Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

Why is there a difference between a coma patient who might regain consciousness and a fetus who almost certainly will get it?
If potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness you can't be pro choice.

I never said potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness, I said the ability to have consciousness is.

The fetus is different than a coma patient because it doesn't have the ability which comes with the basic structures, it merely has the potential to develop those structures, a potential consciousness, and worrying about potential consciousness isn't going to work because potential consciousness is all over the place. Every woman I haven't had unprotected sex with represents a potential consciousness that was denied existence.

We don't owe anything to persons that don't exist and will never exist, and if they're aborted before they exist, they'll never exist. Sounds callous, but in principle it's the same as denying all those future persons an existence by not devoting every waking second to procreation

[JohnDonne]

Byt you stated that potential consciousness had a value. Why else let a comatose person on life-support live? Do you deny that an unborn fetus has the potential for consciousness? Makes no sense.

See my answer above.

[JohnDonne]

The desire to live doesn't come with any entitlement. All living things desire to live. Mushrooms, trees, grass, malaria parasites, bacteria and everything else. There exists no law in nature that forces us to respect that will to live.
If we show any mercy at all is just because we have decided not to become monsters. Monsters tend to be ganged up upon and destroyed so it is a good choice not to become one.
If you try to coerce people into giving up their favorite food you will be correctly identified as a tyrannical monster and you will be treated accordingly.

Desire to live is the word I'm using, that requires consciousness, when you say bacteria desire to live you obviously don't mean the bacteria thinks to itself "I want to live" or has a conscious, subjective experience of wanting to live. If for some reason that is what you mean then the burden of evidence is on you to make the case for bacteria consciousness just as I have done for animals, and good luck with that.

I never said there is a natural law that makes us have to respect the ability to desire to live, I said ethics is manifestly concerned with the ability to desire to live. Ethics only exists in relation to beings that have that ability.

And if I'm a monster for denying sentient beings their favorite food then what should we call the monsters that deny sentient beings their freedom, their children and their lives?

[Hastur]

The desire to live doesn't come with any entitlement. All living things desire to live. Mushrooms, trees, grass, malaria parasites, bacteria and everything else. There exists no law in nature that forces us to respect that will to live.
If we show any mercy at all is just because we have decided not to become monsters. Monsters tend to be ganged up upon and destroyed so it is a good choice not to become one.
If you try to coerce people into giving up their favorite food you will be correctly identified as a tyrannical monster and you will be treated accordingly.

Desire to live is the word I'm using, that requires consciousness, when you say bacteria desire to live you obviously don't mean the bacteria thinks to itself "I want to live" or has a conscious, subjective experience of wanting to live. If for some reason that is what you mean then the burden of evidence is on you to make the case for bacteria consciousness just as I have done for animals, and good luck with that.

I never said there is a natural law that makes us have to respect the ability to desire to live, I said ethics is manifestly concerned with the ability to desire to live. Ethics only exists in relation to beings that have that ability.

You are very far from convincing me that a lobster is more able to desire to live than a bacteria. Or that a cow can consciously desire anything for that matter. Or that I have any obligation to give a shit if they can.

[Hastur]

Why is there a difference between a coma patient who might regain consciousness and a fetus who almost certainly will get it?
If potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness you can't be pro choice.

I never said potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness, I said the ability to have consciousness is.

The fetus is different than a coma patient because it doesn't have the ability which comes with the basic structures, it merely has the potential to develop those structures, a potential consciousness, and worrying about potential consciousness isn't going to work because potential consciousness is all over the place. Every woman I haven't had unprotected sex with represents a potential consciousness that was denied existence.

We don't owe anything to persons that don't exist and will never exist, and if they're aborted before they exist, they'll never exist. Sounds callous, but in principle it's the same as denying all those future persons an existence by not devoting every waking second to procreation

I see no qualifying difference between the ability to gain or to regain consciousness. I do however find it unsurprising that a Marxist ideologue sounds callous, bordering to murderous. Same as it always was.

[JohnDonne]

The desire to live doesn't come with any entitlement. All living things desire to live. Mushrooms, trees, grass, malaria parasites, bacteria and everything else. There exists no law in nature that forces us to respect that will to live.
If we show any mercy at all is just because we have decided not to become monsters. Monsters tend to be ganged up upon and destroyed so it is a good choice not to become one.
If you try to coerce people into giving up their favorite food you will be correctly identified as a tyrannical monster and you will be treated accordingly.

Desire to live is the word I'm using, that requires consciousness, when you say bacteria desire to live you obviously don't mean the bacteria thinks to itself "I want to live" or has a conscious, subjective experience of wanting to live. If for some reason that is what you mean then the burden of evidence is on you to make the case for bacteria consciousness just as I have done for animals, and good luck with that.

I never said there is a natural law that makes us have to respect the ability to desire to live, I said ethics is manifestly concerned with the ability to desire to live. Ethics only exists in relation to beings that have that ability.

You are very far from convincing me that a lobster is more able to desire to live than a bacteria. Or that a cow can consciously desire anything for that matter. Or that I have any obligation to give a shit if they can.

Convince you, personally? You're asking me to do the impossible, you have too much cognitive dissonance to be convinced in this case. Know how I can tell? Because you misconstrue my clear arguments at Cathy Newman frequency, and argue with the stupid versions of what I say, and when I correct you and try to make myself clear, do you then address the real argument? No, you either misconstrue another point or say, "You haven't convinced me" and "Why should I give a shit?"

Here's a hint, the last ten pages is filled with reasoned, logical arguments for why cow's have sentience, and why that should matter to anyone concerned about ethics. You may not agree, but you cannot deny that I have made a reasoned, logically consistent case.

[JohnDonne]

Why is there a difference between a coma patient who might regain consciousness and a fetus who almost certainly will get it?
If potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness you can't be pro choice.

I never said potential consciousness is as valuable as active consciousness, I said the ability to have consciousness is.

The fetus is different than a coma patient because it doesn't have the ability which comes with the basic structures, it merely has the potential to develop those structures, a potential consciousness, and worrying about potential consciousness isn't going to work because potential consciousness is all over the place. Every woman I haven't had unprotected sex with represents a potential consciousness that was denied existence.

We don't owe anything to persons that don't exist and will never exist, and if they're aborted before they exist, they'll never exist. Sounds callous, but in principle it's the same as denying all those future persons an existence by not devoting every waking second to procreation

I see no qualifying difference between the ability to gain or to regain consciousness. I do however find it unsurprising that a Marxist ideologue sounds callous, bordering to murderous. Same as it always was.

A person that falls alseep and wakes up regains consciousness. All the sperm cells in every person's nuts have the potential to gain consciousness. You don't see the difference between those two things ethically and you call me an ideologue?

[Hastur]

You have no idea what my position is because you never bothered to ask. To you, I'm just some meaningless person who is to be coerced into some universal all-encompassing "ethics" that you dreamed up in your dorm room.
I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to coerce me. You can go on and live your life as you choose. I don't see any harm in it. But you don't get to force me into following your unnatural diet.

[JohnDonne]

You have no idea what my position is because you never bothered to ask. To you, I'm just some meaningless person who is to be coerced into some universal all-encompassing "ethics" that you dreamed up in your dorm room.
I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to coerce me. You can go on and live your life as you choose. I don't see any harm in it. But you don't get to force me into following your unnatural diet.

You don't see harm in the vegan lifestyle, that's good, unfortunately the vegan point of view by its nature sees harm in animal slaughter, so it's not a live and let live philosophy, as I keep saying.

You may feel that by arguing with me you're being threatened with coercion, but the fact is a law prohibiting murder is coercive in the exact same way that a hypothetical law prohibiting animal slaughter would be coercive. You are happy to coerce your fellow citizens into respecting the rights of human people. In the same way I would welcome legislation coercing humans to not harm animals. So you are wrong to say you can't be forced to not harm animals, such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

[Hastur]

You have no idea what my position is because you never bothered to ask. To you, I'm just some meaningless person who is to be coerced into some universal all-encompassing "ethics" that you dreamed up in your dorm room.
I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to coerce me. You can go on and live your life as you choose. I don't see any harm in it. But you don't get to force me into following your unnatural diet.

You don't see harm in the vegan lifestyle, that's good, unfortunately the vegan point of view by its nature sees harm in animal slaughter, so it's not a live and let live philosophy, as I keep saying.

You may feel that by arguing with me you're being threatened with coercion, but the fact is a law prohibiting murder is coercive in the exact same way that a hypothetical law prohibiting animal slaughter would be coercive. You are happy to coerce your fellow citizens into respecting the rights of human people. In the same way I would welcome legislation coercing humans to not harm animals. So you are wrong to say you can't be forced to not harm animals, such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

It won't happen. It would also be unnatural and thereby immoral for a hypothetical majority of vegans to force the rest of us to join their cult.