by Paula are because of the states redistributive policies! OH the irony. moving on. Oh they grow up so fast! Richard's parents must have really hit the jackpot when they won the lottery because they're paying for his university tuition! That means they have tens of thousands of dollars to throw around, but remember, they're only doing "OK." Paula on the other hand, while mastering the art of dish-washing and studying at the same time, and like the other 40 million Americans, she's going into debt. Again, the government is somehow going to magically solve the problem of student debt, and it's all Richard's fault because he's a white man! See look at how the bank gives him a loan just because he has better credit history and more financially stability! How dare they make sound business decisions?! Not to mention that, at least in America, a lot of banks aren't allowed to deny you a loan because of your income. And so she has to go with a different bank that might give her a higher interest rate. oh the humanity! But how could I skip over the best panel yet, Paula's dying father. I don't know what this is trying to accomplish besides making you sympathetic to Paula and to dislike Richard more (evil white cis scum) but maybe it's a point about health care costs. I mean, so her Dad dies, what does that have to do with her socio-economic status or privilege? Do upper-class people not die? Did she drop out of school to take care of her dad or something? I also notice how in none of these panels is Richard working hard. As if all you need to succeed is to have your dad get you an internship. He actually had to go to that internship and either make pennies doing that or work on the side. Then he had to work 50-60 hrs/ week once he got the job at least! ugh. This whole page was pretty lacking in substance, more so than the rest of the comic, but lets keep pushing I think we're almost done. While Richard is settling in to his new Job at Bland Corp, LLC, he meets his new boss, the crypt keeper's grandfather. And Paula has taken her polytech degree to the limit and got a job... serving clams? wait, what?? What did she spend all that time dishwashing/studying for? To be a waitress? she could have done that without going into debt. I was expecting at least like an EMT or something, and if she does have that job and waitresses at this fancy county club on the side, then she's doing pretty freaking well. Like by herself at least making 30-40k per year, which is well above the poverty line, combine that with another income or years of savings and she could easily be upper middle class. And jesus, look at Richard! Tuxedos and champaign! Is he fucking Scrooge McDuck? So in essence this comic that thinks it's so forward thinking and full of enlightening intellectual content is saying people born in the highest social class have more opportunities than people just making enough to get by. No shit sherlock, glad you made a stupid patronizing comic to explain that incredibly complicated subject matter! Also, is "on a plate" actually a phrase? I've heard "on a silver platter" as a turn of phrase, but never "on a plate." If someone hands me a plate of spaghetti am I as privileged as Richard here? Not to mention, the imagery of Paula handing him something on a plate is totally bunk anyway since what he's saying is no one ever gave him anything for free, but he's clearly paid for this party, those snacks, and Paula's service. Paula is not giving him a handout, quite the opposite, she's working for a wage. This is such a strawman/caricature of a conservative position. Of course he's not saying he did all of this by himself with no one's help, anyone who asserts that is a megalomaniac narcissist. The position is probably closer to, yeah I was born with more opportunities than some and less than others, but I made the most of what I had and no one should be permitted to steal from me. Just because someone has more "privilege" doesn't mean it's ok to rob them. What a shocker. Well all in all I think we learn more about the author and his bias more than anything objective about society, inequality, or privilege. As someone who grew up lower middle class and around a lot of people worse off than me, I can tell his perception of what it's like to be poor is way off. I'm guessing he grew up fairly wealthy, in a wealthy first world nation in a two parent household. Notice how Paula had two parents and no siblings to speak of, which is by far not the norm in low-income families. If Paula had a single mother and 4 brothers and sisters then it might be more accurate. Also it's hysterical that he thinks low-income families work 2 jobs per parent but still cant pay the bills! most fucking poor people are unemployed and living a highly subsidized life. at the very least they're underemployed because of all the skull-fuckery the government has already done (welfare, public school, hyper regulation, price ceilings, rent control, minimum wage laws) so the solution must be... more government intervention!!! YAY!!! Well, what does the post game look like? This is at best a poorly thought out concept with scant evidence and actual arguments and at worst it's emotionally manipulative propaganda used to further the resentment of the poor and paralyze them into victimhood. Remember, it's someone else's fault that you're poor! Hope you guys liked, let me know if I left something out.

JD, I responded to your last post much more positively than the other ones... which of course doesn't mean you were wrong before, just saying this really connected with me. I especially liked all the science you brought into it. I mentioned it before, but I'm currently changing a lot of things about my habits, and you've given me a lot to think about. I will seriously consider everything you said, and with all the evidence you provided, I am seriously considering that I have, up until now, neglected aspects of my health. It seems you have gone through a similar experience, I would really appreciate if you'd PM me some resources that you found helpful. Like I said, I have always gotten most of my exercise through active hobbies that I have and aren't very good with deliberate "working out." Frankly, it all seems kind of intimidating, so any tips are highly appreciate. Love that body fat chart, so just to clear up/conclude the "dad bod" conversation, which percentage range did you have in mind when talking about "dad bod" ?

Fair enough, man, excellent points. I don't think there's anything I can say about that besides "right on." I'll be honest and say that it would be nice to be jacked, but like everything in my life it's a cost/benefit analysis. I'm currently in the middle of trying to get organized in other ways so hopefully more regular and deliberate exercise is something that makes its way in to my routine as well. It's certainly something I'd like to do and you've given some excellent reasons to do it. I think the thing that I wanted to highlight since the beginning of this thread is that those perks that you mentioned are just that; perks. I think it's important to note that the reason it's even called "dad bod" in the first place is that it describes someone who doesn't go to the gym every day because they are spending a lot of time being a father and focusing on their kids. I think in the grand scheme of life's priorities the difference between 11% body fat and 8% is way below being a positive and philosophical parent... not that the people who talk about dad bob usually have any idea what that means, but still it's worth pointing out. And just as a disclaimer I think all the feminist body positivity is nonsense, and basically an excuse not to have self knowledge... just in case that wasn't clear.

I couldn't agree more. I think maintaining a healthy weight isn't all that time consuming, but the additional effort to get "jacked" is significant. Some choose to put in this additional effort and that's ok with me, just not really my cup of tea...er... protein shake. Again, I might be confused by the terminology, but what do we mean when we say fit? To me, fitness would be the minimum everyone should be at, the Aristotelian mean if you like. I don't see what's wrong with everyone being fit, as was pointed out earlier, being overweight causes serious health problems and puts you at much higher risk for a lot of different diseases so people who care about their life should be fit. My argument would be beyond negating negative health effects and maybe garnering a few positives as a bonus, what do you gain besides aesthetics? Most people don't use the muscle they gain for anything other than gaining more muscle. I'm happy to hear how I'm wrong, but it just seems motivated by vanity.

Not at all. I'm curious as to the value of having chiseled abs when you don't need them to be healthy. As I said before, obviously you want to avoid obesity, but there is a point of diminishing returns. I appreciate your concern. I can assure you that whenever I am in agreement with Stef or Mike, it is because we have both independently come to the same conclusion. Honestly, I'm a little offended at the suggestion that I am "echoing" their sentiments, as it diminishes my agency in coming to my own conclusions. Again you conflate having visible ab muscles, which can take a lot of time and effort to achieve depending on your age and metabolism, with physical fitness. Do you have evidence to suggest that people with flat but undefined stomachs are physically unfit? Physical fitness is relative. Since I see no additional benefit to having this feature, it appears to be an aesthetic choice to make yourself more attractive to the desired sex, this is why I would see it as being on the same level as high heels or make up for women. I have no problem with people who choose to get defined abs or with people who wear high heels and makeup, however all the time you spend doing crunches is time your not doing other things, and until you can provide evidence that the additional muscle mass is beneficial besides the visual appeal, I will choose to spend the time doing other things. (more on this later) I know that I am healthy because I have markers of health. I can sustain physical activity for a long period of time without becoming exhausted. I don't know my exact body fat percentage or even what those other things mean, because that level of detail is not necessary for me to sustain health. As an analogy, when I ask for directions, I just need the street address, not the exact coordinates. Do I actually need to know my fasting blood glucose or Hemoglobin A1c or did you just put that in knowing I wouldn't know what that was? If its some metric of health I haven't heard of then I'd like to hear more about it, It just seemed to me like a rhetorical appeal to insecurity. Eating whatever I want doesn't necessarily mean eating poorly, it means I am not overly restrictive with my diet. If I ate McDonald's every day I would feel like a piece of shit, so I don't do that. I rarely eat red meat, and eat out only as much as my wallet allows, so I say I eat fairly healthy, I'm just not counting calories because frankly I don't really need to. I am also not in the sexual marketplace anymore, I have one very loyal client. beyond keeping myself fit enough that I feel confident and my significant other sexually interested, the aesthetic aspect just doesn't appeal to me. I prefer to work out in other ways, like I said before, hiking, kayaking, biking etc. Do I spend the equivalent of 3 hours a week doing those things? I have no idea. I suppose you could listen to podcasts in the gym and I often listen to podcasts while doing menial tasks, but honestly what provides me the most benefit philosophically is not listening to podcasts, it's practicing philosophy in my life and investing time into self knowledge, podcasts and audiobooks are like snacks on the side. I agree that getting physically fit doesn't take a lot of time per week, but in my experience people who are into building visible muscle are working out more than that. That's obviously not an argument, just my experience of friends.

Idk I guess I'm confused. I could be using the terms wrong. Is dad-bod synonymous with being physically unfit? Physical "fitness" is relative. I am physically fit for the activities and hobbies I enjoy like hiking, kayaking, camping in general, but I am not physically fit to run a marathon or bench 250lbs. So I don't know if I would say I have a "dad bod." I don't have a beer gut but I certainly don't have a six pack and I eat pretty much whatever I want. I've found a balance that works for me and as I age, my body will change, and the balance will readjust. Health in general is relative this way, what constitutes "healthy" for a 18 year old boy is not the same as what is "healthy" for an 89 year old woman. I think a lot of the fitness culture focuses on aesthetics and not the actual health of the individual. I am not overly athletic, but I am healthy. Those things are different. I guess what I mean is that once you get to the point where you are not obese and not unhealthy, why go any further if you don't want to? sure it might provide some additional benefit, but isn't there a diminishing returns? frankly I'd rather spend that time studying languages, or philosophy, or journaling, etc... things that improve my human capital in ways other than the physical... especially since we live in a society where incredible physical strength is not needed nearly as much as it was in the past.

That's a really good point, I can certainly see a natural selection argument in that women are going to want to choose mates who are most suited to the environment. And yes, for a long time that trait was largely physical strength... but as the paradigm of society shifts from being mostly manual labor and material goods to more of a technology and information based economy, wouldn't the most desireable traits change as well? As (average, non politically connected) men are more able to provide for families without slaving in a mine, field, or construction site, having chiseled abbs becomes less valuable in the sexual marketplace. And again, isn't this a good thing? I'm not saying that the dad Bob phenomenon is definitively indicative of that, it's impossible to know for sure, just another way to interpret the data. Edit: As an afterthought, I don't think not having chiseled abs is the same as being unhealthy. From what I have read the whole point of the "dad bod" is that you're not out of shape, youre just not ripped. Again, I would compare it to a man having a more realistic standard of beauty and not lusting after the dehydrated slabs of bikini-jerky modern culture calls "super- models" And just because this body type is gaining more popularity doesn't mean that it will completely displace other standards of attraction. While the scientific input is important, let's remember were talking about the personal preferences of women, there will always be a fascination and deep attraction to a sculpted physique, like you pointed out, it's embedded in our biology.

This is perhaps the most concise and all encompassing summary of my frustration with the determinism topic... Thank you.

I had a wholly different reaction to this whole dad bod thing. As im sure a lot of you here can relate to, unfortunately one of my first significant experiences of sexuality was via lingerie ads and pornography. As i got older and more experienced, I noticed real women in the real world don't look so much like lingerie models and porn stars... And the ones who have invested the time and energy into looking like that havent invested the time and energy into philosophy and practicing consistent virtue. I personally feel the attraction to women who have that kind of ridiculous and often airbrushed body to be kinda false-self, as those things are markers of fertility and perhaps health to some extent (if being fucking anorexic is healthy) and find myself much more attracted to women who were good people first. Now that's not to suggest physical appearance is not at all important, of course it is, but people who place a lot of emphasis on their partner having the perfect body are focusing on the wrong thing. If anything this is a positive thing as perhaps it suggests that women are beginning to focus less on things that are more or less inconsequential (not that fitness is, but the difference between being in shape and this muscled monstrosity is) and more on far more important qualities, a man that can provide, is emotionally stable, is a kind and loving father etc. Just my thoughts, let me know what you think.

I don't think it has anything to do with weather or not people understand UPB because then it wouldn't be universal. It would be like saying the scientific method is only valid once everyone understands the scientific method. UPB is true independent of weather any individual human being understands it or not. Animals are not capable of understanding it, therefor it is inapplicable. Just like animals are unable to speak, therefor the right of free speech is not applicable to them. It's not like they don't have that right, it makes no sense to apply it to them. Similarly it's not like animals are exempt from UPB because they can't reason, because they can't reason it makes no sense to apply UPB to them. Explain to a lion how it's universally preferable not to kill as you step into his enclosure at the zoo.

Do you not see the problem with this? What is the objective standary by which we can determine if something is necessary? and in relation to what goal? It's the same problem that rational egoism has with UPB. "it is moral (universally preferable) to do what is in your best interest." This is significantly problematic because what is in the best interest of person A is not necessarily, and might be completly contradictory to what is in the best interest of person B. If my goal was obtain bacon, the "harm" caused by me to my pig is totally necessary. If my goal was to derive sadistic pleasure from torturing a kitten, the harm would be essential, and therefor, by your standard, moral... which makes no sense, so this moral standard also fails. Have you read UPB? It seems like you're having trouble making a statement that is universal and objective. I respect your choice to look closer at your thinking and familiarize yourself with the material before continuing to debate. I would suggest trying not to think of ethics as it relates to effects, like suffering, but how it relates to universal theories. Murder rape theft and assault are not wrong because they cause suffering, it is that those actions cannot be logically made into universal standards while their opposites can be. good luck and keep trying, UPB is not easy... if it was, we would have figured it out ages ago.

This statement indicates to me a misunderstanding that you might have of UPB, it's part of the reason why UPB is such a bitch to get in the ol' noggin and get it to stay there. I, too, had this same misunderstanding for a long time so hopefully I can shed some light on this. UPB says nothing about animals, it says nothing about humans, it says nothing about governments or any material things. UPB is a framework for validating theories about ethics (theories of preferable behavior). The thing that helps me the most is constantly comparing it to the scientific method. Does the scientific method say anything about gravity or about any matter or energy? no. It only evaluates theories about the nature of reality. So UPB does not say that animals are things, you cannot make a theory of ethics that includes animals universal or logically consistent, this whole thread is a testimony to that. Despite numerous promptings, no one has proposed a UPB theory that includes animals. Mostly because no such theory can be logically sustained. I also appreciate your civil discourse, so let me take this time to say the conditions that animals face in factory farms is miserable and atrocious, and would never EVER be sustained in a free society. You couldn't pay un-traumatized people to do that to animals, you have to be desensitized to violence on some level to commit that level of cruelty. Stef has made this argument before, I'll briefly summarize here. You cannot protect animals without first protecting children. Anyone who gives passing lip service to peaceful parenting but continues to rant about how bad conditions are in factory farms are putting the cart before the horse, and missing the primary human victims. I wouldn't go so far as to say any animal killing is bad... or that dairy products are somehow bad as well. Just because UPB isn't really applicable to animals doesn't mean that you must automatically support factory farms (which are mostly subsidized, so we, as anarchists, are against that anyway). I try to make better choices around buying meat and dairy products like buying milk from a local dairy farm and paying extra for the cage free eggs and so on. Yes there are some really bad intensive farms but there are also a lot of independent farmers who use more humane practices. If you kill an animal for meat quickly and humanely, I don't see anything immediately wrong with that. If someone can prove to me that it is immoral, id be most grateful. I honestly just can't see a way to make that universal. and CO2 emissions are bad because...? No one is disputing the fact that factory farms are bad for animals and bad for people. Again, they are largely the result of huge subsidies to the meat and dairy industry, so as anarchists, pretty much everyone here is against that, why you feel the need to opine about it is baffling. You're passionate rhetoric about how we're all terrible people for eating meat is entirely without substance as you have provided no counter theory which could be evaluated in any rational or consistent way. Instead you've opted to use inflammatory language and take the discussion wildly off course, like "animal rights" activists always do. This thread is addressing weather or not you can make universal statements of ethics concerning animals. You can certainly make universal statements of aesthetics (it's preferable not to torture animals) but any theory that grouped them as moral agents would have to be universal. If the theory was universal, animals would be held responsible for their actions, but this is illogical because they have no free will. If the theory is not universal, it fails as a theory out of the gate.

I'd like Justin to actually make an argument and not just use buzz words like "torture" or "factory farm" which is just rediculous FUD tactics clear to anyone who knows farmers or have been to a farm. Are there extreme cases? Absolutely but it's just prejudice to assume all farmers are animal sadists because they own and tend livestock. I would honestly teak a break from this thread if I were you and introspect as to why this gets you so upset... It seems like you're assigning emotional states to animals that they are just not capable of experiencing. If this is a topic about UPB, why has no one proposed a UPB compliant statement? I think that if you try, the problems become quite clear. Lets look at the base assumption, "it is universally preferable to not murder humans." this is logically consistent, because everyone can maintain this at the same time. It applies at all times in all places (passes the coma test,mthe two men in a room, etc.) . It is a universal statement. It ends with humans because there is a clear and biological divider between humans and all other living things. Humans have higher cognitive function than all other life forms. Yes dolphins have rudimentary language and chimpanzees have complex social structures... But they don't have the ability to rationally conceptualise. When a dolphin composes a symphony, or when a parrot raised away from all human contact can reason "cogito ergo sum" all by its self, then things would be different. However this is not the case. Now move on to what it would be if animals were included in this proposition. "it is universally preferable to not kill animals." there are several things wrong with this statement. The first I see is that we are making an arbitrary destination called "animals" which ranges from dogs and cats to the bacteria in your gut. This is such a wide classification of things that you can hardly say anything of value about them in aggregate, least of all universal prescriptions of ethical behavior. A more appropriate phrasing would be "it is universally preferable for a living things to never end the life of another living thing." which fails all the upb tests as a man who is in a coma is killing all kinds of bacteria, two men in a room are themselves killing bacteria just by existing, theyre killing dust mites by walking, sleeping etc... I think you see the point. The second thing that jumps out at me is that statement is not universal because it prescribes preferable actions to one group but not to the other. I think we can all agree that an animal has no moral responsibility for killing people or other animals, therefor we can not make statements of universal behavior around them! I think we're just stepping over this point but if you can't hold a cow morally responsible for killing me, I can't be held morally responsible for killing a cow. Breaks universality. End of story. I've said this before, but this is the exact same thing as saying the government has the right to tax but you don't have the right to steal. Any statement that includes animals in UPB extends moral responsibility to animals. Since animals have no free will and thus no moral responsibility for their actions, they cannot be shoehorned in to UPB. I know it feels like its right, but it's literally like arguing that animals should have the right to free speech, or that animals have property rights. These concepts simply don't apply to creatures of such low cognitive ability.

Well it could have also been the glare from his head, but there's no way to tell...

Definitely the first one. I've seen the unicorn. I coulld only look for a few seconds before being blinded by the majesty. It was glorious.

No, the reason you don't initiate aggression against another moral agent is because you cannot logically sustain that it is universally preferable to do so. UPB has nothing to do with actions, this is stated quite clearly in the book. UPB can only evaluate theories around preferable behavior. I know this is a bit of a brain teaser, but it's probably simpler than you think. I.e. UPB cannot evaluate a particular murder, only theories concerning murder. This isnt true at all. The NAP is valid as a principal because it is logical. The validity of a proposition has nothing in particular to do with the mental state of one human being. It would be like saying, "without a firm commitment to rationality, 2+2=4 is devoid of any power as a principal." it's true that a commitment to logic and rationality is important, but it has no bearing on any truth claim in particular. The NAP is a fact, and like other facts, it's truth is independent and objective. This is a false dichotomy that gets used in a lot of these animal rights threads. Just because an individual human being's cognitive capacity is diminished, does not remove their moral agency. Human intelligence is a bell curve ranging from very smart to very not-so-smart, with everything clustering around a mean. Now granted I have had limited contact with people with developmental disabilities, but I greatly doubt there are people so cognitively impaired that they have reached parity with animals. But even on a more conceptual level it would be completely irrational to not distinguish between a deviation from a norm and an entirely different norm. The mentally handicapped had the capacity for conceptual reasoning, but deviated from the norm, for a variety of reason. Animals on the other had have no possibility of developing this. The two categories should not be conflated. If its true that you can prove animals "know right from wrong" you shouldn't be on the fdr boards, you should be presenting your research findings to the Nobel laureate board. Seeing as how you are in fact on the fdr boards, I'm going to assume you have no such proof. It actually does follow logically that you would not apply it to animals because behavioral norms are totally innaplicable to beings without the capacity to make choices. Try explaining to a cat that it should or shouldn't do something. A cat doesn't give a flying fuck about your normative propositions. Animals will do what they're biologically inclined to do at any given moment, there is no possibility of them "choosing" to do something else. This is not because they lack language, but because they lack the fundemental prerequisite for language, conceptual reasoning. for this reason they are not moral agents, they cannot be included in universal norms because those norms would no longer be universal! If it's immoral for me to kill a cow its immoral for a cow to kill me. Since suggesting that a cow could be held responsible for killing me is INSANE, the converse must also be true. It's not called universally prefered "reasoning skills" because ethical theories dont make normative statements about reasoning skills, they make statements about behaviors. Since it is impossible for an animal to "behave" in the same way a human can behave (with free will) we can conclude that "behavior" understood I'm that context is, for the moment, uniquely human.

Both (or more accurately all) parties must be moral agents for UPB to be applicable because otherwise you violate the "U" in "UPB." if it's not immoral for an animal to kill me, and we know this is true because they lack conceptual cognition from which they could make moral decisions, then it is not immoral for me to kill that animal. Claiming so would be exactly like saying its immoral for me to steal, but not for the government to collect taxes, it's a logical contradiction and cannot be sustained. Hope that helps. Remember, it's all about universality .

I think Karen is great and on so many levels. One thing that tickles me so is how she epitomizes the ideal feminist in their own terms; strong willed, inindependent, intelligent, etc. And she's simultaneously their worst nightmare haha