Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[danny la rouge]

Bolded an important bit.

And we were taught (by her) The things she doesn't appreciate.

 

[danny la rouge]

To be clear: there are two layers going on here. You're only looking at one. (The teaching, the describing). Rather than the other (the social behaviour).

If by Rights we mean the former, then no, dogs can't do that. If we mean the latter, then they very much do. (And to facilitate that, they learn much more about us than we deliberately teach them)

 

[Athos]

I disagree. I think morality is a very basic impulse for social animals, and "rights" just a way of us describing really quite fundamental behaviours. It's the description of it/them that's complex.

There was no impulse in your dog not to bite you; you had to train her out of it. In any event, I don't think rights are a matter of morality; I think they require a certain cognitive ability, and ability to empathise.

 

[sleaterkinney]

And we were taught (by her) The things she doesn't appreciate.

I think its inaccurate to project human behaviour onto other species - probably why I'm not a veggie.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think its inaccurate to project human behaviour onto other species.

I do too. But then I haven't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think its inaccurate to project human behaviour onto other species - probably why I'm not a veggie.

I think often the opposite mistake occurs, though - setting humans up as somehow special and forgetting that we are evolved too. Taking morality as the example, I agree with dlr on this. The evidence is that humans are born with a predisposition to look for moral systems, to find the categories 'right' and 'wrong' in the world and work out how these categories work. It's easy to see how a social animal would evolve such a disposition - it ensures the animal will be able to recognise and learn the social rules of its group while allowing for a degree of cultural variation between the rules of different groups. It's a solid evolutionary strategy. Dogs would appear to be born with a similar kind of moral predisposition, and why wouldn't they?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And we were taught (by her) The things she doesn't appreciate.

We domesticated dogs. But dogs also domesticated us.

 

[A380]

We domesticated dogs. But dogs also domesticated us.

Cats remain wankers though.

 

[cupid_stunt]

PaoloSanchez, powered by Duracell.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I have explained why i consider reciprocity important. Essentially, self-interest. We respect others rights, that others will respect ours. I'm not sure such an exchange is possible with other species. And, although you criticise self- interest as a basis for rights, I'm yet to hear a more convincing one.

TBH this sounds like something an Ayn Rand follower or an unreconstructed Hobbesean would say. I find it hard to believe that you actually hold this view. It seems like you started from the thought "I like meat" and then worked backwards from there.

It also has very little relevance to the real world. Imbalances of power mean that it is often in the self interest of the powerful to violate the rights of the powerless and for the people in the middle to do nothing about it. Self-interest often points to supporting or acquiescing to rights violations rather respecting rights.

 

[Athos]

TBH this sounds like something an Ayn Rand follower or an unreconstructed Hobbesean would say. I find it hard to believe that you actually hold this view. It seems like you started from the thought "I like meat" and then worked backwards from there.

It also has very little relevance to the real world. Imbalances of power mean that it is often in the self interest of the powerful to violate the rights of the powerless and for the people in the middle to do nothing about it. Self-interest often points to supporting or acquiescing to rights violations rather respecting rights.

There's nothing particularly Hobbesean or Randian about my position. It's far more universal than that; after all, do unto others as you would have them do unto you features in pretty much every major religion.

The argument isn't undermined by the fact that some don't observe human rights, any more than that fact undermines any other bases for such rights.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The abstract of a recent paper:

The presence of direct reciprocity in animals is a debated topic, because, despite its evolutionary plausibility, it is believed to be uncommon. Some authors claim that stable reciprocal exchanges require sophisticated cognition which has acted as a constraint on its evolution across species. In contrast, a more recent trend of research has focused on the possibility that direct reciprocity occurs within long-term bonds and relies on simple as well as more complex affective mechanisms such as emotional book-keeping, rudimentary and higher forms of empathy, and inequity aversion, among others. First, we present evidence supporting the occurrence of long-term reciprocity in the context of existing bonds in social birds and mammals. Second, we discuss the evidence for affective responses which, modulated by bonding, may underlie altruistic behaviours in different species. We conclude that the mechanisms that may underlie reciprocal exchanges are diverse, and that some act in interaction with bonding processes. From simple associative learning in social contexts, through emotional contagion and behavioural mimicry, to empathy and a sense of fairness, widespread and diverse social affective mechanisms may explain why direct reciprocity may not be a rare phenomenon among social vertebrates.

Direct reciprocity in animals: The roles of bonding and affective processes

Though I think Athos has in mind a much more demanding notion of reciprocity requiring a high level of abstract cognitive reasoning ability.

I'm guessing that too, that Athos has in mind consciously decided upon moral action taken in the knowledge that it is a moral action.

But this is the right way to look at things, imo (the abstract you quote). For a long time, altruism was deemed generally outside evolutionary mechanisms (although that always begged the question of where the fuck it came from in us), but there's been game theory work by Martin Nowak and others showing mathematically how selection of altruistic behaviour can work within the narrow parameters that evolution sets up.

(Generally, we make progress when we place ourselves and our behaviour within evolutionary processes, not in some way outside them. This idea meets more resistance than it should - humans are a case study in evolution just like any other species.)

 

[Jeff Robinson]

There's nothing particularly Hobbesean or Randian about my position. It's far more universal than that; after all, do unto others as you would have them do unto you features in pretty much every major religion.

The argument isn't undermined by the fact that some don't observe human rights, any more than that fact undermines any other bases for such rights.

The golden rule is rather different to your ethical framework though. It's about being able to empathise with others, not acting out of self-interest.

I agree non-observervance does not undermine the ideal of human rights, but your idea that self-interest undergirds human rights is flawed because it implies that whenever it is in your self-interest to violate another's rights you should. The only alternative is to claim that there can never be any self-interested reasons to violate rights, which is obviously false.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

A vivisector is having a nightmare: lying on a cold steel table, he's going numb as a giant rat approaches with a large knife.
The rat says, "We are going to need those kidneys, my friend."
"Wait!" shouts the vivisector. "I understand that I'm going to die, but just tell me, is it for the good of humanity?"
"Something like that," the rat tells him with a smirk. "It's for the good of two manatees."

 

[fishfinger]

A vivisector is having a nightmare: lying on a cold steel table, he's going numb as a giant rat approaches with a large knife.
The rat says, "We are going to need those kidneys, my friend."
"Wait!" shouts the vivisector. "I understand that I'm going to die, but just tell me, is it for the good of humanity?"
"Something like that," the rat tells him with a smirk. "It's for the good of two manatees."

With nightmares like that I would suggest that you don't eat cheese before bed time. But as you're a vegan...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Athos is right that the 'do unto others...' idea is one that is common to lots of religions and no doubt predates those religions as a sentiment taught to children. But it is primarily something for children, I would argue, whose brains have not developed sufficiently for them to show a great deal of empathy, so who need to be appealed to more directly by a utilitarian idea. But once our brains have reached maturity, in our mid-20s or so, we don't need such ideas nor do we use such ideas as the basis for our actions towards others. The basis for our actions towards others involves genuine consideration of the needs of others for their own sake.

In evolutionary terms, you would pare the idea back to a form like 'do unto others' to see if you can get an evolutionary payback from acting like that. But that doesn't explain the content of the mechanism that evolved, merely the reason why it evolved. In other words, empathy evolved because it gives an evolutionary payback, but empathy itself has its own qualities, qualities that have in a sense been accidentally 'discovered' by evolution.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A vivisector is having a nightmare: lying on a cold steel table, he's going numb as a giant rat approaches with a large knife.
The rat says, "We are going to need those kidneys, my friend."
"Wait!" shouts the vivisector. "I understand that I'm going to die, but just tell me, is it for the good of humanity?"
"Something like that," the rat tells him with a smirk. "It's for the good of two manatees."

So, your hypothetical diabetic child. You worked out what you would do yet?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

With nightmares like that I would suggest that you don't eat cheese before bed time. But as you're a vegan...

...wait, what? You calling me a vivisector? That be fighting talk.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

So, your hypothetical diabetic child. You worked out what you would do yet?

I'll offer him/her up for sacrifice to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

You really are getting desperate aren't you?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'll offer him/her up for sacrifice to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

You really are getting desperate aren't you?

You're a cunt. I gave you a real example from my own life. You cunt.

 

[Athos]

The golden rule is rather different to your ethical framework though. It's about being able to empathise with others, not acting out of self-interest.

I agree non-observervance does not undermine the ideal of human rights, but your idea that self-interest undergirds human rights is flawed because it implies that whenever it is in your self-interest to violate another's rights you should. The only alternative is to claim that there can never be any self-interested reasons to violate rights, which is obviously false.

I don't think that distinction between empathy and self-interest is that stark, in this context. We empathise with others by putting ourselves in their shoes; often that means realising that we wouldn't want what's happening to them to happen to us. To achieve which we agree at a social level that it ought not to happen to anyone. The social aspect is important, as that addresses your claim that my understanding implies that individuals should breach others' human rights where they have a self- interest in doing so.

In any event, I'm not sure I accept that it's anyone's interests to violate others' human rights. At best, it's a gamble that it won't undermine such protections should you seek to rely on them in an unknown future.

But, even if is, at a social level, can still be the underpinning, regardless of whether or not there's some individual exceptions. Whatever you say the basis of human rights are, there'll be some exceptions (as evidenced by the fact they're not universally observed).

If not, what do you think the basis of human rights is? And why should they apply to other animals?

 

[DotCommunist]

In any event, I'm not sure I accept that it's anyone's interests to violate others' human rights. At best, it's a gamble that it won't undermine such protections should you seek to rely on then in an unknown future.

there are two sorts of human rights violating tyrants fate. One is to die old and fabulously wealthy from the money you made exploiting the population, and yes violating their human rights. Shooting labour organisers, pandering to conservative factions of a religious establishment to bolster your arm- I don't need to list them all. The choice thefts and brutalism covers it.

the other is to die being dragged behind a landrover, or perhaps hung from a DIY scaffold. So yes it is in the interest of some humans to violate other peoples human rights for personal gain and yes they do tend to find their own human rights are worthless once the boot is on the other foot. Surely.

 

[mojo pixy]

A vivisector is having a nightmare: lying on a cold steel table, he's going numb as a giant rat approaches with a large knife.
The rat says, "We are going to need those kidneys, my friend."
"Wait!" shouts the vivisector. "I understand that I'm going to die, but just tell me, is it for the good of humanity?"
"Something like that," the rat tells him with a smirk. "It's for the good of two manatees."

Refusing to answer something because it's 'hypothetical' then instead presenting what resembles an attempt at humour but is in fact just a snide attempt to draw out a silly straw man. It's not a good look, even for someone claiming moral high ground.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Refusing to answer something because it's 'hypothetical' then instead presenting what resembles an attempt at humour but is in fact just a snide attempt to draw out a silly straw man. It's not a good look, even for someone claiming moral high ground.

...and here comes the white knight.

Just goes to show how heavily one sided and biased some people can be. Refusing to answer something? I answered the rude twat perfectly well the first time, he wasn't happy with my answer and so kept chasing even though he has on a number of occasions thrown his toys out of the pram "I'm not playing with you any more" stylee. He has relentlessly pursued the acceptance of his "humane slaughter" concept and isn't happy that I don't agree with his precious idea hence the increasingly desperate hounding.

One of the main differences between myself and the rude twat is that I am ok with RT having a different opinion to myself, I do not feel the need to harrass and harry anybody that disagrees with me even if they are championing something as ridiculous (to me) as "humane slaughter". lbj on the other hand cannot fathom someone not believing as he does and will come up with all sorts of convoluted and elaborate questions in order to try and get acceptance and then get into a strop when you don't agree with him. Sounds more like a religious fundamentalist than any vegan that I've ever met.

 

[Athos]

...and here comes the white knight.

Just goes to show how heavily one sided and biased some people can be. Refusing to answer something? I answered the rude twat perfectly well the first time, he wasn't happy with my answer and so kept chasing even though he has on a number of occasions thrown his toys out of the pram "I'm not playing with you any more" stylee. He has relentlessly pursued the acceptance of his "humane slaughter" concept and isn't happy that I don't agree with his precious idea hence the increasingly desperate hounding.

One of the main differences between myself and the rude twat is that I am ok with RT having a different opinion to myself, I do not feel the need to harrass and harry anybody that disagrees with me even if they are championing something as ridiculous (to me) as "humane slaughter". lbj on the other hand cannot fathom someone not believing as he does and will come up with all sorts of convoluted and elaborate questions in order to try and get acceptance and then get into a strop when you don't agree with him. Sounds more like a religious fundamentalist than any vegan that I've ever met.

Plead would you point to the post in which you think you answered the question posed by his hypothetical example?

 

[Spymaster]

...and here comes the white knight.

Just goes to show how heavily one sided and biased some people can be. Refusing to answer something? I answered the rude twat perfectly well the first time, he wasn't happy with my answer and so kept chasing even though he has on a number of occasions thrown his toys out of the pram "I'm not playing with you any more" stylee. He has relentlessly pursued the acceptance of his "humane slaughter" concept and isn't happy that I don't agree with his precious idea hence the increasingly desperate hounding.

One of the main differences between myself and the rude twat is that I am ok with RT having a different opinion to myself, I do not feel the need to harrass and harry anybody that disagrees with me even if they are championing something as ridiculous (to me) as "humane slaughter". lbj on the other hand cannot fathom someone not believing as he does and will come up with all sorts of convoluted and elaborate questions in order to try and get acceptance and then get into a strop when you don't agree with him. Sounds more like a religious fundamentalist than any vegan that I've ever met.

Some decent debate has broken out on this thread in the last day or two. Can't you go away now?

 

[mrs quoad]

Ahimsa cows are the 'happiest cows' in the world | Daily Mail Online

No-slaughter milking with 6 months of weaning? Nopety nope nope nope?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Some decent debate has broken out on this thread in the last day or two. Can't you go away now?

Wow, and this coming from the master troll who has contributed precious little himself. Pot meet kettle. Anyhow, some people like that sort of pseudo-academic semantic torture, that's not really for me so I'll let the experts get on with it.
In case you haven't noticed, there are multiple strands of conversations going on...and then there's voyeur trolls like you who don't really add much of any quality or value.

Oh, and another thing, wtf was this rubbish...

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.

Hahaha, that was hilarious. "very far from being well attended"? lol. Now if that's not an example of genuine bollocks I don't know what is. Here's some numbers for you...

Number of urban75 General forum threads: 117, 953
Ranking of this "angry vegan" thread - replies: 54 (1,915)
Ranking of this "angry vegan" thread - views: 49 (23,542)
Ranking of "anti vegetarian backlash" thread - replies 36 (2,773)
Ranking of "anti vegetarian backlash" thread - views 26 (34,632)
Number of members posting on this "angry vegan" thread: 128
Number of posts/day: 46
Number of views/day: 565

Did you see that? In this forum, there are actually 117,899 threads ranked lower than this thread by number of replies. Quite remarkable for a thread that's barely six weeks old don't you think? Not well attended? You're 'avin a larf, lol.

Now given that veg*ns are an overwhelming minority there would appear to be an awful lot of meateaters that "don't care". I mean genuinely not caring would mean, you know, avoiding the subject, and yet they come, like vultures to a dead wildebeest. It seems that they really DO care, even if they only care enough to have a go, doesn't matter, still gives the subject plenty of air time and as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. It's all good.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

"Humane" meat? ...

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Another excellent video and and well balanced review...

...that's another book that I'll be adding to my collection.