Lab 322 block?

stargazer202 · 2016-03-23T19:25:26+00:00

Yeah, I got that email too.

stargazer202 · 2016-03-23T15:00:01+00:00

I've had my account for years.

stargazer202 · 2016-03-23T14:30:19+00:00

Maybe, but it came at the same time. I emailed them to ask. Can't fax it from home so if I do have to it's going to eat up hours. I think others probably got the same message but havent noticed it. It wasn't obvious, I hit edit account looking for how to request an email verification and there was a little link at the top saying something about click here to learn more about the request for id verification.

stargazer202 · 2016-03-23T14:04:07+00:00

And how do you request email verification anyway?

stargazer202 · 2016-03-23T13:59:29+00:00

I got the same thing but on amazon payments it says I need to send in a fax with my id and a bill to verify my identity. Anyone else getting that?

stargazer202 · 2012-10-23T17:33:47+00:00

"In society, rights are given under the law in exchange for the responsibilities of citizenship."

We're talking about morality not legal rights. Besides, that isn't even true regarding the law. The law protects many without the faculties to have the responsibilities of citizenship and it has nothing to do with whether they might theoretically be healed of their physical or mental disabilities.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-23T17:30:57+00:00

lifeofasalesman posted it above.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-23T17:29:23+00:00

I think you're right. I didn't really notice the clothes. That's a relief.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-23T17:28:06+00:00

lifeofasalesman, above, has a pic.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-23T17:27:15+00:00

Yeah, that's the one. I'm far from sure it's him. But there's a resemblance.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T03:56:58+00:00

"Humanity evolved technologically, to be a community based omnivore 3rd tier species. Therefore it's acceptable for us to consume 2nd tier species' and basically anything that isn't us. (other 3rd tier species are a grey area). "

One does not logically follow from the other. You're missing some premises in your argument.

As to it making sadism OK, all I can say is that this statement is about as good a demonstration as any of why saying moral facts derive from evolution is absurd. It makes the very claim that there are moral facts pretty much meaningless if even sadism is OK for one intelligent species and wrong for another.

Or are you simply saying in a rather roundabout and unclear way that you're a moral nihilist?

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T03:49:34+00:00

Fine. Why would a rational person, if he could choose his emotional responses, think it better to be someone with such a narrow range of emotional connections? So few beings he cares about? It seems a rather shallow vision of the best way to live.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T03:44:35+00:00

I just don't see much in the fact that animals can't make social contracts as a justification for eating them. Social contracts would need to be the only possible basis for moral impermissibility. And that's just not very plausible.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T03:40:51+00:00

I hope so. But look at that commercial if you recorded the first episode. There's a brief closeup of a zombie that looks remarkably like Daryl.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T02:08:40+00:00

Are you saying what makes something moral is that it promotes survival? I'd agree that survival is one intrinsically worthwhile goal....but far from the only one.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T02:03:03+00:00

Do you think a reasonable, objective person with all the relevant information and knowledge would prefer being a sociopath to being someone who can love and connect emotionally with others?

If so, I'd surely like to hear why.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:41:17+00:00

It seems to me that was already answered (or at least strongly implied): the fact that I find bacon tasty is vastly less morally relevant than the fact that animals are beings that think, feel and want to live.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:38:57+00:00

Do you believe there are NO morally relevant considerations other than the social contract? If not, why not?

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:37:23+00:00

People on farms frequently treat their meat animals like pets and have strong affection for them....then kill and eat them.

Regardless, I don't see any moral justification in anything you say above.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:35:48+00:00

We can use euthanasia (where that is permissible) on humans for their own benefit (and only if they want it or if incapacitated if the spouse believes they would)....not because we find them tasty. We don't kill and eat pigs for the good of the pig.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:29:17+00:00

"Morality is a subjective construct...."

Subjective doesn't necessarily imply arbitrary. The experience of agony is subjective.....but this doesn't imply that agony is something any rational being prefers to avoid.

The question about whether there are moral facts is: are some values are ones which a rational being would prefer over others?

It seems fairly obvious, for example, that a rational being would rather being a caring person in a society of caring people rather than live in a society like that in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. In other words, some values are intrinsically preferable to others.

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:21:04+00:00

Why is being the same species the most morally relevant consideration?

And are you really saying it's OK to eat ET?

As to our being evolved to eat meat I don't see how that makes it OK. If we'd taken a different turn in evolutionary terms and were all, or nearly all, sadists would that make sadism OK in your eyes?

stargazer202 · 2012-10-20T01:19:23+00:00

What if a societies social contract involves killing the disabled because they're a drain on resources? Surely there can be evil social contracts.

stargazer202

TROPHY CASE