Since I've now made a few posts, I suppose I'll introduce myself, although I have always previously skipped forum introductions because I simply don't like describing myself. I wouldn't have necessarily chosen a political post to dive into at first, but that was what was up for discussion and, well, I was just so offended I felt I had to respond I guess I'll start by comparing myself to what other posters have said.

I am female, which may be notable only because it probably differentiates me from the majority of posters on this board. I live in America, in North Carolina. Work-wise, I'm a copywriter and manage websites. I also volunteer a lot of my time for nonprofits and good causes. I guess that makes me an "arty" person like Redcarded. I'm not a scientist, but I keep the company of a lot of them... so a bit of that may have worn off, and I think I'm pretty scientific-minded. Education-wise, like slideyfoot my background is in literature, which I think is good training for pretty much all facets of life because one learns to analyze everything.

Questionable Mark says: "Now, if I don't know someone (and don't know anything about them) then I generally don't care how happy they are."

I generally do care about how happy other people are, probably to my own detriment at times. I also sometimes even care about the happiness of members of other species to my own personal detriment at times, since I live with two chihuahuas I try to keep at a constant level of happiness I am a utilitarian. I would not say I am a negative utilitarian, but I am sympathetic to that view. I enjoy David Pearce's thoughts and writing style, and I think he's just a really cool guy.

Since I jumped in right away discussing politics: Like TraderJoe, I would describe myself as libertarian. I was always independent politically, but overall I used to think that the best way for everyone to be happy was following the general policies put forth by the Democratic Party in the U.S. What can I say-- I was young and hadn't actually educated myself in this realm. The same very scientific, intellectual, convincing person who brought me into the utilitarian fold (and told me about Felicifia) also made me realize that libertarianism holds maximum benefits for the most number of people. I fought against this every step of the way, but eventually had to admit after educating myself on various subjects that intellectually (and realistically), libertarianism is in fact the best way for the most number of people to be happy.

I'm a vegetarian who tries to be vegan as often as possible. Unlike TraderJoe, I think that Peter Singer is right about charitable giving, although I would say that people should donate to Gaverick's cause New Harvest and in vitro meat as the most immediate way that much of the suffering of the world could come to an end. In fact, that's exactly how I believe that much world suffering will be alleviated. On the subject of animal rights, I agree with Peter Singer in his style but with Gary L. Francione on the fact that animals have a moral right not to be killed the same way you or I do.

Like RyanCarey, I also love music (every type), though I like watching basketball more than playing. Like Don Alhambra, I love singing. I enjoy trying new things, meeting new friends, hanging out in coffee shops, and discussing philosophical things (so I guess that's why I'm here, along with learning more about utilitarianism).

Hi BM, welcome to the forum. I'm genuinely sorry to have offended you, but secretly glad that it provoked you enough to get you posting

I think you're right about being the only female here, unfortunately. For whatever reason, it seems like much fewer women than men tend to identify with logical-interest groups.

Re politics, we could agree to differ, but I'd prefer to go further and agree to ignore the subject. To quote Bertrand Russell:

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

Actually I don't think Russell takes it far enough - 1) if all the experts agree on some point of quantum physics then I should do much more than not hold the opposite opinion, I should actively agree with them conditional on them contuining to maintain their consensus, and 2) when they're not agreed, even the experts should be uncertain and ordinary folk should place extremely low credence in their own views.

It depends on the subject, obviously - I think ethics is relatively simple, so it doesn't particularly trouble me that people who proclaim themselves experts disagree. Quantum physics is extremely difficult, so I defer to the experts almost without reserve. And politics has all the complexity of quantum physics magnified over uncountable interactions, yet its so-called experts aren't even required to have a maths degree to proclaim their opinion. So I basically apply principle 2) even more aggressively to my own views than I would with QP, and get constantly frustrated by people who claim significantly greater confidence in any contested policy, still more so when they advocate a whole cluster of them in one go.

Re in vitro meat, I'd love someone who knows about the subject to open a discussion here - I strongly support the idea, but it's not obvious to me that it's a better goal than something like promoting veganism (PDF warning - also insert caveat that I have several reservations about Alan's essay, but very much appreciate his effort to answer the question). Vegetables have the advantage of requiring less resources to produce than meat, and while I imagine in vitro meat will reduce the difference I don't see how it will remove it. Promoting animal awareness seems likely to have knock-on benefits too, like increasing general concern for animal welfare in other contexts.

Incidentally, I'd count myself among the arty types here, so I'm glad to see another one

Hi brightmidnight,
welcome to Felicifia!

Dom tell more about what kind of musicians you listen to!

I notice your comment on Peter Singer. What he says is that he believes we overrate our own right to life but that we underrate animals' claim to life. So he gives us the choice to:
1) giving animals more rights
2) or explaining what makes us so special
3) giving ourselves less rights
(by the way, when I say 'rights', I really only mean the right to have one's suffering and happiness considered)

It sounds like you really like to do 1. But I think there's a place for 2 and 3 as well. We can see that killing a human is especially bad because humans tend to be more reflective and they can become depressed in a more sophisticated way. Even if you thought humans became depressed only in the same way as animals, you'd still have to admit that when humans become depressed they have difficulty getting a job, can make self-destructive decisions, I think.
And then I think there's a place for 3 because we need to reject the idea of santity of life. That's because I consider it to be a silly result of evolution and religion.

You manage websites? Which ones? Do you have any role in designing & writing them? If so, you might be able to contribute to Peter Singer's http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com!

I don't think there's any problem with your first post being an offended response to Arepo's poem. I think people should manage to make their points without making reference to Nazi Germany. edit: I consider myself corrected: the breeding of an Aryan line was nothing to do with nazi germany. However, it's a very clumsy wording.

I'd hate to be accused of Godwinning. If you mean the 'aryan' comment, its etymology stretches back a long way past Mein Kampf.

Why do you think it's clumsy wording, Ryan? It's a term I use in conversation every so often, usually to tease my blonde-haired & blue-eyed friends, which has a healthy life away from Nazi comparisons. While I don't really want to offend people unnecessarily, esp fellow utilitarians, I don't feel accountable for anyone who misconstrues anything they've touched as being associated by them. Would discussing Volkswagen in context be an issue?