Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid....

[Aitch]

I'm not sure I'd characterise it as a tu quoque argument, since my intent wasn't to argue that Aitch was being hypocritical or inconsistent but rather to argue that whether or not animal rights activists are "humourless" or "pompous" has nothing to do with whether they are right.

Bearing in mind that that is not what I said (I said being P&H didn't help your argument)...

"I'm morally wrong and I know it, but at least I'm not humourless and pompous" isn't a stance most people want to take.

Again, not what I was trying to say.

 

[GreNME]

I'm not sure I'd characterise it as a tu quoque argument, since my intent wasn't to argue that Aitch was being hypocritical or inconsistent but rather to argue that whether or not animal rights activists are "humourless" or "pompous" has nothing to do with whether they are right.

No, it doesn't quite qualify as the "you too!" fallacy, but calling it a false analogy falls way short of the sheer arrogance and stupidity of pretending the AR movement is in any way similar to the suffrage or civil rights movements. What you're really doing is a passive-aggressive guilt-by-association game when you do that, somewhat like when Bush compared himself to Chamberlain going into the Iraq War. Unfortunately for you, civil rights and suffrage groups didn't engage in criminal destruction of property, criminal threats, and harassment to achieve their goals, so your analogy falls way short of any accuracy.

"I'm morally wrong and I know it, but at least I'm not humourless and pompous" isn't a stance most people want to take.

Still, it's closer to being a correct use of an argumentative fallacy than most of your recent efforts so I give you one point for trying.

And again you engage in more senseless strawman attacks. You're grasping at straws at this point, Kevin.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, it doesn't quite qualify as the "you too!" fallacy, but calling it a false analogy falls way short of the sheer arrogance and stupidity of pretending the AR movement is in any way similar to the suffrage or civil rights movements.

Because suffragettes never planted bombs or destroyed property, and the civil rights movement had absolutely nothing to do with race riots? Not only are you ignorant of political history, but you're also trying to smear an entire movement by pointing to a handful of extremists.

What you're really doing is a passive-aggressive guilt-by-association game when you do that, somewhat like when Bush compared himself to Chamberlain going into the Iraq War. Unfortunately for you, civil rights and suffrage groups didn't engage in criminal destruction of property, criminal threats, and harassment to achieve their goals, so your analogy falls way short of any accuracy.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Still I wouldn't swap places with you.

Let me guess, you're going to play the No True Scotsmen card next and claim that real suffragettes and civil rights activists were non-violent so the people who fought violently for change don't count? Whereas the real animal rights activists are the ALF, and the non-violent vegetarians ("pompous" and "humourless" though they be) don't count?

The bottom line is that regardless of whether they were pompous, or humourless, or even violent and destructive, they were morally right in their overall cause. Cherry-picking the actions of groups like the ALF, or criticising vegetarians for being "pompous" is just an excuse to avoid looking at whether or not the overall cause is moral.

 

[GreNME]

Because suffragettes never planted bombs or destroyed property, and the civil rights movement had absolutely nothing to do with race riots? Not only are you ignorant of political history, but you're also trying to smear an entire movement by pointing to a handful of extremists.

Smear an entire movement? Kevin, I've already pointed out where the "leaders" of the "movement" have repeatedly made excuses for, supported, or outright advocated the illegal and violent behavior. There's no need for smearing, just illuminating the twisted motivations behind the movement.

And no, suffragettes were not as SOP vandalizing individual people's homes with threatening messages, they didn't destroy homes as well as workplaces, and comparing riots based on collective outrage with the criminal behavior of a fringe movement again dips into the false analogies again, and still you're playing your backwards guilt-by-association nonsense with your comparisons. At this point you may as well go whole hog and compare those who disagree with the AR extremists equivalent to racists & misogynists. After all, how far can you go before you invoke Godwin?

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Still I wouldn't swap places with you.

Nice. When in doubt, the self-titled professor of rhetorical method drops to personal attacks.

Let me guess, you're going to play the No True Scotsmen card next and claim that real suffragettes and civil rights activists were non-violent so the people who fought violently for change don't count? Whereas the real animal rights activists are the ALF, and the non-violent vegetarians ("pompous" and "humourless" though they be) don't count?

If you could stop building your strawmen for a moment you might seem a little less idiotic in your retorts. The only "no true scotsman" was just made by you, who seems to assume that all vegetarians are not eating meat for the reasons you're not-quite-saying-outright-but-implying-strongly in this thread. You're continually sticking to tried-and-true animal liberationism assertions-as-argument, and yet you're trying to weasel out of the association.

The bottom line is that regardless of whether they were pompous, or humourless, or even violent and destructive, they were morally right in their overall cause. Cherry-picking the actions of groups like the ALF, or criticising vegetarians for being "pompous" is just an excuse to avoid looking at whether or not the overall cause is moral.

Wow. And now you're arguing as if the ends justify the means.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wow. And now you're arguing as if the ends justify the means.

Seeing as the main arguments we've seen against meat eating are utilitarian, of course ends can justify means. If you didn't understand that yet then you really haven't got any idea what's going on.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I don't know why I'm bothering...

Kevin, I honestly can't decide whether I think you are intentionally misrepresenting arguments, if you skim them and jump to the attack, or if you lack reading comprehension.

Ignoring your bizarre attack of my mention of cats and civilization, let's go right to the question you don't think I answered.

I said we have an obligation to all animals, particularly domestic ones. All animals would, in fact, mean whales and antelopes, otters and coelocanths and whatever else you want to mention. Seriously, did you not read that or understand it, or are you just ignoring it because it doesn't say something you want to argue against?

I'm honestly curious, because it's there, in black and white for you and everyone else to see, yet you ignored it completely to accuse me of something.

Do I believe that it's morally right to torture animals for fun? No, because emotionally I don't want animals to suffer. However, I acknowledge that the pain, even life, of a particular member of a species, even our own, is insignifigant.

I admit where I stand. I don't feel a need to convince anyone that my reasons for what I'll tolerate are rational. In fact, I've said since my first post on this thread that I don't believe morality can or even should be rational.

 

[GreNME]

Kevin, I honestly can't decide whether I think you are intentionally misrepresenting arguments, if you skim them and jump to the attack, or if you lack reading comprehension.

I would answer simply "yes to all," but Randfan at one point acknowledged Kevin's intellect, so my guess is that this is, for the most part, intentional.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I admit where I stand. I don't feel a need to convince anyone that my reasons for what I'll tolerate are rational. In fact, I've said since my first post on this thread that I don't believe morality can or even should be rational.

I'm starting from the position that rationality is better than irrationality, and further that talk of morality which isn't grounded in rationality is mere hot air. So we have no basis for a discussion, since my criticisms of your position are rational ones.

 

[Belz...]

How does the sensation of pain come into play

Tapped.

 

[Belz...]

Because it was, in fact, a false dichotomy. Do you not know what the term means?

Ugh... whatever.

Because cats die if they don't eat meat, and humans do not.

Well, I've heard of vegans who feed their cats non-animal products.

My argument is not going to seem consistent to you, until you keep track of the conversation and remember what has previously been discussed.

I remember. I just don't find it consistent. Please stop trying to read my mind.

Already asked and answered. It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and do that while maintaining biodiversity and viable ecosystems

Why ? Why in the blue hell would you want to do that ? Do you really think that death is so undesirable ?

but it's simply not practical and it won't be until we have science-fiction level biological science. Whereas you can push your shopping trolley past the bacon today.

So basically it's about the rest of us doing what you do ?

This is what happens when you get carried away punching a straw man. This whole argument about "the way of things" is just your fantasy.

Punching strawmen hurts my fist less.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, I've heard of vegans who feed their cats non-animal products.

I was under the impression that you couldn't keep a cat alive on a strictly vegan diet. If I was wrong about that, then yes, assuming that actually works, the cases are indeed comparable. (It wouldn't surprise me if the "vegan" cats were supplementing their diet with meat though if they ever get outside).

Why ? Why in the blue hell would you want to do that ? Do you really think that death is so undesirable ?

I think I'd find it undesirable to be run down and eaten alive, so I extrapolate from that to the conclusion that the world would be a better place, all else being equal, if no conscious organisms were run down and eaten alive, or had parasitic worms grow in their eyes, or what-have-you.

The fact that it's a problem we can't currently solve doesn't make it less of a problem, just a problem it's not worth losing any sleep over at the moment.

So basically it's about the rest of us doing what you do ?

...

Punching strawmen hurts my fist less.

Mmm.

 

[Belz...]

Mmm.

No, really.

Basically you've been saying that we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain. Other than the fact that this, as I said, disqualifies some humans and a lot of animals, I'd wager you'd still be against the practice even if no animals were ever "hurt". If so, then it's a matter of "right to live", and therefore should include plants, as well.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, really.

Basically you've been saying that we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain.

That's the position of Singer and most animal rights activists, although to be complete you should say something like "we shouldn't harm conscious beings (including cows and humans) because they can suffer" rather than "we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain". The basis for being nice to humans is the same as the basis for being nice to animals, because we're not that different.

Other than the fact that this, as I said, disqualifies some humans and a lot of animals,

Which humans and animals are you thinking of?

If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of.

I'd wager you'd still be against the practice even if no animals were ever "hurt". If so, then it's a matter of "right to live", and therefore should include plants, as well.

You can wager on a straw man if it amuses you. I suppose it's kinder than your usual practise of punching them because it's easier.

 

[Belz...]

That's the position of Singer and most animal rights activists, although to be complete you should say something like "we shouldn't harm conscious beings (including cows and humans) because they can suffer" rather than "we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain". The basis for being nice to humans is the same as the basis for being nice to animals, because we're not that different.

Define "different". Are you saying that we can eat plants because they are different ?

Similitude is not part of why I don't harm humans.

Which humans and animals are you thinking of?

Vegetables, some mental illnesses, etc.; planarians, ants...

If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine.

If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of.

Plants don't feel pain.

You can wager on a straw man if it amuses you. I suppose it's kinder than your usual practise of punching them because it's easier.

Did you just discover that word ? Strawman ? Because I think you've been using it for every post for a week.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say "hey, this applies to [x] as well!"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Define "different".

Say what?

Are you saying that we can eat plants because they are different ?

Say what?

Similitude is not part of why I don't harm humans.

Huh?

Vegetables, some mental illnesses, etc.; planarians, ants...

Apart from the "some mental illnesses bit", which is so vague I can't tell what you mean, Singer-type animal rights activists would have no problem killing vegetables, planarians or ants. Thus no inconsistency there.

I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine.

Say what?

Plants don't feel pain.

WTF has that got to do with what I just posted?

Did you just discover that word ? Strawman ? Because I think you've been using it for every post for a week.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say "hey, this applies to [x] as well!"

If there's a way of posting so that you can't respond with word salad, let me know, I could use it.

 

[Belz...]

Wow. Kevin has just gone into "I don't want to adress anything but I NEED to answer" mode.

 

[Belz...]

Say what?

Define "different".

Say what?

Why should I type that again. Just read it a second time.

Huh?

I don't eat humans. The fact that they are like me is not the criterion.

Apart from the "some mental illnesses bit", which is so vague I can't tell what you mean

I mean that SOME mental illnesses make people unable to feel pain.

Singer-type animal rights activists would have no problem killing vegetables, planarians or ants. Thus no inconsistency there.

There IS if they claim that you CAN'T eat animals, because planarians and ants are animals. If they say that SOME animals can't be eaten, then fine for that point.

Say what?

Please try to keep up.

WTF has that got to do with what I just posted?

Plants don't feel pain. They also can't be happy. Are they morally irrelevant because they don't feel pain/be happy or because of some other criteria ? It's important because you said that animals are morally relevant while plants are not.

If there's a way of posting so that you can't respond with word salad, let me know, I could use it.

How is "If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say 'hey, this applies to [x] as well!'" word salad ? Can't you read ?

 

[GreNME]

Wow. Kevin has just gone into "I don't want to adress anything but I NEED to answer" mode.

He's been there for a while. I find extremely ironic his accusations of strawmen and his constant use of the phrase "word salad" when he can't muster a knee-jerk reaction to whatever was said.

 

[YSM]

Say what?

/thread over.

Just kidding.

/thread resume.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh all right...

Belz, you're either willfully misunderstanding what you are told, or you are just incredibly dense. Your current strategy seems to be to leap on any available ambiguity in what was last posted, absolutely ignoring everything that has previously been posted about that exact point, and demand clarification of points which should be utterly obvious.

Define "different".

It's a normal English word, and I have already explained the similarities between humans and non-human animals which animal rights activists believe to be morally significant. Why do I need to explain this to you again?

Why should I type that again. Just read it a second time.

This too has been asked and answered already. I have already explained the differences between plants and animals which animal rights activists believe to be morally significant. Why do I need to explain this to you again?

I don't eat humans. The fact that they are like me is not the criterion.

So what is, and why is your criterion valid?

I mean that SOME mental illnesses make people unable to feel pain.

I have clarified your attempts to misconstrue the criterion as "must be able to feel pain" twice now. If you keep up this willful misrepresentation you only make yourself look foolish. Why do I have to correct you on this point again?

There IS if they claim that you CAN'T eat animals, because planarians and ants are animals. If they say that SOME animals can't be eaten, then fine for that point.

Well hooray for small mercies. You finally grasp one small part of the animal rights activist position.

Please try to keep up.

I said: If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

You said: "I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine".

Now do you want to explain to us how your response makes any **** sense? Are you just incapable of parsing if/then statements, or what?

Plants don't feel pain. They also can't be happy. Are they morally irrelevant because they don't feel pain/be happy or because of some other criteria ? It's important because you said that animals are morally relevant while plants are not.

You posted this in response to me saying "If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of."

So to recap, I explain to you that "must be able to feel pain" is not the criteria animal rights activists use. You respond by saying "Ah ha! But plants can't feel pain!".

That's like me saying "Not all dogs are labradors" and you saying "Ah ha! But my dog is a Pekinese!".

Plants are plants, Belz. They don't have a consciousness, they don't feel pain, they don't have preferences and chosen life plans, they lack every single quality that animal rights activists think separates morally important things like normal adult humans and normal adult pigs from early-term fetuses, brain-dead people, road kill and algae.

I realise you are in love with the idea that you can somehow show that animal rights activists are inconsistent in thinking it's okay to eat carrots. I know that this is a conclusion you really want. However the problem is, it's not true and it's also completely stupid.

That's the reason why you can't make a coherent, joined-up argument for your position. That's the reason you have to post nonsensical snippets and questions that don't even make sense if you have been keeping track of the conversation. It's because you're arguing for something that is simultaneously false and very, very dumb.