Main Menu
SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Oh, PETA...

Started by JongWK, August 07, 2008, 10:48:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Engine

Quote from: Patriarch917;234683Here, though, the underlying point (killing a man is as bad as killing an animal) is so absurd that it magnifies the rudeness of this ad.
It's common to dismiss as absurd views which are significantly different from our own, often without questioning the seemingly axiomatic underlying points on which our own views are based. Why is killing a man as bad as killing an animal?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;234722It is right for humans to control and kill animals. It is not right for humans to be cruel to animals. Most of modern agriculture constitutes cruelty to animals; cattle, pigs and sheep are regularly confined, fed and drugged in ways which would get me fined or imprisoned if I did it to a dog or cat.
It's interesting to note that not that long ago, even in the "greatest civilizations," it was "right" for humans to be cruel to animals, too. And to be cruel to each other. And to kill each other. Those rights have come slow, but there's a definite progression - anyone got a value-neutral word for that? "Evolution" has too many connotations - toward giving beings who are increasingly different from yourself the same rights you have. From, "kill anyone not of your tribe," to, "kill only members not of your nation," to, "don't torture people," to, "don't torture animals," to, "let black people vote." Each of those things seemed mad before the movements and cultural alterations which brought them about, and now anything else seems absurd.

Funny thing about progression, though, is that it continues. We're increasingly giving non-human primates things that used to be limited to human beings: writs of habeus corpus, court-appointed guardians, and, well, most human rights, for instance. I think this is a natural - if perhaps undesirable to some - result of science increasingly finding that there's very little difference between us and our cousins, and the differences that are there - basically, consciousness - aren't as unique as we used to think. Particularly at the edges, the speciesist argument starts to look absurd, when humans with no consciousness have rights that other primates with it don't have. And the argument certainly isn't limited to non-human primates.

I'm certainly not the first to note this, and I should point out that I note it as an observer; I can't articulate my own feelings on the matter particularly well, so I'll settle for presenting the facts as I know them. Dawkins talks about it in a book or two, and indeed speaks to some of the reasons for it. [His presentation is better than mine.] But I must confess, it's very difficult to defend any moral basis for the humanocentric position, although defending its legal basis is fairly simple. In any case, it's a little scary to think that there will probably be multiple nations to grant near-full human legal rights to certain non-humans - likely primates, although animals near us in intelligence or pleasant to us in form are also likely to eventually be included - within the next century or so. In the "most civilized" nations, of course.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;234722Again, if you believe all humanity should cease to exist, begin with yourself.
That would be self-defeating, wouldn't it? I'm not sure who actually believes all humanity should be wiped out, but if that's your goal, it seems kind of stupid to start with yourself; shouldn't you do yourself in last, so you can make sure the job is done, first?
When you\'re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you\'ve got is the dick one.

shewolf

First, never ever mistreat something that can fuck you up. So my kids and animals all get really good care!

Seriously, FWIW the Bible tells us to be good stewards of the earth - that while we hold dominion over the animals of land, air, and sea, that doesn't mean we can just do whatever we want. I can deny my dog a place on the couch, but I can't beat her when I catch her up there. I can fence in my horse, but I need to be sure he's got shade, food, some shelter, and water.  

I don't agree with the exterminate humanity bit. Especially as a filthy breeder ;)

http://www.thecolororange.net/uk/
Dude, you\'re fruitier than a box of fruitloops dipped in a bowl of Charles Manson. - Mcrow
Quote from: Spike;282846You might be thinking of the longer handled skillets popular today, but I learned on one handed skillets (good for building the forearm and wrist strength!).  Of course, for spicing while you beat,
[/SIZE]

Kyle Aaron

Quote from: Engine;234805It's common to dismiss as absurd views which are significantly different from our own, often without questioning the seemingly axiomatic underlying points on which our own views are based.
Again with the moral relativism.

Quote from: EngineIt's interesting to note that not that long ago, even in the "greatest civilizations," it was "right" for humans to be cruel to animals, too.
Not really. In my faith, cruelty to animals has been considered wrong since its dawn, about 3,500 years ago.

I realise others have been slow to catch up. And some people still use sharp rocks to skin animals.
QuoteI'm not sure who actually believes all humanity should be wiped out, but if that's your goal, it seems kind of stupid to start with yourself; shouldn't you do yourself in last, so you can make sure the job is done, first?
Walkerp on this forum believes in it. And there's also a "voluntary human extinction" movement, though really it's just a bunch of yuppie DINKs trying to distinguish their "I'm too stingy and lazy to care for children, I'd rather buy a BMW" with "oh but it's a philosophy."

Every person ought to live by their principles. If you believe anything of the human race, begin with yourself. I don't say, "I'll be faithful to my wife and refrain from theft... once everyone else on the planet does." That's just a wishy-washy excuse for lack of dedication to your beliefs. Also known as hypocrisy.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Engine

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;234829Again with the moral relativism.
And again with the unsupported moral absolutism.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;234829Not really. In my faith, cruelty to animals has been considered wrong since its dawn, about 3,500 years ago.
I don't know if you noticed, but your statement doesn't contradict mine.

What faith would that be, by the way?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;234829Every person ought to live by their principles. If you believe anything of the human race, begin with yourself. I don't say, "I'll be faithful to my wife and refrain from theft... once everyone else on the planet does."
The cases are not equivalent. You can continue to aid others in being faithful after you yourself have been faithful; in fact, it's likely an asset. However, once you kill yourself, you cannot meaningfully aid the cause of human extinction. [I say "meaningfully," because you might at least serve as an example, but that's not likely to get you very far.]

Again, if the death of every human on earth is your goal, it would be counterproductive and illogical to begin with yourself.
When you\'re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you\'ve got is the dick one.

Patriarch917

Engine, what you posted seems hardly worth your time to write.  

You point out that people have had various opinions.  However, you seem to take no position as to whether those opinions were correct or not. Merely pointing out that opinions have changed (you asked for a value-neutral substitute for "progression," I suggest "change") does nothing to inform us as to whether a particular opinion is correct.

If you think that morals are like ice cream flavors, and that we can have mutually exclusive opinions without either of us actually being wrong, then why bother asking "Why is killing a man as bad as killing an animal?"  You might as well ask me why chocolate is better than vanilla.

If I've misinterpreted you, though, and you think that there is a right answer, and that there might be a way to figure out what it is, let me know.

walkerp

Quote from: Patriarch917;234777That killing a man is worse than killing an animal is not merely a position upon which we can have different but equally valuable opinions. Murder is not ice cream, and you don't get to choose your favorite flavor based on your own particular tastes. If a bear thinks that a man killing bears is as wrong as a man killing men, then that bear is just as wrong as PETA.

How are you so sure?  God told you?

What cracks me up about this anti-murder argument is that we are the worst species for committing murder on the planet, not just of a gazillion other species, but of ourselves, by far.  It's so easy to be living in the first world and talking all strongly about how murder is wrong.  However, at this very moment, humans are murdering other humans in a variety of ways and emotional states.  We've killed humans the same way we currently kill livestock (though that could actually be considered worse, since we don't actually use those dead humans for anything).

I don't think we've earned the moral high ground to be deciding what is and isn't murder.
"The difference between being fascinated with RPGs and being fascinated with the RPG industry is akin to the difference between being fascinated with sex and being fascinated with masturbation. Not that there\'s anything wrong with jerking off, but don\'t fool yourself into thinking you\'re getting laid." —Aos

Engine

Quote from: Patriarch917;234863Merely pointing out that opinions have changed (you asked for a value-neutral substitute for "progression," I suggest "change") does nothing to inform us as to whether a particular opinion is correct.
"Change" is an excellent substitute, thank you.

You're correct that I don't offer my own opinion, at least partially because I'm undecided. The other reason, however, is that I don't have an absolute morality - for instance, I don't think killing is "wrong" in a meaningful way, although it may be something I desire to prevent - and making my case for that is seldom productive here.

Quote from: Patriarch917;234863If you think that morals are like ice cream flavors, and that we can have mutually exclusive opinions without either of us actually being wrong...
As a rule, I don't think opinions can be right or wrong [meaning "correct or incorrect"], particularly when they involve preferences. And I don't believe morality is anything more than personal [or cultural] preference. So, yeah, kind of like ice cream...but ice cream that decides who lives and who dies! So at least it's exciting ice cream.

Quote from: Patriarch917;234863...then why bother asking "Why is killing a man as bad as killing an animal?"  You might as well ask me why chocolate is better than vanilla.
Because I want people to realize that their moral beliefs are only their preferences for how they'd like the world to be, and to discuss them at that level. The unquestioning dedication to a particular set of morals makes me want to make people ask questions; I don't necessarily have the answers, but I do like for people to ask the questions.
When you\'re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you\'ve got is the dick one.

Mike S.

Quote from: Patriarch917;234683When I understand that "most PETA members consider an animal life to be as, if not more, important than a human one," it doesn't make the ad look less insane.  It makes those PETA members look even more insane.

Patriarch, you said it better then I ever could.  Thank you

Patriarch917

Quote from: Engine;234868. . . I want people to realize that their moral beliefs are only their preferences for how they'd like the world to be, and to discuss them at that level. The unquestioning dedication to a particular set of morals makes me want to make people ask questions; I don't necessarily have the answers, but I do like for people to ask the questions.

Here's where the conversation breaks down into nonsense.

Imagine that we had a box of apples, and we were talking about how many apples were in the box. Imagine that I told you that I wanted you to talk about it as if there really were no apples in the box, and that any answer you gave were only your preference for how many apples you would like there to be.

You could put the box of apples in front of me and insist that I recognize that there are four, but that would be about as effective as me showing you a murder and asking you to recognize that it is wrong.  Once you start with the premise that there is no connection between the concept and reality, actual experience and observation becomes meaningless.

And, of course, it would do no good to say that Dawkins told you, since my answer would be that Dawkins does not exist.

Engine

Quote from: Patriarch917;234875Imagine that we had a box of apples, and we were talking about how many apples were in the box. Imagine that I told you that I wanted you to talk about it as if there really were no apples in the box, and that any answer you gave were only your preference for how many apples you would like there to be.
I don't believe the situations are analogous; in order for them to be, I would have to declare that killing isn't real, not that killing isn't wrong. Maybe we should avoid metaphors entirely? Could you make the same point again, only without recourse to apples or ice cream?

Quote from: Patriarch917;234875And, of course, it would do no good to say that Dawkins told you, since my answer would be that Dawkins does not exist.
That's cute. :) It's even largely logically tenable; the existence of all things is uncertain, ultimately, which is one of the reasons that claims of absolute morality are impossible to prove or support. "God told me to!" is no more or less absurd than, "Dawkins told me to!" with the added twist that at least Dawkins and his works can be directly physically perceived by multiple people in multiple media; still, the senses themselves may be illusory or distorted in some way, so we could never know for certain.

My own solution to this - the nihilist paradox, it's been called - is to deal with reality as it appears to be, in lieu of anything better to do. When the car is rushing toward me, I could say it might be illusory, but I have to live in the world exposed by my senses, so illusory or not, I choose to avoid the [apparent] pain. [There's a spirited defense of the idea which ends, "Anything else is just sticking knives in people's asses," but I don't recall all of it, so I'll stick with the car.]
When you\'re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you\'ve got is the dick one.

Patriarch917

Quote from: Engine;234878. . .Could you make the same point again, only without recourse to apples or ice cream?

If you start with the assumption that there can be no answer, there is no reason to ask the question.

Engine

Quote from: Patriarch917;234882If you start with the assumption that there can be no answer, there is no reason to ask the question.
I think perhaps the wisest solution is to start with as few assumptions as possible, that perhaps an answer to the question might be found, or might be shown to not exist. [The latter often being impossible, "proof of negative" remaining logically unreachable.]
When you\'re a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you\'ve got is the dick one.

CavScout

Quote from: jgants;233658It's like when the NRA did those gun ownership rallies in areas where there were school shootings.  Different end of the political spectrum, same wankery behavior.

Linkage?

Seriously.

The one always bandied about was the NRA convention that occured following Columbine. Of course, what most forget to mention is that the convention was planned long before the attack at the school and that the NRA scaled the convention back.
"Who\'s the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?" -Obi-Wan

Playing: Heavy Gear TRPG, COD: World at War PC, Left4Dead PC, Fable 2 X360

Reading: Fighter Wing Just Read: The Orc King: Transitions, Book I Read Recently: An Army at Dawn