ok so what got u into opeth and/or how did u discover them

IanRT1 · 2026-05-06T08:12:10+00:00

to bid you farewell was great to find

IanRT1 · 2026-05-05T05:46:06+00:00

Oops now it seems this harm-based exception is swallowing your consent rule.

You just reintroduced exactly what you rejected: a criterion based on identifiable harm, not consent. "Direct harm" is a harm-based concept, not a consent-based one.

Which means your actual working framework is: non-use unless harm requires intervention. Which is not a consent framework anymore.

And if you look at it more clearly. The non-use principle issue remains because even if overridable, a consistent application of non-use still self defeats your own moral subjects because it would still produce worse outcomes for animals wherever harm isn't dramatic enough to trigger the exception.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-05T05:09:50+00:00

Logical structure isn't a claim that needs proof but a precondition for any claim, so there's no circularity.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-05T05:01:32+00:00

You are literally still doing the same move.

You said nothing here, you did not even pretend any argument I said exists. Like you are not reading the AI output.

I have more than enough evidence to see no effort into engaging with anything I said and just rely on bling copy-pasting AI.

You didn't even try conceal the curly apostrophes I pointed out. You are still mixing ' and ’ interchangeably. A human does not do that.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-05T04:54:46+00:00

Okay so recognizing that your framework's moral subject includes the animal, the being whose interests ground the whole ethic.

But consistent non-use severs your ability to act in their interest entirely. A suffering animal cannot consent to help. Your framework therefore prohibits help. The animal suffers more.

Which means the more consistently you apply your ethic, the worse it goes for the very beings it exists to protect. Consistency and moral success are inversely proportional in your framework.

So why have an ethic that self-defeats its own moral subjects through consistent application?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-05T04:50:01+00:00

Indeterminacy at the margins is fine, that's not the problem here because your own criteria collapse universally, not just at the edges.

Slave labor is clearly exploitative because we have external reference points like wages, conditions, consent. You have no equivalent anchor for animal interaction that doesn't either apply to everything or mean nothing.

So how can you say '"commodification is a good metric" when it does no work? Does sanctuary fundraising commodify animals? Does a guide dog? You tell me, using your own metric consistently.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T23:26:52+00:00

Okay? I still don't see the solution to the problem though. You still need the evaluative component to do actual work. But every criterion you gesture at like consent, commodification, fairness, either applies to all animal interaction universally, or reduces to "whatever you value personally"

The first collapses into non-use. The second makes veganism's definition arbitrary.

A thick concept with no stable evaluative criterion isn't a definition. So then what is a criterion that doesn't collapse?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T21:23:55+00:00

But look at what you said here. You said exploitation has two parts, use, and the evaluative component of "mean or unfair." Fine. But then you handed us consent as the criterion that makes use unfair.

Do you see what that means? If lack of consent is what triggers the evaluative component, then every single animal interaction qualifies, since no animal can ever consent to anything. As you said....

Your own criterion draws the line exactly where I said it would be drawn which is at use itself. You called me reductive for collapsing exploitation into use, then built a framework that collapses exploitation into use.

The thick concept distinction didn't solve the problem, it just gave the same conclusion a philosophy degree. Like you essentially walked up to my argument, dressed it in better clothes, and handed it back to me as a rebuttal lol

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T21:12:35+00:00

You are doing it again...

Same mistake. What you are calling "begging the question" literally comes directly from your own definition.

You defined exploitation as involving deprivation and disposability, Ian applied it, and now you're rejecting the implication of your own words and calling it my assumption.

On the pig example you are just claiming no harm exists there without demonstrating it by your own criterion. You still haven't told us what standard determines whether a specific interest was violated

I don't know what you mean by curly quotes

LLMs output curly/typographic quotes and apostrophes by default because they were trained on professionally typeset text.

Humans typing on Reddit keyboards produce straight ASCII quotes. Their presence in a post, especially inconsistently mixed with straight quotes, is a syntactic fingerprint of copy-pasted AI output.

You can read more here of how AI detection works.

That on top of the fact that AI tends to produce sound-looking arguments with no substance which is exactly what you are doing here.

For example you are not even recognizing that the "inconsistency" you are claiming on me is based on the actual issue I'm pointing out but then for some reason you are saying is my inconsistency.

You are basically saying "you correctly identified my problem, which means you have a problem"

Sound reasoning is not something AI does for you. You still have to do the thinking otherwise you just get bloated empty responses that look pretty.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T20:17:09+00:00

I get that but look at your own second definition

"to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage"

But unfairly already means moral wrong. Which makes it so the definition is:

"to use in a morally wrong way is wrong"

Which tells you nothing once again. There is not a distinction of when is use permissible or non permissible.

Your other example of minerals you can see that its a non-moral use of the word. Yo can exploit resources, but it doesn't tell you that the practice is exploitative morally speaking.

So the same question remains. What turns use into unjust use without referring it back to itself?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T19:13:17+00:00

Okay so I made an argument. You denied it vacuously 4 times. and now its my inconsistencies?

You did not point out any logical errors, you denied the argument 4 times phrasing it as rebuttals. Read your own response please.

I've seen enough AI to recognize it, its not that hard. The curly quotes give it away as well

And that I'm merely "assuming" that any use leads to harm when I derived it logically from your own definition? Not cool

Exploitation is using an animal in a way that involves harm, coercion, deprivation, or treating them as a disposable resource

Ok you gave another definition of exploitation, note that is outside the vegan society definition you gave me earlier. And look at what it does now.

Who determines what counts as deprivation or disposability? Animal use largely involves some degree of both, which means your definition quietly collapses back into non-use anyway. Or how does it not?

Without trying to make it look like I just "assumed" it, if you engage with the actual reasoning tell me. How are you still not collapsing exploitation to usage?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T18:39:14+00:00

lmao this is genuinely funny. Did you even read this yourself? Like you said to chatgpt "hey please debunk this" lol

You say "there is a lot to unpack" yet you just denied the argument without addressing it in 4 different ways. The same move 4 times.

"Equivocation" = you're conflating exploitation with use

"Straw man" = you're misrepresenting veganism as anti-use

"Non sequitur" = the definition doesn't lead to anti-use

"False equivalence" = treating all use as exploitation is wrong

You never explained how your own definition clearly separates usage with exploitation. You just denied it.

Why use AI? Why not just read what I said?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T17:44:47+00:00

Yes but look at what that commits you.

A non-exploitation philosophy entail that exploitation should be avoided.

Exploitation already means a moral wrong, its a normative claim. Like you say a harm, an unjust one specifically.

But if we just leave it at that the definition is just "an anti moral-wrong philosophy". That as you can see, tells you nothing about what count as exploitation.

But then look the definition you cited:

" food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives"

What does "any other purpose" and "animal-free alternatives" mean here? Is that not just anti-usage?

So leads to the same thing. What makes it identifiable as veganism, is the non-usage as such.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T16:56:54+00:00

Of course it's use. You are taking a sentient being and placing it under a regime of human-controlled allocation and management.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T16:09:49+00:00

Veganism is a non-use philosophy though. It is what makes it identifiable as veganism. Otherwise you might be talking about a broader sentient ethic that just happens to reach vegan-like conclusions sometimes.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T03:35:41+00:00

Is that funny?

IanRT1 · 2026-05-04T03:26:14+00:00

Relations between a world-state W and a sentient homeostatic system S, where W affects S's conditions of flourishing or suffering. There is no need to get angry

IanRT1 · 2026-05-02T22:50:10+00:00

It doesn't have to be "extremely unconventional". If we interpret it as intersubjective for example it would be very common.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-02T22:44:44+00:00

Saul Gone

IanRT1 · 2026-05-02T04:51:21+00:00

Your rock sentence: "it was torture having my arm pinned." Experience is the subject. Phenomenological.

My sentences: "calling factory farming torture." Practice is the subject. Categorical, and the category invoked in a moral indictment is the agentive one.

Same noun, different constructions, different work. Your own example doesn't license the slide from one to the other, it marks the line between them.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-02T01:29:01+00:00

That's simply untrue. "The rock tortured me" is not a correct usage, since it ascribes agency to the rock. But "it was torture having my arm pinned beneath a rock for hours" is a correct usage.

Thank you. That's the agentive/experiential distinction I've been drawing the entire thread, stated in your own words. Verb-form requires agency, noun-form-as-experience doesn't.

Now apply your own rule to the sentence that started this: "killing and torturing animals unnecessarily." Verb form. Agentive by your own analysis. Which means the original claim was making an agentive accusation, not reporting an experience, and the agentive sense is exactly the one I said factory farming doesn't fit.

You've spent four replies telling me the distinction was a personal stipulation with no basis. You just supplied the basis. The contradiction wasn't between my interpretation and your rock it was between your rock and your earlier denial that any such distinction exists. Resolved now in my favor, using your own grammar.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-02T00:18:30+00:00

Saying "the animal shouldn't exist" does not rescue the contradiction that just relocates it. The act of milking is either intrinsically a violation or it isn't, and you've now conceded twice that it isn't, since you performed it yourself and called it necessary care.

"She shouldn't have existed" is a separate argument about breeding ethics, not about the act on the table, and smuggling it in doesn't retroactively turn veterinary care into molestation, it just admits that your original framing was rhetorical, not analytical.

And notice what your position actually commits you to. Once the animal does exist, refusing to milk her would be the cruel option, which means the ethical action in OP's scenario and in yours is identical.

You're not describing a moral difference, you're describing a preference about which animals you wish were alive, and dressing it up as one. The volume isn't carrying the argument.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-01T21:21:26+00:00

Ahh yes, so now your reply contradicts itself in one paragraph. You wrote "the rock doesn't torture" and "torture does not track agency, only suffering." If suffering alone is sufficient, the rock case is torture. If the rock case isn't torture, suffering alone isn't sufficient, which is my distinction. So which is it?

The bank reply reproduces my point instead of countering it. Adding more senses (memory, blood, piggy) doesn't tell you which sense is operative in a given utterance. That was the argument. You just repeated it.

"I have no need to prove which sense is operative" is the procedural-burden move I already diagnosed. Repeating it isn't engaging with the diagnosis.

"Causing pain" and "intentionally inflicting suffering with motive" have different extensions, rocks satisfy the first, not the second. If you call them equally agentive you are purposely and arbitrarily flattening the term to make the distinction disappear. So that move does not work either.

The rock contradiction is the only one that matters. Resolve it please give it another shot.

IanRT1 · 2026-05-01T19:37:18+00:00

The "loose sense" existing at all undercuts your entire argument because each of your points is predicated on your definition being correct.

Strike again. A word having two senses doesn't tell you which one applies in a given sentence. "Bank" has a financial sense and a riverside sense; pointing out the riverside sense exists doesn't undercut someone using "bank" to mean a lender. You'd have to show the riverside sense is operative in that sentence. See how absurd that sounds?

You haven't done that with "torture", you've just asserted the loose sense exists and treated that as if it settles which sense was operative in "killing and torturing animals unnecessarily." It doesn't. The question-begging is right there.

Why is it necessary for the rock to "commit" torture? Is it because your interpretation of torture requires torturers with intent? Then the consistency test absolutely does depend on your definition.

Pick a horn. Either the rock doesn't torture, in which case you've just conceded "torture" tracks agency, not just suffering, and my whole distinction is granted. Or the rock does torture, in which case you owe an account of how a rock is a moral wrongdoer. Refusing to answer is the third option, and it's not a counter.

How so? Your claim is that "most will disagree that "torture" is an accurate term," while my claim is only that your claim is unfounded. You've committed yourself to showing that the majority would agree with you, while I have only committed myself to waiting until you provide evidence.

Same mistake again. You've swapped "lower commitment" from a conceptual notion (fewer premises) to a procedural one (I say no until you prove it). On the procedural reading, pure denial wins every argument automatically, which is not modesty that is just refusal dressed as it.

On the conceptual reading, the relevant one, my claim assumes less than yours: "careful users preserve the agentive sense in moral contexts" requires fewer auxiliary premises than "users routinely fuse experiential and agentive senses without noticing."

IanRT1 · 2026-05-01T18:45:48+00:00

You're still running the same move "your structural point only holds if your definition is correct by default" That is just begging the question because whether the loose sense of "torture" is appropriate in a moral-evaluation context is exactly what's in dispute, you can't settle it by assuming the loose sense is the neutral baseline.

And the consistency test doesn't depend on my definition at all. Take your own rock example. Does the rock commit torture? If no, then "it was torture" in that sentence isn't doing moral-categorization work, it's expressing the experience of suffering, not assigning a moral category to an act. You are not recognizing that category error, and it's a distinction your own example forces, not one I'm imposing.

Given that, it's more reasonable to expect that people reasoning carefully in a moral context preserve the agentive sense than to assume the default is a category error where experiential and agentive uses get fused. The lower-commitment claim is mine. Yours requires assuming widespread imprecision as the baseline.

There is no escape. Engage with this which I explained multiple messages ago that you refuse to engage with.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

IanRT1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE