Humans Are Livestock

[Carleas]

This is the discussion thread for the debate between HaHaHa and Carleas on the claim, "Humans are livestock"

Challenge
Debate

[Moreno]

An equivocation?
LIke humans are sheep, shifted up in abstraction to the broader category that no longer has the connotations of the more specific species chosen?
Or?

[Ecmandu]

We already know humans are slaves, to cats and dogs, who actually run the world ... I guess you could stretch that to livestock!

Actually, the whole meaning of life is plastic... We're just the conduits!

[iambiguous]

This sort of thing reminds me of documentaries on the Science Channel in which from a helicopter we see hundreds and hundreds of men and women scurrying about on the streets of one or another Big City.

Then the scene shifts to hundreds and hundreds of ants scurrying about on a path in one or another Big Forest.

And thus we are left to ponder: How are we the same or different from the ants?

[Ecmandu]

Ooo... Carleas posted!

This is funny because it's a REALLY hard debate for both sides... Obviously I can't comment though!

[AutSider]

Lame. 200-300 word posts? That's a conversation, not a debate.

Also, Carleas's opening post is weak. It implies that, somehow, animals are determined in entirety while humans posses free-will, despite the numerous biological similarities, real life examples, and everything in the universe being governed by the same natural laws, making claims of free will absurd and Carleas's position that both free-will and determinism are at work inconsistent.

If HaHaHa knows what he's doing, he should be able to easily exploit this, especially the idea that humans are agents acting out of free-will despite the very apparent social conditioning going on.

[Ecmandu]

??? I thought comments to debates weren't allowed to discuss the strategies of the debate until it was done, only in retrospect ... Or just in very vague terms.

[Amorphos]

Lame. 200-300 word posts? That's a conversation, not a debate.

If you have to use more than a paragraph or two, then you are probably saying more than one thing. It is imho far more constructive to stick to specific points and deal with them, all to often long ass posts go round in circles and never reach a resolution.

ants/humans are a perspective, I mean, what do they expect us to do, start walking into things so we don't form patterns?

there's me, brain the size of a planet, being a car park attendant until the end of the universe - paranoid android from hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy.

in other words, you can't judge humans/androids/ants by their tasks.

– if god came to earth and went around for a while picking up sticks and leaves, and placing them somewhere else, would that make him an ant?

[Ecmandu]

Well... Hahaha replied, and ... He's not debating the op...

*shrug*

I'm not conceding the debate... But I just exactly conceded the debate!!

This reminds me of rabid subjectivism ... It's subjective that things are subjective, oh I guess that means they're objective, but how can you lose a debate when you argue everything at once right?

Hahaha, is well known for this technique as are many others on this board ... If I argue every side at once, I can't lose the side I was arguing!

[gib]

LIke humans are sheep, shifted up in abstraction to the broader category that no longer has the connotations of the more specific species chosen?

Yes, a metaphor.

We already know humans are slaves, to cats and dogs, who actually run the world ...

If HaHaHa knows what he's doing, he should be able to easily exploit this, especially the idea that humans are agents acting out of free-will despite the very apparent social conditioning going on.

You're giving him ideas, man. Not that he wouldn't recognize this weak spot in Carleas's argument on his own, but talking about what angles one or the other contenders could make in a debate is like watching a couple guys play chess and blurting out: you know, he could move his rook and take out the queen.

??? I thought comments to debates weren't allowed to discuss the strategies of the debate until it was done, only in retrospect ... Or just in very vague terms.

Hahaha, is well known for this technique as are many others on this board ... If I argue every side at once, I can't lose the side I was arguing!

How is Joker arguing every side?

[Moreno]

Livestock is to wild ancestor
as
Citizen in Western society is to _______________

and here you have to at least have some ideal, either tribal member, pagan, feral child, or a post-collapse ideal.

Then you create a list of analogies using characteristics of livestock as opposed to wild bison, say, and then running with the analogy with human counterparts.

It must have at least some merit as an analogy. Human raised in a Western society obviously have undergone some transformations that are analogous.

Interestingly, however, some wild ancestors of livestock have strong communities. Some do not.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So, have I won the debate yet?

[Carleas]

I've got three days bruh, I'll meet the deadline.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I've got three days bruh, I'll meet the deadline.

Alright, just checking.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The debate is over?

[Carleas]

7 posts, as agreed. Thanks for the debate, HaHaHa.

Also, Carleas's opening post is weak. It implies that, somehow, animals are determined in entirety while humans posses free-will, despite the numerous biological similarities, real life examples, and everything in the universe being governed by the same natural laws, making claims of free will absurd and Carleas's position that both free-will and determinism are at work inconsistent.

I agree my opening was weak. I'd have preferred not to open; since I was taking the negative position, opening meant I had to make some of HaHaHa's case in order to properly make my own. But even given that constraint, I think Moreno's analogy method is much stronger:

Livestock is to wild ancestor
as
Citizen in Western society is to _______________

And it wasn't my intention to discuss free will, which is what I intended to convey with the rocks-captive-in-a-gravity-well argument: if there's no free will, and that's all we're talking about, we're no more or less livestock than a rock or the 'farmers'. Again, I think an approach like Moreno's would have been stronger, though I also think the existence of actual human livestock is pretty compelling:
Livestock is to wild ancestor
as
Actual human livestock in chattel slavery is to average citizen in Western society.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I hope my analysis of the whole thing was clear and concise. It was a train of thought as I read each response, reading and writing down as I read. I decided not to read the whole thing until it was over - to not get any preconceived judgment on the matter. If I was unclear anywhere feel free to ask~

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I think the limitations of this debate is why you would favor Carleas over me. His four posts against my three. Had I been allowed one more post I could of totally blown Carleas out of the water with what I view as ridiculous assertions by him.

This is my first confined internet philosophical debate with somebody one on one where it should be publicly noted for the record.

Next time I debate publicly I will not agree to such egregious limitations and confines of such a debate giving the opposition free reign or favorability. If Carleas is indeed the winner I view it as nothing more than a win by default and certainly not that by wit or reasoning.

[Carleas]

Thorough and informative, WW_III. I agree with both you and Hahaha that having the opening and closing was a significant advantage, and it turned out to be a greater advantage than I expected due to overly-constrained post length. I also benefited from the short post length because of the style of Hahaha's responses: I ended up ignoring all his requests for additional proof, but not before trying to squeeze proof into the 300 word cap. If I'd had the space to answer Hahaha's requests, I may have had enough rope to hang myself. Longer posts would make more sense.

And, as I've said before, I think Hahaha should have opened, I was arguing the negative which is already the easier side in a debate.

One thing that surprised me was that you didn't find Hahaha's sarcasm effective. It probably has to do with a difference of perspective, but as the recipient of it, I found it among the more threatening points he made. While the rest of his points only provoked an intellectual response, sarcasm is aimed at provoking an emotional response, and again, given enough rope I may have fallen for it. As a rhetorical device, though, I can see it being not so persuasive as it is dismissive.

Thanks for the opportunity, Hahaha. Sorry that the format ended up putting you at a disadvantage; the character limit was too low to really get things going.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Thorough and informative, WW_III. I agree with both you and Hahaha that having the opening and closing was a significant advantage, and it turned out to be a greater advantage than I expected due to overly-constrained post length. I also benefited from the short post length because of the style of Hahaha's responses: I ended up ignoring all his requests for additional proof, but not before trying to squeeze proof into the 300 word cap. If I'd had the space to answer Hahaha's requests, I may have had enough rope to hang myself. Longer posts would make more sense.

And, as I've said before, I think Hahaha should have opened, I was arguing the negative which is already the easier side in a debate.

One thing that surprised me was that you didn't find Hahaha's sarcasm effective. It probably has to do with a difference of perspective, but as the recipient of it, I found it among the more threatening points he made. While the rest of his points only provoked an intellectual response, sarcasm is aimed at provoking an emotional response, and again, given enough rope I may have fallen for it. As a rhetorical device, though, I can see it being not so persuasive as it is dismissive.

Thanks for the opportunity, Hahaha. Sorry that the format ended up putting you at a disadvantage; the character limit was too low to really get things going.

If you're much of a sport I want a rematch on the debate with less limitations and constraints. No significant disadvantages next round.

[Carleas]

I accept your rematch, though not on the same topic and not for a few weeks. Maybe towards the end of April?

And definitely with different constraints.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Thorough and informative, WW_III. I agree with both you and Hahaha that having the opening and closing was a significant advantage, and it turned out to be a greater advantage than I expected due to overly-constrained post length. I also benefited from the short post length because of the style of Hahaha's responses: I ended up ignoring all his requests for additional proof, but not before trying to squeeze proof into the 300 word cap. If I'd had the space to answer Hahaha's requests, I may have had enough rope to hang myself. Longer posts would make more sense.

And, as I've said before, I think Hahaha should have opened, I was arguing the negative which is already the easier side in a debate.

One thing that surprised me was that you didn't find Hahaha's sarcasm effective. It probably has to do with a difference of perspective, but as the recipient of it, I found it among the more threatening points he made. While the rest of his points only provoked an intellectual response, sarcasm is aimed at provoking an emotional response, and again, given enough rope I may have fallen for it. As a rhetorical device, though, I can see it being not so persuasive as it is dismissive.

Thanks for the opportunity, Hahaha. Sorry that the format ended up putting you at a disadvantage; the character limit was too low to really get things going.

Thanks all,

Yes on the sarcasm note - I think we all knew where Hahaha was coming from there. Now as to judge a debate though impartially I cannot assume to know what Hahaha meant. That being, I can't provide his reason without him telling the reason - to be impartial I must look at the topic from somewhat of a clean of a slate as possible in order to judge ones responses as effective and reasonable instead of assuming to know why certain responses went the way they did. So I was looking for reason to back up every claim, not to assume to know the reason. I find it interesting that you did find the sarcasm threatening, which probably anyone would in a debate.. but I as an "impartial" judge I wanted his sarcasm backed up with clear concise reason, not just left at sarcasm, for the sake of debate.

So I did my best to judge based on reason, a little bit on form of course, but primarily who made the most effective argument. I found that Hahaha asked questions, leaving it open for you - and you in turn did ignore his requests for proof. However - I felt that it was a slipperly slope to "prove" things to someone who disagrees in a debate in so much as you already provided reason of sorts to back up those claims - but to elaborate further would lead to possibly more demands for proof ad infinitum. So in a short debate like this - was looking for Hahaha to back up his opening statement more, but found as much questioning your statements instead of backing up his own, and found that you backed up your statements reasonably well, better so than Hahaha backed up his statements.

I did think probably had an advantage as I was already aware that Carleas had already engaged quite a few debates here already and I have read some of them. Hahahaha I suspect will be able to conduct further debates in a much stronger manner now that he got his first one under his belt.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I think the limitations of this debate is why you would favor Carleas over me. His four posts against my three. Had I been allowed one more post I could of totally blown Carleas out of the water with what I view as ridiculous assertions by him.

This is my first confined internet philosophical debate with somebody one on one where it should be publicly noted for the record.

Next time I debate publicly I will not agree to such egregious limitations and confines of such a debate giving the opposition free reign or favorability. If Carleas is indeed the winner I view it as nothing more than a win by default and certainly not that by wit or reasoning.

I don't know - however your final response left it open for Carleas instead of using it to back your claims. You shouldn't ask questions in your final response of a debate - you should seal your case. Had you done that, perhaps it could've been different - and elaborate more on reasons why you are for the metaphor.

Ultimately I think it was possible to win the debate but the shortness was limiting you as well. You needed longer than 300 word responses to make your case I think.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I accept your rematch, though not on the same topic and not for a few weeks. Maybe towards the end of April?

And definitely with different constraints.

I was proposing a rematch on the same topic as I view our debate incomplete.

Unless you want to keep your win by default.