Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    JoelMahon

    + friends - friends
    5,539 link karma
    90,357 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 1 points ago in DebateAVegan

    Ok well when either of you can name a set of traits that validates not eating humans but eating animals I'll be here.

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 1 points ago in DebateAVegan

    But he didn't say he would add other traits! You're making a steel man for him.

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 1 points ago in DebateAVegan

    This bit seems fine to me.

    I would just want to see how he tackles other areas , like the ones you mentioned (babies etc).

    It's not fine BECAUSE it doesn't account for babies etc. That's why vegan NTT is such a strong argument/thought experiment. The notion falls flat because he plans to use our trait for moral responsibility in our vegan NTT, but not all humans are morally responsible so obviously it won't work unless cannibalism is acceptable in his eyes.

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 2 points ago in DebateAVegan

    then under vegan morality we should treat animals as morally responsible for their actions, and try to stop them from eating meat themselves.

    OP literally says that in his post, how is that not convincing you? I'm not saying he says we should do that, I'm saying that's the hypocrisy he'd call out if we named a trait that included animals.

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 2 points ago in DebateAVegan

    As to your scenario with the ginger hair. I would want to know their reasons to see if I am inclined to agree with them based on my own preferences. Would you propose a different method of justification?

    No that sounds fine, as long as those reasons are consistent with their other views/actions.


    By the second part of your comment do you mean how will we stop people from eating babies? If it is then I think we have that one sorted already.

    What? No, OP said whatever trait we name for moral responsibility he'd use in our NTT argument, and if we can't name a trait then he'd point out our hypocrisy for not stopping animals eating meat.

    I pointed out how flawed that was because if someone named some mental test, like an IQ test, or empathy test, etc. Babies and coma patients would likely fail it, which means OP would be claiming they have no problem with people eating them, because that's what NTT is, picking a trait that decides what is ethical to eat and not, and as I said before since not humans have moral responsibility it is inevitable that all answers here will be unsuitable for the vegan NTT, unless ofc you don't mind eating babies and the mentally disabled, or even just sedated.

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 2 points ago in DebateAVegan

    How does one go about justifying a trait that gives moral value? I can only imagine some version of how we feel (like intuition). Why accept anyone else’s account of morality unless it aligns with our own feelings?

    So if someone told you they believed having ginger hair made someone more deserving to die you wouldn't want ANY justification? But either way the second part of my comment is the more significant part that can't be hand waved with "just my opinion man".

    [–] A name the trait game against veganism. JoelMahon 7 points ago in DebateAVegan

    If you can name such a trait, I'd immediately use it as the trait differentiating humans from animal in the standard version of NTT.

    So you out right imply you'll answer the NTT argument by vegans with whatever can "gotcha" whether you believe it or not? That's pretty scummy.

    You need to justify why the trait you pick is a valid reason anyway, and worse than that...


    If someone says "understanding" here, you say "understanding" for the other NTT, then we say that means you'll eat babies/people in a vegetative state.

    You see how that's a problem? We don't hold all humans morally accountable, yet you want to use the trait we name to validate not eating any humans whilst also eating animals, that could simply never work even if we let you pick a trait with no justification.

    [–] Reno Jackson’s arch nemesis! JoelMahon 3 points ago in customhearthstone

    whoops, see adding 4 and 3 is hard yo

    [–] Reaction to Bowserette JoelMahon 23 points ago in minus8

    I hope he doesn't feel like this deep down, everyone gets negative obtrusive thoughts on how they're not good enough from time to time, but I'd hate to see any artists let alone such a beloved artist feel it sincerely.

    [–] Reno Jackson’s arch nemesis! JoelMahon 2 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in customhearthstone

    And with blood bloom you could nether for 8 hp first, hellfire for 5 7, etc, etc. Very cool concept but way too strong.

    [–] CMV: in criminal trials, the defendants identity should be completely hidden from the public, jury, and judge to prevent racial, gender, and class bias. JoelMahon 5 points ago in changemyview

    A jury will still have less bias, gay people exist, and they will over estimate the odds because most people think male teachers are like 10x more likely to rape students.

    Personally I'd require the prosecution was also anonymous.

    [–] Iceland has recently proposed a ban on circumcision. How would you feel about this in your own country? JoelMahon 2 points ago in AskReddit

    I don't agree with moral relativism, if I had examples I would agree, but I can give examples of stuff that was considered moral at one point: anti homosexuality, slavery, etc. But you know these already so not sure why you need me to tell you them.

    [–] Iceland has recently proposed a ban on circumcision. How would you feel about this in your own country? JoelMahon -1 points ago in AskReddit

    No, that's not moral relativism, rude gestures aren't bad simply because of the gesture, they're bad because of the rudeness, which is constantly seen as bad across all cultures I've seen. Similar can be said about your other examples.

    [–] That took a turn JoelMahon -6 points ago in insanepeoplefacebook

    Just to note, this isn't super common, the benefits of circumcision are still out weighed by the cons, and even those who disagree can't muster up enough evidence to justify violating body autonomy.

    [–] Please be gentle JoelMahon 3 points ago in Animemes

    Pretty sure this one originated here, maybe you missed it.

    [–] Please be gentle JoelMahon 34 points ago in Animemes

    I mean it's literally written that reaction images are for weekends only, if you posted that on the weekend then yeah mods fucked up.

    Also it is a filthy repost anyway you whore.

    [–] A Study about the Environmental Impact of various diets according to an Italian study JoelMahon 6 points ago in DebateAVegan

    Pretty sure the 6-8x figures refer to individual foods, most omni food is made mostly of vegan ingredients, hence the smaller gap.

    [–] furry_irl JoelMahon 2 points ago in furry_irl

    Mods: Oi oi oi, is that RP in the comments? That's a ban for you son.

    [–] yao momo JoelMahon 3 points ago in Animemes

    *Motaro Kumo

    [–] Daughter of a dairy farmer. JoelMahon 7 points ago in vegan

    bUt tHinGs ArEn't LIke tHaT aNymoRE

    [–] I'm a Catholic Bishop and Philosopher Who Loves Dialoguing with Atheists and Agnostics Online. AMA! JoelMahon 1 points ago in IAmA

    But the decision could arbitrarily be reversed tomorrow, so it doesn't even reflect a fixed preference or really anything fixed about me at all.

    Why does being variable indicate free will?

    From an evolutionary standpoint, this is actually a reasonable conclusion. Maximizing an outcome is a very time consuming process and a cognitive distraction. Arriving at a "good enough" decision quickly can be more advantageous than arriving at the best decision painstakingly. When you are attacked by a tiger, you need an escape route.

    You literally just described making a optimised decision, the optimal decision in this case took into account the time taken to make the decision, that doesn't change the fact of what it was.

    I am saying I could face the same choice as before, where there was no obvious decision, and end up with a different choice

    And because something is too complex to calculate yet or random means it has free will? Remember you're trying to justify why some people go to heaven and not others if we go back 20 comments, how do either of those justify going to heaven or not?

    Your hypothetical is not the same choice as before. It sounds like you are trying to construct a hypothetical where the choice is so obvious that free will is no longer a factor.

    Because you said you choose your preferences of preferences, which now you said "well not really" at the top of this comment, the whole point was to point out how absurd it was to claim you choose what you prefer by giving an example where it was obvious you couldn't choose what you prefer despite the fact that if it was possible you could, ergo you can't.


    All your stuff seems to be confusing random with free will, you use "choosing freely" as a synonym for "picking randomly" (which btw I still know was almost completely deterministic even if subconscious) or some variation all the time. If you believe random chance should decide goes to heaven or not, then we fundamentally disagree and might as well halt the discussion if that's what you do think. Like you even admit it was arbitrary.