 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 15:34:33 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Keath Cole
E-mail: keathcole(at)gmail.com
Incidentally, that "ditzy vegan girl" used to hang out in the Objectivist IRC channel #geekspeak in the 90's under the name "madelaine". |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 16:21:24 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rn(at)freetheanimal.com
URL: http://freetheanimal.com
Thanks for the shout Diana.
It's great to have a professional looking after me. While I'm familiar with most phil phallacies (get it?), I had never heard of that one.
...And, you just keep on getting hotter, you. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 16:24:51 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Keath -- No way! It's a small world -- and not always in a good way. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 16:54:29 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Is this "doctrine of double effect" distinct from the garden-variety "the ends justifies the means" sort of thing, or a species thereof? |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 17:51:19 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://freetheanimal.com
Ha! Diana knows about my past "small world."
We should maybe keep that between you and I, Diana. :)
Oh, what the hell... Any of you recall "Neo-Tech" back on APO, the impetus for HPO?
I was "Nicholas Rich."
Heh. ...I'm better now, although there's values I retain. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 18:49:25 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Keath Cole
E-mail: keathcole(at)gmail.com
Richard: WOW! Such a blast from the past! Glad you recovered. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 20:54:29 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: madmax
Whatever happened to Neo-Tech. I still have the commercial biological immortality gift certificate, good for when Zon conquers to universe. Is it still good? |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 21:23:42 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Lemuel
E-mail: synthesist(at)ymail.com
Someone is playing guitar off-camera.
At first I thought it was me, moaning in pain listening to this twit ... |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 23:10:40 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Wow, "Nicholas Rich," I actually do remember the APO days and the "topic that shall not be discussed" on HPO. I miss the glory days of HPO, but something tells me "ditzy vegan girl" doesn't (or has no idea what we're talking about). |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 3:16:39 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: rrlv_frsh
This particular vegan clearly promulgates nonsense -- claiming that it's ok to kill animals reluctantly if necessary for humans to survive, but not ok to eat the animals.
There are, however, other grounds on which to advocate a vegan nutritional regimen -- nutritional grounds rather than political or religious grounds. In fact, even serious meat eaters increasingly advocate avoidance of store-bought, packaged meats from animals that lived their lives in squalid captivity and were fed highly fattening carbohydrates, antibiotics, who knows what other edible and inedible junk.
Serious nutrition-oriented vegan advocates likewise recogize the harmfulness of highly refined, concentrated starches and sugars -- choosing instead to get most of their essential energy calories from natural, far less highly refined starches.
There is actually more agreement than disagreement between nutrition-based vegans and nutrition-based meat eaters. Both sides agree on the nutritional harmfulness of both refined carbs and typical store-bought meats. The main point of disagreement from meat eaters is whether or not natural starches really differ from more highly refined starches and sugars in their nutritional effects, and vegans probably tend to see little benefit in meat from wide-roaming, wild animals eating a great variety of naturally growing plants, as compared to meat from confined ranch animals. (The vegans' view is often based largely on ill-founded concerns about fat consumption.)
I have been quite amazed recently to find that switching to home-made wheat bread instead of the store-bought kind has resulted in an unexpected weight loss of several pounds for me, despite the very filling portion sizes that I consume. I had read that store-bought bread, even whole wheat bread, can be bad because of the added sugar, but now I've seen it for myself. The near total absence of added sugar in my own bread really does seem to make a big difference. (I still use about one teaspoon of Maple syrup for 5 cups of stone-ground whole wheat flour, to provide essential activation for the yeast. It also gives the bread an interesting hint of Maple flavoring. Except for a packet of yeast and 6 ml of Maple syrup dissolved in 2.5 cups of water, my bread is nothing but flour and water, in an easy-to-remember 2:1 ratio.)
|
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 9:23:52 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://freetheanimal.com
"Whatever happened to Neo-Tech."
Wallace Ward, its founder, was killed a couple of years back while jogging in Las Vegas. Hit by a car that ran a light or stop sign.
At any rate, thats all long behind me and I only brought it up for a bit of a chuckle, and now that's all I'll say. :) |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 9:25:19 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://freetheanimal.com
Oh, BTW, I had another vegan post on the heals of the one Diana linked, this one in answer to a troll.
http://freetheanimal.com/2009/11/vegan-trolls.html |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 9:49:50 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Anthony R
Neo-Tech...Wow. I can see my Neo-Tech II Manuscript for the Neo-Tech Discovery on my bookshelf from here. It is one of my most prized possessions only because it introduced me to Objectivism and Ayn Rand. It was around 1999 when the "Secret Society" recruiting letter came (Dr. Wallace was calling it Novus-Tech at that time unless it was a copycat). Of course I faxed my acceptance letter and received the offer to buy the book or package for $200.00 or so. I wasn't paying that without doing my research and in the process of said research I found the book I own now on eBay for $10.00. I actually wish I paid full price simply because I now see it as fair value, but I let other things get in the way of educating myself. The best thing I ever did was to pickup the material again and check Wallace's sources. :) |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 19:35:16 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Antonio
E-mail: arb5150(at)gmail.com
How is this principle different from saying that the killing of the innocent to achieve a good end, self defense, is justified? I have no doubts that this principle is justified; I just wonder why the principle of double effect should not be considered an instance of the same principle. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 23:54:22 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: rrlv_frsh
Comment #14: "How is this principle [doctrine of double effect] different from saying that the killing of the innocent to achieve a good end, self defense, is justified? I have no doubts that this principle is justified; I just wonder why the principle of double effect should not be considered an instance of the same principle."
To my knowledge, the killing of innocents is never within the justified scope of self-defense, except in the particular case of war. And even there it is justified only if there is no other way to crush the enemy. The justification is exactly that -- war often allows no other alternative. It is inherent in the nature of war that innocents often die. Furthermore, there are many so-called "innocents" who nevertheless do play some role in supporting and aiding the enemy regime, even if only by continuing voluntarily to remain part of the aggressor country.
Again, all of this is only a particular case within the general principle of self-defense, not an entire principle that it's ok to kill innocents in order to defend oneself. It is only the context of war that gives the killing of innocents any validity or unavoidability.
Also, my understanding of the doctrine of double effect (from Diana's description) is that it arises in the context of altruism -- the sacrifice of some for the alleged "good" of many others. That is not what self-defense is, even in wartime. War, for a rational society, is about stopping the sacrifice of the victims by foreign invaders, not perpetuating sacrifice with only a change of victims and beneficiaries.
|
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 0:28:59 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
You were Nicholas Rich? Wow, it IS a small world. I was part of the email discussion with Jason Kuznicki that led to the establishment of h.p.o.... that IS a blast from the past.
Regarding Wallace Ward, well, jogging in Las Vegas could be considered as asking for it... when I lived here the first time, I saw someone on the Strip decide he didn't care to be stuck behind someone sitting in the right lane at a red light, waiting to go straight (on Sahara, crossing Las Vegas boulevard westbound), so he drove his minivan up on the sidewalk and steered through the surprised tourists onto the Boulevard going north.
After that, when talking to my mom back in Canada, I said to her that the difference between drivers in Vegas versus Toronto, is that in Toronto, it only seems like they are trying to kill you. In Vegas, they *are*. |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 13:25:03 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: temp
I disagree that this is an example of the power of philosophy. It seems better summarized as an example of poor reasoning. Aquinas used to to rationalize killing in self-defense; Ditzy-Vegan used to to rationalize killing to eat veggies. Calling it an example of philosophy implies the primary action was Aquinas's philosophy influencing Ditzy-Vegan's philosophy. Instead, calling it an example of poor reasoning implies the fallacious thinking occurred independently in each case, which seems more plausible (and better arms us to avoid poor reasoning). |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
