on a lighter note, at least she didn’t change her name to “Chad Ocho-Cinco” like a certain Cincinnati Wide Receiver. Though it is great for advertising… but still… could be better.
You “lol” expecting a board of young people to sneer with you at someone who expresses a serious and unjaded sentiment about society. However, not everyone is as jaded as you, and some people are actually disturbed by an organization that condones felonious activity, in its efforts to achieve “total animal liberation.” That means, no more pets, milk, cheese, pizza, delis, or zoos. It alters the social order.
I must be as jaded as him, because I think it’s pretty laughable not to attack such an outrageously flawed social order. And I’m not even limiting that statement to our relationship with animals. Any argument based on the righteousness of society is a joke imo.
It’s probably less jaded to hate society than it is to call PETA one of the worst organizations in America.
And it’s pretty stupid to blame the actions of individuals on an organization they only claim to resonate with, but don’t. I’d even say it rivals all the hate Christianity gets for priests who molest little boys, even though those actions aren’t christian in nature, at all. You’re just not making any sense on this. A doesn’t point to B.
Anyway, I skimmed your posts with Arac and I don’t even really know what you’re arguing about, but I wanna say one thing.
PETA stands for “People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals.” Not moral. Ethical.
Ethics is a lot broader than just how much pain you cause to an animal’s body or “soul” if you happen to believe in that stuff like I do.
If you want to talk about ethics you’re gonna have to discuss things like biological footprints, global warming (cows shit, FYI), and other stuff that has a profound effect on the sustainability of our lifestyle and the survivability of our species. You can’t attack their entire organization from that one angle.
Just thought I’d chime in.
Oh yeah, and I wanted to mention, I don’t agree with hardcore veganism, but I do think the typical north american diet is way too loaded with meat. It’s not like the choice is only between eating meat or not. There is such a thing as cutting back, and I think most people really should.
On the topic of animal rights: it is ridiculous to expect everyone to become vegetarian, especially when eating meat was an advantage to early humans (at least from what I’ve learned). However it is the poor treatment of animals, which is the absolute disrespectful handling of life that most people oppose. No one is saying “WOOO STOP SCIENCE AND BURN DOWN RESTAURANTS” (except for select extremists of course); instead people are saying treat them with respect. I believe that dissections and the small portion of meat(it should be small, we aren’t carnivores) is fine as long as it’s going to proper use.
What’s wrong is destroying acres of jungle to raise animals that shouldn’t even be living there to feed to a gluttonous nation who really only needs a quarter or less of what’s being served. Not to mention all the food that gets thrown out at restaurants at the end of the day (believe me I’d know, I worked at KFC before).
And fur coats? Those really have no use anymore other than as a sign of status. I can completely understand wearing an animal’s fur/skin if you live in the arctic or Siberia, but it is unacceptable for someone to think it is just for an upper-class white person to parade around in deceased seals among other animals. There was mention of “we rely on technology”, but isn’t the point of technology to make things easier for us and our environment? We are a wasteful species.
Of course this isn’t a rant to say killing animals is wrong, but rather to point out the disrespectful nature of society’s overwhelming glutton. Science, diets, and even hunting for food should not be banned, but I think your average person should re-evaluate their own view of these “necessities” as well as one’s relationship to the natural world.
I agree completely. Moderation is key. That’s a word that seems absent in a lot of people’s minds.
First, I said, “There is more variation between people of the same ethnicity, than between any two ethnicities.” You said, no, there isn’t much variation between humans at all. Which leads me to believe you misread my statement. What I’m saying is, what distinguishes the two most different white people, is much greater than what distinguishes white people from black people. This is what I was taught in multiple classes on evolutionary biology. Are you disagreeing with that?
I don’t disagree. It is also possible for the two most different Nepalese tigers to be more genetically distinct from a Nepalese tiger and a South Chinese tiger.
Third, I understand that other animals exhibit social behavior. I was pointing out that only humans follow laws, which are abstractions that are explicitly set forth for all members of a community to abide by. That goes significantly beyond social behavior.
Laws necessitate the presence of a complex communication system and the ability to communicate the formalization of a set of social norms, so this is really a re-hash of your fourth point.
Second, in response to Arac saying that distinguishing humans from animals had no more basis than distinguishing one ethnicity from another, I pointed out that all humans can reproduce together. I was offering a physical category under which all humans could be united: ability to reproduce together. I know very well that that’s true of all species, and that it even extends to other species in the genus sometimes. My point was not that humans are special because they can all reproduce with one another. My point is that, like all species, humans can reproduce with one another, and hence form a biologically distinguishable category.
So, your point is that humans are categorically different from “animals”, but two of your points overtly show that they’re the same as any species? I don’t see why you feel you need to reinforce the notion that humans are <i>a</i> category; we already realize this. I thought your point was humans are a <i>special</i> category?
I feel that after all this, our uniqueness seems to boil down to “we can talk and think about things we made up” (which <i>is</i> pretty impressive, in itself).
Um, no. I’m coming back to the point that because there are organizations that blow people up and aim for genocide, which are worse than 1, 2, and 3, arguing an organization that does 1, 2, and 3 without either of the other things is a somewhat illogical choice to deem the worst organization in America. I didn’t even say PETA was good. I said it was silly to consider PETA worse than the KKK.
Just an arbitrary difference between which of two synonyms you use to describe it, and either a very broad definition of “few” or an equally broad scope of ignorance when it comes to organizations in modern America.
Well, uh, I haven’t made any claims that require evidence, other than claiming people kill other people in organized ways, earlier. Most of my other points have involved
I presume every dissected animal may have been killed in a horrible way, and if that makes you uncomfortable, you should make sure you have evidence this isn’t the case or not do it. As simply as that.
Randomly, no, for something like research, if it’s okay to do to an animal, I really don’t see why it isn’t okay to do to a human. Whether this is, in turn, morally acceptable, depends largely on how utilitarian one’s moral basis is.
I agree with the overall cause, I just don’t think anyone, animals or people, are liberated by passing more laws. Freedom includes risk and responsibility. I donate money to PETA in specific incedences (bailling some guys out of jail for spray-painting live animals so that their fur could not be used for coats).
I don’t use a sprinkler system. Because some people actually do believe it’s pretty terrible to waste a valuable resource and end lives all for the sake of vanity.
He typed on a computer.
Why kill something when there is no reason, let alone need, to. When there is a reason to, why accept a process of doing so that is cruel beyond rationality and effeciency? You can mock it all you want, I really don’t care what you think. You’re a boring, staid man who will lead a boring, staid life concerned only in his overly simplistic, self-congratulatory moral system and how convinced of his strength he is. I like weakness.
We will shoot a bear for killing a person, don’t we? Why not arrest a person for killing a bear? Secondly, there is question on whether or not animals can really be held to human laws, since they in no way consented to them and very doubtfully understand them, even if the concept of such taboos exists in their animal society, it wouldn’t translate entire levels of language in such a way as to make much of any sense.
Yeah, they’re both negative. Shit happens. An imperfect world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Okay. I’m not really responsible for the opinions of an organization that sometimes sends me calendars and address labels because I kinda dig their overall ideology to an extent and am willing to support it to an extent. I happen to think that this is okay. If someone else doesn’t, they have their opinion, and there’s not much I can really do about it.
What is right and wrong for you to do is for you to decide. What is right and wrong for me is for me to decide. I belive in subjective morality.
All philosophies are inherently absurd. Trying to codify anything will be full of so many holes and/or inconsistancies, even if it’s absolutist. Honesly, I’d say especially if it’s absolutist.
Well, basically, most empirical evidence that would point to self-awareness in humans is also present in animals, aside from introspection, which is largely useless when studying a subject with whom one cannot communicate.
My point isn’t that your line didn’t exist, it’s that choosing to place a line at those traits is no less arbitrary than chosing to place one anywhere else. There are differences between humans and animals, but there are differences between cows and pigs, as well. Putting a line between cow and pig is no more arbitrary than one between animals and humans.
You are arguing from a purely genetic perspective, though. They may be genetically less similar, but if the line is drawn at melanin levels instead of genetic similary, that is no longer the case.
I’m not saying we aren’t. I’m saying drawing the line at our category is just as arbitrary as any other.
Codified laws, maybe, but there are taboos and such in animal societies that function very similar to our laws.
A negative aspect that is willing accepted is different, since, presumably, there is some reason the person made their choice. Maybe they think the negative aspect is worth it, from a utilitarian standpoint, for instance. There is a difference between allowing someone to choose to have “negative aspects” in their life and forcing someone to. The former I support, the latter I do not.
You, uh, mean almost the exact same problem we already have with almost every law involving consent? Yeah, it turns out that will be a problem with other matters involving consent, too.
I would say yes, since I believe in freedom of choice for animals as much as I do for people. I mean, there’s no way to tell that’s perfect, but if it’s reasonable enough to assume, I don’t see why not.
As is wanting to preserve the lives of certain people. In fact, most of them. If I don’t have anything to gain from someone being alive, and they have something I want, there is quite simply no reason for me not to kill them and take it, if I am convinced of my ability to do so. What gets in the way is irrational sentimentality, in the form of moral belief.
And which enforces rape.
I hadn’t really thought about this, it’s a good point.
And which enforces rape.
lol wait what
That doesn’t mean he’s withdrawn himself from the race for evolution. This is just silliness.
They’re not negative. They’re just what happens.
I don’t kill them because I don’t know what they add to the species or society. The more people there are, the better chance of survival. There are other reasons, but those are the main ones.
Yeah, but these priests were affiliated with and comprised part of Christianity and were supposedly spiritual guides of their flock. The bishops who handled these decisions were high in the hierarchy. If your point is that one shouldn’t generalise about ~2 billion people covered under the umbrella-term Christian, sure. Saying that a group shouldn’t be held to task for actions of its members, not so.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Blame the people who do things, not the ideas they claim to associate with, but don’t.
I’m curious as to how you reconcile plants having souls and eating them.
I’m just saying his railing against our separation from nature while he goes to college in New York City, told to me via a computer, is rather silly. In fact, I bet his struggle to survive involves being able to swipe a card at some campus cafeteria, or maybe even worse, needing to work for the money to eat. Truly, he is a man alone in the wilderness, with only his wits and strength to preserve him from the harrowing beasts beyond the wall of the cave. Lesser men such as myself, who swipe our cards and buy our food could not even imagine his primitivist plight, for we put tofu on our plates instead of the flesh of some docile behemoth the bravery of paying some-one else to kill allowed him to consume the flesh of. Compared to this hulking cave-man ravager, of great joys and sorrows, we are squeamish children to be looked down upon from eyes we cannot see below the shadows cast by his heavy, black brows, from a sun his knotted shoulders block from sight.
I mean, really, the argument that I’m more out of touch with nature because when I buy my food in a super-market, I don’t buy meat, is ridiculous. If we wants to go out an hunt it, maybe. That is without the modern techonology of guns shielding him, of course. He could use an arrow or spear, but, honestly, we’d all talk about what a sissy he was for it behind his back.
Cless: There’s not really a biological reason not to rape someone. Unlike hyaena, our females do not have psuedopenises to prevent it. Our bodies desire meat, so we should eat that. Our bodies desire sex, so we should go get that, whatever the female thinks on the subject, because we can, right?
I’d beg to differ.
<object width=“425” height=“344”><param name=“movie” value=“http://www.youtube.com/v/3zvTRQr7ns8&hl=en&fs=1”></param><param name=“allowFullScreen” value=“true”></param><embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/3zvTRQr7ns8&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height=“344”></embed></object>
In all seriousness though, I still disagree.
Well, the idea that sexual desire is the sole causal factour of rape is obviously incomplete. That’s irrelevant. What is relevant is various biological desires hard-wired into humans as a social animal, from sexual desire to the establishment of alpha-male dominance could be argued to exist to at least the same degree as a biological desire to eat meat. The point is X-wing is entrenched in the naturalist phallacy of assuming that because something happens as a result of biological, “natural” factours, it has some form of moral validity. Which, if he does not approve of rape, shows a hole in even simplistic little philosohpy.
Well, if you’re a violent rapist, the biological disincentive is that the female will simply avoid you the next time. If other females learn of it, then they will also avoid you, and you’ll end up having to work harder to have less sexual success.
There’s a difference between having sex and rape. Our bodies are not built to rape each other; they’re built to engage in sexual activity. Our bodies are also built to digest meat. That’s the difference between a specific naturally encoded function and something we’re able to do simply given the resources that we have (e.g. while most of us are capable of doing cartwheels, it doesn’t mean that there is a biological imperative to go ahead and do that ever)
Most of your arguments have degraded to silly little jabs, which may be enough to garner crude laughs, but whose persuasive force is roughly nil.
Not at all. There’s a real difference between “despising” and “hating” PETA. PETA members strike me as overly sentimental. As a result, they can’t come to grips with and <i>enjoy</i> a life that has harsh aspects, but can be deeply satisfying. What I despise is not the poor saps (literally) themselves, but rather their efforts to <i>spread</i> their own debilitation to ordinary people. I despise their violence, their willingness to give false testimony against their innocent people, and their efforts to convince young people that squeamishness has some deeper meaning.
Moreover, as I stated, there are groups (like the KKK) that I despise more than PETA. So as you continue to harp on the fact that I “absolutely hate most” PETA, you’re still wrong on both premises.
I don’t use a sprinkler system. Because some people actually do believe it’s pretty terrible to waste a valuable resource and end lives all for the sake of vanity.
The “waste of resources” argument flops when you consider the broader context.
First, the law of entropy means that everything any of us does is wasting valuable resources. As far as entropic processes go, spraying water onto grass is negligible. Virtually all of it enters the water cycle again. As for the energy expended in spraying, that’s also quite limited. Do you drive? Do you ride in cars at all? That’s much more wasteful than a sprinkler system. You participate in martial arts. To compensate for the energy you waste in the process (and for lost blood and tissue damage), you need to eat more. That’s wasteful. Do you ever print out electronic handouts? That destroys trees and is wasteful. Do you keep your computer on low-performance mode? If not, you’re being wasteful. Do you wash your clothes in a washing machine? That’s wasteful, compared to scrubbing them by hand. Before you leap on other people’s “wastefulness,” take a closer look at your own.
Second, we are a medium size planet, whose mass comprises a near-infinitely small proportion of the universe. Using sprinklers will not significantly affect the availability of resources in this universe. The Earth’s surface is covered primarily by water. Using sprinklers will not significantly affect the availability of water on this planet. This is especially true when you consider that the water is just re-entering the water cycle anyway. All that’s being lost is the energy used to transport the water. And given the energy sealed in atoms, which will eventually be released, the amount of energy that we expend doing mundane daily tasks is negligible.
So you can let your grass dehydrate and die if you think that will make the ants and worms happier, but you’re hardly doing the world service by refraining from watering your grass.
Here is where Arac resorts to personal attacks, because he has become tired of reasoning. He thinks, perhaps, that if he describes me as “boring” and “staid,” others will think, “Xwing is boring and staid,” and dismiss my arguments. But insults do not provide glue to bind together dozens of ad hoc, inconsistent, and irrational arguments. Insults will not explain (as Arac has still declined to) why 1) animals can eat one another, 2) humans are just animals, but 3) humans cannot eat animals.
What Arac instead offers is the last resort of every pseudo-progressive teenager in a philosophical argument:
But even subjective morality fails, when you consider that the very goal of PETA is to enforce <i>its</i> pro-animal-rights norms on the rest of the world. PETA is the opposite of the harmless, weed-smoking, pseudo-philosopher who opines about the nature of things in his dimly lit basement. Maybe that pseudo-philosopher could claim to be a subjective moralist. But PETA goes around assaulting people, lying in court, throwing fake blood on fur coats, and destroying property. Hardly the actions of friendly subjective moralists, are they?
So Arac claims, after putting forth lengthy and vehement defenses of PETA’s philosophy and practices, that he doesn’t support everything PETA does. As he explains, he’s just a subjective moralist who happens to share some beliefs with PETA. Fine. But purely subjective morality always fails due to a paradox: It says, “What you <i>believe</i> about morals is true.” But what happens when someone <i>believes</i>, “Subjective morality is false,” and acts on it by trying to spread his views? At that point, the whole scheme of subjective morality collapses in on itself, and is revealed for the enervated and impractical worldview that it is. You can tinker with subjectivity all you want, but there’s no escaping the fact that <i>someone</i> is wrong. And, though I despise PETA’s beliefs, I respect PETA’s conviction that there <i>is</i> something true to believe. That’s more than can be said for a subjective moralist.
I’m just saying his railing against our separation from nature while he goes to college in New York City, told to me via a computer, is rather silly. In fact, I bet his struggle to survive involves being able to swipe a card at some campus cafeteria, or maybe even worse, needing to work for the money to eat. Truly, he is a man alone in the wilderness, with only his wits and strength to preserve him from the harrowing beasts beyond the wall of the cave. Lesser men such as myself, who swipe our cards and buy our food could not even imagine his primitivist plight, for we put tofu on our plates instead of the flesh of some docile behemoth the bravery of paying some-one else to kill allowed him to consume the flesh of. Compared to this hulking cave-man ravager, of great joys and sorrows, we are squeamish children to be looked down upon from eyes we cannot see below the shadows cast by his heavy, black brows, from a sun his knotted shoulders block from sight.
Your arguments sound much better when you wax poetic with a dose of sarcasm, in that unique Arac way. Perhaps you think, “Maybe if I depict Xwing as a raving hyper-Nietzschean caveman worshiper, my arguments will hold water.” So in fact, you’re arguing against a straw man, not me.
<i>My</i> point is that the modern lifestyle makes us susceptible to certain debilitating views that harsh life would have slapped out of us a hundred years ago. A farmer who spends 12 hours a day in the sun planting or plowing, hoping that his 72 hours of work per week will leave him with enough to survive the winter, does not have time or patience for the idea that his pigs have feelings too. Native peoples, who kill animals, eat their muscle, wear them as leather, and find uses for all their organs, do not ask, “<i>Should</i> I eat berries and wear plant fibers?”
The NYC apartment dweller, as you point out, is more susceptible to debilitating sentiments. Crouched in his small room, with vitamin tablets ten feet away, electronic access to large funds a few keystrokes away, and cuteoverload.com listed in his bookmarks, that apartment dweller may start cultivating sentimentality about animals that would have been squelched out immediately in centuries past. <i>I</i> have to go out of my way to go outside and run every day, and spend most of my time in public, and not let the drab seclusion of apartment life propagate unhealthy thoughts. So if anything, living in NYC has made me recognize the danger.
That <i>susceptibility</i> to unhealthy thoughts, caused by modern lifestyles, was what I was referring to. And I think most people understood that what I was getting at was not caveman worship.
You guys actually agree on all the major points so the only problem is that you both keep exaggerating each other’s points so you have something to attack. You both agree that the KKK is a lot more bad than PETA, and you both agree that animals shouldn’t be put through unnecessary suffering. Arac doesn’t think that everyone needs to turn vegetarian this very moment, and Xwing doesn’t think all of PETA consists of violent criminals. It’s an organization that’s supposed to be against unnecessary animal cruelty but has jerks in it that use overbearing and underhanded methods to convert people; one of you is looking at it because it’s half-empty and the other’s looking at it because it’s half-full.
But purely subjective morality always fails due to a paradox: It says, “What you believe about morals is true.” But what happens when someone believes, “Subjective morality is false,” and acts on it by trying to spread his views? At that point, the whole scheme of subjective morality collapses in on itself, and is revealed for the enervated and impractical worldview that it is.
I don’t understand how this is a paradox? “Subjective morality is false” is a valid, subjective interpretation, and logically consistent. Just because a sentence reads “This is a grammatically unsound sentence.” doesn’t make it actually a grammatically unsound sentence.
If subjective morality is true, that means that that interpretation is true.
However, if that interpretation is true, that means subjective morality is false.
And if “Subjective morality is false” is true on it’s own, then obviously subjective morality is false.
It seems that subjective morality is false is the conclusion, either way.
That’s the wrong analogy. The better analogy is to have two sentences:
- Every sentence be grammatically correct.
- Sentence one is not grammatically correct.
But I don’t think analogies are necessary here. As Cavelcade demonstrates, subjective morality logically contradicts itself:
- Subjective morality is true.
- Subjective morality means, “What you <i>believe</i> about morals is true.”
- Person X believes subjective morality is false.
- Person X’s belief is true under #2.
- Subjective morality is true and false.
So subjective morality is logically untenable.
On the practical side, subjective morality lets you believe whatever you want to. It’s great if you’re intellectually lazy. It says, “Every man is an island unto himself. So relax, man!” On the other hand, subjective morality gives no basis for approving or disapproving of <i>anything</i> anyone else believes, no matter how praiseworthy or despicable. It fosters a feeble and inoffensive state of mind, where the subjective moralist is afraid to say anything other than vaguely accommodating phrases. I associate subjective morality with political correctness, laziness, ineffectual hippies, emotional blandness, and burnout.
giggle
Your “better analogy” consists of two sentences that are grammatically correct. It doesn’t matter what the content is; the fact is simply is that they’re grammatically correct sentences. It supports my point just as well, I guess.
Also, the only axiom in subjective morality is that <i>everyone has their own code of morals</i>. It does not place absolute properties like “true” or “false”, thus your entire logical derivation isn’t applicable. Moral relativism is more like a <i>description of reality</i>, not an attempt to codify what can’t possibly be codified into a rigid framework. Though… an absolutist is, of course, entitled to his or her own subjective opinion that they are right 
Edit: Also you really need to stop taking everything <i>to the extreme!!!</i>, as rad as that may be. Not all people who believe that there’s not an absolute set of “correct” morals are pot-smoking basement-dwelling hippies, just as I’m sure that not all people who believe that there does exist an absolute set of morals are right-wing fundamentalist neo-nazis. These attributes you described are not correlated with whether or not you believe in an absolute set of morals; if you can find a study that proves otherwise, that’d be rad, I guess, but I doubt you’ll be able to find one.