View previous topic | View next topic

Jungle -Bad Logic

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


It is bad logic to say,” If an animal does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x?”
Agree
100%
 100%  [ 4 ]
Disagree
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 4

Quibbler
965745.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:52 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
It's difficult to define "rape" for a non-sentient species (lions, tigers, estate agents etc) because our usual definition requires "informed consent". How can anyone be sure that these creatures give informed consent?

PDR


It is only humans that write laws to be followed. They are how humans should treat other humans, or how humans should treat other species, not how other species should treat each other, so they are not breaking any legal law.

I am deliberatly ignoring medieval laws to do with witches and their familiars, where there were animals put on trial. That is a whole other topic.

Here is a side trip into philosophy.
Consent requires volition, which in turn requies free will. You cannot even be sure that humans have free will. Here is a simplified version of how philosophers argue is that free will is an illusion.

There are several lines of argument. You may think you have free will but if you base your actions on what you feel, and you have no control of how you feel, then free will is an illusion. Example you cannot will yourself to stop feeling thirsty. The feeling causes you to perform an action- to drink, only once the action has occurred can you stop feeling thirsty. Someone else forcing you to drink is not you willing it, the action still has to occur.

According to determinism everything you do is caused by previous events that were inturn cause to event prior to them, that go back to before you were born, so how can you be the cause? But, if determinism is false by introducing some form of randomness that does not help, that just makes it luck or chance, it is not really you either. So you are caught if determinism is true, AND if determinism is false, and that is called pessimism.

Hence most philosopher think free will is an illusion.

 
Sadurian Mike
965755.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:11 pm Reply with quote

Which just goes to show how much bollocks they talk.

I wrote that of my own free will.

 
Posital
965758.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:20 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
You may think you have free will but if you base your actions on what you feel, and you have no control of how you feel, then free will is an illusion.
Kompleat Bollox.

I felt like saying that - and I stand by it.

Free will is about actions, not temptations.

We can all rise above temptation.

Hmmm... feel like a beer...

Laterz


Last edited by Posital on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Quibbler
965760.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:23 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Quibbler wrote:
Whether homosexuallity is right or wrong has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Actually it has everything wrong with it.

There is nothing physically or emotionally wrong with homosexuality, as displayed by the fact that other animals apart from humans also have homosexual activity.
.


So what you are therefore ALSO implying is that because bono chimpanzezes display paedophilic behaviour that there is nothing wrong with that either.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH PAEDIPHILIA.

 
Quibbler
965764.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:35 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Which just goes to show how much bollocks they talk.

I wrote that of my own free will.


But as Douglas Adams' Deep Though pointed out -it has kept them on the gravy tray for life.

Actually, for more than 2000 years!

 
Sadurian Mike
965768.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:39 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
So what you are therefore ALSO implying is that because bono chimpanzezes display paedophilic behaviour that there is nothing wrong with that either.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH PAEDIPHILIA.

That is what is known as a straw man argument.

It is also misunderstood and spelt wrongly, by the way.


Last edited by Sadurian Mike on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Quibbler
965769.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:40 pm Reply with quote

Posital wrote:
Quibbler wrote:
You may think you have free will but if you base your actions on what you feel, and you have no control of how you feel, then free will is an illusion.
Kompleat Bollox.

I felt like saying that - and I stand by it.

Free will is about actions, not temptations.

We can all rise above temptation.

Hmmm... feel like a beer...

Laterz


I seem to remember a song lyric, " I can resist everything except temptation"

 
Quibbler
965778.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:01 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Quibbler wrote:
So what you are therefore ALSO implying is that because bono chimpanzezes display paedophilic behaviour that there is nothing wrong with that either.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH PAEDIPHOLIA.

That is what is known as a straw man argument.


He should not keep misrepresenting my views, by keep dragging religion or homosexuality into it.

 
CB27
965821.  Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:19 pm Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
I do not know why any of you are discussing whether homosexuality is right or wrong, or religion. That was not my point.

Because from the OP:

Quibbler wrote:
You simply cannot say,” That if animals does x, then it is alright for humans to also do x”. Humans live in a complex society, with complex cultures. Animals do not know any better.

Stephen is correct, “Anything you put in front of a Bonobo, it will shags.” The problem is what he left out, in particular the adults’ promiscuity with the infants. Do you see the problem? If humans did this, we would call it paedophilia, and that is NOT acceptable.

I put in bold the bits that are relevant here. Stephen (and others) maintain that there's nothing unnatural about humans wanting to eat, shit, sleep and have sex. It is our cultural/religious/moral beliefs that dictate whether some things are right or wrong. In some cultures it's OK for children as young as 12 to have sex, in others that would be unthinkable. In some cultures homosexuality is allowed, in some it's not. That is what we as people say is "right or wrong", but does not make it unnatural.

Stephen was referring to a popular argument by some that homosexuality is unnatural, and using other animals to show that it's simply a choice, and simply debunking it.

Again from the OP:

Quibbler wrote:
You can find examples in the animal kingdom of all kinds of behaviour that if a human did, we would consider it deplorable- murder, rape, cannibalism etc. That is why it is not comparing like with like.

In human cultures we've seen legal and acceptable acts of murder, rape, cannibalism, etc, but our society deems it wrong (correctly IMO), it does not deem it unnatural.

 
Quibbler
1067608.  Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:05 pm Reply with quote

Religious people and gay people have made the same basic false assumption about nature. Both have assumed that nature is good, and therefore moral. You will find it very difficult to find a species of animal that will not steal food given the opportunity. Does that mean stealing is moral? No. It means the assumption that nature is good or moral is a false assumption. David Attenborough gave the reason that he was an atheist as being, “Nature is often cruel.” If nature is often cruel, and nature is good, would that mean it would be good to be cruel? This also clearly illustrates the absurdity of equating nature with the concept of good, or moral behaviour.

The reality is that nature is not good, or bad, but merely everything that is possible, nature makes no moral judgement. Science is the study of nature, and nature is simply everything that is possible. Neither science, or nature determine what is moral. That is a separate discussion.

It is not possible to choose a species to determine morality. If you do try to, then you have to include all the behaviour of that species. You cannot say there are gay lions and ignore when male lions take over a pride that they often kill male cubs (in human society this would be infanticide). Lions are complicated to interpret; they are the only social large cat. You cannot biasedly select the bit you approve of, and ignore the bit you don’t. You have to include all its behaviour or none of its behaviour at all. It is not clear which species you should choose. If you believe in fidelity, then you pick a flamingo, which mates for life, if you believe in infidelity then you could pick a rabbit, either way it is clear you would have chosen your morality first, and the species second, so whatever species you choose would in fact be a red herring. There is only one species behaviour that should be examined to determine what is moral, and that is the human species. That does not mean all human behaviour, by all humans is always moral, they often lie, cheat, steal etc.

You run into much less difficulty ignoring all other species behaviour, and basing morality on what is in the best interest of the whole of human society. As not all human behave morally, why would another species be any more moral than humans?
If you draw a set diagram (you may know it as a Venn diagram), everything outside the rectangle represents everything that is impossible. Everything inside the rectangle represents everything that is possible. Then draw two overlapping circles inside the rectangle.

Label one circle as M and the other as B.
M union B =does not include all possible behaviour.
M= all human behaviour that is moral. This does not include all possible behaviour.
B= all the behaviour of a single random species. (Some of which will overlaps with M, and some will not).
M intersection B =is species behaviour that is moral.
B but not M= is the species behaviour that is possible, but not moral i.e. inside B but not inside M.


At least in the later kinky episode of QI Stephen Fry acknowledges that some penguin behaviour is 'unfortunate' even if he has not realised the problem with his assertion about animals.

 
CB27
1067856.  Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:00 am Reply with quote

Excuse quoting myself, but:

CB27 wrote:
Stephen (and others) maintain that there's nothing unnatural about humans wanting to eat, shit, sleep and have sex. It is our cultural/religious/moral beliefs that dictate whether some things are right or wrong. In some cultures it's OK for children as young as 12 to have sex, in others that would be unthinkable. In some cultures homosexuality is allowed, in some it's not. That is what we as people say is "right or wrong", but does not make it unnatural.

I added the highlight this time round because you've assumed we all have a shared definition of morality.

The original argument was that homosexuality is not natural. When that was proven false, the argument seems to shift to the point of morality, and that because some deem it bad or immoral, it's not right. However, we don't all share the same morals.

If the majority see nothing bad or immoral about homosexuality, why should they be dictated to by a minority who do?

Even when, as a society, we define what is right or wrong, we don't simply punish those who don't share those same views, we educate them and try and help them. There was mention of underage sex, and this is a perfect example. If someone breaks the law they are punished, but we also have educational and various methods of help available to people who feel differently, whether they've broken the law or not.

 
RLDavies
1067887.  Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:37 am Reply with quote

Quibbler wrote:
Both have assumed that nature is good, and therefore moral.

The thing is, nobody has said that. Not here, not on QI.

Nobody related to this discussion has ever claimed that nature is good, or moral, or should be held up as a role model for human behaviour. The only assumption we've made is that nature is natural.

 
CharliesDragon
1067924.  Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:09 pm Reply with quote

In words, yes, but I will admit that until Quibbler pointed it out I did view this whole thing through a slight fog of nature being good and romantic. A lot of Christians also believe, although maybe not conscious, that nature is good because other animals were not burndened by the fruit of knowledge or whatever it was Eve snacked on. That brings us neatly on to that a lot of people found Darwin's claims that nature was harsh and ruthless with animals constantly locked in a fight for survival much more upsetting than that animals have evolved and weren't just put on Earth by God looking and functioning exactly as they do today.

 
CB27
1068053.  Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:29 pm Reply with quote

Some people might feel apalled by the idea that nature allows cruelty and harshness, but that's again implying that nature is "allowing" these things to happen. The whole point about evolution is that these things just happen, there's nothing good, bad, easy, harsh, cruel or kind about anything in nature, that's just our perception.

The ideas of nature not having any of these perceptions, and of evolution, do not in themselves contradict the teachings of many religions, including Christianity. The problem seems to start when people choose to take some text absolutely literally, while ignoring the literal text of most of the rest of the Bible.

 
CharliesDragon
1068065.  Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:24 pm Reply with quote

You're right, but that's really a completely different discussion.

The problem seems to arise from the wrong assumptions of homophobes and bigotes of calling homosexuality "unnatural" because they're not used to it, when it would be more correct to call it "not common" from where they are seated. And that might be the case. It's not normal for me to eat insects or rodents, but a lot of people do so in other places. I still don't call it unnatural.

And that false understanding of "unnatural" vs "not common" makes a very shaky basis for the argument, so Stephen's (and others) counter-argument that it can't be unnatural because it happens in nature is... only relevant and/or true when used against the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. It's not true as a reply to, say, "People under sixteen shouldn't have sex." A lot of other species, like cats, start breeding the moment they're sexually mature, which can be 12-14 years for humans in most developed countries. There's a lot of reasons that's generally not accepted, especially not as an age when you should start having kids.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group