Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:33:27 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 8440 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: October 04, 2015, 06:43:21 PM »

How much thought do you put into doing something like that outside of the context of this debate?

None, and I still don't. And I have explained why. Because I am not responsible for other people's actions, and because the difference I would make (at a considerable cost) would be statistically irrelevant. Your argument doesn't hold value to me, neither on a pragmatic nor on a moral standpoint. You can reiterate it as much as you want.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: October 04, 2015, 06:48:00 PM »

None, and I still don't. And I have explained why. Because I am not responsible for other people's actions,

So, if you hire a debt collector you know breaks legs, you're not morally responsible at all for people having their legs broken?

and because the difference I would make (at a considerable cost) would be statistically irrelevant.

The "considerable cost" is your taste preferences -- you like to eat meat more than some other foods.

How is the number of animals I quoted "statistically irrelevant"?  I don't think you know what the term "statistically irrelevant" means (not that it has a meaning)...

Your argument doesn't hold value to me, neither on a pragmatic nor on a moral standpoint. You can reiterate it as much as you want.

Based on your "shifting the goalposts" comment, if you actually do understand my argument, your understanding is pretty damn new, since that belied a fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been explicitly arguing.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: October 04, 2015, 07:00:40 PM »

Antonio, why do you bother arguing with some hippie who can't accept basic facts of life?

Humans are omnivorous. Humans have a position in the food chain. Not eating meat goes against those facts of life and we shouldn't leave a small brainless minority too weak to accept the laws of nature transform human alimentation in an unnatural way.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: October 04, 2015, 07:05:39 PM »

It's a basic fact of life that Women aren't good at Math. We just accept this rather than have some sentimentalists and weak people decide our policies and actions that go against the laws of nature.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: October 04, 2015, 07:06:33 PM »

That's a ridiculous analogy. Consumers don't "hire" corporations. It's a fundamentally different relationship, and one where most of the decisions are taken by the corporations, for their own goals and according to their own rationale.

And yes, "taste preferences" are a pretty big deal. Eating is a fundamental part of the human experience and by taking away the pleasure to eat the food you like you're taking away one of the main sources of happiness in life. I don't think that's something you can so flippantly dismiss.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: October 04, 2015, 07:17:22 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 07:23:04 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Antonio, why do you bother arguing with some hippie who can't accept basic facts of life?

Humans are omnivorous. Humans have a position in the food chain. Not eating meat goes against those facts of life and we shouldn't leave a small brainless minority too weak to accept the laws of nature transform human alimentation in an unnatural way.

Are you actually arguing that anything that's evolutionarily useful is necessarily moral, and asserting that someone would have to be unintelligent to not accept that premise?  That is your argument?  Think about it for a good minute.

That's a ridiculous analogy. Consumers don't "hire" corporations. It's a fundamentally different relationship, and one where most of the decisions are taken by the corporations, for their own goals and according to their own rationale.

Why is that distinction important to your moral culpability, though?  In both cases, you knowingly obtain an unnecessary service and the knowing consequence is suffering.  Finding a distinction does not make an analogy "ridiculous" unless that distinction is a relevant, compelling difference.  Please explain why "hiring to do something" versus "purchasing a product from" is enough to completely eliminate moral culpability.

And yes, "taste preferences" are a pretty big deal. Eating is a fundamental part of the human experience and by taking away the pleasure to eat the food you like you're taking away one of the main sources of happiness in life. I don't think that's something you can so flippantly dismiss.

I don't dismiss it.  I referred to a somewhat narrower available set of foods as a cost.  That said, there are very few people who have such narrow food preferences that they'd stop enjoying eating if meat were off the table.  (How many people deeply value eating as a human experience, but dislike essentially all non-meat foods...is that number "statistically insignificant," too?)

In every paraphrase I've constructed of your position, I've indicated that you attach a greater value to your food preferences than everything I'm weighing them against, and I've based my argument on criticizing that.  You're sure indulging in a lot of certitude for someone who seems to keep failing to retain major parts of the argument.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: October 04, 2015, 07:22:18 PM »

It's a basic fact of life that Women aren't good at Math. We just accept this rather than have some sentimentalists and weak people decide our policies and actions that go against the laws of nature.

That is a dumb strawman and you know it.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: October 04, 2015, 07:24:22 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 07:27:13 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

It's a basic fact of life that Women aren't good at Math. We just accept this rather than have some sentimentalists and weak people decide our policies and actions that go against the laws of nature.

That is a dumb strawman and you know it.

The underlying assumption behind your argument (that evolutionary usefulness apparently becomes "natural law" when the result is an instinctive compulsion is present throughout enough of the population, and that we don't need to consider any other moral implications) is pretty awful (because...why?).  It's also basically just a high-fallutin' variation on the "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2015, 07:24:52 PM »

It's a basic fact of life that Women aren't good at Math. We just accept this rather than have some sentimentalists and weak people decide our policies and actions that go against the laws of nature.

That is a dumb strawman and you know it.

I think this is a 'gets one to know one' statement.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: October 04, 2015, 07:25:28 PM »

Antonio, why do you bother arguing with some hippie who can't accept basic facts of life?

Humans are omnivorous. Humans have a position in the food chain. Not eating meat goes against those facts of life and we shouldn't leave a small brainless minority too weak to accept the laws of nature transform human alimentation in an unnatural way.

Um, I would not call Alcon (or vegetarians, if you meant to speak more broadly) "brainless". He is/they are anything but.

It is true that a vegetarian diet is cheaper than one that includes meat & fish products, and that there are significant long-term health benefits in reducing (or eliminating) meat consumption (especially of red meat). Additionally, the meat industry's practices are major contributors to pollution and rising prices of other food staples. You can get pretty much every nutritional item from a vegetarian diet that you would otherwise get from eating meat products.

I do share the belief that harming animals is immoral, and thus that slaughtering animals for food products is immoral, and yet I still eat meat, poultry, and fish products (especially fish; I'm Bengali afterall). I've never really heard any good moral arguments for eating meat in modern times; it was a topic I dreaded in debate because you simply couldn't defend it. I guess this should make me feel bad and makes me hypocritical, but oh well. Sorry Alcon Tongue

There's nothing extreme about vegetarianism (Going vegan seems extreme to me, however). But a pretty sizable portion of the world is vegetarian by choice or by situational/medical necessity (hell, Bill Clinton is vegetarian for medical reasons now), they seem to be doing just fine.

But "brainless minority" is a ridiculous way to characterize them.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: October 04, 2015, 07:27:20 PM »

Antonio, why do you bother arguing with some hippie who can't accept basic facts of life?

Humans are omnivorous. Humans have a position in the food chain. Not eating meat goes against those facts of life and we shouldn't leave a small brainless minority too weak to accept the laws of nature transform human alimentation in an unnatural way.

Are you actually arguing that anything that's evolutionarily useful is necessarily moral, and asserting that someone would have to be unintelligent to not accept that premise?  That is your argument?  Think about it for a good minute.

Such "moral" overthinking is what led to oppression of women during millenia and oppression of gays until a few decades.

Religions created plenty of bad moral codes. It's the same for vegetarianism. It's a misguided moral code, guided by an higher concern for animal life than human life, which isn't acceptable for a well-balanced human.

Are you really arguing animal health is more important than animal health?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: October 04, 2015, 07:31:35 PM »

Religions created plenty of bad moral codes. It's the same for vegetarianism. It's a misguided moral code, guided by an higher concern for animal life than human life, which isn't acceptable for a well-balanced human.
How so? One can perfectly well be a "well-balanced human" without eating meat. Vegetarians aren't starving and many have found other ways to have healthy nutrition.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: October 04, 2015, 07:33:21 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 07:39:53 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Such "moral" overthinking is what led to oppression of women during millenia and oppression of gays until a few decades.

I don't understand what part of my "overthinking" here would lead to oppression of women or gays.  Dude, my entire argument is that traditional ideas of what's "natural" or "instinctual" often lead to morally dubious outcomes that fail a test of what's good vs. harmful.

You just trotted out an argument that basically said "don't argue with people who don't understand that natural instinct should dictate what morally proper behavior is."  Next thing, immediately (and without explanation) suggest my argument might somehow bolster discrimination against gays?  The irony is thick.

Religions created plenty of bad moral codes. It's the same for vegetarianism. It's a misguided moral code, guided by an higher concern for animal life than human life, which isn't acceptable for a well-balanced human.

Bull.  Please quote a single part of my argument that asserts higher concern for animal life than human life.  

Are you really arguing animal health is more important than animal health?

No, assuming you meant to type "animal health is more important than human health."  I'm not arguing that.  I have no idea why you'd think I'm arguing that.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: October 04, 2015, 07:36:56 PM »
« Edited: December 17, 2017, 06:48:48 AM by DavidB. »

Such "moral" overthinking is what led to oppression of women during millenia and oppression of gays
No, quite the opposite: a lack of thinking in terms of morality (as opposed to convenience) led to the oppression of women and gay people.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: October 04, 2015, 07:37:58 PM »

Please quote a single part of my argument that asserts higher concern for human life than animal life. 

All of it Wink

I think you got the phrases mixed up...
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 04, 2015, 07:39:59 PM »

Please quote a single part of my argument that asserts higher concern for human life than animal life. 

All of it Wink

I think you got the phrases mixed up...

haha, thanks!
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 04, 2015, 07:57:11 PM »

Alcon, I believe my argument is clear enough, and if you still don't understand it by now, I have little hope that you ever will. But I'll be nice and summarize it for you one last time.

I believe that causing needless suffering to animals is wrong. The current suffering that animals go through could be avoided (or at least limited) if more stringent regulations were imposed on the farming industry. But if the only way I, personally, could avoid the suffering (of an infinitesimal fraction of all farm animals, mind you) only at the costs that we're talking about, then the suffering is not "needless" from my perspective. There is a legitimate reason for me, provided my near-powerless position in the face of the farming industry's practices, to not go out of my way to prevent such suffering. Legislators, on the other hand, could easily prevent such suffering, so again, my question is why you're focusing your effort on me rather than on them.

If you still don't get it, feel free to keep thinking I'm a horrible person. But there's no point in dragging this out.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: October 04, 2015, 08:01:43 PM »

If you still don't get it, feel free to keep thinking I'm a horrible person. But there's no point in dragging this out.

I'm pretty sure it's a bannable offense on Atlas to use the phrase "horrible person" instead of the abbreviation "HP".
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2015, 08:12:30 PM »

Alcon, I believe my argument is clear enough, and if you still don't understand it by now, I have little hope that you ever will. But I'll be nice and summarize it for you one last time.

I believe that causing needless suffering to animals is wrong. The current suffering that animals go through could be avoided (or at least limited) if more stringent regulations were imposed on the farming industry. But if the only way I, personally, could avoid the suffering (of an infinitesimal fraction of all farm animals, mind you) only at the costs that we're talking about, then the suffering is not "needless" from my perspective. There is a legitimate reason for me, provided my near-powerless position in the face of the farming industry's practices, to not go out of my way to prevent such suffering. Legislators, on the other hand, could easily prevent such suffering, so again, my question is why you're focusing your effort on me rather than on them.

If you still don't get it, feel free to keep thinking I'm a horrible person. But there's no point in dragging this out.

The problem isn't that I'm not understanding your argument!  It's that it's a bad argument and I've explained precisely why.  Instead of responding to that, you're saying "you just don't understand" and repeating your argument.  I even already answered your "why legislators instead of me?" question...like, just a few posts ago.

You can't act all exhausted with me, and act like it's my fault the conversation isn't progressing, when you're:

1. not responding to very specific criticisms articulated with precise logic

2. repeating questions I've already answered very precisely, implying I haven't addressed them

3. constantly trying to end the conversation because "I'm not getting it" when you're the one doing #1 and #2

seriously, quote me a single argument you've made I haven't explicitly addressed, or a single criticism of my argument you've made that I haven't explicitly addressed

a single one.

You're not a horrible person, but this is ridiculous, Antonio, and your argument is terrible.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: October 04, 2015, 08:18:07 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 08:24:17 PM by Californian Tony Returns »

You think my argument is bad, and I think yours are terrible. Whatever. I just wasted several hours of my life arguing with you, when I could simply have ignored your rants and do something productive instead. Guess it's time to go back to that. Bye.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: October 04, 2015, 08:26:52 PM »

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.

A) that's not radical in the sense in using the word. 'Radical' doesn't mean annoying.

B) PETA does a lot of unpleasant stuff that nobody else does. In the case your're referring to the organisation were requested by a landowner to sort out the stray dogs in the area that were mutilating his cows udders. They were told that the trailer park did not allow dogs running free, so sadly they did not consider one of the "strays" was a actually a beloved pet, especially as it lacked a collar etc. the owner of the dog was not home, but other residents were around and gave permission for PETA to do their shenigans. PETA screwed up, sure, and the organisation admitted it. But is the human error of two PETA workers comparable to the very real problem of the proliferation of strays that are created by the pet breeding industry and inadaqute neutering programs. People who are angry because PETA euthanise animals are being sentimental and lack perspective.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: October 04, 2015, 08:36:15 PM »

Anyway things I've learnt from this thread: Francophone leftists do not support animal rights, Washington Democrats do. Huh. I wonder what this means
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: October 04, 2015, 08:41:29 PM »

You think my argument is bad, and I think yours are terrible. Whatever. I just wasted several hours of my life arguing with you, when I could simply have ignored your rants and and go on with my life. Guess it's time to go back to that. Bye.

You just spent several posts reiterating parts of your argument I'd already accurately paraphrased and responded to, and asking me questions I've already addressed.  Now, you want us to believe that you totally got the points I've made, and totally had responses to them, you just don't want to bother.  Right, dude.

If you don't want to take the time to respond to my arguments, which I've articulated in precise logical terms, OK.  But don't pretend like it's because you've proven they're terrible and I'm being dense.  At best, you're being lazy.  At worst, and more likely considering your restatements and non-responses, you're in over your head and don't actually have a defense, and you're being incredibly disingenuous.

Either way, your right to terminate the conversation.  Good luck with grad school, what with your ability to withstand intellectual criticism.

I'll defer to you again to characterize your performance in this thread:

The art of disappointing anyone who was still ready to take you seriously.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: October 04, 2015, 08:46:24 PM »

This thread:

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: October 04, 2015, 09:04:15 PM »
« Edited: October 04, 2015, 09:07:59 PM by Californian Tony Returns »

Hahahahaha omg, you took the time to dig up a post I made 6 years ago just for a punchline? That's hilarious, if a bit disturbing.
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 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.