Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:02:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man  (Read 8438 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2015, 06:57:31 AM »

is anyone going to stop arguing over these random fringe people who are like 1/1000th of the population at most, and we all effectively agree on, and actually respond to what i'm saying?  anyone?

WHY DO YOU HATE HOMELESS PEOPLE
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2015, 08:04:18 AM »

I mostly posted this thread because I was impressed with how horrible these people was at PR, yes it's also impressive how douchy these people are, but the complete lack of media savyness was what I found incredible.

Through I have also found the panicking of some posters here enlightening.

BTW Alcon here's the right reaction to future discussions of this kind; "this is horrible, those people are the scum of the Earth, my heart goes out to that poor homeless man" and then stop posting beside saying that the vast majority of Animal Rights Activists aren't these kind of horrible people . Your reaction on the other hand comes across as you don't really disagree with these peope, but you dislike how their action have put their and your cause in a unflattering light.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2015, 07:16:29 PM »

is anyone going to stop arguing over these random fringe people who are like 1/1000th of the population at most, and we all effectively agree on, and actually respond to what i'm saying?  anyone?

But yes, Alcon, you're correct.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2015, 04:22:38 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 04:35:42 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

BTW Alcon here's the right reaction to future discussions of this kind; "this is horrible, those people are the scum of the Earth, my heart goes out to that poor homeless man" and then stop posting beside saying that the vast majority of Animal Rights Activists aren't these kind of horrible people . Your reaction on the other hand comes across as you don't really disagree with these peope, but you dislike how their action have put their and your cause in a unflattering light.

Yo, here's the thing: these people are being complete jerks.  You know how you can tell I think that?  Because I said that.  "Scum of the earth"?  I'm going to reserve the creepy, overcompensating vitriol for people I think are actually psychopaths and sadists instead of well-meaning ideological hacks.  I'm happy to settle for "this is horrible, and my heart goes out to that poor homeless man" but -- besides making myself feel good, and look good to others -- what purpose does that serve?  Absolutely none.

Moreover, where the hell do you infer that I "don't disagree with these people" and only "dislike how their action (sic) has put their cause in an unflattering light"?  No.  These people are probably idiots.  They probably have incoherent reasons for their beliefs, and they mainly do stuff like this to feel morally righteous, with minimal interest in whether what they do is actually right.  They probably don't care what harm this did.  They probably just like the moral high it gave them, and feel righteously justified by it.  

That behavior frustrates the hell out of me.  I don't like when people substitute mindless moralism for actually seriously questioning and understanding their beliefs systems and actions.  I think that's a natural tendency of all of us, and it's gross.  It's part of our tendency to tell ourselves we're good people, and then reinforce that by doing lazy, morally superficial symbolism.  That's a lot more comforting and attractive than challenging the weak points in our own beliefs and behaviors, and that's exactly why the behavior is so insidiously toxic.

You know what these idiot activist groups and threads like this have in common?  They're both full of that behavior.  They're both full of people, like you, who would prefer to come in, solemnly nod, pat yourself on the back, and go back to not engaging in a debate that might question your viewpoint.  As I said earlier, it's a lot like people wanting to talk about how offputting pride parades are instead of questioning their view on gay rights, or about how violent some civil rights activists were instead of questioning their views on racial equality.  It's like people feel that they're morally 'good enough' that they don't have to spend time questioning whether their beliefs are actually logically moral.

But here's the irony in your behavior that really pisses me off.  You questioned my sympathy toward this homeless guy because I didn't engage in lazy, morally superficial head-nodding.  You decided that my non-participation in the ritual head-nodding implied I don't have moral concern.  Here's the thing, though.  You posted this thread after abandoning a substantive debate on your position on animal rights in another thread.  When you were confronted with a challenge of your belief system, you stopped participating.  Instead, you decided to post this fluff.  Now, you are challenging my compassion and moral sincerity, because I didn't participate in giving meaningless, symbolic reverence to this mindless head-nodding.  But you declined to participate in an actually substantive ethical discussion in favor of this mindless head-nodding.

Tell me how that "comes across," dude.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2015, 04:30:28 PM »

It comes across as a the girl who keep telling she's a virgin, the tough guy who keep telling how strong he is, the businessman who keep telling that he doesn't run a con. It comes across as a person who fake his moral outrage.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2015, 04:37:36 PM »

It comes across as a the girl who keep telling she's a virgin, the tough guy who keep telling how strong he is, the businessman who keep telling that he doesn't run a con. It comes across as a person who fake his moral outrage.

Considering that I asked you how your behavior comes across, I'm glad we're on the same page.

Next time, maybe you'll embarrass yourself less if you actually read the post before replying.  Then again, that might take away from your precious mindless symbolism time.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2015, 04:40:03 PM »

Also, to be clear, I'm not particularly "outraged" about this.  Bad moral arguments are bad moral arguments, and avoiding moral arguments in favor of fluff is bad habit, even if they're not emotionally stirring.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2015, 04:51:34 PM »

It comes across as a the girl who keep telling she's a virgin, the tough guy who keep telling how strong he is, the businessman who keep telling that he doesn't run a con. It comes across as a person who fake his moral outrage.

Considering that I asked you how your behavior comes across, I'm glad we're on the same page.

Well I wouldn't know how my behaviour comes across, I have a good guess, but I can't speak for what knowledge is inside a stranger's mind.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I think mindless symbolism are a better use of my time, than desperate trying to stop a discussion, just because a superficial similarity between the views of some douchebags and mine. I didn't for a movement believe before I posted this thread that you supported taking puppies from their homeless owners, of course after having read your post I'm now doubt, so congratulation with your "moral argument".
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2015, 05:00:37 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 05:02:17 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Well I think mindless symbolism are a better use of my time, than desperate trying to stop a discussion, just because a superficial similarity between the views of some douchebags and mine.

I'm genuinely confused...are you talking about yourself?  Because you stopped engaging in a moral discussion, and posted this, a thread about douchebags.  When I replied that I thought this was a useless exercise, and the moral discussion you abandoned wasn't, you claimed (incorrectly) that my reaction was about a superficial similarity between the views of some douchebags and me.

Look, if there was a moral issue here to discuss, I'd be happy to discuss it.  What is it?  All of us agree that these people are probably dumb hacks, and it sounds like what they did was cruel and wrong.  Where's the discussion here?  My problem is with the lack of substantive discussion.

I didn't for a movement believe before I posted this thread that you supported taking puppies from their homeless owners, of course after having read your post I'm now doubt, so congratulation with your "moral argument".

You can't be serious.  I spent an entire paragraph saying exactly why I think what these people did was dumb and harmful.  I even compared this thread, unflatteringly, to their behavior.

Based on this, and your totally hilarious self-burn on the "how does that come across?" question -- which was clearly about your behavior if you read the prior paragraph -- I'm starting to suspect you're not even reading posts anymore, just pouting.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2015, 05:19:51 PM »

Do I really think you support this; no, not as the set up of the story is. But I find this insistence everytime someone with a aim which are somewhat the same as some posters, there comes these post about, "why do we even discuss this, it's only 0,000000000000000001% of the group in question" (if you haven't discovered it yet, I like hyperbole and sarcasm), and in those situation I would wish people who say these things, just said what I suggested even if it's just fluff... exactly because it's just fluff. You don't come across flattering when you use the other argument, and you don't convince anybody but the already saved. So if you want to sell your cause, fluff are more useful, not as ridiculous as I suggested, but you're smart, I'm sure you could say it better.

Of course this thread didn't develop as I would like, I think the fact that a organisation like this French one could think this was a good way to sell themselves, was the most interesting aspect of the story. But the thread developed another way in it own organic style, which I found interesting on it own.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2015, 02:01:26 AM »

Do I really think you support this; no, not as the set up of the story is. But I find this insistence everytime someone with a aim which are somewhat the same as some posters, there comes these post about, "why do we even discuss this, it's only 0,000000000000000001% of the group in question" (if you haven't discovered it yet, I like hyperbole and sarcasm), and in those situation I would wish people who say these things, just said what I suggested even if it's just fluff... exactly because it's just fluff. You don't come across flattering when you use the other argument, and you don't convince anybody but the already saved. So if you want to sell your cause, fluff are more useful, not as ridiculous as I suggested, but you're smart, I'm sure you could say it better.

Of course this thread didn't develop as I would like, I think the fact that a organisation like this French one could think this was a good way to sell themselves, was the most interesting aspect of the story. But the thread developed another way in it own organic style, which I found interesting on it own.

OK, so you'd prefer I just engage the meaningless fluff instead of turning into a substantive argument.  I'd prefer you actually engage the substantive argument.  I'm making my case why.

I'm not here to "sell my cause."  I sell causes for a living.  I know that selling a cause to a mass audience is different than having an in-depth argument involving logic.  Atlas is generally from the latter, since if I were appealing to a mass audience with fluff, it wouldn't be efficacious to do it here.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2015, 02:45:26 AM »

This is not a thread about Animal Rights activism. This is a thread about a specific news event. I don't see why we need to turn this into a general discussion on the entire Animal Rights movement, when no one has called them into question. And I have no idea why you're so defensive about that.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2015, 04:05:35 PM »

This isn't a news event.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2015, 04:24:04 PM »


Since this is not 1984, you don't get to decide what's news and what isn't.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2015, 08:43:54 PM »

This is not a thread about Animal Rights activism. This is a thread about a specific news event. I don't see why we need to turn this into a general discussion on the entire Animal Rights movement, when no one has called them into question.

Can you name one single aspect of this thread that can be discussed, beyond meaningless head-nodding?  Do you completely oppose shifting the topic of discussion when an original topic doesn't offer much?  If I search your recent post history, will I find instances where you did this, or participated in a shifted topic?

And I have no idea why you're so defensive about that.

Did you not read the two posts I made?  I explained why I object to this crap.  (And what did that explanation have to do with "defending" anything?  I don't feel any brotherhood with some random moron activists.)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2015, 09:22:45 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2015, 09:24:18 PM by Californian Tony Returns »

If I search your recent post history, will I find instances where you did this, or participated in a shifted topic?

Probably. So if you have nothing better to do with your time, by all means have fun and dig up some old post of mine that tangentially proves your point. It wouldn't be the first time someone does this.

The fact that you needed to go out and say that most ARAs aren't like that, when no one had even suggested otherwise, seems like a sign of defensiveness to me. It would be like if an atheist's first reaction to the Oregon mass shooting were to point out that most atheists aren't mass shooters.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2015, 10:04:12 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2015, 10:14:53 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Probably. So if you have nothing better to do with your time, by all means have fun and dig up some old post of mine that tangentially proves your point. It wouldn't be the first time someone does this.

How is it "tangential"?  You seem to be arguing it's unacceptable to shift the topic of a thread, even if (as here) there's nothing substantive to discuss.  It doesn't seem remotely "tangential" to me if you previously have demonstrated that you don't think it's unacceptable.

Either that, or there's something substantive here worth discussing.  If so, I ask again: what is it?

The fact that you needed to go out and say that most ARAs aren't like that, when no one had even suggested otherwise, seems like a sign of defensiveness to me. It would be like if an atheist's first reaction to the Oregon mass shooting were to point out that most atheists aren't mass shooters.

Dude, read my first post in this thread or ANY of my posts in this thread.  My entire point has been that this thread lacks a substantive discussion point unless it is a broad indictment of animal rights activists.  The fact that I'm pointing out it fails as one isn't "defensive."  It's an explanation of why I think this thread is useless.  It's useless, not 'offensive' (or whatever), because it fails as a broad indictment of anything.

I also do think some people are comforted in moral complacency by the bad behavior/craziness/whatever of people who disagree with them.  That's what I wrote about in my last post, explaining why I have such a strong negative reaction to this thread.

I really don't see anything to be 'defensive' about.  I don't have some identity that's challenged when people ridicule idiots who happen to share some opinions with me.  I've explained my objection really, really clearly in this thread:  I think this stuff is a waste of time at best, and an insidious comfort blanket at worst.  We could discuss animal rights in a substantive way.  It's disappointing when intelligent people like you and Ingemann dodge those difficult debates in favor of this fluff.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2015, 10:11:25 PM »


Since this is not 1984, you don't get to decide what's news and what isn't.

Nice zing, although weren't you just protesting that you should get to decide the constraints of discussion?

I think there was some lesson in 1984 about the consequences of artificially binding people's ability to have substantive discussions...but, idk, maybe Orwell was for that one.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2015, 10:16:08 PM »

There are pretty of threads on this forum that are dedicated to discussing anecdotes about a person or group of people doing something bad. There are probably several such threads popping up every single days. Generally, a majority of the posts in such thread are mainly condemnations, with an occasional (more or less fruitful) attempt at analyzing the broader factors that might have led to such an act. However, very few posters react to such threads as if the entire category to which that person/people belonged to had been called into question.

So obviously, you can post whatever you want in this thread as long as it's not offensive or trolling. I just don't get why you feel the need to.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2015, 10:42:43 PM »

Yes, I am aware that we regularly have head-nodding outrage threads.  Those usually suck too, and I have no problem when they're changed into something more substantive.

I've explained why I "feel the need to" several times.  Instead of explaining how you disagree with this, or even hinting what part you find unreasonable, you keep defaulting back to the explanation that I'm doing this because I feel "defensive."

Here: I think most people who have similar animal rights views to me have them for shallow, lame reasons and -- being that they're from such a marginal group -- probably tend to be crazy people at unusually high rates.  So, yeah, I'm not really defensive about them.

Now that that's out of the way, maybe you could actually address my concerns about threads like these, addressed my substantive concerns on animal rights in that thread you stopped replying to, explain what substantive concerns exist in this thread, or just concede that you're just annoyed that the head-nodding is being interrupted.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2015, 11:07:31 PM »

Now that that's out of the way, maybe you could actually address my concerns about threads like these,

"Threads like these" are a fact of life on a political forum. They're not going anywhere. And if you really hate them that much, the best solution perhaps is to stop replying to them.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What concerns? I, like most decent people, oppose animal cruelty and generally support the actions of groups that take care of animals. I have never said anything in this thread against animal rights in general (nor did anyone else). So what is there to discuss there?

Or you really want to reopen the whole vegetarianism debate? I believe there is a thread expressly dedicated to that in another board.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2015, 11:37:28 PM »
« Edited: October 03, 2015, 11:41:48 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

"Threads like these" are a fact of life on a political forum. They're not going anywhere. And if you really hate them that much, the best solution perhaps is to stop replying to them.

No, I think a better solution is to turn this thread into something substantive.  I explained why.  It's your right to continue to complain about it with no supportive reasoning, but that seems like a pretty impotent effort.

What concerns? I, like most decent people, oppose animal cruelty and generally support the actions of groups that take care of animals. I have never said anything in this thread against animal rights in general (nor did anyone else). So what is there to discuss there?

Or you really want to reopen the whole vegetarianism debate? I believe there is a thread expressly dedicated to that in another board.

Sure!  Go for reopening that debate!  I was the last person who posted in it, so you can jump right in.  Considering the vehement position you've expressed on this topic, doesn't it seem more worth your time to discuss that than to complain that insubstantive topics sometimes shift into substantive ones (DUN DUN DUN!!1)?

If you don't want to defend your position on meat-eating, I'm also open for some other debate.  We could talk about whether you put any effort whatsoever into actually limiting animal cruelty when you choose what meat to eat, and if that matters.  We could choose some other topic we disagree on, if you know of one.  I'm up for anything substantive.  But since we already know you are "the opposite of a vegetarian," and see vegetarians as having a dogma with no valid claim about third-party interests, that topic seems like a good place to start.  Pick your poison!
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2015, 11:54:56 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 01:13:19 AM by Californian Tony Returns »

No, actually I'm just utterly bored by this debate, and especially by your and Bgwah's obnoxiously militant and dogmatic stance on it (in fairness, you at least articulate your positions in a rational argument, which is more than can be said of Bgwah's deranged ramblings). I wonder how you would react if I was half as petulant and self-righteous on, say, feminism as you two are on animal rights. Roll Eyes

Everyone has their pet issues (no pun intended) and while I respect the fact that you feel so passionately about protecting animals from abuse, it is a pretty marginal issue to me, as I'm mainly preoccupied by the suffering of human beings. Again, if Bgwah can start a circlejerk against me on AAD because I dared to try and have a civilized discussion on gender issues, I don't see why I should sit through an endless lecture about why eating meat is VERY BAD.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2015, 04:54:05 AM »

It's disgusting when we belittle homeless people and the relationships they can form with their pets.  Much of this outrage would be well used against a culture that sees animals as commodities to be sold, used, and discarded.  Imagine not just the horror of a man who loses his companion dog, but also the horror of millions of dogs deserted by their humans everyday, while others go to pet stores and purchase the 'right' breed according to their specifications.  Meanwhile, homeless people keep pets as some of their only friends in an isolated world, which may isolate them from some shelters unwilling to house companion animals.  It is important to remember the value of these animals to these people, and to remember the value of animals in general.  Their value should transcend that of a price in a pet store.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2015, 09:12:08 AM »

1. The seizing of the pet was illegal, and horrible PR. The activists had no right to do that. See number 3 below for what they should have done.

2. Homeless people have a right to own pets that they don't abuse. Indeed, that might be one of the few comforts that they have, that improves the quality of their life to some extent. Some homeless may develop strong attachment to their pets. We don't know what the exact facts are in this case, as to whether there was abuse, and the degree of attachment of the homeless guy to the puppy, and his motivation for having the puppy. It's just speculation.

3. Yes, some homeless people abuse pets, and when folks see that happening, or a possibility it is happening, they should call the authorities to look into it. If there is abuse, the authorities should take the pet away. If not, they should not.

I don't quite understand all the heat generated in this thread. Surely most of us agree with the above, no?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.