Utah animal rights activist admits to arson charges

[Thanas]

Dp by straha denied.

[Straha]

Rape is wrong because we define it as such. We defend the rights of those who are attacked. We choose to value personal freedom, liberty, and personal integrity.

Would you like to try another strawman argument?

You miss the point completely. Your argument was "It is natural to eat meat, therefore it is morally acceptable." If that is your logical basis for argumentation, fine, but then the statement "It is natural to rape, therefore it is morally acceptable" is also true, you lack the ground to condemn it. You don't get an easy out from that justification just because one sentence is socially acceptable and the other isn't. You also don't get to hide behind "We choose to value personal freedom, liberty, and personal integrity." because that doesn't answer the implicit question, why is eating animals fine but rape not?, because you don't say why the personal freedom, liberty, and integrity of humans matter and animals don't. If those are concepts you support, fine, then no more animal agriculture. If what you're going to say is that those values matter but only for humans, then you better have a damn good reason for being so selective.

[Straha]

Ladies and Gentleman, I present you Sir Dick of Dickington. His family Motto: Why? Because I can be a dick, that's why. I'd mistaken you to actually care about convincing people rather than just deciding to alienate people because you can.

the honest truth is that I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Overtime I've changed a number of political/social/philosophical views because of this board. Not because of niceties or persuasive rhetoric or politeness, but because of the unrelenting logical smackdowns that just kept happening whenever I or someone else made weak arguments. I've seen that change in other people too. So when I come here half of it is because I do love this form of debate so, the other half is that I know that the intelligent people, the people I like or respect here, tend to be open to judging an argument not on its presentation but on its logical soundness, and will change their beliefs over the long run if the argument being made is sound. In other words, If the points I make are right then, whether Im a dick or a miss manners, they might come around. As my sig says, it doesn't matter if you're a douche here as long as you're right.

Or maybe I'm just in a terrible mood today and I'll feel like shit about this whole thing tomorrow.


P.S. I'll get to your other post tomorrow when I'm not using my iPhone. This thing is a birch to write on and your post needs a longer reply.

[Alyeska]

You miss the point completely. Your argument was "It is natural to eat meat, therefore it is morally acceptable." If that is your logical basis for argumentation, fine, but then the statement "It is natural to rape, therefore it is morally acceptable" is also true, you lack the ground to condemn it. You don't get an easy out from that justification just because one sentence is socially acceptable and the other isn't. You also don't get to hide behind "We choose to value personal freedom, liberty, and personal integrity." because that doesn't answer the implicit question, why is eating animals fine but rape not?, because you don't say why the personal freedom, liberty, and integrity of humans matter and animals don't. If those are concepts you support, fine, then no more animal agriculture. If what you're going to say is that those values matter but only for humans, then you better have a damn good reason for being so selective.

Strawman argument. Your examples are not comparable. Humans are adapted to eat meat. Humans are not adapted to rape. Being capable is not the same as being adapted. Dolphins and Beavers are adapted to swim. Humans are capable. Humans are adapted to eat meat. Without significant knowledge and technology of the first world, humans will die due to protein and vitamin decencies if they do not eat meat. Meat isn't critical to survival, but it is difficult to go without it. Rape isn't critical to survival and its extremely easy to go without.

[Alyeska]

Ladies and Gentleman, I present you Sir Dick of Dickington. His family Motto: Why? Because I can be a dick, that's why. I'd mistaken you to actually care about convincing people rather than just deciding to alienate people because you can.

the honest truth is that I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Overtime I've changed a number of political/social/philosophical views because of this board. Not because of niceties or persuasive rhetoric or politeness, but because of the unrelenting logical smackdowns that just kept happening whenever I or someone else made weak arguments. I've seen that change in other people too. So when I come here half of it is because I do love this form of debate so, the other half is that I know that the intelligent people, the people I like or respect here, tend to be open to judging an argument not on its presentation but on its logical soundness, and will change their beliefs over the long run if the argument being made is sound. In other words, If the points I make are right then, whether Im a dick or a miss manners, they might come around. As my sig says, it doesn't matter if you're a douche here as long as you're right.

Or maybe I'm just in a terrible mood today and I'll feel like shit about this whole thing tomorrow.


P.S. I'll get to your other post tomorrow when I'm not using my iPhone. This thing is a birch to write on and your post needs a longer reply.

Its too bad you are not capable of the quality of arguments that you speak of. Your arguments lack the rationality and logic in addition to being filled with vitriol.

[Eulogy]

A more rational approach would be to eat less meat, not none. The problem isn't that we eat meat, it's that we eat too much of it.

Cutting back on meat consumption is much easier and less prone to unforeseen problems than eliminating it entirely. How much less? You can get your required quota of animal flesh from eating the bugs in contaminated plant matter. That's how much.

Trying to get everyone to become vegans is a fool's errand, especially when using such a pitiful, monkey-brained approach like Straha is. If, on the other hand, you point out that you save money, become healthier, and are less prone to maladies when you eat more plants - not exclusively, but more - people might be more inclined to listen to you, and you have less chance of looking like a flaming hypocrite.

[Alyeska]

A more rational approach would be to eat less meat, not none. The problem isn't that we eat meat, it's that we eat too much of it.

Cutting back on meat consumption is much easier and less prone to unforeseen problems than eliminating it entirely. How much less? You can get your required quota of animal flesh from eating the bugs in contaminated plant matter. That's how much.

Trying to get everyone to become vegans is a fool's errand, especially when using such a pitiful, monkey-brained approach like Straha is. If, on the other hand, you point out that you save money, become healthier, and are less prone to maladies when you eat more plants - not exclusively, but more - people might be more inclined to listen to you, and you have less chance of looking like a flaming hypocrite.

Sounds about right. It could reasonably be argued that the approach that effectively leads to less eating of meat is the more moral of the two. If its unrealistic to encourage people to stop eating meat, but its realistic to encourage people to cut back on meat, just how moral are Straha's actions right now?

[Hamstray]

Not in the least. If I ask you "Is infanticide permissible?" the answer would be a blanket no. If I ask if the killing of a mentally disabled person is acceptable, the answer would again be a blanket no (no matter how tasty their flesh). This is an intrinsic part of human rights and ethics today, and any hesitation would be regarded as almost monstrous. In other words the 'baseline' of human rights is that they are 'universal', all I'm doing is pointing out that this universality, in order to be logically consistent, HAS to apply to animals as well. Otherwise we lose the ability to condemn the simplest crimes.

Doesn't this right also need to be extended to insects or even bacteria and viruses to be 'universal'? If not then where do you draw the line and why?
What is also your concrete explanation for infanticide (as an example of killing a non sapient being) being wrong aside from it being democratic consensus (as the consensus for eating meat is largely in favor)?

[AniThyng]

Not in the least. If I ask you "Is infanticide permissible?" the answer would be a blanket no. If I ask if the killing of a mentally disabled person is acceptable, the answer would again be a blanket no (no matter how tasty their flesh). This is an intrinsic part of human rights and ethics today, and any hesitation would be regarded as almost monstrous. In other words the 'baseline' of human rights is that they are 'universal', all I'm doing is pointing out that this universality, in order to be logically consistent, HAS to apply to animals as well. Otherwise we lose the ability to condemn the simplest crimes.

Doesn't this right also need to be extended to insects or even bacteria and viruses to be 'universal'? If not then where do you draw the line and why?
What is also your concrete explanation for infanticide (as an example of killing a non sapient being) being wrong aside from it being democratic consensus (as the consensus for eating meat is largely in favor)?

I'm more interested in why there is such outrage* when the animal in question is a whale or a dolphin, (or for that matter, a dog or a cat) but not say, pigs. It isn't exactly that whales are so much more intelligent relative to pigs that that is the bar? And it's not like anyone seriously advocates that it would be ok if whales were stunned with a stun gun first like cows.

*leaving aside that they are endangered. Cod and other food fish are endangered too but last I checked the level of outrage is no where comprable.

[Mr. Coffee]

We do it because animals are made of meat and meat is delicious.

If I interpret him correctly, I agree with Coffee. The consumption of other animals is not indefensible, it needs no defense. We eat sheep, because we can. A lion eats a wilderbeast, because it can. Disease ravages a child's body, because it can. A strangler fig takes support from and then chokes the life from a tree, because it can.

Well, ya got my meaning half way. Not so much a matter of "because I can" as it is "because I'm an omnivore whose body was designed to require protiens that normal you only get from meat. Also, Cows are slow, dumbass herbivores made of tasty meat, and their skin can be fashioned into a bitchin' jacket." The only good bovine is a dead one, cut into steaks, roasts, or maybe ground up and formed into a patty and then cooked (preferably over an open flame). This isn't just limited to cattle. If it swims, flies, walks, slithers or crawls and isn't poisonous to humans I'll eat the goddamn thing if you slather enough hot sauce on it, the exception being long pig because that just ain't right.

Now, before anyone get's their panties in a twist, understand that I'm not saying everyone else has to eat meat, or even agree with me. If meat's not your thing, fine, more for me. Thing is, I'm also not calling for burning down the offices of random tree-hugger activists because they disagree with me, and I will be the first to laugh my ass off when some nutsack activist like the guy in the OP does this and some rancher or tanner blows their damn fool head off defending their property and right to live their lives in accordance with the law. As far as I'm concerned, the second you decide that setting people's shit on fire is your best course of action to voice your opinion you pretty much gave up any pretense of rationality and just became a threat everyone around you. At that point, well, thank fuck for the Second Amendment.

[Korto]

A. We are not the Borg. We do not all get together, merge our minds into one, and declare that X is right and Y is wrong. We are individuals. We hold views individually, and we express them, individually. When you stand up and say "if you can do it it's fine" then that is what you, Korto the metalsmith are saying, and you will be held to account. Further, if you hold that all that matters is a group extending to itself these rights then what prevents a group of humans from extending further rights to themselves and themselves alone? If it's within their power how is it wrong? In such a world how can you decry the actions of the Saudis when they clamp down on protest/free speech/womens rights? Or the Chinese secret police? Or any other group that says that they are separate and can extend to themselves their own code of ethics?

You know, in a way we rather do merge our minds together and declare X is right and Y is wrong. Our morality has changed and evolved over time, kicked along by people, such as yourself, standing up and declaring what they believe in, and others deciding what they think of it. This evolution is a cultural process, and there is therefore little surprise that different cultures hold different moralities (even if similar on the big-ticket items). It is certainly not an argument in favour of any overarching moral absolutes.
I remember a quote from Dune

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for my freedom, because that is according to your principles. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is according to my principles.

What this says to me is that just as history is written by the victors, morality is written by the strong. Not strong men, but strong cultures. The culture that is strongest at a place and time determines what is moral and what isn't.
I decry the acts of the Saudis and Chinese because I view their acts through the prism of my own culture's morality. I can support moves to change those acts, because that is a right we have given ourselves in that morality. It is not a right the Chinese support in their morality (I believe), who believe more that people should mind their own business; an obvious point of conflict.

B. Whether or not humanity is extending these rights to themselves, I am questioning why these rights are extended. There is a reason, surely? There is a logic? This is not an act done in and of itself. If it is, fine, but again you leave no ground for condemning the actions of a 'lone wolf' or of an angry self-righteous mob. If there's a greater reasoning then what is it?

If you're looking for logic and reason in human decisions, I'm an optimist, and I believe you'll find some, if not always well applied. If you're looking for an overarching moral principal to the universe, I can only see one: Survival.
As long as what a culture's doing works, it's right. As soon as it fails, it was wrong. That's all the universe cares about.
For example, I believe we feel cruelty to other animals is wrong, at least partially because we've subconsciously picked up that those setting fire to a cat now may well be setting fire to a person in a few years time.
We hold that murder and violence is wrong because the people at war amongst themselves will fall to the people that aren't.

A right not all other species have. Dolphins, for one, will rape and commit infanticide. In dolphin society, it's not wrong.

A point that means all of jack and diddly squat. Whether or not dolphins rape doesn't change the morality of our own actions.

The example was meant to illustrate that "universal ethics"... aren't. That they are decided by the species concerned. I admit it's a poor and easily dismissed example, given they're not as intelligent as us. I plead an absence so far of non-human species at our level of intellect for me to use, and withdraw the example.

This may well be my last post on this, due to the kids being back from their grandmother's. So, if I've left something half-cooked, and I can't get back, sorry in advance.

[Thanas]

I'm more interested in why there is such outrage* when the animal in question is a whale or a dolphin, (or for that matter, a dog or a cat) but not say, pigs. It isn't exactly that whales are so much more intelligent relative to pigs that that is the bar? And it's not like anyone seriously advocates that it would be ok if whales were stunned with a stun gun first like cows.

*leaving aside that they are endangered. Cod and other food fish are endangered too but last I checked the level of outrage is no where comprable.

Because it is unnecessary, they are endangered, the killing is too brutal, the meat is not that healthy or good and it takes the animal too long to grow to its size, so the proportional harm inflicted is greater than the benefit.

[Connor MacLeod]

Edit: changed due to possible violation of rules. I'm gonna ask first before reposting. If not, ignore this.

[Teebs]

I'm more interested in why there is such outrage* when the animal in question is a whale or a dolphin, (or for that matter, a dog or a cat) but not say, pigs. It isn't exactly that whales are so much more intelligent relative to pigs that that is the bar? And it's not like anyone seriously advocates that it would be ok if whales were stunned with a stun gun first like cows.

*leaving aside that they are endangered. Cod and other food fish are endangered too but last I checked the level of outrage is no where comprable.

Speaking for my own views, I base it mainly on intelligence. I happily admit I don't know huge amounts about animal intelligence but as I understand it dolphins, apes and some whales are much more intelligent than pigs (or dogs) and so I think it's wrong to eat them. I think most people just don't like it because they think they are cool, cute animals though. For the record, I see no great problem with eating dog or cat, although I don't really feel the need myself (I'd try it I suppose).

If I were to go off and become an animal intelligence expert and found that they weren't in fact smart then I would lose the outrage but Thanas' reasons for not eating them would still apply.

[Hamstray]

Because it is unnecessary, they are endangered, the killing is too brutal, the meat is not that healthy or good and it takes the animal too long to grow to its size, so the proportional harm inflicted is greater than the benefit.

That's not necessarily true for cats and dogs. Strays are regularly put down due to over population and in other countries they are a common dish.

Also veal is more healthy than pork and regular beef, has a lower level of intelligence (and therefore lower level of consciousness), takes less time to grow, yet there are lots of hypocrites saying eating veal is unethical and they eat pork instead.

[DudeGuyMan]

I wonder how careful Straha is to not crush any bugs while walking down the street. I wonder how much more careful he'd be if each crushed bug somehow resulted in a dead baby. I also wonder if he ever disinfects anything, genociding all those poor innocent protozoans just so he won't get a cold or something.

[Broomstick]

It does not. After all, there is the possibility of a cure for mentally disabled persons. On the other hand, there is no possibility of a cow reading Plato and arguing its worth. This is what I meant with baselines and outliers. There may be below average humans who, due to a disability, are not that smart. On the other hand, there is no extremely smart cow that can argue philosophy with you and me. That is why Humans and animals are different.

Now who's using outliers? A person with Downs syndrome has no chance of a "cure".

The extra chromosome can't be fixed, but with proper support and education there have been a number who not only went on to live life as an employed adult, participating in society, a few have even gone to college. No cow, no matter how smart, will ever be able to do that.

A man who suffers brain damage as a child that renders them blind, deaf, and dumb has so little chance of a cure as for it to be "none".

Helen Keller's blindness and deafness was never cured, but she nonetheless overcame her "dumbness" and went on to participate fully in society, including higher education, authorship, and so forth. No cow will ever do that.

Someone who suffered from a severe car crash and brain trauma has about as much chance of reading Plato and arguing its worth as the cow.

I have a nephew who suffered diffuse brain trauma in a severe car crash, after which it was questionable if he'd ever 1) come out of the coma and 2) come out of the vegetative state. With support and rehabilitation, however, he is now in his second year of college (struggling a bit, but passing) and while I don't know if he's been assigned any Plato in his classes he is certainly capable (once again) of reading it. No cow, no matter how smart, will ever be able to read Plato.

The difference is that even a severely damaged human being has potential no cow, no matter how superior to other cows, will ever have.

Or do you argue we should also intercede when a wolf kills its prey? if not, then what makes the situation different from this one?

Simple: The wolf needs to kill in order to survive. The act of killing is bad, but excusable. We (at least we in the First World) have no such excuse, and if anything we only make the world around us worse by almost every measurable standard by engaging in the consumption of animal products.

Yes, we DO have to kill to survive - or are you under the delusion that no animals ever die when humans engage in growing plants? It sounds like you have no idea the carnage entailed by plowing and harvesting, by the use of pesticides, the destruction of habitat, or the elimination of competing species (anything that can eat what we eat) from our agricultural fields.

Then there is the collateral damage caused by the production, use, and improper disposal of animal product alternatives, such as substituting plastic for leather. A pair of leather shoes will eventually decay and disappear back into the ecosystem. A pair of plastic shoes are forever, and may even end up choking sea life in the Great Pacific Floating Garbage Dump.

Please try again.

[Broomstick]

A more rational approach would be to eat less meat, not none. The problem isn't that we eat meat, it's that we eat too much of it.

Cutting back on meat consumption is much easier and less prone to unforeseen problems than eliminating it entirely. How much less? You can get your required quota of animal flesh from eating the bugs in contaminated plant matter. That's how much.

Trying to get everyone to become vegans is a fool's errand, especially when using such a pitiful, monkey-brained approach like Straha is. If, on the other hand, you point out that you save money, become healthier, and are less prone to maladies when you eat more plants - not exclusively, but more - people might be more inclined to listen to you, and you have less chance of looking like a flaming hypocrite.

Sounds about right. It could reasonably be argued that the approach that effectively leads to less eating of meat is the more moral of the two. If its unrealistic to encourage people to stop eating meat, but its realistic to encourage people to cut back on meat, just how moral are Straha's actions right now?

If nothing else, trying to get people to eat less meat is more practical, much more likely to happen, than getting people to entirely stop eating meat. But that's not good enough for some vegans, they won't settle for better, only for perfection even if that perfection is realistically unobtainable.

[Broomstick]

Also veal is more healthy than pork and regular beef, has a lower level of intelligence (and therefore lower level of consciousness), takes less time to grow, yet there are lots of hypocrites saying eating veal is unethical and they eat pork instead.

If veal calves were slaughtered as soon as they're taken away from their mothers (as used to be the case some time ago) people might object to it less, but in order to maximize the useful result of slaughtering the veal calf the practice arose of confining them to the point of near immobility and deliberately depriving them of nutrients in their diet so the meat wouldn't change in appearance or texture even as they gained size, weight, and bulk. Some people deem this unethical and unnecessary for the production of meat, and thus view veal as an unethical choice. If such people were offered a veal calf that wasn't so confined and nutrient-deprived they might not object, or object less.

Of course, whether or not the pigs they eat are treated any better than veal calves is a valid question.

[Akhlut]

Humans are not adapted to rape.

Not necessarily. Steven Pinker makes a good case in The Blank Slate that rape is one of many mating strategies employed by (male) humans. I'd argue that there is no specific adaptation to rape, per se, but that it is an offshoot of humanity's adaptations toward using violence as a means to procure things we want.

However, we can say that it is immoral to rape because of consent issues and utilitarianism (rape causes undue suffering).


As for eating meat and killing animals and their consent: I think that the developed world overdoes meat consumption by a great deal, but that human usage of other animals isn't prima facie wrong. If raised humanely and slaughtered painlessly (I favor nitrogen asphyxiation as a method, myself), then I do not see an enormous utilitarian burden there. The slaughtered animal obviously loses, but it also does not suffer.

[Connor MacLeod]

Straha: If you feel killing animals and using them for food or other things like leather is wrong, do you feel that use of force - up to and including threat of death against people who transgress in such a manner - is a justified deterrent to force a change to what you see as an injustice?

Or, to rather dumb it down: Is it justified to harm or kill people to get them to stop eating meat or using animal body parts in any way, shape or manner, merely to enforce your definition of right and wrong upon them?

[Bakustra]

I wonder how careful Straha is to not crush any bugs while walking down the street. I wonder how much more careful he'd be if each crushed bug somehow resulted in a dead baby. I also wonder if he ever disinfects anything, genociding all those poor innocent protozoans just so he won't get a cold or something.

Or he could be a strict Jain or other practitioner of Ahimsa, carefully avoiding the deliberate or avoidable killing of anything with three or more senses, which incorporates insects but not plants, fungi, or protozoans. Or he could have some moral code which justifies the killing of certain animals but not others. But the point of your post is not to engage in thoughtful discussion or debate, but rather to snipe at any such person that dares argue for vegetarianism on moral grounds. Shame on you for your cowardice.

Straha: If you feel killing animals and using them for food or other things like leather is wrong, do you feel that use of force - up to and including threat of death against people who transgress in such a manner - is a justified deterrent to force a change to what you see as an injustice?

Or, to rather dumb it down: Is it justified to harm or kill people to get them to stop eating meat or using animal body parts in any way, shape or manner, merely to enforce your definition of right and wrong upon them?

Is it justified to harm people to get them to stop killing other people, merely to enforce our definition of right and wrong upon them? I think that your argument has a fundamental weak point there- if it works, then it undermines the very concept of criminal penalties altogether!

----------------

In general, I presume that the people arguing against Straha are also opposed to cruelty to animals. How then do you justify the killing of animals to be morally acceptable, but the torture, rape, or brutalizing of them to be morally unacceptable? That is to say, do animals have the potential to suffer only when they are not about to die? Bear in mind that before you rage about vegans or vegetarians, I personally do eat meat, though I don't have a particularly good defense of how I can do so morally.

[Broomstick]

In general, I presume that the people arguing against Straha are also opposed to cruelty to animals. How then do you justify the killing of animals to be morally acceptable, but the torture, rape, or brutalizing of them to be morally unacceptable? That is to say, do animals have the potential to suffer only when they are not about to die? Bear in mind that before you rage about vegans or vegetarians, I personally do eat meat, though I don't have a particularly good defense of how I can do so morally.

Killing something does not, inherently, require subjecting it to pain for suffering. There are a number of methods that kill either so quickly as to be near instantaneous, or truly do not cause pain/suffering at all.

Granted, those methods are not always the ones chosen. Nonetheless, killing does not equal torture.

[Bakustra]

In general, I presume that the people arguing against Straha are also opposed to cruelty to animals. How then do you justify the killing of animals to be morally acceptable, but the torture, rape, or brutalizing of them to be morally unacceptable? That is to say, do animals have the potential to suffer only when they are not about to die? Bear in mind that before you rage about vegans or vegetarians, I personally do eat meat, though I don't have a particularly good defense of how I can do so morally.

Killing something does not, inherently, require subjecting it to pain for suffering. There are a number of methods that kill either so quickly as to be near instantaneous, or truly do not cause pain/suffering at all.

Granted, those methods are not always the ones chosen. Nonetheless, killing does not equal torture.

Okay, but let us apply those methods to a human being, and are we then allowed to kill them? That doesn't resolve the question I asked very well.

[Connor MacLeod]

Is it justified to harm people to get them to stop killing other people, merely to enforce our definition of right and wrong upon them? I think that your argument has a fundamental weak point there- if it works, then it undermines the very concept of criminal penalties altogether!

I am not sure I am following. Laws and criminal penalties are something that are (rightly or wrongly) defined by a large group of people. Some are good, and some are bad, but they generally are at least accepted by (if not voted in by) a majority (and yes I know that's not absolute.)
I was thinking more in terms of a minority trying to enforce standards on a general populace. In this case we have a single person (Bond) taking it upon themselves to excute a 'just punishment' on preceived wrongdoers to enforce a specific definition of right and wrong.