Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[littlebabyjesus]

You missed out <pretends there's no such thing as society>

 

[ElizabethofYork]

"


You wanker.

Bit harsh.

 

[Spymaster]

Bit harsh.

Nah. The bloke's a passive aggressive cunt of the highest order.

 

[ddraig]

Nah. The bloke's a passive aggressive cunt of the highest order.

no, you are

 

[Spymaster]

no, you are

Nothing passive about my aggression.

 

[klang]

aggressive passion

 

[ddraig]

Nothing passive about my aggression.

yeah, really manly meathead real aggression
well done bigman

 

[Spymaster]

... manly meathead ...

 

[felixthecat]

So with careful word selection you've gone from "most organ transplants arent because of preventable diseases" to "a lot of people who need t
I also noticed that you kind of glossed over any actual numbers for the number one killer and most preventable, heart disease. Advanced cherry picking? Or maybe you ran out of boring afternoon hours.

None of what you've posted there changes what I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority of organ failures are from preventable causes..

I absolutely agree that the number one killer of people is heart disease. Its not the commonest reason for someone to have a heart transplant though. I thought we were just talking about animal/ human transplants...? If we're talking about morbidity from preventable diseases full stop that's a whole different conversation and one we'd probably agree on.

People with organ failure resulting from poor lifestyle choices usually are also poor candidates for organ transplant due to the co-morbidities that they have.

 

[Spymaster]

I thought we were just talking about animal/ human transplants...?

You were. He's dodged it.

 

[felixthecat]

Btw can i add i don't give a flying fuck what people eat. I'm interested in the medical ethics around using animal and animal products.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

"But, but, but, ..." <post silly pictures> "but, but, but ..." <ignore point> "but, but, but ..." <boring YouTube clip> "but, but, but ..." <attack source> "but, but, but ..." <evade with irrelevancies> "but, but, but ..."



You wanker.

lol, yeah right, so says the useless parasitic troll with no decent arguments of his own.

 

[Spymaster]

"But, but, but ..." <troll>

No point in arguing with you, you just up throw smoke and duck and dive.

At least two other posters are trying to engage you seriously here.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

You haven't grasped the purpose of the question. We're talking about society here - society-level collective effort, which is the only way we have any medical care at all. The question relates to what 'we' should do - should we cure or treat conditions using technology and knowledge acquired through killing animals?

Perhaps you mean that I haven't answered the question in the way you would like it answered. I believe that my reply also applies at a society-level collective effort, probably even more so. In my opinion to make the best use of finite and limited resources we'll get the biggest bang per buck by focusing in prevention strategies.

I also note how you are still avoiding the question, so to avoid hypotheticals I'll present you with the exact position my parents were faced with:

You have a sick young child, and the only treatment that will stop that child from dying is insulin taken from pigs or cows, which need to be killed first. Do you save your child's life in the knowledge that you will be relying on killing animals to keep the child alive from now on?

It's a no-brainer for me, but I am interested in the opinions of those who oppose all vivisection.

I would explore all the options available, however even in your supposed real life scenario, killing animals was not necessary.

"Until 1936 diabetics were dependent on animal insulin, but it is important to establish that they were dependent on an animal product (which was obtained from the meat industry) as opposed to animal experimentation. In 1936 synthetic insulin was developed.

This history of diabetes and insulin is verified to reliable medical and historical texts, and shows that diabetics owe nothing to animal experimenters. The claim that they do does persist, and we would encourage anyone interested to look into this further."

Source

 

[PaoloSanchez]

"But, but, but ..." <troll>

No point in arguing with you, you just up throw smoke and duck and dive.

At least two other posters are trying to engage you seriously here.

Yeah right, as if you were ever trying to engage seriously yourself. Just a parasite troll riding on other people coat tails and heckling.

 

[Spymaster]

Yet it was me who brought up the subject that you're now getting tied in knots on

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Yet it was me who brought up the subject that you're now getting tied in knots on

And? You posed a question that you would like answered in a particular way. As soon as you don't like the answers you go back to your normal heckling mode. Very predictable.

lol @ "tied in knots". Now that's a genuine example of someone talking bollocks.

 

[Spymaster]

And? You posed a question that you would like answered in a particular way. As soon as you don't like the answers you go back to your normal heckling mode. Very predictable.

lol @ "tied in knots". Now that's a genuine example of someone talking bollocks.

Lol, no. You are being used for completely different purposes now!

<ding>

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Do you think it's acceptable for other animals to inflict harm on other animals, if that harm is avoidable or only for pleasure?

It's fairly rare to find the other animals inflicting harm just for the pleasure of it. In most instances animals harm one another for reasons of survival. Even with animals who engage in seemingly brutal or pointless acts of violence, it's often not entirely clear what their motives are or to what degree they are merely acting instinctively. In any event they don't have the same degree of moral agency that humans do, and humans are by far the master species when it comes to inflicting harm for pleasure.

I ask, because - as noted above - the single harm principle (that I think you) set out above seems to imply a mandate for mass intervention in the "natural" world, quite apart from human behaviour.

No, not really. The harm principle is a principle of non-maleficence: it's about not harming others. Intervening in the natural world to save pray animals from predators (let's say) would be an act of beneficence and as such is governed by different considerations. One of those is the principle of proportionality - that you shouldn't engage in an act if the harm it causes outweighs the good. I suspect the strongest reason against mass intervention in the natural world is that the harm it would cause would outweigh any good. Eco-systems are very delicately balanced and attempting to 'fix' them on a vast scale would, in current conditions, likely lead to starvation, over-population, species extinction and other very bad outcomes.

But again, we shouldn't think of this as a unique problem in the animal rights context. Governments regularly inflict egregious human rights violations against their citizens. Yet we are often skeptical of calling upon our governments or bodies like the UN or NATO to intervene on behalf of those citizens. And the reason we are skeptical I think is because we worry that they'll do more harm than good. That's not necessarily an argument against human rights though, it just shows the practical world difficulties of implementing them.

1. No. Reciprocity.
2. I'll have to think about.

I'd need to know what you mean by reciprocity and why you think it's relevant to engage with that answer.

Have you decided if you think torturing elephants into being circus performers is immoral yet?

 

[Athos]

Have you decided if you think torturing elephants into being circus performers is immoral yet?

I feel that it is wrong. Though I'm not sure I can rationalise why, exactly. Probably something to do with the fact that it brings or the worst in people. I'm still thinking on it.

 

[Athos]

I'd need to know what you mean by reciprocity and why you think it's relevant to engage with that answer.

The idea that rights are something we subscribe to in order to make society work and protect our own interests, such that they are extended to those classes of beings capable of - if not actually - recognising them in others, (albeit with specific exceptions e.g. people in comas)

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I absolutely agree that the number one killer of people is heart disease. Its not the commonest reason for someone to have a heart transplant though. I thought we were just talking about animal/ human transplants...? If we're talking about morbidity from preventable diseases full stop that's a whole different conversation and one we'd probably agree on.

People with organ failure resulting from poor lifestyle choices usually are also poor candidates for organ transplant due to the co-morbidities that they have.

It would be interesting to see the figures showing what the commonest reason for heart transplants really is. Like I said, I'll stand corrected if it is shown to be from largely non preventable causes, however my understanding is that the majority of them are and a minority are inherited/genetic.

Btw can i add i don't give a flying fuck what people eat. I'm interested in the medical ethics around using animal and animal products.

Fair enough whatever floats yer boat. It would appear that an awful lot of people do give a flying fuck about what people eat which is why this thread is so well attended, especially by people trying to "have a dig".

I would also add that medical ethics and the use of animals are fairly closely related and in many ways fairly closely coupled. It may even be a double whammy for the animals (and ultimately ourselves) in that it is our (superior?) attitudes towards animals that allows us to both eat AND experiment on them and not feel too bad about it. Eating them seemingly making humans and the planet more sick and hence creating more of a reason to experiment on animals.

It is the same sort of attitude that was prevalent back in the day when blacks were used to perfect medical procedures some of which we take for granted now. (for example gynaecology) Blacks were seen as "lesser" beings and therefore those doing the experimenting did not feel any guilt in conducting the experiments that they saw as important for the advancement of medicine.

Medical Apartheid (good exploration of medical ethics)
Talk

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The idea that rights are something we subscribe to in order to make society work and protect our own interests, such that they are extended to those classes of beings capable of - if not actually - recognising them in others, (albeit with specific exceptions e.g. people in comas)

It's not clear to me why it's in "our" (whoever that is) self-interest to recognise the rights of others simply because they're *capable* of doing the same for us. What self-interested reason do I have to stand up for the rights of Syrian refugees or victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan? Or those living in poverty in sub- Saharan Africa? I doubt most of them will ever be able to reciprocate for me. As a general matter, various humans benefit (economically, politically) all the time from human rights violations. Appeals to self-interest are a very shaky foundation for rights.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

It's fairly rare to find the other animals inflicting harm just for the pleasure of it. In most instances animals harm one another for reasons of survival. Even with animals who engage in seemingly brutal or pointless acts of violence, it's often not entirely clear what their motives are or to what degree they are merely acting instinctively. In any event they don't have the same degree of moral agency that humans do, and humans are by far the master species when it comes to inflicting harm for pleasure.

This is a commonly used justification for humans killing/mistreating animals. "If they can do it why can't we?"
I suppose there are examples of killer whales playing with a seal and then not even bothering to eat it, and domestic cats seemingly torturing their prey, but even if that were true, as you said our moral agency should be the thing that stops us "behaving like animals".

 

[Spymaster]

It would appear that an awful lot of people do give a flying fuck about what people eat which is why this thread is so well attended

This thread is very far from being "well attended". There are a handful of active posters on it now, most of whom have repeatedly told you they don't care what you or others eat, but do care about your holier than thou attitudes.

 

[Athos]

The common feature of the group to which the 'our' refers is the potential for reciprocity; that's what we have in common, and which excludes animals. The interest you have in the human rights of others is that they, like you are human, such that setting standards for their treatment is also to set them for yours.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The common feature of the group to which the 'our' refers is the potential for reciprocity; that's what we have in common, and which excludes animals. The interest you have in the human rights of others is that they, like you are human, such that setting standards for their treatment is also to set them for yours.

its true that I'm a human but I'm also an earthling, an animal, a mammal, a primate, a great ape, white, male, British and so forth. Why, for self-interested reasons, should I be concerned about humans per se and not some subset of humans that share more characteristics with me?

And why should I care more about the rights of people who don't care about mine (e.g KKK and ISIS members) and who actively desire to violate them than animals who do not understand my rights and pose no threat to them (e.g farmed animals)?

 

[A380]

Have you decided if you think torturing elephants into being circus performers is immoral yet

 

[A380]

Elephants don't have prehensile toes; so no amount of torture can get them to hang onto the trapeze.


Actually performing animals is not a bad example. There is a two way axis of consideration. There is a gate, should any animal be reduced into captivity at all?

Then firstly the effect on the animals and secondly the effect on people.

Firstly on performance Is the training cruel or performing cruel? Dolphins kept in tiny enclosures and elephants trained by pain compliance probably are for most people. Working dogs (even attack dogs - a whole other issue) are trained through play mostly and recreation of a pack hierarchy and fleas in a circus - not really trained at all but probably feel no pain by the techniques used. So is the performing cruel to the animal?

Secondly. Does making animals perform devalue us as humans? Watching a falconer fly her birds and allow us to see their magnificence up close at one end of the spectrum and hippos wearing tutus and standing on barrels at the other. Everyone will have their own line on that spectrum.

I love watching working animals but hate more 'circus like' performances but I'm notsure if that's based on rationale sensibilities or just middle class angst. People will need to decide.

 

[Athos]

its true that I'm a human but I'm also an earthling, an animal, a mammal, a primate, a great ape, white, male, British and so forth. Why, for self-interested reasons, should I be concerned about humans per se and not some subset of humans that share more characteristics with me?

And why should I care more about the rights of people who don't care about mine (e.g KKK and ISIS members) and who actively desire to violate them than animals who do not understand my rights and pose no threat to them (e.g farmed animals)?

I've explained why. Those other classes don't have the important characteristic: the potential for reciprocity.

With your second question, are you seriously asking why you should respect others human rights?