Why vegans are simply better people

[Belz...]

Does Dessi have me on ignore ?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Does Dessi have me on ignore ?

Nah, she's got too much class for that. I think Dessi is working her way through responders A to Z, then Z to A. She responded to me, so I think you may be next.

 

[ConspiRaider]

And, with apologies for being flippant: If, by some improbable chance, it turns out that the doom-mongers are right and I find myself on 22 December this year amongst a small group of survivors of a world-ending event, I hope that this group includes someone who can catch and kill something edible, and build a fire!

Even now, Susan, I am feeding Fish Hormone Factor 36 to a population of spotted stinkfish here in Lake Erie. When the end comes, we will build a fire, prepare a large barbie and 15 minutes later the stinkfish will LEAP out of the lake and into the grill. And there will be much rejoicing.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I think the problem is "if a group holds to strict ideals" is a drastically oversimplified view of the animal rights community. There's no single set of "strict ideals" or even necessarily a single core philosophy underlying the animal rights movement. The fact of the matter is that the "strict ideals" I hold, especially my fondness for Singer, are nowhere near universal; there are plenty of people who take inspiration from entirely different schools of thought, like Tom Regan's rights based approach, Francione's legal perspective, Gruen's feminist/care-based view, or something completely novel and different.

Most of the time, when animal rights activists don't like my answer to the burning building question, they simply disagree with my particular answer and reasoning, not the animal rights cause wholesale.

Burning building questions, for that matter, are hard. As are many other dilemmas, like whether to divert a train heading toward 5 people standing on a track into the path of one person instead, whether its advisable to use torture to locate a ticking time bomb, all the different variations of lifeboat ethics. Ask 10 different people any flavor of those questions, you'll get 11 different philosophical schools of thought, at least 3 people who say that an actual burning building is an emergency not an ethical dilemma, and at least another 5 people who say you're damned no matter what you do.

Who can say, Big D. A failing of all people is our tendency to reduce things down, and generalize. A strategy born of the overwhelming complexity blasted at us across a spectrum of issues from here to yar. "The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know" and those types of statements.

To this point, strenuous support for the concept that rights concerning humans and other animals are indivisible and indistinguishable - this is generally perceived as radical by the majority of humanity. In my opinion, at least, but if you look at what we're doing, it seems to bear out.

 

[RandFan]

Bah. I waded in here purely to squabble, and you're forcing me to think about what my point is, if I actually have one.

I suppose the problem I see is that Dessi is framing a pure abstraction - animals deserve the same moral consideration as people - rather than a moral value like compassion for the suffering of animals. From what I have seen over the decades, values can support useful activities in an imperfect world (e.g., the Humane Society), whereas pure abstractions lead to rigid thinking and ill will (e.g., PETA).

Yeah, I see that point.

I'm watching the lectures... $100k to eat a worm??? I think I'd take that dare for about $50.

Me too.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Even now, Susan, I am feeding Fish Hormone Factor 36 to a population of spotted stinkfish here in Lake Erie. When the end comes, we will build a fire, prepare a large barbie and 15 minutes later the stinkfish will LEAP out of the lake and into the grill. And there will be much rejoicing.

Excellent!

Hm,mmm! thought I'd better take a look at wikipedia info on said fish. I just wonder whether lake varieties are, in fact, edible?!

 

[The Big Dog]

I also note you only objected to my two analogies, yet dismissed my entire post and insulted vegans. This is closer to a fallacy, I think .

My recollection, and no I'm not going back to check, was that they were the first two analogies.

Around here, champ, we have a saying, one you hit the sewer line, stop digging. If your suggestion is that there was a diamond ring hidden in that bull ****, you'll just have to forgive me for not wading in deeper.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My recollection, and no I'm not going back to check, was that they were the first two analogies.

Around here, champ, we have a saying, one you hit the sewer line, stop digging. If your suggestion is that there was a diamond ring hidden in that bull ****, you'll just have to forgive me for not wading in deeper.

Sooo... You're not going to give any explanation for why you think the analogies were strawmen?

 

[dafydd]

The Buddha said that one should adopt any simple diet that suits you. Good advice.

 

[citizenzen]

Sooo... You're not going to give any explanation for why you think the analogies were strawmen?

He's not interested in a discussion ... he's just enjoying the opportunity to put somebody down.

I thought somebody in another thread put it perfectly.

It's anger looking for a target.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sooo... You're not going to give any explanation for why you think the analogies were strawmen?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Seriously, because this entire thread is irritating enough already.

Here is a great definition of the fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of it.

Here is a silly straw man argument:

"1. Survival: A grandma gets in my way at the grocery store so I pepper spray her. But see, those sausages are food which is necessary for my survival!"

Then later you made some silly comparison about "I have to biological capability to sire children. Therefore I am entitled to rape this woman." which is a straw man, an appeal to emotion, false analogy etc.

But I have wasted more than enough time on your defensiveness about what you obviously thought was a clever post. You don't think they were straw man, good for you, sport!

 

[RandFan]

He's not interested in a discussion ... he's just enjoying the opportunity to put somebody down.

I thought somebody in another thread put it perfectly.

It's anger looking for a target.

We are lucky that here at JREF we don't get too much childish nonsense. We do get it but honestly, there is a level of maturity that other sites just don't have. I don't get the allure of just offending people for the sake of it. It's just bullying. Perhaps some people can't afford sports cars.

 

[citizenzen]

We are lucky that here at JREF we don't get too much childish nonsense. We do get it but honestly, there is a level of maturity that other sites just don't have.

I know. That's why I'm here. I've had enough of unmoderated forums where people just call each other idiots (in stronger language).

I'll share a tactic I've decided to never use again: calling someone "blind". We all see things ... differently.* And dismissing people with "straw man" is going to disappear from my repertoire as well. If you can't actually address the points you disagree with, then just let it go. It's almost as bad as people who'll resound to posts with one word, "No." If you're going to engage people in a forum, then take time to engage with them.

Kids these days ... always in such a rush.




*Why yes, I am a squishy, subjective-values liberal.

 

[Belz...]

We are lucky that here at JREF we don't get too much childish nonsense. We do get it but honestly, there is a level of maturity that other sites just don't have.

Which is very impressive, considering how seldom moderators have to intervene.

 

[myowninvention]

Over the years, I eventually concluded that there's no moral distinction between humans and non-human animals whatsoever. I don't even believe there's a distinction between animal rights and human rights -- I view them the exact same thing, two sides of the coin. Animal rights is just a logical extension of the principles that everyone already accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point then. Humans have a great capacity for empathy, as is shown by our being (to my knowledge) the only species to care at all about the welfare of animals outside of our own species, family, herd, etc. We rationalize our actions to help us cope with this empathetic nature. One of the ways we do that is by making distinctions- I believe you agree that the suffering of an ant is not really that worth caring about, while the suffering of an octopus may be more so, and it is very common in our culture to care about the suffering of a dog. These are all distinctions drawn upon species lines: I don't care less for the well being of a rather dim dog then I do for a very intelligent one, because they are both dogs, and I care about dogs. I do care more about a dog, even my neighbors dogs who I'm rather terrified of and really don't like on an individual level, then I do the rats that live in the barn. I have no issue with my cat hunting and eating them. If my cat (as I'm sure she wishes she could) were able to hunt and eat my neighbors dogs, I would have a major problem with that. I have drawn this line along species boundaries. While I don't think I want to make any animal suffer, I value one species over another- quite clearly. I don't think this is something that we can fully rationalize, but I don't think empathy should have to be fully rationalized, or we risk becoming sociopaths. I value a rat's life more then an ant (when my son torched some ants with a magnifying glass, it caused me to wince and tell him not to do that- had he done that to a rat, I would have taken him in for counseling), I value a dog more than a rat, and I value a human life more then any other species.

Perhaps people are more willing to euthanize cats because there is a strong cultural bias ingrained in our culture that animal life isn't as worthwhile as human life. I think times are changing. 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable for pet owners to go to tremendous lengths to help their pets live long and comfortable lives.

Yes, but you'll notice my example did not deal with a beloved pet, with whom someone has spent years bonding, and irrational or not, is very loved by that specific person. Similarly, I chose a human who is not someone's child. It is not how we treat the most loved and wanted that shows how we value a species, but the least. In my example, the unwanted sickly cat is given no chance- and it is, even by most animal rights activists, considered ok. No human rights activist would view the euthanasia of a sickly orphan to be ok.

That's not necessarily true. China implemented a one-child policy on 35% of its population for 20 years to control its incredible population growth. As a result, there exists gender-biased and forced abortions, female infanticide, a gender disparity between males and females in the region, huge financial penalties for having more than one child -- a definite human rights concern. Still, 80% of the Chinese population remains in favor of the one-child policy. I admit to knowing very little about the subject, but overpopulation became a serious problem, what else could you do?

I also don't think we spay and neuter pets because they happen to be animals, but for the sake of population control. Cats reproduce explosively fast, a female can give birth to her first litter of kittens at the age of 5 months (compare that to rabbits who can reproduce as early as 6 months). Ferals cats will reproduce year after year if left to their own devices, they can have a pretty severe impact on the wildlife of other animals.

Remember, humans have a very romantic and idealistic picture of parenthood, a view which (to my knowledge) is not shared by our pets. People voluntarily limit their reproduction by using birth control and condoms, a form of elective population control which is otherwise not accessible or even comprehensible to non-human animals. I think there are good arguments for spaying and neutering pets which may not necessarily carry over to humans.

(Not yet, at least. Unchecked human population growth will inevitably use resources faster than they can be renewed. The resulting in scarcity of drinking water, oil, farmable soil, natural resources required for environmental stability will eventually exceed planet's the carrying capacity of humans.)

Yet the situation in china is not looked upon as a good and humane solution to over population- many human rights activists have spent a large amount of time both exposing and fighting against this policy and it's results. And even this stops quite short of surgically removing the sex organs of people to stop them from breeding. I know of almost no animal rights activists who are against neutering and spaying of pets. We simply don't think that it is cruel to do to an animal-perhaps because of the reasons you mention- but again it is a line drawn between what treatment is ok for humans, and what is ok for animals.

I think this is basically the argument for speciesism. I think if we accept speciesism as a normal part of our decision making, we'd be hard-pressed to come up with arguments against racists appealing to racism or sexists appealing to sexism for the exact same reasons. Speciesism is a hot-button topic in the animal rights community, I think most of us regard it as an out-dated form of tribalism, perhaps some day the expanding circle will regard animals and mentally similar humans as moral equals.

I think, again, we're just going to have to disagree here. I think it's perfectly possible to distinguish between the value of a human and an animal life without, forgive the phrase, sliding down the slippery slope into racism or sexism. Forgive me, but this argument reminds me of one used against gay marriage- where if we say that it is ok for a gay couple to get married, we can use the same logic to say that polygamy is ok, or pedophilia, or bestiality. We are capable of making one distinction without automatically accepting every somewhat similar or related argument.

 

[RandFan]

I know. That's why I'm here. I've had enough of unmoderated forums where people just call each other idiots (in stronger language).

I'll share a tactic I've decided to never use again: calling someone "blind". We all see things ... differently.* And dismissing people with "straw man" is going to disappear from my repertoire as well. If you can't actually address the points you disagree with, then just let it go. It's almost as bad as people who'll resound to posts with one word, "No." If you're going to engage people in a forum, then take time to engage with them.

Kids these days ... always in such a rush.

Some great points. Yeah. I've cut back on spotting fallacies in general but it's hard. I think a great strategy would be to follow the principle of charity. I'm trying to view my time here as a contributor and one who is seeking knowledge. Not to score flame points or win a debate. Still, sometimes I feel the need to be snarky. I'm a work in progress.

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation.

 

[RandFan]

Which is very impressive, considering how seldom moderators have to intervene.

I was at first against moderation but now I see its value. Having been carded, warned and had posts moved I've had to work harder to make better posts.

 

[citizenzen]

I think a great strategy would be to follow the principle of charity. I'm trying to view my time here as a contributor and one who is seeking knowledge. Not to score flame points or win a debate. Still, sometimes I feel the need to be snarky. I'm a work in progress.

The best part about growing older is the more you value charity. But alas, I am also a work in progress, and can't help but insert as much snark as I subtly (or not so subtly) can.

 

[Tricky]

Please keep it on topic, folks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Dessi]

Dessi, I'd like an answer to at least some of my points, please.

Oh, I have several posts waiting for your answers or comments.

Does Dessi have me on ignore ?

I'm not inclined to respond to people* who just want to get a rise out of me, other people write more interesting posts.

* For the most part.