Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[8ball]

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

If you kill someone’s pet, you’re in the world of balancing your bloodlust against another human’s rights, so it doesn’t really work as an example of the problem with lbj’s position.

 

[ddraig]

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.

this says nothing about rats

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

you need to stop giving it the supposed expert and take responsibility for what you post

 

[ddraig]

If you kill someone’s pet, you’re in the world of balancing your bloodlust against another human’s rights, so it doesn’t really work as an example of the problem with lbj’s position.

is it because it's a pet then? that's it isn't it, that's when it's bloodlust but not when it's an animal designated as fair game for your plate

 

[8ball]

you need to stop giving it the supposed expert and take responsibility for what you post

This, after the “how about I come round and cut up your cat” schtick!

 

[8ball]

is it because it's a pet then? that's it isn't it

That was the game you were playing wasn’t it? But you failed to grasp the context of the discussion and rather fucked it up.

What is your position on pets by the way?

Some might think it a form of slavery.

 

[ddraig]

round of applause for 8ball

the question(s) remains
do the interests of humans trump animals?
always in every way?

 

[8ball]

round of applause for 8ball

the question(s) remains
do the interests of humans trump animals?
always in every way?

Not always in every way in my opinion. That didn’t seem to be what lbj was saying either but we’d need his input to be sure.

 

[8ball]

Thanks for the applause by the way.

I’m here all week.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I gave that example because imo not to act to get rid of the rats, killing them if necessary, and in a way that causes pain if that's the only way to hand, would be irresponsible.

There are lots of other examples where extermination of sentient animals might be necessary - the infestation of a grain supply with rats might require a mass extermination.

This isn't about lording it over rats or feeling superior so we can do what we want. It's about solving a problem of everyday human living.

And the fact that we need to do this kind of thing makes the concept of animal rights highly problematic, imo.

 

[8ball]

... the fact that we need to do this kind of thing makes the concept of animal rights highly problematic, imo.

I don’t agree that it does, but it depends on what else you are bringing to the discussion aside from the ‘rights’ concept, which is really just a way of framing things.

Not that I think the formulation is entirely unproblematic..

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don’t agree that it does, but it depends on what else you are bringing to the discussion aside from the ‘rights’ concept, which is really just a way of framing things.

Not that I think the formulation is entirely unproblematic..

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that other animals may have a right to consideration due to their capacity for suffering, even if that consideration doesn't always win out.

That seems a rather weak thing to have the word 'right' attached to it, but maybe we view the idea of rights a little differently.

 

[8ball]

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that other animals may have a right to consideration due to their capacity for suffering, even if that consideration doesn't always win out.

That seems a rather weak thing to have the word 'right' attached to it, but maybe we view the idea of rights a little differently.

I think you’re reading me right.

There are lots of situations where rights need to be weighed against others where no non-human animals are involved, including non-humans isn’t the big deal on that score.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

On the TalkRadio James Whale a couple of days ago Joey put in a good show debating with another farmer
The farmer did not really have decent answers tbf "vegans talk a load of rubbish and should be banned", lol

James Whale used to have a smallholding and used to kill his own chickens and apparently his wife is vegetarian.
Interested little post debate "chat" at the end between James and Ash...

Spoiler: Chat at the end

But I have a real problem with eating meat...
...I looked in the supermarket and all the meat, the dead flesh, is made to look as un animal like as possible...
...I find that appalling...I remember I did a show once on a radio station and the whole program was taken up with complaints, people had been complaining about a butchers shop and the butchers shop had whole animals hanging in the window like they used to, and they complained that it was on route for a lot of children to go to school and they saw these dead animals hanging in the window and I thought...this is excellent...this is what the kids need if you're going to eat meat you need to know that an animal gave its life.

'If I cut up my dog and ate it, I'd be arrested': Vegan campaigner goes head to head with dairy farmer

 

[littlebabyjesus]

this says nothing about rats


you need to stop giving it the supposed expert and take responsibility for what you post

Read the discussion Einstein. Work out what the "they ' refers to.

You need to stop jumping in to insult me on threads where you don't comprehend what is being said. You make yourself look like a tool.

Anyway you're on ignore. I'm fed up with being patronised by rude idiots.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think you’re reading me right.

There are lots of situations where rights need to be weighed against others where no non-human animals are involved, including non-humans isn’t the big deal on that score.

You're right of course that conflicting interests need to be balanced, and the concept of human rights isn't straightforward.

Without wishing to sink too deeply into this (the language of rights isn't normally my preferred way to think about these issues), certain 'basic' human rights such as the right not to be killed or the right not to be tortured can be considered universal and pretty much without exceptions, as long as that person hasn't acted in a way that means they are no longer entirely innocent. The subject of war then comes up, but the targetting of civilians is considered a war crime by many, for this very reason, and plenty of people consider things like the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden to be war crimes.

But within a scheme where the interests of other animals can be trumped by the interests of humans, I can't see how any kind of universal system of the sort Jeff R espouses can work. At best, you would need a two-level system: human rights, and a set of weaker non-human rights. And this then looks very much like an animal welfare system recast (shoehorned?) into the language of rights.

 

[ddraig]

you slink in and out of threads dishing your "expert" view about then disappear when called on your crap or shown up yet again, then don't hold your hands up when made mistakes and turn on the person pointing it out, pathetic weasel with some kind of weird know it all superiority complex

 

[8ball]

you slink in and out of threads dishing your "expert" view about then disappear when called on your crap or shown up yet again, then don't hold your hands up when made mistakes and turn on the person pointing it out, pathetic weasel with some kind of weird know it all superiority complex

Is there a point you think you’ve made somewhere that has gone unaddressed?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

 

[8ball]

... and where you stand on the subject of pets, obviously.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari gives the best comparison between modern farming practices and slavery that I've read. I have big problems with lots of what he writes in that book, but this was a good insight, I think.

Harari makes the point that the financing of slavery and the enjoyment of its fruits came largely not out of hatred or some ideological drive but through the combination of indifference and greed. It made money for people who would never themselves set eyes on a slave, and the system was allowed to develop because those people didn't care where their returns came from: treated like another commodity, slaves simply slotted into the established financial order.

He compares this to the development of industrial farming practices, where again most of those who enjoy its results don't care about the system sufficiently to challenge it, and the system is allowed to develop because it maximises returns.

It's possible to recognise this common feature without making moral equivalences between humans and livestock.

 

[NoXion]

Yep, because slaves never fought and died in the cause of their own freedom, cannot learn to read and write, and therefore need more enlightened, superior beings to lead them out of bondage.

You fucking idiot.

 

[8ball]

Harari makes the point that the financing of slavery and the enjoyment of its fruits came largely not out of hatred or some ideological drive but through the combination of indifference and greed. It made money for people who would never themselves set eyes on a slave, and the system was allowed to develop because those people didn't care where their returns came from: treated like another commodity, slaves simply slotted into the established financial order.

Maybe in that case a better indicator of where people would have stood on the slavery front could be how people arrange their finances.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe in that case a better indicator of where people would have stood on the slavery front could be how people arrange their finances.

To link to another hot topic on here at the moment, there appear to be a fair few people who don't care where their returns come from wrt bitcoin. Of course there are differences, but a similar combination of indifference and greed leads to the flourishing of a destructive practice.

 

[ddraig]

To link to another hot topic on here at the moment, there appear to be a fair few people who don't care where their returns come from wrt bitcoin. Of course there are differences, but a similar combination of indifference and greed leads to the flourishing of a destructive practice.

like the meat industry!

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You're right of course that conflicting interests need to be balanced, and the concept of human rights isn't straightforward.

Without wishing to sink too deeply into this (the language of rights isn't normally my preferred way to think about these issues), certain 'basic' human rights such as the right not to be killed or the right not to be tortured can be considered universal and pretty much without exceptions, as long as that person hasn't acted in a way that means they are no longer entirely innocent. The subject of war then comes up, but the targetting of civilians is considered a war crime by many, for this very reason, and plenty of people consider things like the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden to be war crimes.

But within a scheme where the interests of other animals can be trumped by the interests of humans, I can't see how any kind of universal system of the sort Jeff R espouses can work. At best, you would need a two-level system: human rights, and a set of weaker non-human rights. And this then looks very much like an animal welfare system recast (shoehorned?) into the language of rights.

I basically agree with what you say about human rights, but would add a few qualifiers. First, it is true that most regard the *targeting* of civilians as a war crime but opinion is much more divided about whether the 'collateral' killing of civilians can be justified. And in other circumstances people seem willing to accept the killing of innocent individuals as a side effect of producing a greater good. For example, in the famous 'trolley problem' thought experiment, the vast majority of people are prepared to divert a train onto a side track that will kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of 5 others on the main line. In other words, there seems to be fairly widespread acceptance that in some circumstances it is permissible, and indeed justified, to kill innocent humans.

I also think the concept of 'innocence' needs unpacking. The idea of being innocent as it is used today usually means somebody who is not morally responsible or culpable of wrongdoing, but when one looks at the term's etymology it refers to something different: somebody who is not causing harm (from the Latin in- ‘not’ + nocere ‘to hurt’). You can have individuals who pose threats of harm who are not morally culpable in anyway: people labouring under serious mental delusions, people acting under extreme duress, sleep-walking people, toddlers who have come by their parent's gun etc. Many people think that if these individuals are posing lethal threats or other types of serious harm to others and the only means of averting such threats is to kill them, then killing them can be permissible on the grounds of self-defence, notwithstanding the fact that the attackers are not morally culpable in any way.

So, in my understanding of human rights, there are some instances where it is permissible to kill innocent humans as a side effect and some instances when it would be permissible to kill a non-culpable attacker. There are also circumstances where I think it is permissible to kill innocent animals as a side effect and to kill animals who non-culpably pose threats to us. I accept that farming practices will involve the killing of wild animals (both deliberate and accidental) - and that doesn't contradict my belief in animal rights, any more than my acceptance of the permissibility of killing innocent or non-culpable humans in some instances contradicts my belief in human rights.

Of course, both side-effect killings and self-defence killings are subject to necessity and proportionality considerations: if there are reasonable alternatives to killing they should be used and the killing can only be justified if the harm averted is proportionate to the harm inflicted (and significantly greater with side-effect killings). I take it that many crop-farming practices do not satisfy these criteria and so I would want them to be reformed in ways that do, but I do think that feeding of humans and preventing the spread of diseases like weil's are sufficiently weighty to justify some killing if necessary.

But this is miles away from animal agriculture - which involves the breeding, mutilation, exploitation and killing of animals who pose *no* threat to us and whom we are using not out of any necessity but rather for trivial and selfish reasons related to desire, tradition and convenience.

 

[8ball]

Nicely considered post.

 

[dylanredefined]

t

Stuff like this just makes me laugh at vegans.

 

[Spymaster]

you slink in and out of threads dishing your "expert" view about then disappear when called on your crap or shown up yet again, then don't hold your hands up when made mistakes and turn on the person pointing it out, pathetic weasel with some kind of weird know it all superiority complex

Why do you do this to yourself? Every time you take LBJ on you end up with egg on your face. I’d have thought you’d have learnt your lesson years ago!!!

 

[8ball]

t

Stuff like this just makes me laugh at vegans.

I’d agree that Jeff’s manner of arguing is much more compelling than this sort of stuff.

Why do you do this to yourself? Every time you take LBJ on you end up with egg on your face. I’d have thought you’d have learnt your lesson years ago!!!

Tbf, vegans aren’t going to like egg on their face.

 

[ddraig]

any chance of not posting horrific images please? or at least putting spoiler tags on them

Why do you do this to yourself? Every time you take LBJ on you end up with egg on your face. I’d have thought you’d have learnt your lesson years ago!!!

if you say so tag team, more like them getting shown up