Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by piggy pablo on Dec 6, 2018 15:34:49 GMT -5
I've seen two people say "they are dumb" and "the fucking worst", and several others liking those posts, so yeah, I think people are responding to this with anger when all they're doing is suggesting that language is important. Which yes, they are borrowing from other civil rights movements, and humans are more important to humans than animals (though at this point in history we may feel more confident in that fact than we will in the future) but I personally don't think it's that terrible. Maybe silly, but otoh maybe I should not feel that it's silly because maybe it's important.
Think of how outraged you would be if someone killed a dog, because a dog is a dog. Now think about how many pigs live lives of absolute torture so that we can eat bacon and make ourselves fatter and hurt the environment. Do we have evidence that dogs are smarter than pigs? There was a study recently that argued dogs really aren't that much more intelligent than other animals. Pigs are fairly closely related to people, evolutionarily speaking. Also, how important is intelligence to the moral argument anyway?
You can disagree with their tactics if you want and say you're on their side and wish they'd do things in a more effective way, but when people call them fuckers or assholes or whatever, I get the feeling that that's really not what their problem is with PETA.
They did not equate anything, btw. At least not in that tweet. Suggesting changing the way we speak is not about not hurting animals' feelings, but changing the way we as humans think about animals and how we treat animals.
I've seen two people say "they are fucking dumb" and "the fucking worst", and several others liking those posts, so yeah, I think people are responding to this with anger when all they're doing is suggesting that language is important. Which yes, they are borrowing from other civil rights movements, and humans are more important to humans than animals (though at this point in history we may feel more confident in that fact than we will in the future) but I personally don't think it's that terrible. Maybe silly, but otoh maybe I should not feel that it's silly because maybe it's important.
Think of how outraged you would be if someone killed a dog, because a dog is a dog. Now think about how many pigs live lives of absolute torture so that we can eat bacon and make ourselves fatter and hurt the environment. Do we have evidence that dogs are smarter than pigs? There was a study recently that argued dogs really aren't that much more intelligent than other animals. Pigs are fairly closely related to people, evolutionarily speaking. Also, how important is intelligence to the moral argument anyway?
You can disagree with their tactics if you want and say you're on their side and wish they'd do things in a more effective way, but when people call them fuckers or assholes or whatever, I get the feeling that that's really not what their problem is with PETA.
They did not equate anything, btw. At least not in that tweet.
As a side bar I do think intelligence is important to the moral argument. I would say the quality of conscious experience an animal is capable of is what I consider most, and is why I'd value the life of a fish more than an insect, a dog more than a fish, and a human more than a dog.
I do, too, but I'm just slightly skeptical about the reasoning. There was a good Louis CK riff on this, but you know..
That sounds familiar, but I can't put my finger on it. What special was that from?
I think he did do it in a special years later but the version I was really into was before the specials on a YouTube video he originally posted. Fuck it. I'll just embed it:
Post by itrainmonkeys on Dec 6, 2018 16:45:28 GMT -5
South Park had a good bit where, if I remember right, we were mad at Japan for whaling or killing dolphins and they point out that we kill cows and chickens.
South Park had a good bit where, if I remember right, we were mad at Japan for whaling or killing dolphins and they point out that we kill cows and chickens.
A lot of it comes down to culture and what we were taught was acceptable. I mean, that part of it is undeniable.
I've seen two people say "they are fucking dumb" and "the fucking worst", and several others liking those posts, so yeah, I think people are responding to this with anger when all they're doing is suggesting that language is important. Which yes, they are borrowing from other civil rights movements, and humans are more important to humans than animals (though at this point in history we may feel more confident in that fact than we will in the future) but I personally don't think it's that terrible. Maybe silly, but otoh maybe I should not feel that it's silly because maybe it's important.
Think of how outraged you would be if someone killed a dog, because a dog is a dog. Now think about how many pigs live lives of absolute torture so that we can eat bacon and make ourselves fatter and hurt the environment. Do we have evidence that dogs are smarter than pigs? There was a study recently that argued dogs really aren't that much more intelligent than other animals. Pigs are fairly closely related to people, evolutionarily speaking. Also, how important is intelligence to the moral argument anyway?
You can disagree with their tactics if you want and say you're on their side and wish they'd do things in a more effective way, but when people call them fuckers or assholes or whatever, I get the feeling that that's really not what their problem is with PETA.
They did not equate anything, btw. At least not in that tweet.
As a side bar I do think intelligence is important to the moral argument. I would say the quality of conscious experience an animal is capable of is what I consider most, and is why I'd value the life of a fish more than an insect, a dog more than a fish, and a human more than a dog.
Should probably add that the closer to extinction a species is the worse it is to kill imo. Just another variable to toss in the mix.
Agree with that more strongly than the intelligence factor. Includes non-animal species as well.
Ill probably need to run through some really strange and pointless thought experiments at the extreme ends of the spectrum for both variables to decide which I think is more important. Should be a good distraction... one thing that is certain is that Jaguars will be murdered tonight.
I think the possible cascading ecological effects mean that outright or near-extinction is worse.
But that's more of a practical argument than an ethical one.
For sure if its gonna wreak havoc to lose the species then thats gonna be a hard and fast rule. I was just picturing stomping on the last roach vs killing one in a million cows. But I guess insects dont really count.
Post by piggy pablo on Dec 6, 2018 17:42:53 GMT -5
Old sayings like that are silly across the board anyway. Who kills birds with stones? I guarantee more birds get fed with scones than killed by stones in this day and age.
Maybe compare within the same species. Would it be more wrong to kill the last 100 of a dog breed or the 100 smartest dogs?
I think within the same species you gotta save the final 100 and kill the 100 smartest for the practical reason that the final 100 have a chance to reproduce dogs smarter down the line.
But practicality has to play into morality. So Ill probably stick with that.
As a side bar I do think intelligence is important to the moral argument. I would say the quality of conscious experience an animal is capable of is what I consider most, and is why I'd value the life of a fish more than an insect, a dog more than a fish, and a human more than a dog.
Let's eat the president
I've got to imagine that he would taste disgusting.
Post by piggy pablo on Dec 6, 2018 20:19:56 GMT -5
People would rather retweet, mock, condemn, and laugh at PETA when they suggest you talk differently than look at or think about stuff like this (200 RTs vs 37k).
What does this mean? I don't think I get your point about the numbers (I understand the first part). The tweet you embedded has 227 likes/favorites and the original one about using different language has 37k likes/favorites.
As a side bar I do think intelligence is important to the moral argument. I would say the quality of conscious experience an animal is capable of is what I consider most, and is why I'd value the life of a fish more than an insect, a dog more than a fish, and a human more than a dog.
What does this mean? I don't think I get your point about the numbers (I understand the first part). The tweet you embedded has 227 likes/favorites and the original one about using different language has 37k likes/favorites.
Ok that's right. I meant to say likes. The RT difference is 12.7k vs 88, as of now.
My point, to be clear, and the RTs are better evidence than likes, so I fucked up there, is that I think it's telling what the general public chooses to focus on and what gets exposure when it comes to PETA. They have an active Twitter account and tweet several times a day, and yet what gets honed in on? The goofiest, easiest part to look at. It's just telling that this is what people would rather talk about. People would rather belittle them than think about how we as a society treat animals, their actual message.