Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man

[Antonio the Sixth]

Utterly disgusting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This homeless man was obviously using the puppy to get more donations because of its cuteness.  Exploitation!  Cute puppies deserve to be in good homes not begging on the street.

It's not surprising to see conservatives care more about the welfare of puppies than that of homeless people...

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This isn't a news event.

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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).

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess you guys have a couple new entries for your "Worst posts of modern Atlas" thread.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, to be clear, I don't think appeal to nature is a valid argument in any circumstance, and I won't use it just because it happens to support my argument in this case.

On the other hand, it is established that the increase in protein consumption generated by the development of the first hunting tools and cooking methods was crucial to the development of the human brain that made us into homo sapiens. So if Alcon's ancestors never ate meat, chances are he wouldn't be here today to scold me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And yet, this moral evolution would never have happened without eating meat. I hope the irony isn't entirely lost on you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

God, you're such a pain in the ass. Not even able to take a tongue-in-cheek for what it is and instead using it as a pretext for another long-winded rant on how evil those who disagree with you are. It's really sad to witness.

I don't think eating meat is immoral, and considering you were the one who was really pushing forward an argument, you are the one who lost the debate by failing to convince me. I, for one, had no interest in convincing you to start eating meat, since I accept that people have a variety of moral beliefs and resulting lifestyles, and I don't think anyone who differs from mine is a horrible person.