Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[8ball]

I can't see how animal rights can work, personally...

Are you familiar with Peter Singer's original thoughts on this (just trying to gauge where you're at with the idea)?

The pity of it from my point of view has come up a few times and came up again in that This Morning video: once you start talking the language of rights (which includes using terms such as rape, murder and slavery), there is no common ground, there is no room for compromise. Those concerned with animal welfare who don't necessarily want to end animal exploitation but would like to see it massively reformed are pretty much lumped in with everyone else as 'over there' in the argument.

I don't think those terms are the "language of rights" as such. They are just attention seeking.
What PETA might call "unsophisticated marketing", now that they have adjusted their brand strategy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Are you familiar with Peter Singer's original thoughts on this (just trying to gauge where you're at with the idea)?

Have read some stuff by him, but a long time ago. So not particularly.

I don't think those terms are the "language of rights" as such. They are just attention seeking.
What PETA might call "unsophisticated marketing", now that they have adjusted their brand strategy.

I think they are. Each of those terms implies a violation of a right - a thing that it is unacceptable to do to any human.

 

[8ball]

And if you go around punching other people in the face, you lose some of your rights not to be punched in the face back.

Well, not legally, but there is that general understanding.

As mojo said, that's the other bit of the rights equation that cannot be there when you try to extend the concept to other animals.

Yes, that is a part of *a* rights equation that differs.
Some rights will relate to an entities' ability to suffer, some to its ability to act and some to its ability to reason morally.

We do this stuff all the time with humans. Whether or not you think the language of rights is the best way to frame things, these particular issues aren't hard to resolve.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some rights will relate to an entities' ability to suffer, some to its ability to act and some to its ability to reason morally.
.

And animal rights can only rest on the first of these. But they still don't work, imo. A rat has plenty ability to suffer, but rats spread diseases and I'm going to find a way to kill them if they're infesting my home. If I can't do it in a way that doesn't cause suffering, I'll do it in a way that does.

 

[8ball]

I think they are. Each of those terms implies a violation of a right - a thing that it is unacceptable to do to any human.

Yeah, but these are cases of using words that are specific to humans in an attempt to get an emotional reaction (and also as a form of catharsis imo). This kind of thing is not an implicit consequence of the idea that animals have rights.

You can believe that an animal has a right not be made to suffer by humans without using the word "murder", for example.

 

[8ball]

And animal rights can only rest on the first of these. But they still don't work, imo. A rat has plenty ability to suffer, but rats spread diseases and I'm going to find a way to kill them if they're infesting my home. If I can't do it in a way that doesn't cause suffering, I'll do it in a way that does.

But your knowledge of the rats' potential suffering has caused you to behave in a manner that is not indifferent to it. This can be couched in the language of rights (and balancing them), or in another way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, but these are cases of using words that are specific to humans in an attempt to get an emotional reaction (and also as a form of catharsis imo). This kind of thing is not an implicit consequence of the idea that animals have rights.

We may have to agree to disagree on that one. I think the idea that other animals have rights is implicit to the use of these terms.

As for their use in arguments against animal farming, I'm not sure they're the best tactic. There is a danger that you end up only appealing to people who already agree with you, while actively turning off others.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Assuming she lied about death threats, that's really bad, but if we're going to be precise here, did she specifically say she had received death threats? Because "You do get death threats.." when stripped of context could be relating to general cases or friends/family with a far lower special-pleading threshold than has been employed repeatedly in this thread.

tbh, the whole reporting was a bit sensationalist which is to be expected from dumbed down telly. You'll have to listen to her and decide for yourself if she was fibbing, I'd say at minimum it was slightly deceptive. It was also not balanced because prominent vegan activists have also been receiving online abuse and threats of violence and death which never got mentioned.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Y

You can believe that an animal has a right not be made to suffer by humans without using the word "murder", for example.

Ah, but I didn't say that not using those terms implies not thinking in terms of animal rights.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But your knowledge of the rats' potential suffering has caused you to behave in a manner that is not indifferent to it. This can be couched in the language of rights (and balancing them), or in another way.

But they don't have a right not to have suffering inflicted on them by humans, because ultimately human interests come first.

 

[8ball]

We may have to agree to disagree on that one. I think the idea that other animals have rights is implicit to the use of these terms.

I think it goes a lot further and involves a moral status exactly equivalent to humans.

Also, terms like “murder” have been around much, much longer than the language of ‘rights’.

 

[8ball]

tbh, the whole reporting was a bit sensationalist which is to be expected from dumbed down telly. You'll have to listen to her and decide for yourself if she was fibbing, I'd say at minimum it was a slightly deceptive. It was also not balanced because prominent vegan activists have also been receiving online abuse and threats of violence and death which never got mentioned.

I’d have to take a closer look to be fair. In the second part of your post I think you are taking a very BBC-like approach as to what constitutes balance.

 

[8ball]

Ah, but I didn't say that not using those terms implies not thinking in terms of animal rights.

No, I didn’t, but your point is escaping me here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it goes a lot further and involves a moral status exactly equivalent to humans.

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him, but I think that is more or less Jeff Robinson's position: sentient beings all have rights due to being sentient beings, and this has a universal nature to it.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

In the second part of your post I think you are taking a very BBC-like approach as to what constitutes balance.

I haven't a clue what you're on about with "BBC approach" tbh, and you do tend to go off on some weird and puzzling tangents.
imo the BBC reports were not balanced, portraying farmers as poor innocent victims "unable to sleep at night" and vegans as the aggressors. No real evidence was presented to back up the serious allegations. In spite of all of that and in the limited time on both the This Morning and Victoria Derbyshire shows, I thought Ed and Joey acquitted themselves very well in the circumstances.

 

[8ball]

I haven't a clue what you're on about with "BBC approach" tbh, and you do tend to go off on some weird and puzzling tangents.
imo the BBC reports were not balanced, portraying farmers as poor innocent victims "unable to sleep at night" and vegans as the aggressors.

Let me try to make it less puzzling for you.

If party A is wronged by party B, then it is not critical to balance that party B may have been wronged by party C.

Or less abstractly, if that farmer girl had been being threatening and abusive to certain specific vegan groups or individual(s) and it was not reported, then *that* would have been grievously unbalanced.

 

[8ball]

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him, but I think that is more or less Jeff Robinson's position: sentient beings all have rights due to being sentient beings, and this has a universal nature to it.

That sounds very different to me to having a moral status exactly equivalent to humans.

Sentience/non-sentience does not seem to be a simple yes/no condition either. Not is it such in the Singer model of animal rights.

Of course, I can’t speak for Jeff either...

I’m not claiming the idea of animal rights is completely unproblematic either, just that some initial objections can be dealt with fairly quickly.

... a bit like some of the initial objections to veganism, I guess.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him, but I think that is more or less Jeff Robinson's position: sentient beings all have rights due to being sentient beings, and this has a universal nature to it.

Yes, that is an accurate representation of my position.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Let me try to make it less puzzling for you.

If party A is wronged by party B, then it is not critical to balance that party B may have been wronged by party C.

Or less abstractly, if that farmer girl had been being threatening and abusive to certain specific vegan groups or individual(s) and it was not reported, then *that* would have been grievously unbalanced.

Holeeee fuck...and that was supposed to be the "less puzzling" version, right? Party C? wtf?
The media have been pitching this as a "militant vegan activists" vs "poor innocent farmers". That's two parties, not sure where the third comes in. The farmers (Party A if you will) are claiming that they are being threatened and the implication is that these threats are from "militant vegans" (Party B in your language). It is a bit of a sensationalist spin and due to the tabloid nature of these shows where there's not really enough time to go into much detail, there was no evidence presented to back up the serious allegations. To attribute that to "militant vegans" when there's no real supporting evidence is blatant spin and lazy journalism. So I'm not really surprised that the farmer lady was not able to back up her claims of abuse and had to retract them. As I posted earlier, in the online world unfortunately there's nasty abuse that gets hurled in every direction. If the vegans that have been on the receiving end of that abuse used the same sort of lazy accusations insinuating that the abusers were "militant farmers" without supporting evidence, then that would also be wrong.

 

[8ball]

Yes, that is an accurate representation of my position.

Was the corollary point that I followed with also part of your position?

 

[8ball]

Holeeee fuck...and that was supposed to be the "less puzzling" version, right? Party C? wtf?

In which case you may want to take a look at the paragraph immediately following that.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Was the corollary point that I followed with also part of your position?

About equal moral status? I do also think that all sentient beings have equal moral status as well, though I am not 100% on that claim. No time to discuss tonight but maybe tomorrow.

 

[8ball]

About equal moral status? I do also think that all sentient beings have equal moral status as well, though I am not 100% on that claim. No time to discuss tonight but maybe tomorrow.

Cheers. Think you can probably guess which kind of follow-up questions might be coming. Laters.

 

[ddraig]

But they don't have a right not to have suffering inflicted on them by humans, because ultimately human interests come first.

do you have a pet? anyone close to you have one?
ok if i come and kick it to death or slice it open?

 

[8ball]

do you have a pet? anyone close to you have one?
ok if i come and kick it to death or slice it open?

Do you smoke a lot of dope?

 

[8ball]

It’s just that you come across at times like what I’d expect to happen if someone connected up a limbic system, an amygdala, a cerebellum and a rudimentary language centre.

And then bathed it in tartrazine and adrenaline.

What I’m saying is that if the answer is no, maybe find a nice mellow Thai and smoke *more*.

Peace, blud.

 

[ddraig]

Do you smoke a lot of dope?

It’s just that you come across at times like what I’d expect to happen if someone connected up a limbic system, an amygdala, a cerebellum and a rudimentary language centre.

And then bathed it in tartrazine and adrenaline.

What I’m saying is that if the answer is no, maybe find a nice mellow Thai and smoke *more*.

Peace, blud.

wtf?!

my interests as a human come before those animals, I trump them, why are you questioning this fact?

 

[8ball]

wtf?!

my interests as a human come before those animals, I trump them, why are you questioning this fact?

Ok, so what we have is a fairly nuanced discussion over whether the language of rights with all its attendant issues is appropriate to apply to animals in a blanket manner.

Then Mr Empathetic Vegan comes along with “how about I come round and cut up your cat”.

I’m not fully conversant in all of the intricacies of vegan philosophy so I may be missing something, but I have to say that on a first reading it looks like you’re leaving a good few of the usual “peace lovin’ hippy” boxes unticked here.

 

[ddraig]

no, lbj said our interests trump animals
are they wrong?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

no, lbj said our interests trump animals
are they wrong?

You need to start reading other people's posts more carefully. I gave a specific example of rats, and the infestation of human dwellings with rats that carry disease. In this situation I will find a way to kill the rats. If I can't kill them painlessly, I'll kill them in a painful way, because they need to be killed, their interests coming second in this instance to those of the humans living in the house and protecting them from rat-borne diseases.

You coming around and bashing my cat's head in, or whatever, doesn't really seem that relevant to this example.