Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man

[Alcon]

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.

I've spent a lot of time commenting on the vagaries of this question and what significance they have. What part of my argument is "dogmatic"?

I'm being aggressive.  Don't confuse being aggressive with being dogmatic.  Being dogmatic is intellectually dishonest; there's nothing wrong with being aggressive about ideas.

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.

Because the quality of the argument has absolutely nothing to do with who's making it and how much you like them, and because either way, I'm the one trying to engage you and I'm not bgwah.

[Alcon]

I don't quite understand all the heat generated in this thread. Surely most of us agree with the above, no?

Yes, we do.  Why the heat?  Imagine there was a substantive thread around gay rights, and people stopped replying to that thread to instead open one about how silly pride parades are.  Or if someone terminated a conversation about civil rights in favor of a thread highlighting the militancy of some particular small group of Black Panthers.

[ingemann]

This is not a thread about Animal Rights activism. This is a thread about a specific news event.

Yup

Also it remind, this is something I have wanted to ask a Frenchman about; how can this organisation get away with this? Do it have some kind of semi-official position, which means they can take animals from people they claim abuse them, are there some kind of loophole in French law or something else?

[Alcon]

Somehow I doubt there's a specific exemption in French law where you can steal other people's animals without due process of law if you think you'd treat them better   Nice attempt to turn this thread substantive, though.

[ingemann]

Somehow I doubt there's a specific exemption in French law where you can steal other people's animals without due process of law if you think you'd treat them better   Nice attempt to turn this thread substantive, though.

This thread have been substantive the whole way, except for your attempt to spam it to death. Also this organisation can be a private organisation who work under a public mandate of animal's right protection.

[Alcon]

Somehow I doubt there's a specific exemption in French law where you can steal other people's animals without due process of law if you think you'd treat them better  Nice attempt to turn this thread substantive, though.

This thread have been substantive the whole way, except for your attempt to spam it to death.

I posted a post asking why this is substantive or important, and explaining why I think topics like these are problems when they aren't substantive or important.  In what sense is that "spamming," besides that you disagree and don't want to talk about this topic from that angle?  I think you're annoyed that I took your topic in a way you didn't like, but I have no idea how you'd characterize it as "spam."

I have repeatedly asked someone -- anyone -- to identify what significance this topic has to anything, besides that marginal activists are sometimes crazy jerks, or why we should care that they're crazy jerks if that's the point.  The answers were lacking, so I criticized the topic.  The fact that you don't like the criticism doesn't make it "spam."

Also this organisation can be a private organisation who work under a public mandate of animal's right protection.

You think that the French government gives a "public mandate" to a random activist group to do things like this?  Putting aside how obviously ridiculous that idea seems, where are you seeing any indication that's the case here?  It seems like you're grasping at straws to turn this topic into something substantive, which I guess is a step up from accidentally insulting yourself because you don't read messages.

(Y'know, responding to messages without having read them might generate something reasonably called "spam," don't you think?)

[Foucaulf]

I was wondering where the conversation went from the vegetarianism thread. How's this for a ground rule: make the vegetarianism thread about the morality of animal welfare, and make this one about animal rights. Ethics and political philosophy are two different things, though distinguishing the two can always be difficult.

Look, I get it, we don't think there's a right to vigilantism. I support that too. But do you think the optics would've been any better if it were "French police seize puppy from homeless man," and the police speculated the same way these activists do?

To turn the problem on its head more, what if there were a news event that says "police take away Down's Syndrome child accused to be abused by parent?" Most of us wouldn't stand for that. And the question of animal rights is then whether the animal has a claim on us the way a child or a disabled child does.

By the way,

What concerns? I, like most decent people, oppose animal cruelty and generally support the actions of groups that take care of animals.

the logical conjunction between those two statements is not obvious. There's an argument to be made that zoos, for example, abrogate some of the animals' freedoms. It only surfaces as an issue when news arrives of an orca going crazy and biting a trainer's head off.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do not know enough about zoos to have an opinion on the matter, and if some species are shown to be unfit for such life, then they should definitely be released. Still, my point was that I appreciate the work of groups who try to provide animals with the care they need.

Also, no, I don't subscribe to the notion of "animal rights", because I see rights as the product of a social-contract between individuals capable of reason. I do however think that humans have a moral obligation to avoid unnecessary cruelty toward any being that can feel pain.

[Alcon]

I do not know enough about zoos to have an opinion on the matter, and if some species are shown to be unfit for such life, then they should definitely be released. Still, my point was that I appreciate the work of groups who try to provide animals with the care they need.

Also, no, I don't subscribe to the notion of "animal rights", because I see rights as the product of a social-contract between individuals capable of reason. I do however think that humans have a moral obligation to avoid unnecessary cruelty toward any being that can feel pain.

1. I'm not sure I understand your semantics.  In what sense do animals capable of feeling suffering but lacking contractual capacity lack "rights" that humans have?  I don't think anyone is arguing that animals deserve right to complete right of consent, or anything.  I think most of the arguments are about suffering...so what rights relating to suffering (or anything discussed here) should we confer only to animals with contractual capacity?

2. Do humans without contractual capacity receive these extra rights?

3. Do you make any more than passing effort to reduce unnecessary cruelty in your meat consumption patterns?  Do you think you have any moral obligation to?  Why/why not?

[Antonio the Sixth]

1. I do not conceptualize it in terms of animal rights, but rather in terms of moral obligation. An action that causes unnecessary suffering is morally wrong in and of itself, regardless of who/what the subject of such action is. Such action does not violate an individual right, but a categorical imperative.

2. I'm not sure what "extra rights" you are talking about. We limit the rights of children and mentally impaired people too, since they both lack the capacity to make use of those rights. Animals are even beyond that, since their behavior is entirely based on instincts rather than rationality.

3. I generally believe that the task of correcting social injustices befalls on public action, not on individual activism. Thus I'm not interested in investing myself personally into a cause, other than stating my arguments for it. I have never been to a protest, either. So no, I don't go out of my way to be 100% sure that the meat I'm buying comes from the most humane farm in the world. That said, I tend to buy organic food when available, so presumably I've avoided the worst cases.

[Alcon]

1. I do not conceptualize it in terms of animal rights, but rather in terms of moral obligation. An action that causes unnecessary suffering is morally wrong in and of itself, regardless of who/what the subject of such action is. Such action does not violate an individual right, but a categorical imperative.

I don't have a problem with this.

2. I'm not sure what "extra rights" you are talking about. We limit the rights of children and mentally impaired people too, since they both lack the capacity to make use of those rights. Animals are even beyond that, since their behavior is entirely based on instincts rather than rationality.

I was asking whether the distinction between "rights-bearing" and "protected from cruelty but not rights-bearing" limited the extent of moral obligations or rights relevant to suffering.  As far as I can tell, the answer is no, but I didn't know that until this post.  I don't have a problem with this answer either.

3. I generally believe that the task of correcting social injustices befalls on public action, not on individual activism. Thus I'm not interested in investing myself personally into a cause, other than stating my arguments for it. I have never been to a protest, either. So no, I don't go out of my way to be 100% sure that the meat I'm buying comes from the most humane farm in the world. That said, I tend to buy organic food when available, so presumably I've avoided the worst cases.

OK, this is where your argument gets completely shoddy.  You claim an imperative not to cause unnecessary suffering, but you claim you're obligated to avoid meat-eating -- which causes unnecessary suffering.  A lot, dude.  You kind-of-sort-of-maybe prefer humane meat (which may limit unnecessary suffering but doesn't prevent it), and even then, you buy organic, which is a weak proxy for humane meat.

So, in sum, you don't care about avoiding unnecessary suffering if it's anything less than totally convenient and doesn't require you to change your diet at all.  Your rationale for this is that the task of correcting social injustices falls on "society," not you.  Your involvement in changing "society" extends to making not even the slightest demand that society change, not even altering your personal behavior unless it's completely convenient and nearly effortless, and for all purposes appearing to not give a damn if society changes.  This despite your ostensible 'categorical' moral commitment to avoiding unnecessary cruelty.

I can see why you'd prefer not to be invested in this topic.  You'd go broke quick.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is a big difference between actually causing harm to living beings and not spending hours figuring out what to buy or not to buy based on the way it was produced. Sure, there are a few high-profile corporations whose evildoing is well-documented (and you can, and should, avoid those) but when the practice is as widespread it's almost impossible to avoid unless you want to dedicate your entire life to that particular cause.

If the practices of the meat-farming industry is causing unnecessary suffering, then those practices should be outlawed. That's what governments are for.

[Alcon]

There is a big difference between actually causing harm to living beings and not spending hours figuring out what to buy or not to buy based on the way it was produced. Sure, there are a few high-profile corporations whose evildoing is well-documented (and you can, and should, avoid those) but when the practice is as widespread it's almost impossible to avoid unless you want to dedicate your entire life to that particular cause.

If the practices of the meat-farming industry is causing unnecessary suffering, then those practices should be outlawed. That's what governments are for.

So, basically, everything I said was completely, 100% accurate, with the addendum that you want it noted that you don't personally torture animals.  Oh, good!

You just, as I said, have absolutely no interest in even going slightly out of your way to avoid other people causing them systematic suffering because of your actions.  There's probably some really bad meat companies out there -- you know, those ones, the ones that would require too much research for you to bother to identify and avoid.  So you do absolutely nothing.  But you're intellectually aware it happens, so at least you're at peace with your uselessness.

But, no really, you're a super moral guy with a lot of strong, liberal feelings!  You really wish there were a way you didn't indirectly cause all that nasty suffering.  Too bad nothing is practical.  Vegetarianism?  That would require sacrificing a small proportion of the world's flavor profiles to fulfill a moral imperative you claim you have, and that's just going too far.  That would require your moral beliefs to have some sort of small cost associated with them!  That's just too much to expect of yourself, I guess.

But I'm sure if there were an e-petition to ineffectually "call on the meat industry to be better to animals" or something, you'd totally sign it, because that's the strong, upstanding, moral man you are.

Utterly disgusting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, what I'm saying is that consumers are not responsible for the actions of corporations. This is one of those silly ideas that many modern activists have embraced, and which has significantly harmed their success on other fronts. Ironically, it plays right into the corporations' propaganda ("we're doing this because the consumers want it"). Corporations are responsible for their actions. I'm glad that some activists take the time to make sure that everything they buy is perfectly 100% morally consistent with their views, but most normal people just don't have the time and energy to do that. And guess what, I don't give a sh*t if you think we are horrible people. By all means, keep patting yourself on the back.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I wouldn't refer to PETA as "radical". They are more of an established group of stuntpeople, and they're good at their stated aim: to get attention at any possible situation. There the kind of group that enjoys people disliking them.

PETA workers, in their euthanasia enthusiasm, went to someone's house, took their dog off the porch, and killed the dog. 
At least this group left his pet alive so he might be able to get it back.

[Alcon]

No, what I'm saying is that consumers are not responsible for the actions of corporations. This is one of those silly ideas that many modern activists have embraced, and which has significantly harmed their success on other fronts. Ironically, it plays right into the corporations' propaganda ("we're doing this because the consumers want it"). I'm glad that some activists take the time to make sure that everything they buy is perfectly 100% morally consistent with their views, but most normal people just don't have the time and energy to do that. And guess what, I don't give a sh*t if you think we are horrible people. By all means, keep patting yourself on the back.

There is no part of your argument I'm misunderstanding.  The only distinction you're drawing is that you don't execute the suffering personally.  You just knowingly do something that will inevitably cause the suffering.  Totally different!

Here's what's up.  You're preferring your own convenience, and a slightly broader selection of foods, even though you know the end result is increased suffering for sentient beings.  Literally, you think that having your preferred dishes is enough to justify that suffering.  You don't actually believe there is a moral imperative to avoid "unnecessary suffering."  You think suffering is just fine even if it's unnecessary, so long as the end result of that suffering is that you don't have to eat falafel or a vegetarian curry instead of a hamburger.  That's apparently your definition of "necessary."

And I'm not patting myself on the back.  I'm beating up on you.  The purpose of morality isn't to feel self-satisfied and comfortable.  Maybe that's the point you're lost on.

Perhaps we should get an opinion from someone who objected when some idiots caused suffering to another sentient creature for their own unnecessary self-satisfaction.

Utterly disgusting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I already said I don't give a sh*t if you think I (and most normal people who don't have about a thousand more serious things to worry about that where their meat comes from) am a horrible person. You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself, since otherwise you wouldn't be so keen on beating up on the majority of people for not doing something they can't realistically be expected to do. But tell me, how many animals do you think you have saved with your smug slacktivism?

[/]

[Alcon]

I already said I don't give a sh*t if you think I (and most normal people who don't have about a thousand more serious things to worry about that where their meat comes from) am a horrible person.

OK...why not respond to my substantive criticism of your argument then?  What about what I'm saying is invalid?  "I don't care what you think of me!" isn't much of a defense of logical moral criticisms, which I am presenting.

You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself, since otherwise you wouldn't be so keen on beating up on the majority of people for not doing something they can't realistically be expected to do.

I never said I don't beat up on myself too.  It's healthy!    Feel free to do the same back, as you are (although calling me a "slacktivist" is a little baffling, coming from you.)

And how is the expectation here "unrealistic"?  It's not remotely "unrealistic" to avoid eating meat besides that you don't want to.

But tell me, how many animals do you think you have saved with your smug slacktivism?

Your entire argument is that you should have no obligation to go at all out of your way to enforce your "moral imperatives," and you're calling me a slacktivist?  To answer your question, it's pretty easy to quantify how many animals are slaughtered for food per American, and over an adult's lifetime, it comes down to something like 1,700 chickens; 60 turkeys; 25 pigs; and 10 cows.  That's not counting the male chicks ground up for egg-making.  For an adult male, these figures are probably higher across-the-board.  For somebody like you, an adult male who self-identifies as "the opposite of a vegetarian," it's probably moderately higher yet.  I realize supply and demand isn't perfect cause-and-effect, but unless you think demand doesn't correlate highly and fairly linearly with supply, and that your demand doesn't have as much effect as everyone else's demand, there's the answer.

So, that's the scale of the suffering that your decisions indirectly (but knowingly) result in.  Thoughts?

But maybe you'd like to argue that this is totally fine, when some jerks stealing a homeless guy's puppy is...

...

...

Utterly disgusting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK...why not respond to my substantive criticism of your argument then?  What about what I'm saying is invalid?  "I don't care what you think of me!" isn't much of a defense of logical moral criticisms, which I am presenting.

I just explained why your moral criticism is invalid, and it's really pretty straightforward, since I have never hurt an animal in my life. You're the one who's accusing me of imaginary crimes, so forgive me if I don't take your criticism very seriously.

And how is the expectation here "unrealistic"?  It's not remotely "unrealistic" to avoid eating meat besides that you don't want to.

Moving the goalposts much? You started this discussion telling me I should choose which meat I eat, and now you go again in full vegetarian fanatic mode. Forgive me, but I'm not going down that road again. I've had enough of this nonsense with your crazy friend.

[Alcon]

I just explained why your moral criticism is invalid, and it's really pretty straightforward, since I have never hurt an animal in my life. You're the one who's accusing me of imaginary crimes, so forgive me if I don't take your criticism very seriously.

So, are you telling me that if you knowingly request something that will prompt another sentient creature to suffer, you bare absolutely no moral responsibility for the resulting suffering, as long as you didn't do it with your own hands?

Moving the goalposts much? You started this discussion telling me I should choose which meat I eat, and now you go again in full vegetarian fanatic mode. Forgive me, but I'm not going down that road again. I've had enough of this nonsense with your crazy friend.

Bull.  Quote me where I said humane meat was either suffering-free or morally acceptable.  My point was that you aren't just eating non-humane meats because it's unrealistic.  My point wast that, when confronted with a realistic option (vegetarianism) you still refuse to change your behavior.  That indicates you reject realistic options, which means you consider consider some aspect of meat-eating more important than your moral imperative to avoid harm.  So, your claim that you avoid unnecessary suffering is bunk.*

(* - This isn't necessarily relevant if you genuinely think you have no moral responsibility for things that you know will happen as a result of an unnecessary request you make or action you take.  I'm not convinced that's the case, but let's address that first.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think killing animals is inherently cruel. I simply think that they should be treated decently while alive and be killed with the most humane method available. I think that eating meat and killing animals for that purpose is perfectly reasonable, and I wish to do that with as little animal suffering as possible. But obviously the world is not perfect, and I can do with it.

Hope that clears it up (but I won't lose sleep if it doesn't).

[Alcon]

I don't think killing animals is inherently cruel. I simply think that they should be treated decently while alive and be killed with the most humane method available. I think that eating meat and killing animals for that purpose is perfectly reasonable, and I wish to do that with as little animal suffering as possible. But obviously the world is not perfect, and I can do with it.

Hope that clears it up (but I won't lose sleep if it doesn't).

That's consistent with the criticism I've been levying.  I know that you'd prefer to avoid suffering, if all else is equal.  My criticism is that pretty much every other interest you have (slight convenience, taste preference) trumps that, and that's abhorrent.  If you applied this moral rationale to other situations ("as long as my hands aren't bloody, I can cause everything to happen so long as I have a preference for the results")...God, dude, can you not see how much of a problem that is?

Otherwise, could you point toward the specific part(s) of my criticism you think is inaccurate of your position?  As far as I can tell, all of your "clarifications" are just repeating things I've already noted about your position, while ignoring the criticisms I've levied against it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I don't lose sleep over the 0.0000000001% of farm animals that might hypothetically have slightly better living conditions if I spent 10 hours every day figuring out which company's meat I can buy and which I can't, or if I drastically and artificially limited the nutritional variety of my diet. Is that what you wanted to hear?

There is a much simpler solution that could save millions of times as many animals and leave alone the billions of humans who like meat and/or don't want to waste their time in such a way. Which is to enact stricter regulations. It would be a much better use of your time (and mine!) to advocate for such changes in policy instead of pestering some dude on the internet.

[Alcon]

Yes, I don't lose sleep over the 0.0000000001% of animals that might hypothetically have slightly better living conditions if I spent 10 hours every day figuring out which company's meat I can buy and which I can't, or if I drastically and artificially limited the nutritional variety of my diet. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Putting aside that that's way hyperbolic, that's exactly why I offered vegetarianism as a much lower-cost solution.  You just basically shrugged it off with "I'm not going to talk about this," for some reason...

There is a much simpler solution that could save millions of times as many animals and leave alone the billions of humans who like meat and/or don't want to waste their time in such a way. Which is to enact stricter regulations. It would be a much better use of your time (and mine!) to advocate for such changes in policy instead of pestering some dude on the internet.

Having conversations that call into the question typical meat consumption as "obviously moral" is the only thing that's going to make people give enough of a crap to go vegetarian or do that.  Have you ever done anything like that before?  I'm guessing not.  How much thought do you put into doing something like that outside of the context of this debate?

I already have zeroed out my demand for meat.  If I thought that the political context was ripe to support this sort of regulation, I'd pursue it.  It's not, and won't be until people give a damn -- which is why I have these conversations.