The scientific method is an example.

That she doesn't eat both but only one of them? How is this consistent?



So what do you do in these kind of situations. Just accept that people have unjustifiable incoherent ex post rationalizations of their creepy-"feelings"? But wouldn't that give an unjustifiable power to "feelings"? Ok, I might see, where this is my problem not my mom's. Just hope, you wanted to say that, because this "feeling" really sucks.

And she thinks that both of them taste yummy? She must be pretty special. I don't know what any foods I don't eat taste like.

Are you trying to convince her to eat your horse goulash?

Wait, what? I am not sure, whether you are playing with me or I did just not make myself clear. I would prefer the first obviously.

a) My mom tasted both meats once and declared them both yummy.
b) She only continued to eat calves.
c) Her reason: "It is mean to eat fawns but not calves" and "I do not have to have a reason".

No, to be a person I can respect? I do not give a **** about what she eats. Just for her reasons for not eating x and eating y.

You were unckear AND I was playing. They are not mutually exclusive.

Her reasons are actually fine. Eating something that can be a potential friend and which seems more intelligent is "mean." It does fall down under close philosophical scrutiny, obviously. What it probably is (assuming that horses are considered food where you are) is that she doesn't care what the cows think.

In the US, you don't eat horse because it isn't food.

You aren't going to find too many people worthy of respect then. I certainly haven't met any that meet your specifications.

Ok, I can accept that.

She does not eat horses either. But then she has a couple of them. She gave some of them too me. I still eat horsemeat. I do not know, whether it is considered food here per se. It is considered to be food for poor people, I guess.

I get that. But it "does fall down under close philosophical scrutiny, obviously" as you said. So why should one accept that? You seemed to be arguing that point, or I am mistaken? So you agree, that close philosophical scrutiny of ex post rationalizations is important?

That one is true. But it maybe is a question of intent in the end. So you agree, that trying for close philosophical scrutiny of your own ex post rationalizations is important?

Good. I can't really help myself.

That would also be an excellent reason to eat or not eat it. If you want to think of yourself as one of those cool people who eat poor people food, for instance.

"Americans don't consider horses to be food, but they do sometimes sit on them" is not a rationalization. It is a statement. I don't know about anyone else, but then reason I don't is because food is what you get from grocery stores and restaurants. There is no horse there, so it isn't food.

If I learn that people in some other place eat horse, I will know that it is food there. If I visit that place I will probably try it because I like trying new things. My woman won't because she is not an adventurous eater.

So, about some of them, yes. Regarding food choices, it is probably difficult to impossible to get from "I don't eat baby humans" to a philosophically justifiable line where you can be confident that any eating at all is consistent.

If you are going to use them to determine how you are going to act, yes. It would be annoying if strictly gay people started attacking straight and bisexual people since we have sex that they consider icky.

So you mean by rational and empirical methods?

My intuition (informed by a decent background in neuropsychology) is that we can. I don't believe in souls or that there is anything otherwise magical going on.

My intuition is also that we will never develop an entirely epistemologically satisfying method of determining that someone/thing is consciously aware. I don't have one for you other than you whine about crap.

I'm glad those were not mentioned yet. Synthetic intuition sounds like a designer drug.

Can "whining" reveal an unknown awareness? When an animal is penetrated it may whine, and this is a clue that an event of a certain quality is occurring. What feedback can whining reveal if we resist developing an unpleasant bias towards it? How can this feedback improve effective responses to whining and help improved accurate causes for whining?

That is almost 50% clever!

Lying is probably a better test, but if you make sad sounds, I presume that you are conscious. I know it can be faked quite easily, but either is convincing.

I would quite easily believe a mechanical man were conscious if it lied despite not being directly programmed to do so.

Hey, sorry it took me so long, but I finally got, what you are saying. And you made it fun, so thank you.

I think, you can make a philosophically justifiable line for not eating human babies but salad. It gets trickier with horses, because usually one ends up with either building space colonies and experimenting on cloned babies or murdering those people, who do so. And then what happens to the clones, who do not have enough money to pay for their travel back to earth? So I am gonna respect the icky thing more in the future, when it comes to food choices. Still not sure about the bestiality thing for non vegetarians though. But icky it shall be for the next 20 minutes.

Missing the point entirely. It's not for "animal rights" that sex with animals should be discouraged or made illegal, but because it is an abomination. No human can remain sane after engaging in such a practice. (although in all likelihood, they were not sane to begin with, if they willingly engaged in such a practice)

The same applies to torturing animals in order to derive pleasure from their pain and fear.

People who engage in these practices should be regarded as mentally insane and dangerous.

Notice that this does not apply to killing animals for food, sport or scientific experiments.

Man that's a sweet coincidence that the stuff you like to do is totally sane and rational and the stuff you don't like to do is an abomination. I find killing animals for sport pretty abominable and many people think killing them for science or even for food is the same. Glad you've drawn that objective line for us though.