PETA vs Seaworld

[BassyBill]

It's easy to assert that it's morally permissible or impermissible to eat meat, but the fact is that a lot of very thoughtful people on both sides hold one or the other of these two opinions. To think that there's such a thing as being definitely right or wrong in this debate is a total misconception.

Why do so many people have such great difficulty distinguishing opinions from facts? Or do they perhaps feel that simply asserting something more strongly actually strengthens its validity?

As for the "let everyone do what they want without interference", this is also missing the point entirely. This would do nothing at all to alleviate the suffering of animals slaughtered for meat that many people are concerned about.

I'm a meat eater, by the way. But that isn't directly related to what I'm saying in this post.

____________________________________________________________________________________

To HugeInJapan - don't forget that neutered humans like eunuchs have been kept in captivity in the past, although I couldn't comment on their quality of life compared to that of your dog.

I have heard some people make a case for considering pet ownership to be immoral. I don't agree with them myself.

I think if you re-read the relevant post, though, you'll see that I wasn't really claiming it to be a direct comparison - just asking whether anybody thought the scenarios I mentioned could ever be considered morally defensible.

 

[Lonesomedave]

It's easy to assert that it's morally permissible or impermissible to eat meat, but the fact is that a lot of very thoughtful people on both sides hold one or the other of these two opinions. To think that there's such a thing as being definitely right or wrong in this debate is a total misconception.

Why do so many people have such great difficulty distinguishing opinions from facts? Or do they perhaps feel that the simply asserting something more strongly actually strengthens its validity?

As for the "let everyone do what they want without interference", this is also missing the point entirely. This would do nothing at all to alleviate the suffering of animals slaughtered for meat that many people are concerned about.

I'm a meat eater, by the way. But that isn't directly related to what I'm saying in this post.

____________________________________________________________________________________

To HugeInJapan - don't forget that neutered humans like eunuchs have been kept in captivity in the past, although I couldn't comment on their quality of life compared to that of your dog.

I have heard some people make a case for considering pet ownership to be immoral. I don't agree with them myself.

I think if you re-read the relevant post, though, you'll see that I wasn't really claiming it to be a direct comparison - just asking whether anybody thought the scenarios I mentioned could ever be considered morally defensible.

yeah, bill, i get your point, and obviously i am not advocating unnecessary suffering anywhere

i still make my point, and it has not been refuted or even addressed as far as i can see...

where do you draw the line, and who draws it?

if you start telling other people what they can and cannot do based on your own moral code, then A) where does it stop & B) what happens when someone comes to power who does not like some of the things YOU do?

I would rather take my chances with the abuses of a system which guarantees (or at least promotes) the greatest amount of personal liberty for everyone, than take my chances with nanny-staters whose sense of morality may not agree with mine.

you may disagree, and clearly my position is in the minority...people just can't stand to let other people alone, but the consequences of doing so are all around us... for every fox hunt britain has prevented, 1000 americans are in jail for drug crimes. and it's all the same thing... moral outrage by those who don't do something directed against those who do.

sorry, but i am still proudly and defiantly libertarian... you do what yo want, let others do what they want.

and PS-Titus... you have several times on this thread cast personal aspertions at me... not at my arguments, but at me...implying for example that I don't even know who wilberforce is. he who strikes the first blow admits that he has lost the argument -- SOCRATES (at least i think Socrates)

 

[Stinsok]

A new breed of "ambulance chasers" to be born!

 

[HugeInJapan]

this thread isn't about big ag

PETA would have almost zero support without factory farming, so it's hard, and often not useful, to discuss one without the other

last i heard big ag wasn't doing either.

Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

as far as a right to hunt or eat meat... of course there is...as long as you don't hurt other people (directly) by doing it...you don't have the right, for example to commit trespass, nor do you have the right to kill and eat someone else's property (say, by chicken stealing).

Are you saying that any action is morally permissible so long as it doesn't harm another human being? Or conversely that any action that harms a human being is not morally permissible? If so how do you account for the fact that people sometimes get shot and killed by hunters? Or what about the handler at Seaworld who was killed by an orca? Would you agree with the statement that keeping orcas is not morally right because it resulted in harming a human?

 

[Etienned]

.they want to be able to cram their Fascist agenda down everybody's throat whether you believe in want they stand for or not.

You know what fascist mean ?

 

[Lonesomedave]

You know what fascist mean ?

yeah, and if it offends you, let me redact...

"they want to cram their unbelievably intolerant and closed-minded philosophy down everybody's throat, whether they want it or not"....or whatever i said above, suitably edited.

i apologize for my use of the word "Fascist" and it won't happen again.

 

[Muaguana]

nope, don't buy it... nobody is forcing the ARN to do anything. they CHOOSE to use all the tactics that i despise. they just say they are "forced" into something so they can justify their Big-Brother-like intrusions into society...if you're going to say that, you might as well be Titus on one of his foxhunt "sabs"...."they FORCED me to do it because they wouldn't stop when i told them to, and foxhunting is legal in this country and i despise it"...yatta yatta

what you are really saying, whether you know it or not, is "we can't win an argument, so we will use [insert favorite tactic of coercion here] force, violence, Big Brother, Courts etc.

i don't buy it for a second. win your arguments fairly in the court of public opinion or man up and lose them!

And what you're saying, whether you know it or not, is "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I will use the fascist card to demonize the other side into agreeing with me." Funny how the world works like that, huh?

 

[Lonesomedave]

And what you're saying, whether you know it or not, is "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I will use the fascist card to demonize the other side into agreeing with me." Funny how the world works like that, huh?

don't know if i know what i'm talking about or not (hey, by it's very nature, not knowing what you are talking about means the talker is in ignorance)

read my post above.

but...i think you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of... that is, you can't rebut my ideas, so you attack me personally... i have apologized for my poor word choice...

now, will you apologize for making essentially a personal attack out of what should be an exchange of ideas.... and BTW I did not call anybody on this site a Fascist...I referred to PETA in such words, and I admit they were poorly chosen... but I stand by my underlying assessment (and personal attacks on me notwithstanding, nobody has disputed it)--PETA is a group of very intolerant closed minded people who want to cram their philosophy down everybody's throat by any means... legal or illegal.. now, dispute that if you can, without personal attacks on me.

ps-edit- oh, and while you're right about my demonizing the other side... i do, in fact believe they deserve vilification... i am not trying to demonize them "into agreeing with me"..i know that's never going to happen

 

[Etienned]

yeah, and if it offends you, let me redact...

I do not feel offended.
But it is so irrelevant to the discussion that I wanted to make sure you understood it before accusing you of being intellectually dishonest...

Godwin's law, it owns you.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I do not feel offended.
But it is so irrelevant to the discussion that I wanted to make sure you understood it before accusing you of being intellectually dishonest...

Godwin's law, it owns you.

not familiar with Godwin's law... but, more importantly...am i forgiven?...

 

[BassyBill]

I still don't think that "let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt any other people" view is morally defensible. If it was, all sorts of things would be considered okay that the majority would say are not - dogfighting, for example.

 

[Muaguana]

don't know if i know what i'm talking about or not (hey, by it's very nature, not knowing what you are talking about means the talker is in ignorance)

read my post above.

but...i think you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of... that is, you can't rebut my ideas, so you attack me personally... i have apologized for my poor word choice...

now, will you apologize for making essentially a personal attack out of what should be an exchange of ideas.... and BTW I did not call anybody on this site a Fascist...I referred to PETA in such words, and I admit they were poorly chosen... but I stand by my underlying assessment (and personal attacks on me notwithstanding, nobody has disputed it)--PETA is a group of very intolerant closed minded people who want to cram their philosophy down everybody's throat by any means... legal or illegal.. now, dispute that if you can, without personal attacks on me.

ps-edit- oh, and while you're right about my demonizing the other side... i do, in fact believe they deserve vilification... i am not trying to demonize them "into agreeing with me"..i know that's never going to happen

You've been making personal attacks throughout this whole thread. So not only are you an ignoramus, you're a hypocrite as well. I don't engage in debate with hypocrites, so I'm not going to waste my time rebuking your sub-par "debate skills" (or lack thereof.)

The door swings both ways. It's cute that you think you're entitled to respectful discussion after the crap you posted here. Cute, and sad.

 

[Lonesomedave]

You've been making personal attacks throughout this whole thread. So not only are you an ignoramus, you're a hypocrite as well. I don't engage in debate with hypocrites, so I'm not going to waste my time rebuking your sub-par "debate skills" (or lack thereof.)

The door swings both ways. It's cute that you think you're entitled to respectful discussion after the crap you posted here. Cute, and sad.

ok,,,sorry dad...won't happen again.

it's just that i can't seem to recall making any personal attacks against other posters... i certainly don't mean to do that... and if i have, let me once again apologise.

i think you might be the teensyist bit guilty, once again, of doing to me what you accuse me of doing... but, given my subpar debating skills that could be a mis-perception on my part... i will try to do better...

and assuredly, engaging in such a spirited debate with a worthy adversary such as yourself will help tremendously in honing those skills... a million thanks.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I still don't think that "let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt any other people" view is morally defensible. If it was, all sorts of things would be considered okay that the majority would say are not - dogfighting, for example.

i understand that, bill and i can definitely see that there have to be limits.

on the other hand, what worries me, is who sets the limits and what are they?

to simply say "the majority" is very very dangerous...after all, what the majority believes at any moment in time is suspect.

and our Constitution was set up to protect the unpopular... the popular does not need protection.

i don't know how things are in Britain, but i bet they are somewhat similar...no?

 

[BassyBill]

Dave, I think it's fine if people accept that animal welfare is a legitimate issue and are prepared to offer considered opinions and listen to those of others. That presumably leads to some sort of consensus arrangement and people just have to accept that there may be some features of that they like and some they don't. To me, the process of reaching a consensus is more important than what we actually end up with.

As I said before, the fact that people are sometimes unable to recognise that the fact that they hold a strong opinion on an issue doesn't automatically validate that opinion and invalidate everyone else's is often more frustrating FOR ME than the actual issue under discussion, be it animal welfare or a whole range of topics. Sometimes - but not always - things are genuinely not susceptible to right or wrong answers and different opinions can be valid for different reasons. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is a skill sadly lacking for some folks.

 

[Muaguana]

i think you might be the teensyist bit guilty, once again, of doing to me what you accuse me of doing...

Of course I am, that's the point. I match the the tone of the people I respond to. So if you're surprised at someone coming at you with the same amount of belligerence that you displayed for the past three pages or so, you're sorely lacking in introspection. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those "I am right in every conceivable manner, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong," type of person, if you didn't find anything wrong with how you've conducted yourself.

Like I said, the door swings both ways in the real world. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Dave, I think it's fine if people accept that animal welfare is a legitimate issue and are prepared to offer considered opinions and listen to those of others. That presumably leads to some sort of consensus arrangement and people just have to accept that there may be some features of that they like and some they don't. To me, the process of reaching a consensus is more important than what we actually end up with.

As I said before, the fact that people are sometimes unable to recognise that the fact that they hold a strong opinion on an issue doesn't automatically validate that opinion and invalidate everyone else's is often more frustrating FOR ME than the actual issue under discussion, be it animal welfare or a whole range of topics. Sometimes - but not always - things are genuinely not susceptible to right or wrong answers and different opinions can be valid for different reasons. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is a skill sadly lacking for some folks.

bill, i absolutely agree... and if i have come off as implying that other people who may disagree with me hold invalid opinions that was wrong of me.

i meant to only castigate those who use force or coercion to make their ideas public policy....

PETA for example

as evidence, i offer my original reply post to MADEINJAPAN--i said go out and convince people, persuade etc, i did not try and belittle him for holding a different opinion from me.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Of course I am, that's the point. I match the the tone of the people I respond to. So if you're surprised at someone coming at you with the same amount of belligerence that you displayed for the past three pages or so, you're sorely lacking in introspection. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those "I am right in every conceivable manner, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong," type of person, if you didn't find anything wrong with how you've conducted yourself.

Like I said, the door swings both ways in the real world. Sorry to break it to you.

but, once again, i must point out, that you have not offered one example of my making this personal against another poster...

well, ok, maybe when i was castigating Titus for his use of "foxhunting sabs"... but he admitted to using illegal coercive tactics to get his way.

i am sorry if you don't see that as wrong, but i do...anyway, i think you are just personally attacking me because you can't respond to my ideas..which have been clearly stated...i am a libertarian and i believe that society should provide the maximum personal autonomy to all individuals...disagree with that if you want, but don't make personal attacks and hide behind "well, you did it first"

it is unbecoming and gets us nowhere.

 

[Tituscrow]

Ah dammit I hate myself for biting, but anyways....

Laying a deliberate false scent on common land is not an illegal, coercive tactic. No trespassing took place and no dogs or horses were ever hurt.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Ah dammit I hate myself for biting, but anyways....

Laying a deliberate false scent on common land is not an illegal, coercive tactic. No trespassing took place and no dogs or horses were ever hurt.

no trespassing took place?

then i stand corrected here too.. and, again, thanks for doing so...

i have to admit, given what you've said about not trespassing that i agree, you did not use illegal, coercive tactics... maybe i misunderstood earlier, and i apologize for my wrong conclusion

but would you care to respond to my other points in the post.

they are, specifically, that 1) by calling foxhunters snooty toffs, i believe you are saying more about your loathing of them than your love of foxes? & 2) those who do use boobytraps to intentionally injure horses or hunters are not merely "as bad as" those the decry... they are, in fact, much worse, since foxhunters don't hurt other people and the boobytrappers do?