NationStates Jolt Archive

1 + 1 = 3
2 = 3
Oops! Clearly 2 =/= 3.
Therefore, 1 + 1 =/= 3.

1+1 = 2, thereby, 1+1 != 3

But you aren't proving 1+1 != 3
Ew, math. :p

With the implicit premise that mathematical equations can only have one answer, yes you are.

This is again, a requirement of a proof of positive. That mathematical equations can only have one answer, of which that one answer is used to automatically discount any number of possible answers without proving that they are negatives.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, it does. But it's still not proving a negative.


I'm still sorting through it all, you posted quie a few links.

So far, it seems to be as Soheran described. PETA euthanise animals it feels cannot lead a good life trapped up in animal shelters. Many in the animal liberation movement disagree with them; some wholly, some partly.

So how does it square with PETA's stance that killing animals is wrong then? Or for that matter, that raiding and releasing lab/farm animals who haven't the faintest idea how to cope in the wild (not that PETA or ALF have been shown to care about that niggling detail), is a good thing? Either PETA doesn't have a unified stance and is a hodgepodge of people who are sending out conflicting messages, or it's a two faced body running a scam like the COS.

But it's still not proving a negative.
You are proving something not to be the case; prooving a negative.

Or look at Soheran's example for more.

So how does it square with PETA's stance that killing animals is wrong then?
In the same way that those (like me)who argue killing of humans is wrong, yet also argue for ethical euthinasia of those humans with no quality of life. I may not agree with the parameters PETA uses to determine which nonhuman animals are euthanised, but there isn't a logical disconnect here.

Or for that matter, that raiding and releasing lab/farm animals who haven't the faintest idea how to cope in the wild
I believe this is one of the instances where PETA may euthanise nonhuman animals, following the reasoning, 'it is better to put the animals out of their misery, rather than letting tem be used in experiments, for commercial use, or to be released into an environment which cannot support them'.

These animal rights cocksuckers are worse than Jihadists in my opinion. They go around spouting their insane rhetoric about animal rights and equality while supporting PeTA, which euthanizes 10,000 animals annually in its 'shelter'. They say no to animal tested products, yet PeTA's vice president uses insulin developed in laboratory dogs. The vitamins these sick bastards must take to support their unnatural lifestyle were all developed by animal testing, and many are fish oil based. Fucking hyporcites and degenerates. I really think we should just gas the lot of them.

They say no to animal tested products, yet PeTA's vice president uses insulin developed in laboratory dogs.
Should we stop using the autobahns? Shoud we tear down the buildings we use built by murderous, greedy individuals? Should we stop the space program, which wouldn't be at the place it is today without technology designed by the USSR and the Third Reich?

Fucking hyporcites and degenerates. I really think we should just gas the lot of them.
Good to know you're also above mindless violence...

You are proving something not to be the case; prooving a negative.


No, it is proving that something is the case, and then discounting anything else.


In the same way that those (like me)who argue killing of humans is wrong, yet also argue for ethical euthinasia of those humans with no quality of life. I may not agree with the parameters PETA uses to determine which nonhuman animals are euthanised, but there isn't a logical disconnect here.


Ethical euthanesia for humans with no quality of life, is something I am certain you are arguing, that should be the province of the one to be euthanized, or close family in the event that the one to be euthanized is incapable of giving any sort of answer.

After all, even in countries where euthanesia is legal, those who give non-consensual euthanesia are put in jail are they not?

PETA doesn't quite extend that sort of choice to their target of operations. Of course this may be somewhat of a difficult proposition to make, seeing that choice on such matters may be difficult to make understandable without a common language between species.


I believe this is one of the instances where PETA may euthanise nonhuman animals, following the reasoning, 'it is better to put the animals out of their misery, rather than letting tem be used in experiments, for commercial use, or to be released into an environment which cannot support them'.

Ahh, but here is where the two diverge. PETA and ALF activists have raided labs and farms, not to euthanize animals, but to release them into the wild, even if they did end up being put down by the city council or died of exposure. PETA paints these places as cruel and inhumane in their treatment of animals.

Yet PETA activists have also gone to shelters, collecting animals from shelters, only to euthanize them, despite promises to the contrary. Again, PETA paints these shelters as cruel and inhumane in their treatment of animals.

Why does one place warrant release into the wild, yet another, of which they make no distinction in terms of quality of life of animals kept, warrant immediate euthanization?

Explain that.

I never said I was above it. A little violence can go a long way.

Should we stop using the autobahns? Shoud we tear down the buildings we use built by murderous, greedy individuals? Should we stop the space program, which wouldn't be at the place it is today without technology designed by the USSR and the Third Reich?


Only if you have gone on public record stating that it is better to go without the development of such things, even if it means death.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

She has gone on public record opposing an AIDS cure if it resulted from animal research, even if it means the death of people with AIDS. But she does use the benefits of animal research, notably insulin, to extend her life which would have ended much earlier without it.

Please explain why there shouldn't be a disconnect here.

Please explain why there shouldn't be a disconnect here.

I use the benefits of ethnic cleansing every day--it's a part of living in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else.)

I can still consistently oppose ethnic cleansing.

No, it is proving that something is the case, and then discounting anything else.
...which is implicitly proving a negative by another name.

If I show that something is black, then I am also, implicitly, showing it is not-white. If someone asks me to prove that today is not Wednesday, I can point to the fact that it is Saturday (or Friday, depending whee you are in the world). This is adequate proof of negative (the proof that it is not Wednesday).

After all, even in countries where euthanesia is legal, those who give non-consensual euthanesia are put in jail are they not?
Murder is generally frowned upon, yes.

Though 'consensual euthanasia' may cover, as you mentioned, gaining consent from a family member or guardian.

PETA doesn't quite extend that sort of choice to their target of operations.
No, but that's rather a tricky task...

Why does one place warrant release into the wild, yet another, of which they make no distinction in terms of quality of life of animals kept, warrant immediate euthanization?
Do they make no distinction?

Are they not making a distinction between the animals in question?

I never said I was above it. A little violence can go a long way.
Then why dislike "Jihadists" or "animal rights cocksuckers". many seem to share your views.


Only if you have gone on public record stating that it is better to go without the development of such things, even if it means death.
Then yes, that'd be rather hypocritical.

Please explain why there shouldn't be a disconnect here.
You seem to be under the impression that I am a spokesperson for PETA, or that the group itself is anything more than a small group with a large public profile...

...which is implicitly proving a negative by another name.

If I show that something is black, then I am also, implicitly, showing it is not-white. If someone asks me to prove that today is not Wednesday, I can point to the fact that it is Saturday (or Friday, depending whee you are in the world). This is adequate proof of negative (the proof that it is not Wednesday).

I can prove a tree is made of wood, but that doesn't mean it cannot be a dead one either, or living, or any number of possible states. Multi-state proofs show the fallacy of a single state proof to discount other possibilities.

Or more simply. A chess board is white. It is also black. Both statements do not discount the other.

In either case, it is not a pure proof of negative. It is logical reduction of possibilities. But it is not proof.


Murder is generally frowned upon, yes.


Given that PETA apparently claims to make no distinction between lives of animals, regardless of species, would it not frown on its own stance of non-consensual euthanesia upon animals?


No, but that's rather a tricky task...


Indeed, I have said as much. But without that little step, how is one supposed to not see a disconnect between PETA's "Meat is murder" and "non-consensual euthanesia is not murder".


Do they make no distinction?

Are they not making a distinction between the animals in question?

They claim that all animal lives, regardless of species, is the same to them. Although of late, they appear to be putting human lives on a lower scale, with their tacit approval of homicide as a means of getting their message across.

So to answer your question, no, they claim that they don't.


Then yes, that'd be rather hypocritical.

You seem to be under the impression that I am a spokesperson for PETA, or that the group itself is anything more than a small group with a large public profile...

Not really, but you've said you couldn't see any disconnects between their words and actions before, so here I am, showing them to you. Either you cannot see disconnects still, in which case I must ask you to explain why, or you do.

My dear Chumby, those groups are counterproductive. I am all about progress. Jihadists are anti progress, but for understandable reasons. The PeTA people want to sacrifice progress for imagined feelings of lesser beasts.

I use the benefits of ethnic cleansing every day--it's a part of living in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else.)

I can still consistently oppose ethnic cleansing.

I've said I will stick to the facts on hand, and I will, despite your attempts to sideline the issue.

I can prove a tree is made of wood, but that doesn't mean it cannot be a dead one either, or living, or any number of possible states.
Yes, but as it's made entirely (excluding shoots, roots and leaves) of wood, it isn't made of plastic or stone.

Or more simply. A chess board is white. It is also black. Both statements do not discount the other.
Both statements are wrong.

A chessboard is black and white. But it is not red.

Given that PETA apparently claims to make no distinction between lives of animals, regardless of species, would it not frown on its own stance of non-consensual euthanesia upon animals?
Depending on the group's conception of 'consent' and the actual position of 'no distinction between lives of animals, regardless of species'. Equality doesn't mean same-ness.

But without that little step, how is one supposed to not see a disconnect between PETA's "Meat is murder" and "non-consensual euthanesia is not murder".
Because one can have different conceptions of consent.

See above.

Not really, but you've said you couldn't see any disconnects between their words and actions before, so here I am, showing them to you.
I said I couldn't see any disconnect between certain statements and certain actions. Big difference.


My dear Chumby, those groups are counterproductive.
And thus should be got rid of?

Sounding more and more like a 'Jihadist'...

Yes, but as it's made entirely (excluding shoots, roots and leaves) of wood, it isn't made of plastic or stone.

The difference being that you would be required to prove that it isn't made of plastic or stone, not merely state that it is composed of one matter.


Both statements are wrong.

A chessboard is black and white. But it is not red.


The manufacturer's label on the back says otherwise.

In layman's use, it is fine to exclude other possibilities on the grounds of proving what is. But you cannot specifically prove what isn't.

The distinction is minor, but it is there.


Depending on the group's conception of 'consent' and the actual position of 'no distinction between lives of animals, regardless of species'. Equality doesn't mean same-ness.

If they define any form of animal killing as murder, which they have, it seems to be quite clear that any acts of euthanesia on their side would be murder, would it not?

I believe PETA has gone on record comparing the Holocaust to factory farming, with them implying that factory farming was worse.

So it seems quite clear that PETA equates non-human lives as equal or greater in value to human lives.

Thereby, the concept of 'consent' in regards to euthanesia should be the same, should it not?


Because one can have different conceptions of consent.

See above.

Consent should be up to the distinction of the consentee, shouldn't it? Else, if one is free to depict anything that they want as consent, we are suddenly left without any means of prosecuting crimes, because all crimes, by interpretation of the perpetrator, would then be, with whatever they want to claim, the consent of the victim.


I said I couldn't see any disconnect between certain statements and certain actions. Big difference.

If one uses unrelated statements to unrelated actions, I can imagine why you couldn't. The question is, why would you be doing that? Square pegs in round holes?

Any statement of policy by the organization, regardless of what it is, should always have some relevance to its actions, especially when said action contravenes any, of its policies.

I've said I will stick to the facts on hand, and I will, despite your attempts to sideline the issue.

The "facts on hand" do not include Ingrid Newkirk being a hypocrite. That's your judgment and analysis.

Being a founder of the organization, Ingrid Newkirk being a hypocrite is both factual, and relevant to the issue. I had to dig a bit for this quote.

http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200004/msg00047.html

Look up diabetes. This statement was given while she was still in PETA, and insofar as I know, already analyzed with Diabetes. Finding a concrete date of when however, has been difficult.

Look up diabetes. This statement was given while she was still in PETA, and insofar as I know, already analyzed with Diabetes. Finding a concrete date of when however, has been difficult.

The only diabetes quote I see is from Cleveland Amory, who is attached to Fund For Animals, not PETA.

The only diabetes quote I see is from Cleveland Amory, who is attached to Fund For Animals, not PETA.

This is what I get for posting half asleep. Sloppy results. I apologize for that.

But Ingrid has the following quotes. In regards to non-distinction for fauna on species type.

"Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is
no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat
is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
As quoted in Vogue, September, 1989
"Where Would We Be Without Animals?, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990

On AIDS cure.

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(_Washington_Post_, May 30, 1989)

And in regards to companion animals.

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals.
(Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They would have full
lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet
them and then sit there and watch TV."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
"Where Would We Be Without Animals?, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990

Living in the wild, presumably, doesn't include being injected with chemical cocktails designed to induce death.

The difference being that you would be required to prove that it isn't made of plastic or stone, not merely state that it is composed of one matter.
Are you claiming that once an item has been shown to consist entirely of substance A, that it is still up for debate as to whether the item consists of substance B? That, to me, seems rather strange.

If substance A != substance B,
and x is made of substance A,
and x is only made of one substance,
then, we can safely say that x does not consist of substance B.

But you cannot specifically prove what isn't.
How can't I? I can specifically prove that an item is a certain thing, and is certainly not something else.

If they define any form of animal killing as murder, which they have, it seems to be quite clear that any acts of euthanesia on their side would be murder, would it not?
If they define any form of animal killing as murder, then yes.

So it seems quite clear that PETA equates non-human lives as equal or greater in value to human lives.
Equal to. Not greater than.

Thereby, the concept of 'consent' in regards to euthanesia should be the same, should it not?
Again, 'equality' does not mean 'same-ness'.

Although all humans (and, if PETA got their way, all animals, not just humans) are equal under the law, not all are treated the same. Children, the mentally handicapped, those in a coma, etc., have different conceptions of consent atached to them. I don't see why nonhuman animals would be any different.

Consent should be up to the distinction of the consentee, shouldn't it?
Unless the consentee is incapable of consent and a guardian takes their place.

If one uses unrelated statements to unrelated actions, I can imagine why you couldn't. The question is, why would you be doing that? Square pegs in round holes?
You said, "I would ask if there is a logical disconnect between "valuing all lives" and then euthanizing these supposed "valued lives"?".

I replied in the negative, and mde it clear I was answering negatively in relation to the general point. If you want to hound the point, I won't stop you, but you're not getting anywhere.

Are you claiming that once an item has been shown to consist entirely of substance A, that it is still up for debate as to whether the item consists of substance B? That, to me, seems rather strange.

If substance A != substance B,
and x is made of substance A,
and x is only made of one substance,
then, we can safely say that x does not consist of substance B.


Which is proof that substance x is made of A, and has only one substance composing it. This again, is proof of a positive, with a logical conclusion of a negative.

It is not a proof of a negative. As I've said, the distinction is a small one, but it is there.


If they define any form of animal killing as murder, then yes.


The only time they've not defined animal killing as murder is when they do it. That's it. Fishing, farming, hunting, lab euthanization they consider it murder. Even keeping pets is considered cruel and inhumane according to PETA statements.


Equal to. Not greater than.


The opening article clearly proves that they don't believe that human lives are as valuable, since they've said in not too many words that even uninvolved people are fair game in attempted homicide.


Again, 'equality' does not mean 'same-ness'.

Although all humans (and, if PETA got their way, all animals, not just humans) are equal under the law, not all are treated the same. Children, the mentally handicapped, those in a coma, etc., have different conceptions of consent atached to them. I don't see why nonhuman animals would be any different.

Children, the mentally handicapped, even those in a coma, are they not presumed to have a default setting of no to consent? Unless done so by guardians or next of kin?

Lack of refusal after all, isn't consent.


Unless the consentee is incapable of consent and a guardian takes their place.

Perhaps, but that is not the decision of non-guardians to make. Especially if it involves adoption and immediate euthanization of animals from shelters.


You said, "I would ask if there is a logical disconnect between "valuing all lives" and then euthanizing these supposed "valued lives"?".

I replied in the negative, and mde it clear I was answering negatively in relation to the general point. If you want to hound the point, I won't stop you, but you're not getting anywhere.

Ahhh, and here I thought you were replying specifically in regards to PETA statements and actions.

This again, is proof of a positive, with a logical conclusion of a negative...
...and what's another name for a 'logical conclusion' at the end of an argument? Proof.

The only time they've not defined animal killing as murder is when they do it. That's it. Fishing, farming, hunting, lab euthanization they consider it murder.
And non-lab euthanisataion? 'Mercy killing'?

Even keeping pets is considered cruel and inhumane according to PETA statements.
To an extent, I'd agree with them.

The opening article clearly proves that they don't believe that human lives are as valuable
It 'clearly proves' (you really need to keep that hyperbole in check) nothing of the sort. The ALF, not PETA, argue that, as human and nonhuman animals are equally worthy of life, taking a human's life in defence (as they see it) of a nonhuman is acceptable.

Children, the mentally handicapped, even those in a coma, are they not presumed to have a default setting of no to consent?
Under UK law, no, I don't believe so.

Considering the range of things an individual can consent to, having a 'default position' would be ludicrous.

Perhaps, but that is not the decision of non-guardians to make.
Obviously, PETA members take themselves as guardians.

Ahhh, and here I thought you were replying specifically in regards to PETA statements and actions.
You have asked a number of questions, both specific and non-specific. You have, quite losely, switched from non-specific ethical issues to specific issues of PETA's actions. If you wish to ask me an ethical question, do so. If you wish to ask me a question on PETA's actions, do so. I am ready to answer.

I have stated a number of times in this thread that I don't entirely agree with PETA; indeed, I don't really give them much thought. Other animal liberation groups and philosophies appeal to me much more.

What are you wanting me to say?

...and what's another name for a 'logical conclusion' at the end of an argument? Proof.

Not really. Logical constructs do not constitute proof, even if they have backing of proof on related matters.

Think of it this way. In legal practice, you cannot prove that someone was not at a place at a certain time and date. How can you prove a non-event? You can however, prove that said someone was somewhere else.

That being said, Schroedinger's cat.


And non-lab euthanisataion? 'Mercy killing'?


Only if they do it, as I've said. If anyone else does it, so long as it isn't done by animal rights activists, they call it murder. And even that is divisive among the animal rights groups.


To an extent, I'd agree with them.


Define that extent then.


It 'clearly proves' (you really need to keep that hyperbole in check) nothing of the sort. The ALF, not PETA, argue that, as human and nonhuman animals are equally worthy of life, taking a human's life in defence (as they see it) of a nonhuman is acceptable.

I will give that ALF was the one which said as much, a mistake on my part, but if PETA provides defense funds for those charged of these crimes, which they have done before, what does that say about the connection between the two?


Under UK law, no, I don't believe so.

Considering the range of things an individual can consent to, having a 'default position' would be ludicrous.

How odd, and here I was, thinking that if you didn't give consent for a variety of things, it didn't constitute consent.


Obviously, PETA members take themselves as guardians.


Adoption and immediate euthanization is playing quite fast and loose with the term "guardian", is it not?


You have asked a number of questions, both specific and non-specific. You have, quite losely, switched from non-specific ethical issues to specific issues of PETA's actions. If you wish to ask me an ethical question, do so. If you wish to ask me a question on PETA's actions, do so. I am ready to answer.

I have stated a number of times in this thread that I don't entirely agree with PETA; indeed, I don't really give them much thought. Other animal liberation groups and philosophies appeal to me much more.

What are you wanting me to say?

How about a summary of what you think PETA is and to what degree you agree with them? This should solve any misconceptions I have, and allow the debate to follow through, I hope.

Think of it this way. In legal practice, you cannot prove that someone was not at a place at a certain time and date.[/i]
Then what on Earth is an alibi?

Define that extent then.
I have problems with domesticated pets, particularly with their confinement and the conditioning of their behaviour to fit in with human society.

I will give that ALF was the one which said as much, a mistake on my part, but if PETA provides defense funds for those charged of these crimes, which they have done before, what does that say about the connection between the two?
That there is one.

What it doesn't prove is that either organisation view a nonhuman life more important than a human one.

How odd, and here I was, thinking that if you didn't give consent for a variety of things, it didn't constitute consent.
Yes, but having a 'default position' of 'no to consent' for those ubnable to give consent is mad; it'd place the person in a vegative coma as not giving consent, say, both for keeping them on a ventilator and for switching off their ventilator, or any question of consent whatsoever.

Adoption and immediate euthanization is playing quite fast and loose with the term "guardian", is it not?
Not particularly in my view.

How about a summary of what you think PETA is and to what degree you agree with them?
Meh, can't be arsed. (EDIT> Perhaps later on.)

The conversation is about PETA, not me. If you want someone to defend PETA on all of its positions, find a PETA member. I don't see why I should outline my entire position on nonhuman animals so I can then stand as a PETA proxy.

Then what on Earth is an alibi?

A claim that you were elsewhere or otherwise preoccupied at the time of the crime.


I have problems with domesticated pets, particularly with their confinement and the conditioning of their behaviour to fit in with human society.

I assume this also includes animals that found it better to adapt to human society too? As I understand it, the precursor to the modern dog found that scavenging behind human tribes who did the hunting was less taxing and more rewarding than doing the hunting themselves. The relationship from there evolved on its own.

Besides, unless you are proposing that humans live in a vacuum or simply vanish, how do you expect to keep any of the species from interacting and adapting to one another?

Even ants have been known to rear other species of insects for mutual benefit of both parties, so that certainly rules out any argument that such acts are unnatural. Are you going to oppose that too?


That there is one.

What it doesn't prove is that either organisation view a nonhuman life more important than a human one.

Oh, I wouldn't know about that.

http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200004/msg00047.html

Humanity is the cancer of nature.
-Dave Foreman, Earth First!

The optimum human population of earth is zero.
-Dave Foreman, Earth First!

"Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of
the planet."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Reader's Digest, June, 1990

There's a lot of bile like that aimed specifically at the human race among these various people. It is not unreasonable to conclude that humans have less of a value to them than non-human animals based at this hatred.


Yes, but having a 'default position' of 'no to consent' for those ubnable to give consent is mad; it'd place the person in a vegative coma as not giving consent, say, both for keeping them on a ventilator and for switching off their ventilator, or any question of consent whatsoever.

I think you ignored this little prerequisite I had to that default positon.


Children, the mentally handicapped, even those in a coma, are they not presumed to have a default setting of no to consent? Unless done so by guardians or next of kin?

Forgot that, did you?


Not particularly in my view.


How very curious. One can be both guardian and executioner of one's charges and not be two different things.


Meh, can't be arsed. (EDIT> Perhaps later on.)

The conversation is about PETA, not me. If you want someone to defend PETA on all of its positions, find a PETA member. I don't see why I should outline my entire position on nonhuman animals so I can then stand as a PETA proxy.

The conversation is about PETA yes, but we are trading opinions and arguments about PETA, thereby, your opinions and mine do matter insofar as how they affect the argument.

*snip*

So?

None of that makes her a hypocrite. As a matter of fact, none of that makes her even particularly unreasonable.

So?

None of that makes her a hypocrite. As a matter of fact, none of that makes her even particularly unreasonable.

Right, because being against something (medical benefits from animal testing), but using it behind everyone else's back anyway, makes one not a hypocrite.

We've had this argument before. Even Chumbly here is in agreement. Being two faced is hypocritical. I don't know what a hypocrite is in your understanding, but it's certainly not what the English language deems it.

Collins dictionary has this to say.

hypocrisy [hip-ok-rass-ee]
Noun
pl -sies
1. the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour
2. an act or instance of this

Right, because being against something (medical benefits from animal testing), but using it behind everyone else's back anyway, makes one not a hypocrite.

Newkirk is not against the "medical benefits." No one's against the medical benefits. If people are saved from death, great.

What people argue is that the medical benefits do not justify the use of animals in experimentation. But Newkirk is not experimenting on animals. She's not a hypocrite--not in that respect, anyway.

We've had this argument before.

No, my point last time was that hypocrisy has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the argument.

The same, incidentally, is true here: attacks on Newkirk, if they're supposed to amount to anything at all, are generally ad hominem fallacies, often with some guilt by association thrown in.

Newkirk is not against the "medical benefits." No one's against the medical benefits. If people are saved from death, great.

What people argue is that the medical benefits do not justify the use of animals in experimentation. But Newkirk is not experimenting on animals. She's not a hypocrite--not in that respect, anyway.

Hypocrisy. Professed standards, and actions to the contrary.

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

This is the standard. Opposition to animal tests producing medical cures, and logically, the end results.

Ingrid Newkirk uses insulin.

This is the action. Insulin was the result of medical research, and is extracted from animals, unless there has been a change in source of late.

Ergo, she is a hypocrite.


The same, incidentally, is true here: attacks on Newkirk, if they're supposed to amount to anything at all, are generally ad hominem fallacies, often with some guilt by association thrown in.

If Ingrid Newkirk had not founded PETA, was not it's head and set policy for a great many years, you might have a point. But she did, and you don't.

I suppose next you will insist that the beliefs and opinions of a founder of any organization used in founding said organization has no impact on the values and direction of the organization.

This is the standard. Opposition to animal tests producing medical cures, and logically, the end results.

Not "logically" at all. That's ridiculous. Opposition to means in no sense implies opposition to end results. All kinds of things we enjoy have been attained through unethical means, down to the very land we live on. That's part of life in a fucked up world. It doesn't mean we should go drown ourselves or something. It doesn't mean we can't oppose further aggressive conquest and ethnic cleansing.

Ingrid Newkirk uses insulin.

Source that. There's nothing on Wikipedia and a Google search returns mostly blogs repeating this story.

This is the action. Insulin was the result of medical research, and is extracted from animals, unless there has been a change in source of late.

The insulin used nowadays is usually synthetic, I think--it's no longer extracted from animals.

If Ingrid Newkirk had not founded PETA, was not it's head and set policy for a great many years, you might have a point. But she did, and you don't.

I suppose next you will insist that the beliefs and opinions of a founder of any organization used in founding said organization has no impact on the values and direction of the organization.

Beliefs obviously do. Actions in their private life, not so obviously.

[B]Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

this is obviously just a variation on the idea that the ends don't (necessarily) justify the means.

even if medical experiments on political prisoners produced a cure for aids, i would be against them. i seriously hope you would be too.

Logical constructs do not constitute proof

learn2logic

Moral realism holds that there are objective moral values, correct? Moral realists argue that moral judgments describe moral facts, right?

Well, how do you know that there are objective moral values? How is that not just an opinion, one view? How was it tested? I'd like to see the experiment, the data. What are the units used? How do you quantify morality and judge the rightness or wrongness of a given action? Is murder a 1 on the wrong scale or a 10? What if you killed an evil person that threatened all of humanity or had to do it to protect a small number of innocents?

My problem with the view of moral realism is that it's presumptuous, arrogant. Moral realism has been at the heart of some of the greatest and most unnecessary atrocities in human history. Some of the worst monsters probably believed that there were objective moral values and that their ethics, their morals, their beliefs and only their beliefs were correct. Hell, murderers of all stripes were probably using it to justify their actions, if only to themselves, more than a thousand years before it had a name.

It demands assumption, belief without evidence. It demands faith. It presupposes the existence of nonmaterial moral facts that cannot be observed or tested.

Faith, trust and "pixie dust" are not enough for this or anything else to fly. You also need a brightly colored cape.

Not "logically" at all. That's ridiculous. Opposition to means in no sense implies opposition to end results. All kinds of things we enjoy have been attained through unethical means, down to the very land we live on. That's part of life in a fucked up world. It doesn't mean we should go drown ourselves or something. It doesn't mean we can't oppose further aggressive conquest and ethnic cleansing.


A very easy thing to say, when one is no longer in need of its benefits.

Why?


Source that. There's nothing on Wikipedia and a Google search returns mostly blogs repeating this story.

Finding any information on this, or Ingrid's current medical condition has proven difficult. I am uncertain if they can be found outside of confidential medical records at this point. How this information originated, I am uncertain.


The insulin used nowadays is usually synthetic, I think--it's no longer extracted from animals.

Can't really find anything concrete on that. By law, they're required to be tested before sale anyway, which usually means animals or humans.


Beliefs obviously do. Actions in their private life, not so obviously.

So you would see no problem with an unrepentant alcoholic running AA then I take it? Or perhaps a cocaine addict running a rehab center?

Or more ironically, a proven incompetent in presidential office.

this is obviously just a variation on the idea that the ends don't (necessarily) justify the means.

even if medical experiments on political prisoners produced a cure for aids, i would be against them. i seriously hope you would be too.

I may not like it, but I recognize expediency. Morals have no place if they interfere with pragmatism and the most efficient means of using resources available.

learn2logic

Learn to understand what proof is.

I don't know if Ingrid has dibeetus but I do know that Mary Beth Sweetland, a PETA VP does and even admits that her meds were derived from animal testing and still contain some animal products. She doesn't consider herself a hypocite because she says that she needs her life to fight for the rights of animals.

While Ingrid's dibeetus isn't confirmed Mary is known to have that condition and manage it with insulin injections and she's probably not the only PETA person that does. Insulin treatments were developed by vivisecting dogs and then treating them afterward with insulin extracted from other dogs and dog pancreas'.

Either way, PETA is full of two-faced assholes that oppose medicine because they don't want animals to be hurt, experimented on, exploited, or embarassed.

Learn to understand what proof is.

no, u

seriously, look it up.

no, u

seriously, look it up.

From a dictionary.

Proof
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2 I. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
II. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3 I. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
II. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4 Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

Notice that it has nothing about proving negatives?

I didn't read to the responses, but I did read the article.

I think animal research is despicably immoral. I think it should stop now, as there are other alternatives for research, and if there are not, that is still no excuse to make defenceless creatures suffer without any possibility of escape or even relief. Besides, any test done on an animal actually proves nothing about how the human body will respond. There is a chance humans will respond in the same way as the lab animals, but there is also a chance they will not. Only last year a few human test-volunteers nearly died after taking medication that had proven to be safe for the test animals...

I also consider the animal rights movement comparable to the human rights movement.
As a descendant of people who were slaves, I know there is a good chance that some of my ancestors have killed slave owners and their families in their struggle for freedom. I also know that the way black slaves were viewed by many who defended slavery was no different than the way modern people view animals who are being used in experiments. Black slaves were considered to have no, or less feelings that white humans, and they were seen as a lesser species, and whites had the right to treat them badly.
This viewpoint is now no longer acceptable, and I hope and expect that eventually this same view of animals will also be outdated.
To me, it already is.

Animals are not humans, but they do feel, and they are very capable of suffering. More even, because one can reasonably assume that they lack at least one human ability, namely imagination (or call it fantasy, daydreaming) that could give them at least some relief from their suffering. Instead, they have to fully undergo all pain and suffering every single second.

Hence, I understand where these ALF bombers are coming from.
(by the way, to my knowledge ALF is not so much an organisation as well a name that anyone can claim when doing things to promote animal rights.)

Yet I don't think killing or hurting people is the answer. I don't think it is more or less immoral than experimenting on mice, and I certainly disagree with causing harm to any child. In the same way, I don't think my slave- ancestors had the right to kill the slave owners.

But destroying the labs would be fine by me.

Well, how do you know that there are objective moral values? How is that not just an opinion, one view? How was it tested? I'd like to see the experiment, the data.

This is not an empirical matter. It's not something quantifiable and it's not something tangible. The kind of reasoning used in mathematics is a reasonable analog.

My problem with the view of moral realism is that it's presumptuous, arrogant. Moral realism has been at the heart of some of the greatest and most unnecessary atrocities in human history.

Appeal to consequences.

It demands assumption, belief without evidence. It demands faith.

No, it doesn't. That's why there are actual arguments for objective morality.

A very easy thing to say, when one is no longer in need of its benefits.

So?

Why?

Because the people who have been mistreated have already been mistreated. Not using the benefits of their mistreatment is a pointless puristic moral exercise that helps no one, solves nothing, and does not make the world a better or more just place one whit.

By law, they're required to be tested before sale anyway, which usually means animals or humans.

Then you oppose them being tested on animals. But once they're tested, it doesn't require more animals being mistreated to produce enough to provide for your demand.

So you would see no problem with an unrepentant alcoholic running AA then I take it? Or perhaps a cocaine addict running a rehab center?

No.

Or more ironically, a proven incompetent in presidential office.

This affects their capacity to do their job, and is a different matter.

I may not like it, but I recognize expediency. Morals have no place if they interfere with pragmatism and the most efficient means of using resources available.

As usual among people who make this argument, you're begging the question. "Pragmatism" depends on a set of normative assumptions too, ones you don't bother to justify.

But destroying the labs would be fine by me.

In other words, you support terrorism "as long as nobody dies and Muslims didn't do it."

So?


So let's see if people sing a different tune if they find themselves in dire need of what they object to. That tells us just how much they actually believe in their stances.

Or more to the point, why should moralizing holier than thou's have more say over what can affect people's lives when it doesn't affect theirs?

I suppose you support the anti-choice crowd too? There is really no material difference in justification if you strip out the motives.


Because the people who have been mistreated have already been mistreated. Not using the benefits of their mistreatment is a pointless puristic moral exercise that helps no one, solves nothing, and does not make the world a better or more just place one whit.

Mmhmm, so to step on the bones of the past, yet to deny current viable hopes of betterment for those who would thread the same path. Maintaining the status quo are we?

I cannot say with certainty, since it hasn't been tested fully, but it seems to me that your moral stances aren't really of any conviction, but of convenience, easily tossed aside when it becomes evident that keeping them would be disadvantageous, and just as easily picked up when it becomes fashionable to do so.


Then you oppose them being tested on animals. But once they're tested, it doesn't require more animals being mistreated to produce enough to provide for your demand.

Quality control means regular testing.


No.


I do really wonder about that. Oh well, you seem to be the sort that believes one's beliefs and actions couldn't affect what they do in public. Even if what they do in public is supposed to stop what they do in private.


This affects their capacity to do their job, and is a different matter.


Oh really? So a cocaine addict wouldn't have any issues in terms of running a rehab center? How very curious. I suppose we could staff mental asylums with the patients themselves then! What fun.


As usual among people who make this argument, you're begging the question. "Pragmatism" depends on a set of normative assumptions too, ones you don't bother to justify.

You never asked.

A claim that you were elsewhere or otherwise preoccupied at the time of the crime.
And proof, if accepted, that one was not at a certain place at a certain time; "Oh I couldn't have killed Ms. Farnsworth, Poirot, I was playing billiards at the time".

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I assume this also includes animals that found it better to adapt to human society too? As I understand it, the precursor to the modern dog found that scavenging behind human tribes who did the hunting was less taxing and more rewarding than doing the hunting themselves. The relationship from there evolved on its own.
On it's own?

So dogs were bred naturally, with no human intervention? And dogs are allowed to behave naturally, with no input/conditioning coming from humans?

Of course not.

Besides, unless you are proposing that humans live in a vacuum or simply vanish, how do you expect to keep any of the species from interacting and adapting to one another?
What a silly strawman.

Interaction and adaption do not equate to domestication.

Even ants have been known to rear other species of insects for mutual benefit of both parties
Sure, and symbiotic relationships with organisms play a massive role in the environment. However, the conditioning of domesticated animals' behaviour to such a massive degree, especially with dogs, I would argue is not beneficial to anyone but humans.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that humans have less of a value to them than non-human animals based at this hatred.
On the contrary, it is completely unreasonable, a logical leap indeed, to jump from "humans are a destructive species" to "humans are worth less than nonhumans".

This sort of bullshit is always lobbed the animal liberation movement; there's still folks trying to accuse Peter Singer of 'disliking humans' or viewing humans as 'less worthy' than nonhumans.

Nonsense.

How very curious. One can be both guardian and executioner of one's charges and not be two different things.
Why are confused by this; the matter isn't difficult to grasp.

Have you never heard of parents deciding to take their brain-damaged child off of a ventilator, and 'pulling the plug' themselves?

The conversation is about PETA yes, but we are trading opinions and arguments about PETA, thereby, your opinions and mine do matter insofar as how they affect the argument.
Very well.

I shall outline some of my positions, but if you want to compare them to PETA's, you'll have to do the legwork (I can't be arsed). I presume that I and the members of PETA would agree on some things and disagree on others, but I'd like to again stress that PETA represents neither myself nor the majority of the animal liberation movement. They are a small group with large media coverage and celebrity endorsement.

Briefly: I oppose the eating of meat (including fish) on environmental and ethical grounds, and certainly oppose industrial meat farming; have problems with the domestication of nonhuman animals in ways which are not genuinely mutualy beneficial; oppose the use of nonhuman animals in scientific experiments that are harmful towards the beasties; oppose the fur trade, and any other trade that feeds off of the killing of animals; and oppose the confinement of nonhumans in zoos, etc., except perhaps for certain conservation efforts. In all of the above, as in most areas of life, I do not believe violent action can help.

In general, I am strongly against the use and treatment of animals as a resource to be used by humans, and laugh ruefully at the outdated (yet still prevailent) notion that humans are seperate from or 'above' the animal kingdom.



Moral realism holds that there are objective moral values, correct? Moral realists argue that moral judgments describe moral facts, right?
Correct.

Well, how do you know that there are objective moral values?
Depends on the absolutist you talk to. Religious folks will say it's revealed through scripture or the like, Kant argued that objective moral values can be gained through reason. I'm currently writing a dissertation for my Philosophy degree on whether we can discern a moral code/set of moral values through appealing to our common position as social human animals.

There's many different takes.

Moral realism has been at the heart of some of the greatest and most unnecessary atrocities in human history.
And?

A belief that the world has finite resources has also been at the heart of some of the greatest and most unnecessary atrocities in human history. Doesn't mean the idea is wrong.

Some of the worst monsters probably believed that there were objective moral values and that their ethics, their morals, their beliefs and only their beliefs were correct.
And Hitler was a vegetarian. It doesn't diminish the idea, it just shows that any notion can be held by morally corrupt people.

It demands assumption, belief without evidence. It demands faith. It presupposes the existence of nonmaterial moral facts that cannot be observed or tested.
And where, pray tell, is your precious 'evidence' for moral subjectivism? All you've given so far is anecdotal evidence; and folks can provide anecdotal evidence stating the opposite (indeed Soheran already has provided such; commonality in moral codes throughout human history), that moral objectivism is correct.

Moreover, this nonsense about moral objectivism as 'belief without evidence' is complete rot. There are incredibly complicated arguments for the position.

I'm not arguing it necessarily is correct (although I'm sympathetic to the view, I'm not fully decided), but you don't seem to be grasping that every complaint that you make of the questionability of moral objectivism can be levelled also at moral scepticism.

The case isn't settled.

Snip.

...he said, shortly before, and only until, someone in his family developed a medical condition that requires the use or testing of animals to cure. From them on, it was "screw the goddamn mice, this is my (insert relative here)!!!". The problem is, the PEOPLE who need this research are other people's relatives too, you see.

And pray tell, how exactly would you make sure no one is inside the lab before doing the arson? Would you go in and check if NO ONE is inside or if someone, like a late-night janitor, dies in the fire he would be a "martyr"? You know, like the word used by Al Qaeda to describe innocent Muslims that get killed in it? Or you'll call him an "enabler" and just go with it, never minding that, say, his family needed him and the money he brought in for survival? Oh, but they ate meat, so they deserve to die from starvation, in the name of the goddamn critters, don't they?

I'm not in favor of animal cruelty or mistreating animals uselessly, but people that put the interests of the animals above the ones of their own species make me sick.

...he said, shortly before, and only until, someone in his family developed a medical condition that requires the use or testing of animals to cure.
Which medical conditions require the testing of treatments on nonhuman animals?

I can't think of any.

Which medical conditions require the testing of treatments on nonhuman animals?

I can't think of any.

Several require using them to make the medications - like diabetes - or require testing to discover the cure - like MANY as-yet-incurable diseases.

Go right ahead and ask the guy if he'd rather see his mother die slowly, blind, insane and with her extremities amputated, than getting the insulin from, guess what, one of God's little creatures.

Require using them to make the medications - like diabetes - or require testing to discover the cure - like MANY diseases.
Testing on nonhumans isn't required though, we could test (more) drugs (at an earlier stage) on humans.

And proof, if accepted, that one was not at a certain place at a certain time; "Oh I couldn't have killed Ms. Farnsworth, Poirot, I was playing billiards at the time".

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm being specific. You can prove a positive, that you were elsewhere, that someone else did it, whatever. Negatives can only be inferred from proof of a positive.

For example.

1+1 = 2
Thereby
1+1 != 3

You can't have 1+1 != 3 in a vacuum of its own.


On it's own?

So dogs were bred naturally, with no human intervention? And dogs are allowed to behave naturally, with no input/conditioning coming from humans?

Of course not.

Humans evolve too you know, behavior and genetics wise. Ants didn't just magically start farming aphids one day, or for that matter, aphids didn't magically excrete the sweet stuff ants loved all of a sudden one day. It was an evolutionary process of mutualism that transferred down throughout thousands, if not millions, of generations.

Humans and dogs have the same relationship structure too. Both sides saw the benefit in co-existence, and adapted to one another. The modern companion dog didn't just appear all of a sudden either at any one time either, and they're certainly a far cry from the wolves they descended from. It was the result of thousands of years of adaptation to one another.

Even if we factor that out, dogs are pack animals, much like their evolutionary predecessors. They recognize an alpha of a pack and behave accordingly when they identify one. The only difference here is that when raised by humans, they recognize at least one of their caregivers as the alpha.

As to the "are they allowed to behave naturally" question, I'm going to say this. You're not going to get me to give you a generic answer that covers the entire spectrum of pet owners.

It's a stupid question anyway. What is "natural" if not the adaptation to the surrounding environment? It's not like people stick electrodes into dog brains to mind control them or anything.


What a silly strawman.

Interaction and adaption do not equate to domestication.


Mutualism is a form of domestication. Try again.


Sure, and symbiotic relationships with organisms play a massive role in the environment. However, the conditioning of domesticated animals' behaviour to such a massive degree, especially with dogs, I would argue is not beneficial to anyone but humans.

Ants typically eat anything they can process. That's part of their behavior. Ants rearing aphids, even storing aphid eggs over the winter to start afresh in spring? That's a massive degree of change.

Crocodiles have a reflex that makes them bite down on just about anything that gets in their jaws, with the only exception of their young. Yet there are species of birds that freely go about in crocodile maws without being eaten while they go about picking the teeth clean. Again, a massive degree of change.

Furthermore, you claim it is not beneficial to anyone but humans. Here, I strongly disagree. The predecessors of dogs were wolves, or proto-wolves. Yet wolves are mostly restricted to much smaller habitats than they experienced as recently as 200 years ago and are at only a fraction of their number. Dogs on the other hand, have flourished in numbers. From an evolutionary standpoint, dogs have benefited far more in this relationship with humans than humans themselves.

Like it or not, mutualism with humanity is the only way most species will make it through. Life isn't some Disney-esque pretty picture of harmony and sunshine. It's a struggle for limited resources and if someone else consistently out-competes you, you WILL go extinct, no two ways about it.

If humanity suddenly changed their minds and threw dogs out on their ears today like some animal activists want, millions of them will be dead and dozens of species will be extinct before the month is out. Only the biggest and meanest dogs will make it, the rest will wind up as carcasses. Humanity won't have a use for them anymore, and they'll stop being companions and start being competitors. And there just isn't enough room for that many more competitors without some serious die offs.

But animal activists don't care about that. Hey, they'll die free, in the thousands and millions, but free anyway.

But what about reservations, you say? Not enough room is the answer, and don't forget, introducing new species to an alien environment has almost always been bad for the new species because it can't adapt, or bad for a whole chain of local species because there's no natural predator for the new one. In either case, the animals lose.

Or how about some form of care? Ah ah. That would be mutualism. And you oppose mutualism.

Euthanesia to keep them from suffering? Well, so much for caring about animals eh? Let them pay the ultimate price for the 'mistake' of mutual relationship.

Wipe out humans? Might work, for a little while. You'll still have mass die offs. No humans to run the farms that produce the food dogs eat. A lot of crops won't plant themselves. Companion animals now occupy bottom of the food chain.

So take your pick. Either you'd rather condemn companion animals to slow death by exposure and starvation with accompaniment mass species die offs, or you don't, keeping things as they are.

Life's not so fuzzy or cheery anymore isn't it?


On the contrary, it is completely unreasonable, a logical leap indeed, to jump from "humans are a destructive species" to "humans are worth less than nonhumans".

Not necessarily from PETA, but explain this then please.

The optimum human population of earth is zero.
-Dave Foreman, Earth First!

The human race could go extinct and I for one would not shed any tears.
-Dave Foreman, Earth First!

http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200004/msg00047.html

Hmm, loves animals, but would prefer if there were no humans. Doesn't seem like this one views human lives as of equal value.


This sort of bullshit is always lobbed the animal liberation movement; there's still folks trying to accuse Peter Singer of 'disliking humans' or viewing humans as 'less worthy' than nonhumans.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with what they say and believe in. Look above.

Or perhaps next you will be telling me that Scientologists actually don't hate psychiatrists, and all that stuff they say about them being "conspirators" and "evil", or how about their detractors are "fair game" is all just a great big joke.


Why are confused by this; the matter isn't difficult to grasp.

Have you never heard of parents deciding to take their brain-damaged child off of a ventilator, and 'pulling the plug' themselves?


Ah, key difference. Parents. PETA here, certainly are not the parents of these shelter animals. At best, they're adopters.

Tell me. If a child in a coma lost his/her parents in an accident one day, was adopted soon after, and immediately had the plug pulled, would the motives of the adopter seem not the slightest bit suspect?


Briefly: I oppose the eating of meat (including fish) on environmental and ethical grounds,

What of communities that are dependent on such diets to survive? Such as say, those living near the polar regions, or where agricultural concerns for sustenance are otherwise simply not viable? I hope you shan't take the easy way out by telling them to "move elsewhere." It's never as simple, or less bloody, than it sounds.


have problems with the domestication of nonhuman animals in ways which are not genuinely mutualy beneficial;

Define the bolded please. Mutual benefit can mean a lot of things, depending on what one interprets "mutual" as.


oppose the use of nonhuman animals in scientific experiments that are harmful towards the beasties;

Genuinely harmful, say, cancer tests, or potentially, but not guaranteed to be, harmful, like gene therapy.


oppose the fur trade, and any other trade that feeds off of the killing of animals;

Does modern agriculture, say wheat, with its unavoidable destruction of field animals during harvest, fit into this?


In general, I am strongly against the use and treatment of animals as a resource to be used by humans, and laugh ruefully at the outdated (yet still prevailent) notion that humans are seperate from or 'above' the animal kingdom.

A rather tricky proposition you raise. You are against the use and treatment of animals as a resource by humans. Yet non-human animals do not have any such qualm about treating other animals are resources, be it as food, for services they provide or reared for their byproducts. By inference, you state that humans are not separate from animals, yet would rather humans not act like other animals in regards to resource usage.

So which one is it? You can't have your cake and eat it.

Testing on nonhumans isn't required though, we could test (more) drugs (at an earlier stage) on humans.

Then do, but at least SOME animal testing IS required, and at least SOME animals ARE used to cure diseases or prevent their worsening (Diabetes, for example).

Testing on nonhumans isn't required though, we could test (more) drugs (at an earlier stage) on humans.

Question. Would you support testing of potentially lethal experimental drugs on third world country inhabitants with neither the resources nor ability to sue for recourse should the majority of them drop dead?

Or would you propose legislation protecting pharmaceutical companies from legal action should participants in medical testing of early stage, potentially lethal experimental drugs, drop dead?

You can't just take out a key aspect of a process and expect it to work in a vacuum.

From a dictionary.

Proof
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2 I. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
II. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3 I. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
II. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4 Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

Notice that it has nothing about proving negatives?

it has nothing at all about 'negatives' or 'positives' being proved, true. not under any of the definitions. this is because those features are irrelevant to the proving. if someone provides a logically compelling argument that the proposition 'not x' is true, then there is a proof of 'not x', and therefore proof of a 'negative'.

this is really simple shit. it is so basic that we actually have a whole method of proof based around it - the reductio ad absurdum or proof by contradiction.

this whole "you can't prove a negative" line of bullshit is one of those things that somebody must have said somewhere that others took up saying to make themselves sound smart without really thinking about it - like the "usia is a republic, not a democracy" one (which we can blame on madison and federalist #10, i think, where he equivocates between 'pure democracy' and 'democracy' itself) or "science doesn't ask why questions" (of course it does, all the fucking time - it would be weird if it didn't).

my guess as to what probably happened was that the person who started that meme was involved in a science vs. creationist god argument. they heard that science isn't in the business of using deductive logic to prove its theories true (because it is an inductive method) and induction doesn't do proof under the formal philosophical definition. perhaps they also heard one of the example of why induction doesn't prove things; one that was constructed around the possibility of something existing somewhere in the universe that we just haven't found yet, and therefore we couldn't prove 'not x'. then they had an a-ha moment and glossed the idea as not being able to prove a negative - which comes in quite handy to those desperately searching for somewhere safe to stick god. of course, it also missed the point entirely. induction can't prove (in the formal sense) anything, positive or negative.

Negatives can only be inferred from proof of a positive.
And positives can only be inferred from proof of a negative; it's mutual.

You can't have 1+1 != 3 in a vacuum of its own.
And you can't have 1+1=2 in a vacuum either.

Humans and dogs have the same relationship structure too.
How have humans evolved through their interaction with domesticated dogs?

It's a stupid question anyway. What is "natural" if not the adaptation to the surrounding environment? It's not like people stick electrodes into dog brains to mind control them or anything.
No, but they regularly beat them, smack them with a newspaper, wipe their nose in their own excrement, confine them on a leash, banish them fromthe house for a night, etc., all for not behaving as a human would wish.

Mutualism is a form of domestication.
Bollocks.

Mutualism is beneficial interaction between species, domestication is to bring a species, through selective breeding, under the control of a species (usually humanity), to provide a benefit to the domesticator species.

An orchid doesn't domesticate bees, and neither do bees domesticate orchids.

Crocodiles have a reflex that makes them bite down on just about anything that gets in their jaws, with the only exception of their young. Yet there are species of birds that freely go about in crocodile maws without being eaten while they go about picking the teeth clean. Again, a massive degree of change.
And again, mutualism, not domestication.
.
Furthermore, you claim it is not beneficial to anyone but humans. Here, I strongly disagree.
And well you should; I put that in a silly way.

I don't deny that domesticated species don't benefit in some way from their domestication, and on the levels, say of ants domesticating aphids, I don't see anything much wrong; aphids aren't losing much (as far as I know) from the way ants cultivate them.

But dogs and other domesticated species, I'd argue, 'lose' more, particularly in the way dogs are treated.

But animal activists don't care about that.
Oh, don't be so silly.

Such generalised, foolish statements do you no credit.

And you oppose mutualism.
I most certainly don't, and neither am I saying that dogs should be discarded. I have problems with domestication, but am well aware of the other problems that would appear if we were to 'kick out' the dogs.

Hmm, loves animals, but would prefer if there were no humans. Doesn't seem like this one views human lives as of equal value.
Or he believes that humans do more harm than good, or believes something else.

We'd need some more quotes, or an actual statement on this issue, to find out for sure. Though even if you do show that Dave Foreman values human life as 'less' than nonhuman life, which I somewhat doubt, this only shows that one person from one organisation sees it this way.

The animal liberation movement, as a whole, certainly doesn't hold such a ludicrous position.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with what they say and believe in. Look above.
At what? Vague quotes from a tiny section of the animal liberation movement that perhaps suggest what you claim, perhaps not.

Tarring a huge amount of people with your perceived notions of a tiny part of a larger whole makes no sense.

Ah, key difference. Parents. PETA here, certainly are not the parents of these shelter animals. At best, they're adopters.
And undoubtedly adopters have also chosen to euthanise their adopted children.

Tell me. If a child in a coma lost his/her parents in an accident one day, was adopted soon after, and immediately had the plug pulled, would the motives of the adopter seem not the slightest bit suspect?
Not if the adopter believed the child had no prospect of a fulfiling life, no.

What of communities that are dependent on such diets to survive? Such as say, those living near the polar regions, or where agricultural concerns for sustenance are otherwise simply not viable?
Trade.

Define the bolded please.
Domestication of nonhuman animals that benefits humans far more than the nonhumans.

Genuinely harmful, say, cancer tests, or potentially, but not guaranteed to be, harmful, like gene therapy.
I would have problems with intentionally harming a nonhuman purely fortesting a cure on the animal.

What do you mean by 'gene therapy'? Altering the genes of a nonhuman to test a hypothesis?

Does modern agriculture, say wheat, with its unavoidable destruction of field animals during harvest, fit into this
Not particularly; industrial farming of crops or meat doesn't sit well with me at all.

A rather tricky proposition you raise. You are against the use and treatment of animals as a resource by humans. Yet non-human animals do not have any such qualm about treating other animals are resources, be it as food, for services they provide or reared for their byproducts.
The clever beasties that we are, we've come up with ways to avoid the above. Humans, as a species, can survive without meat.

By inference, you state that humans are not separate from animals...
Humans are animals, yes.

...yet would rather humans not act like other animals in regards to resource usage.
And we're back to equality not being same-ness. Recognising humans are animals doesn't mean that humans should emulate all nonhuman behaviour. Many nonhuman animals have sexual relations that would, if emulated, be described as rape. Many nonhuman animals eat their own species.

I am not advocating, obviously, either.

Question. Would you support testing of potentially lethal experimental drugs on third world country inhabitants with neither the resources nor ability to sue for recourse should the majority of them drop dead?

Or would you propose legislation protecting pharmaceutical companies from legal action should participants in medical testing of early stage, potentially lethal experimental drugs, drop dead?
Question. Would you like to stop constructing immature fallacious 'choices' you seem to think I need to make?



this is really simple shit. it is so basic that we actually have a whole method of proof based around it - the reductio ad absurdum or proof by contradiction.

this whole "you can't prove a negative" line of bullshit is one of those things that somebody must have said somewhere that others took up saying to make themselves sound smart without really thinking about it
QFT.

so about this 'not possible to prove a negative' thing - prove it. 'cause, you know, it sure looks like a negative to me...

so about this 'not possible to prove a negative' thing - prove it. 'cause, you know, it sure looks like a negative to me...
Cool paradox.

Hadn't thought of that before.

And positives can only be inferred from proof of a negative; it's mutual.


Which, if taken as a union statement (And), proving can't prove positives or negatives, making the whole kaboodle a mess. Let's just drop this argument. It's going nowhere, and neither of us appears to be willing to give ground.


How have humans evolved through their interaction with domesticated dogs?


Dilution of the fear response for one.


No, but they regularly beat them, smack them with a newspaper, wipe their nose in their own excrement, confine them on a leash, banish them fromthe house for a night, etc., all for not behaving as a human would wish.


And I suppose you're going to claim that this sort of thing is universal across all pet owners?


Bollocks.

Mutualism is beneficial interaction between species, domestication is to bring a species, through selective breeding, under the control of a species (usually humanity), to provide a benefit to the domesticator species.

An orchid doesn't domesticate bees, and neither do bees domesticate orchids.


Certain species of ants do. What do you call storing aphid eggs for seasonal cycles and carrying a small cache of them when new queens leave the nest then hmm?


And well you should; I put that in a silly way.

I don't deny that domesticated species don't benefit in some way from their domestication, and on the levels, say of ants domesticating aphids, I don't see anything much wrong; aphids aren't losing much (as far as I know) from the way ants cultivate them.

But dogs and other domesticated species, I'd argue, 'lose' more, particularly in the way dogs are treated.

Some pet owners mistreat their pets, this is undeniable. Some people kill their children too. Does that mean all parents kill their children?

Please, your horror stories are limited to individual case by case basis. Condemning an entire spectrum on these instances make your case no stronger than DK's "All Muslims are evil and bent on killing us white Christians" rants.


Oh, don't be so silly.

Such generalised, foolish statements do you no credit.


You mean like your generalized, foolish statements about how dogs are treated? I was hoping you'd catch onto this one.


I most certainly don't, and neither am I saying that dogs should be discarded. I have problems with domestication, but am well aware of the other problems that would appear if we were to 'kick out' the dogs.

So you have no solution, no alternative, are aware of the problems of dropping it, but oppose it anyway?


Or he believes that humans do more harm than good, or believes something else.

Egads. So you will tell me next that Scientologists don't hate psychiatrists or consider their critics fair game!


We'd need some more quotes, or an actual statement on this issue, to find out for sure.

Dave Foreman's statements mince no words when he makes it clear he would rather there be no humans (the whole optimum bit). And yet at the same time, he makes no such claim regarding other species of animals (which I can find).

That does make a compelling argument as to what values he assigns to humans and non-humans.


Though even if you do show that Dave Foreman values human life as 'less' than nonhuman life, which I somewhat doubt, this only shows that one person from one organisation sees it this way.

The animal liberation movement, as a whole, certainly doesn't hold such a ludicrous position.

Maybe not, but the movement does have bad apples like the ALF, who, by their own admission, don't mind killing humans in their crusade, which PETA does its level best to protect from prosecution and has its own share of supporters. And this is what the thread was about. ALF and by extension, PETA, which some people, you know who they are if you've been reading the thread, have claimed that the negative views regarding them are unfair.


At what? Vague quotes from a tiny section of the animal liberation movement that perhaps suggest what you claim, perhaps not.

Tarring a huge amount of people with your perceived notions of a tiny part of a larger whole makes no sense.

It's what you implied with your bit about dog abuse. But in this instance, I don't speak of the movement as a whole, just the individuals, and in some cases, organizations.


And undoubtedly adopters have also chosen to euthanise their adopted children.

Not if the adopter believed the child had no prospect of a fulfiling life, no.

Belief, a very tricky proposition, is it not? Belief can make people do funny things. Like declare there is no prospect of a fulfilling life, without even bothering to wait and see or gather the facts to answer that quality of life question.

One certainly can't legislate against belief, that would be terrible.

But at the same time, belief makes people do stupid things.


Trade.


With what, exactly? There's not much you can trade with in the arctic regions aside from animal byproducts.


Domestication of nonhuman animals that benefits humans far more than the nonhumans.

So how do you define these benefits then? From an species strength perspective, domestication has given them astronomical benefits. Do you weigh general species wide benefits against instances of cons? Do you measure things like food, shelter and medication against abuse?

What is the scale you use to measure these things? If you can state that humans benefit far more than non-humans, you must have some objective means of measuring the respective benefits.


I would have problems with intentionally harming a nonhuman purely for testing a cure on the animal.

Then how would you test a cure?


What do you mean by 'gene therapy'? Altering the genes of a nonhuman to test a hypothesis?

In a nutshell? Insertion of altered genes to repair defective ones.


Not particularly; industrial farming of crops or meat doesn't sit well with me at all.

Well everybody has to eat, and there simply isn't enough land or resources to feed the world without industrialized agriculture.


The clever beasties that we are, we've come up with ways to avoid the above. Humans, as a species, can survive without meat.


I notice you only talked about meat, and not the other two. Do you have anything that is made of leather, or wool?

And how do you propose to solve the issue of undeveloped countries where the people are dependent on animal labor to put food on the table?

Without magicking resources out of thin air of course.


Humans are animals, yes.


But you're proposing that they not be animals.


And we're back to equality not being same-ness. Recognising humans are animals doesn't mean that humans should emulate all nonhuman behaviour. Many nonhuman animals have sexual relations that would, if emulated, be described as rape. Many nonhuman animals eat their own species.

I am not advocating, obviously, either.


Ah, but there is one key difference. Humans are animals too, and as such, would act in accordance to how the human animal would. So far, that includes useful attributes like adapting the environment and local resources to the benefit of the species.

But you are advocating that they stop being the human animal, and be... something else. I have no idea what.


Question. Would you like to stop constructing immature fallacious 'choices' you seem to think I need to make?

Well experimental drugs must be tested before they can be considered safe for public consumption. This usually involves animal testing at the early stages, and later, human testing at the late stage. You can write all the hypothesis's you want on paper, but without proper testing before release, you'll go nowhere.

So, either you test on humans, and hope they or their families don't sue if they keel over, or you test on genetically similar animals, which don't sue at all.

Unless you have some other solution in your pocket which I apparently can't see. Keep in mind that I am discarding the "then a miracle happens" possibilities.

so about this 'not possible to prove a negative' thing - prove it. 'cause, you know, it sure looks like a negative to me...

But can you prove it is a negative? :p

But can you prove it is a negative? :p

yes, obviously

Which, if taken as a union statement (And), proving can't prove positives or negatives, making the whole kaboodle a mess. Let's just drop this argument. It's going nowhere, and neither of us appears to be willing to give ground.

there is no ground to give. your position is absurd.

It's going nowhere, and neither of us appears to be willing to give ground.
I'm not likely to give ground to such a strange and obviously false notion.

Dilution of the fear response for one.
Is this a provable assertion?

Have dogs even been domesticated long enough for such a behavioural response to have evolved (or to be regressing)? Dogs have been domesticated for quite some time now, but their behavioural responses still need to be 'tamed'.

And I suppose you're going to claim that this sort of thing is universal across all pet owners?...

So you have no solution, no alternative, are aware of the problems of dropping it, but oppose it anyway?...

Egads. So you will tell me next that Scientologists don't hate psychiatrists or consider their critics fair game!...

But you're proposing that they not be animals...

So, either you test on humans, and hope they or their families don't sue if they keel over, or you test on genetically similar animals, which don't sue at all...

But you are advocating that they stop being the human animal, and be... something else. I have no idea what...

Keep in mind that I am discarding the "then a miracle happens" possibilities.
Are you under legal contract to make fallacious logical leaps every time you post?

Seriously, why consistantly make such foolish assumptions? In every post replying to me in this thread you have built up a strawman or assumed I hold nonsense positions that any cursory reader could see I don't hold.

Learn to debate, sir.

Certain species of ants do.
As I agreed above.

But it's still the case that domestication and mutualism are not the same thing.

Please, your horror stories are limited to individual case by case basis.
So, the vast majority of dog owners don't train their dogs in strict behavioural patterns? They don't all beat their dogs, certainly,but dos in Western society are trained tobehave in strict ways.

You mean like your generalized, foolish statements about how dogs are treated?
If you can show where I said, "all dog owners beat their dogs", I'd be delighted.

Dave Foreman's statements mince no words when he makes it clear he would rather there be no humans (the whole optimum bit). And yet at the same time, he makes no such claim regarding other species of animals (which I can find).

That does make a compelling argument as to what values he assigns to humans and non-humans.
It makes it clear that he regards humans as a destructive species, and that the other species on Earth would benefit from humanity's dissapearence, but it does not show (a) that he regards humans as worth less than any other species, or (b) that he regards the life of a human as worth less than te life of a nonhuman.

And this is what the thread was about. ALF and by extension, PETA, which some people, you know who they are if you've been reading the thread, have claimed that the negative views regarding them are unfair.
They have claimed some of the negative views are unfair, especially the misconceptions of the two groups.

It's what you implied with your bit about dog abuse.
So I go from stating to implying...

I implied nothing of the sort. If you think otherwise, you're mistaken; hopefuly my use of language didn't contribute to your confusion.

With what, exactly? There's not much you can trade with in the arctic regions aside from animal byproducts.
Not a huge amount, no.

Though there are only a very few communities in the arctic regions that still live in the traditional way, it may be impossible for these communities to survive without consuming nonhuman animal flesh.

But that doesn't prevent the vast, vast majority of people on this planet to survive without meat-based diets. Indeed, there are large communities who already don't; many Hindu communities, for example.

If you can state that humans benefit far more than non-humans, you must have some objective means of measuring the respective benefits.
It's rather obvious that, on the whole, humans have gained the most out of the domestication of dogs. The amount of roles they fulfill for us, both as workers and pets, is large, and I'd wager a human owner of a dog would gain more psychologically out of the ownership; purely on the basis of greater psychological capacity.

Then how would you test a cure?
On willing human volunteers, if you're stil talking about intentionally harming a creature to cure it. I don't have as much against atempting to cure an already sick animal, though perhaps I would with particularly dangerous experimental techniques that cause.

The nonhuman animal world has a massive amount to help science (and more) with. Inspiration from nonhuman animals has been incredibly useful in fields fom architecture to medicine. But, as I said above, using nonhuman animals, and nonhuman species in general, as a resource to be exploited is not only moraly unacceptable, it is threateningto humanity's survival as a species.

In a nutshell? Insertion of altered genes to repair defective ones.
I don't know enough about the procedure(s) to comment, but as I indicated above, attempting a cure for a diseased, incapacitated, or otherwise ill animal isn't a terrible thing in itself.

Well everybody has to eat, and there simply isn't enough land or resources to feed the world without industrialized agriculture.
We can cultivate agriculture on a large scale while still moving away from the more dubious practices of industrial crop farming.

I notice you only talked about meat, and not the other two. Do you have anything that is made of leather, or wool?
Of leather, not anything that was bought after I started getting serious about the welfare of nonhumans and enviromentalism in general; and I don't plan on buying anything made of leather either.

I don't think I've bought any woolen products in the same time-frame, but I could have bought an item of clothing that contained some non-synthetic material. However, I don't see using wool as 'bad' as using leather; with the typical caveats of not buying unethical goods.

As a rule, I don't consume or buy anything that an animal died to produce. That includes, for example, staying away from beers that were made using isinglass (an extract from fish) or products using gelatine.

And how do you propose to solve the issue of undeveloped countries where the people are dependent on animal labor to put food on the table?
Via a number of ways, but let's not get into an in-depth discussion of my economic views as well as my views on the role of nonhuman animals.

At least, not in this thread.

Humans are animals too, and as such, would act in accordance to how the human animal would. So far, that includes useful attributes like adapting the environment and local resources to the benefit of the species.
That doesn't mean, necessarily, eating nonhuman animal flesh. Continuing to eat animal flesh doesn't make one a human, as the millions and millions of vegetarians inthe world can attest to.

Well experimental drugs must be tested before they can be considered safe for public consumption.
Then I'd tentively argue to test them more on genuinely willing human volunteers, as we already do at a later stage.

However, I'd like to make it clear I don't have a fully rounded position on this issue; I'm still figuring quite a few things out about medical ethics. But, again very generally, I'd stick with the notion that to use a nonhuman animal as a resource to be exploited is morally wrong.

It makes it clear that he regards humans as a destructive species, and that the other species on Earth would benefit from humanity's dissapearence, but it does not show (a) that he regards humans as worth less than any other species, or (b) that he regards the life of a human as worth less than te life of a nonhuman.

in fact, he clearly doesn't need to. he could even hold a human as worth, say, 5 nonhumans and still come out in favor of the abolition of the human species if our impact on our 1/5 value comrades is very strongly negative.

nas just wants to value humans infinitely more than other species and calls that 'equality'.

I'm not likely to give ground to such a strange and obviously false notion.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to agree to disagree. I'm told I have an unusual way of seeing things, and if I can't get you on the same wavelength as I, then that's that. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter I suppose, but in the interests of leaving this matter on a fair note, here's something for you to go over.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf


Is this a provable assertion?

Have dogs even been domesticated long enough for such a behavioural response to have evolved (or to be regressing)? Dogs have been domesticated for quite some time now, but their behavioural responses still need to be 'tamed'.

What are you talking about? You asked about human adaptation to the mutualism, I gave it, and then you act as if it was about dogs?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

If you want proof, I point you towards the Darwin Award winners who thought it a good idea to walk into the lion's den to pet it.


Are you under legal contract to make fallacious logical leaps every time you post?

I'm arguing because it's as good a use of my time as any other for the same amount of effort this argument takes.

And the points you argue as fallacious simply aren't. They are a logical conclusion of what you've said. You argue that humans are animals, no higher than other animals, yet would want them not to be animals, ignoring instincts and social conventions that have arisen from that behavior.

You acknowledge that drug tests can have potentially fatal results, but would rather they not be done on animals, but humans instead, and at the same time, make no concessions about what sort of safeguards should be put in place to protect the ones doing the testing against litigation that will surely result.

You acknowledge species wide benefits of mutualism, but at the same time, use instances of abuse as equal, if not greater, detractors than said benefits.

It's not so much that my argument is fallacious. It's that your argument lacks foresight, taking up positions of assumed moral superiority without thought as to the consequences of what would happen if they were to be carried out.


Seriously, why consistantly make such foolish assumptions? In every post replying to me in this thread you have built up a strawman or assumed I hold nonsense positions that any cursory reader could see I don't hold.

Learn to debate, sir.


Many of these positions you claim are nonsense are the most probable long term results of your stances turned to action.


As I agreed above.

But it's still the case that domestication and mutualism are not the same thing.

So if ants specifically capture, protect, rear and breed aphids throughout generations for their byproducts, it's not domestication? What the heck is it then?

How is it fundamentally different when humans do it?


So, the vast majority of dog owners don't train their dogs in strict behavioural patterns? They don't all beat their dogs, certainly,but dos in Western society are trained tobehave in strict ways.


I assume you meant "dogs in Western society are trained to behave in strict ways"

In which case, I'm going to ask you this. Are you opposed to "training dogs in strict behavioral patterns", if other dogs did it? The pack animals that they are, alphas are known to discipline the younger ones through a combination of intimidation, violence or outright ejection from the pack.

But when humans do it, it's somehow bad?

Furthermore, I ask that you prove that the vast majority of dog owners train their dogs in strict behavioral patterns using the actions you outlined above such as striking them and otherwise. Otherwise, all you have is an unproven assertion.

In over 15 years, my home has been home to 6 dogs, 2 constrictor snakes, 3 birds, an escape artist turtle, 3 generations of cats (12 total). Many arrived on their own accord, and not once have I abused any of them during their stay. I acknowledge that abuse happens, but I find your accusations of abuse by "the vast majority" of pet owners to be highly repugnant.


If you can show where I said, "all dog owners beat their dogs", I'd be delighted.

[QUOTE=Chumblywumbly;13911238]
No, but they regularly beat them, smack them with a newspaper, wipe their nose in their own excrement, confine them on a leash, banish them fromthe house for a night, etc., all for not behaving as a human would wish.


The "they" in the context of the discussion at the time was "people" a generalized comment that had no limitation as to how many or whether it was all.


It makes it clear that he regards humans as a destructive species, and that the other species on Earth would benefit from humanity's dissapearence, but it does not show (a) that he regards humans as worth less than any other species, or (b) that he regards the life of a human as worth less than te life of a nonhuman.

So even that bit where he states that "He would not shed a tear if humanity went extinct" while at the same time argues for animal lives does not tell you where his value system lies? Curious.


They have claimed some of the negative views are unfair, especially the misconceptions of the two groups.

The only misconception I can see here is the idea that PETA funds ALF directly, but the claims of misconceptions went further than that.


So I go from stating to implying...

I implied nothing of the sort. If you think otherwise, you're mistaken; hopefuly my use of language didn't contribute to your confusion.


Use of language and context in their use certainly did imply as much.


Not a huge amount, no.

Though there are only a very few communities in the arctic regions that still live in the traditional way, it may be impossible for these communities to survive without consuming nonhuman animal flesh.

But that doesn't prevent the vast, vast majority of people on this planet to survive without meat-based diets. Indeed, there are large communities who already don't; many Hindu communities, for example.


This is avoiding the question, and you know it.


It's rather obvious that, on the whole, humans have gained the most out of the domestication of dogs. The amount of roles they fulfill for us, both as workers and pets, is large, and I'd wager a human owner of a dog would gain more psychologically out of the ownership; purely on the basis of greater psychological capacity.


You are still using individual case by case instances and applying them as a general whole. This is not an objective measurement system. Either measure it as a species or measure it as a case by case basis, don't mash the two together unless you have a formula that can convert case by case instances into a unit of measurement for species benefits/detractions.


On willing human volunteers, if you're stil talking about intentionally harming a creature to cure it. I don't have as much against atempting to cure an already sick animal, though perhaps I would with particularly dangerous experimental techniques that cause.


Medicines and drugs must be tested on living beings if there is to be any form of objective means of finding out whether they work or not. The closer the species is to human biology, the more accurate the results. Said medicines and drugs may even be for the animal species in question.

If not animals, then humans must be picked. If humans must be picked, then laws must be relaxed in regards to murder in the case of experimental drug tests, which will open a fresh boat of pickles itself, or no one will risk the litigation. Either that, or they will pick subjects who have neither the means nor ability to begin legal proceedings against them in the event of fatalities.

In the end, someone or something must die in the name of advancement. You won't be able to wriggle out of it, no matter how you twist or turn. Choose your species.


But, as I said above, using nonhuman animals, and nonhuman species in general, as a resource to be exploited is not only moraly unacceptable, it is threateningto humanity's survival as a species.


Explain.


I don't know enough about the procedure(s) to comment, but as I indicated above, attempting a cure for a diseased, incapacitated, or otherwise ill animal isn't a terrible thing in itself.

Even if there is a probability of complications?


We can cultivate agriculture on a large scale while still moving away from the more dubious practices of industrial crop farming.


How? Keep in mind that you are supposed to sustain a population of a scale that was only made possible with industrial crop farming.


I don't think I've bought any woolen products in the same time-frame, but I could have bought an item of clothing that contained some non-synthetic material. However, I don't see using wool as 'bad' as using leather; with the typical caveats of not buying unethical goods.


But aren't you opposed to domestication?


As a rule, I don't consume or buy anything that an animal died to produce. That includes, for example, staying away from beers that were made using isinglass (an extract from fish) or products using gelatine.


What about animals that died as a consequence?


Via a number of ways, but let's not get into an in-depth discussion of my economic views as well as my views on the role of nonhuman animals.

At least, not in this thread.

I suppose, but just remember this. It's all fine and dandy to take up a supposed moral superiority view. But making it workable is what separates the posers from the ones with actual conviction. And never forget, whatever you propose is likely to have far reaching effects, that can often be far worse than the very thing you opposed in the first place.


That doesn't mean, necessarily, eating nonhuman animal flesh. Continuing to eat animal flesh doesn't make one a human, as the millions and millions of vegetarians inthe world can attest to.

Humans are omnivores. Eating meat doesn't make them any more human than it makes them inhuman.


Then I'd tentively argue to test them more on genuinely willing human volunteers, as we already do at a later stage.

However, I'd like to make it clear I don't have a fully rounded position on this issue; I'm still figuring quite a few things out about medical ethics. But, again very generally, I'd stick with the notion that to use a nonhuman animal as a resource to be exploited is morally wrong.

Keep in mind this. Early stage pharmaceuticals can often have potentially fatal results or complications that threaten to become fatal. Pharmaceuticals restrict these early tests to lab animals not entirely, but mostly because of that. In the end, something or someone must risk it, but only humans have the capacity to make the tests inviable by carrying out acts like lawsuits or arson and murder.

Either advancement continues while acknowledging the costs, or advancement comes to a halt entirely.

there is no ground to give. your position is absurd.

From my position, yours is absurd. We've thrown points at each other which neither can accept. Besides, I wasn't talking to you.

in fact, he clearly doesn't need to. he could even hold a human as worth, say, 5 nonhumans and still come out in favor of the abolition of the human species if our impact on our 1/5 value comrades is very strongly negative.

nas just wants to value humans infinitely more than other species and calls that 'equality'.

I find it very telling that you are willing to assign different possibilities to interpret what this person has said, indirectly criticize me for placing a single interpretation, but are only willing to assign just one on what I've said, despite a lack of any such explicit language, and refusing to consider the possibility of alternative interpretations.

Perhaps we are much more similar than you think.

Cool paradox.

Hadn't thought of that before.

yeah, the idea would be dumb even if it wasn't inherently nonsense, so i hadn't really noticed either.

What are you talking about? You asked about human adaptation to the mutualism, I gave it[/I]
And then I asked for proof, stating my doubt athat humans had evolved a behavioural mechanism in the (relatively) short time that dogs have been domesticated.

and then you act as if it was about dogs?
Go back and read the quote, you've misread.

If you want proof, I point you towards the Darwin Award winners who thought it a good idea to walk into the lion's den to pet it.
I hate to break it to you, but the 'Darwin Awards' aren't acceptable as empirical proof of evolutionary adaption.

And the points you argue as fallacious simply aren't. They are a logical conclusion of what you've said.
Please show the logical conclusions from, say, myself noting that some dog owners beat their dogs, to you claiming I am stating all dog owners beat their dogs, or from myself noting that domesticion has some problems, to you claiming I am "opposed to mutualism", or any other of you laughable assertions.

You argue that humans are animals...
A simple fact

no higher than other animals
The concept that there is an 'evolutionary ladder', that there is some Aristotelian scale of rocks<plants<nonhuman animals<humans, is an outdated model. I quite like Mary Midgely's take of the 'evolutionary bush' that has many different strands and paths; a much more realistic picture of the evolution of life on this planet.

yet would want them not to be animals, ignoring instincts and social conventions that have arisen from that behavior.
There is no inherent instinct to eat meat; it is not part of being a human. Moreover, someone who does not eat meat is "ignoring instincts and social conventions" as much as the person who uses spectacles or wears clothes.

You acknowledge that drug tests can have potentially fatal results, but would rather they not be done on animals, but humans instead, and at the same time, make no concessions about what sort of safeguards should be put in place to protect the ones doing the testing against litigation that will surely result.
No, I haven't outlined in detail the exact measures that should be taken in regards to voluntary human drug testing.

You're point... if any?

You acknowledge species wide benefits of mutualism, but at the same time, use instances of abuse as equal, if not greater, detractors than said benefits.
Look back and read what I've written., and again try and fathom the distinctions between mutualism and domestication.

Your inability so far to grasp even the most simple of my propositions is rather tiring.

It's not so much that my argument is fallacious.
Arguing against a person by lambasting ridiculous positions they don't hold is most certainly a fallacy.

So if ants specifically capture, protect, rear and breed aphids throughout generations for their byproducts, it's not domestication? What the heck is it then?
What part of "as I agreed above [ants domesticate aphids]" implies to you that I don't consider ants to domesticate aphids?

Perhaps you need to take more time reading my posts?

How is it fundamentally different when humans do it?
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, humans have a much greater psychological ability compared to that of an ant; we have conceptions of self, right and wrong, and an ability of self-introspection that an ant doesn't, which all mean we can examine and discard possible actions with great ease.

Secondly, as dogs are far more intelligent than aphids, more issues are raised of domestication of the former compared to the later. One of these issues would be the role of force used in the domestication of dogs; another being the conditioning of behaviour.

Are you opposed to "training dogs in strict behavioral patterns", if other dogs did it? The pack animals that they are, alphas are known to discipline the younger ones through a combination of intimidation, violence or outright ejection from the pack.

But when humans do it, it's somehow bad?
The argument, "nonhuman animals do it, therefore it must be good", or "dogs do it to each other, therefore it must be OK for humans to do it to dogs" as you are arguing, quite obviously holds no water, for there are plenty of actions dogs do to one another that it would be obscene for ahuman todo to a dog.

Furthermore, I ask that you prove that the vast majority of dog owners train their dogs in strict behavioral patterns using the actions you outlined above such as striking them and otherwise.
As I am not claiming the above, I don't see why I should prove it.

However, I think it's quite obvious that the vast majority of dog owners train their dogs to behave in strict patterns.

In over 15 years, my home has been home to 6 dogs, 2 constrictor snakes, 3 birds, an escape artist turtle, 3 generations of cats (12 total). Many arrived on their own accord, and not once have I abused any of them during their stay.

I acknowledge that abuse happens, but I find your accusations of abuse by "the vast majority" of pet owners to be highly repugnant.
And I find your constant assertionsof false positions on my behals to be notonly repugnant, but intellectually lazy also.

The "they" in the context of the discussion at the time was "people" a generalized comment that had no limitation as to how many or whether it was all.
My mistake for your confusion.

Caught up now?

So even that bit where he states that "He would not shed a tear if humanity went extinct" while at the same time argues for animal lives does not tell you where his value system lies? Curious.
What's curious is the lengths you seem to be willing to go to 'prove' your feble assertions. By your own admission, all you can get from Mr. Foreman's statements is an implication; an impication you seem as a statement of fact.

Foreman's position on the issue is quite unclear; leading suggestions from you don't help in clearing up the confusion. Find some actual evidence of the position that Mr. Foreman views nonhumans as more worthy than humans, or admit to have no conclusive knoledge on his position.

Pointless musings are just that; pointless.

The only misconception I can see here is the idea that PETA funds ALF directly, but the claims of misconceptions went further than that.
Read your own posts. You have repeatedly tried to make the claim, that all of PETA, the ALF, or even all supporters of animal liberation view humans as less worthy than nonhumans.

That's a massive misconception on your part.

This is avoiding the question, and you know it.
I'm beginning to think you're reading some other post every time you reply to me. Let us review:

Q: [Trade] with what, exactly? There's not much you can trade with in the arctic regions aside from animal byproducts.

A: Not a huge amount, no. Though there are only a very few communities in the arctic regions that still live in the traditional way, it may be impossible for these communities to survive without consuming nonhuman animal flesh.

You see how this answers the question of communities, say, near the Arctic circle who survive on a meat-rich diet?

If not animals, then humans must be picked. If humans must be picked, then laws must be relaxed in regards to murder in the case of experimental drug tests
Why would scientists resort to murder if nonhuman animal testing was greatly reduced? I have already talked about the expansion of voluntary human testing.

Choose your species.
If I must choose a species that would suffer to help invent new human medicines, then I'd choose our own species. Why should other beings suffer for our gain?

Explain.
It's quite simple; humanity's use of the planet, its substances, flora and fauna, as a resource to be used up as humanity sees fit is destructive, and quite capableof rendering Earth unlivable by humans.

Even if there is a probability of complications?
All actions have a "probability of complications". A genuine attempt to save a nonhuman animals life, or to cure it of an ill is, very obviously, not A Bad Thing.

How?
By not using all the methods current industrisal agriculture uses at the moment; including the use of artificial pesticides, the growing of crops that are never distributed (the famous EU 'wheat mountains' and 'milk lakes'), and other factors.

But aren't you opposed to domestication?
I'm opposed to certain aspects of domestication, as we've been discussing.

What about animals that died as a consequence?
Such as?

I suppose, but just remember this...
If you want a rundown of my economic beliefs, and how they apply to third-world development, start a new thread and I may well post in it.

I don't see why we need to examine the views I hold not directly conected with the treatment of nonhumans any further.

Humans are omnivores. Eating meat doesn't make them any more human than it makes them inhuman.
And, once again, I didn't claim this.

I merely stated, correctly, that eating meat is not an intergral part of being a human being; as the millions upon millions of human vegetarians can attests to.

And then I asked for proof, stating my doubt athat humans had evolved a behavioural mechanism in the (relatively) short time that dogs have been domesticated.

Go back and read the quote, you've misread.

It certainly didn't seem that way with what you wrote, but if this is what you meant, then I apologize for the mistake.


I hate to break it to you, but the 'Darwin Awards' aren't acceptable as empirical proof of evolutionary adaption.

The Darwin Awards may not be, but they are proof of a significant drop in the survival mechanism in certain peoples. A species wide proving, will be a bit more difficult I admit, but let me ask you this.

Humanities evolutionary precursors must have had, and still do in their modern form, albeit diluted, instinctive responses to a number of factors, one of them being a form of fear in the presence of predator creatures. Dogs may have significantly changed their appearances throughout the generations, but key factors that would have identified them as predators and scavengers still remain, notably, shape of teeth and size.

Some people may have an aversion to dogs, but in terms of the fear response to the presence of a predator (particularly the bigger dogs), it seems to be diluted a bit, does it not?


Please show the logical conclusions from, say, myself noting that some dog owners beat their dogs, to you claiming I am stating all dog owners beat their dogs

This was the result of the wording you used at the time.


or from myself noting that domesticion has some problems, to you claiming I am "opposed to mutualism", or any other of you laughable assertions.

Noting that it has problems? Did you not say you opposed it?

You've not really shown any of the assertions to be laughable though.


A simple fact

The concept that there is an 'evolutionary ladder', that there is some Aristotelian scale of rocks<plants<nonhuman animals<humans, is an outdated model. I quite like Mary Midgely's take of the 'evolutionary bush' that has many different strands and paths; a much more realistic picture of the evolution of life on this planet.


Oh, I've never claimed to be higher than animals. The only ladder in terms of inter-species relation commonly used is the food chain. I freely acknowledge that humanity is yet another animal, but I note that from an evolutionary perspective, it is the dominant animal in the chain.


There is no inherent instinct to eat meat; it is not part of being a human. Moreover, someone who does not eat meat is "ignoring instincts and social conventions" as much as the person who uses spectacles or wears clothes.


I didn't claim that eating meat was an inherent instinct. I will state however, that the disposition to use local resources for the betterment of the individual and pack (social group), is an inherent instinct. Humanity would not be around if it didn't have that instinct, and if it didn't think on how to better serve that instinct than its competitors.


No, I haven't outlined in detail the exact measures that should be taken in regards to voluntary human drug testing.

You're point... if any?


My point is simple. All very nice to build morality castles in the sky. But they fall apart when you try to actualize them.


Look back and read what I've written., and again try and fathom the distinctions between mutualism and domestication.

Very well then, the same question, but with domestication instead of mutualism. Your measurement system is still flawed or otherwise incomplete.


Arguing against a person by lambasting ridiculous positions they don't hold is most certainly a fallacy.

So which of these ridiculous positions do you not hold then? Many of what you said were ridiculous positions were assembled facts, and in some cases, quotes, from your own posts.

I will give that there has been some confusion in regards to the choice of wording in some cases, but not all of them.


What part of "as I agreed above [ants domesticate aphids]" implies to you that I don't consider ants to domesticate aphids?

Perhaps you need to take more time reading my posts?


Very well then, how do human domesticated dogs lose out more compared to ant domesticated aphids? You have said as much:


I don't deny that domesticated species don't benefit in some way from their domestication, and on the levels, say of ants domesticating aphids, I don't see anything much wrong; aphids aren't losing much (as far as I know) from the way ants cultivate them.

But dogs and other domesticated species, I'd argue, 'lose' more, particularly in the way dogs are treated.

So you must have some means of measuring it yes?


Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, humans have a much greater psychological ability compared to that of an ant; we have conceptions of self, right and wrong, and an ability of self-introspection that an ant doesn't, which all mean we can examine and discard possible actions with great ease.

Secondly, as dogs are far more intelligent than aphids, more issues are raised of domestication of the former compared to the later. One of these issues would be the role of force used in the domestication of dogs; another being the conditioning of behaviour.

So to sum it up, because humans can think more on the matter, it becomes wrong?

Putting aside dogs for the moment, would you say that human domestication of aphids is wrong too? I am curious as to how large a role the intelligence of the domesticated life form plays in this moral scale of yours.


The argument, "nonhuman animals do it, therefore it must be good", or "dogs do it to each other, therefore it must be OK for humans to do it to dogs" as you are arguing, quite obviously holds no water, for there are plenty of actions dogs do to one another that it would be obscene for ahuman todo to a dog.


Not quite. My argument is rather simple really. Humans, being animals, will act as animals. Not as dogs, because they aren't, and is a silly argument, but as human animals. The only aspect where the human animal is similar to all other species of animals is this. The use of local resources, animal, mineral, plant, etc for the betterment of itself.


As I am not claiming the above, I don't see why I should prove it.

However, I think it's quite obvious that the vast majority of dog owners train their dogs to behave in strict patterns.


And the vast majority of parents train their children to behave in strict patterns. Is that somehow inherently wrong?


And I find your constant assertionsof false positions on my behals to be notonly repugnant, but intellectually lazy also.

These assertions were based on what you said. Are you retracting your earlier statements, or have I simply misread them?


My mistake for your confusion.

Caught up now?

I suppose.


What's curious is the lengths you seem to be willing to go to 'prove' your feble assertions. By your own admission, all you can get from Mr. Foreman's statements is an implication; an impication you seem as a statement of fact.

Foreman's position on the issue is quite unclear; leading suggestions from you don't help in clearing up the confusion. Find some actual evidence of the position that Mr. Foreman views nonhumans as more worthy than humans, or admit to have no conclusive knoledge on his position.


So what would you consider evidence then?


Read your own posts. You have repeatedly tried to make the claim, that all of PETA, the ALF, or even all supporters of animal liberation view humans as less worthy than nonhumans.

You will have quite the task, proving that I've said any such thing. I have used specific quotes, and named specific people, and stated that some people, hold that view.


I'm beginning to think you're reading some other post every time you reply to me. Let us review:

Q: [Trade] with what, exactly? There's not much you can trade with in the arctic regions aside from animal byproducts.

A: Not a huge amount, no. Though there are only a very few communities in the arctic regions that still live in the traditional way, it may be impossible for these communities to survive without consuming nonhuman animal flesh.

You see how this answers the question of communities, say, near the Arctic circle who survive on a meat-rich diet?

You have acknowledged that it may be impossible for these communities to survive without consuming meat. But you have not stated your opposition, acceptance or otherwise to this particular aspect, which was the intent of the original question.


Why would scientists resort to murder if nonhuman animal testing was greatly reduced? I have already talked about the expansion of voluntary human testing.

Not deliberate murder, no. But experimental drugs, especially early stage ones can have fatal results. Even if it was a voluntary test, it seems almost inevitable that some crop of radicals will sprout up to oppose such tests, burn down laboratories or otherwise try to put a stop to it. And even if that were the case, what of lawsuits by the surviving estate?

Pharmaceuticals are, like any other firm, motivated by profit. If the process of creating new drugs and medicines that may be of benefit becomes stymied with lawsuits from fatalities resulting in early stage drug tests, then there is no incentive to continue research on the matter.

Certainly a disincentive to finding cures and medicines.


If I must choose a species that would suffer to help invent new human medicines, then I'd choose our own species. Why should other beings suffer for our gain?

Then for it to work, new laws must be created so that when the human individual does suffer for the benefit of all, the ones performing the work will not become inundated by people seeking redress, should it not?

Else there simply will not be any incentive whatsoever to do such research legally.


It's quite simple; humanity's use of the planet, its substances, flora and fauna, as a resource to be used up as humanity sees fit is destructive, and quite capableof rendering Earth unlivable by humans.


To be used up, or to be used? There is a major distinction between the two. Sustainability does not preclude the use of flora, mineral, and fauna as resources.


All actions have a "probability of complications". A genuine attempt to save a nonhuman animals life, or to cure it of an ill is, very obviously, not A Bad Thing.

Even if it involved a sacrifice of the few? Because such attempts can only come about from a foundation of study impossible without sacrifice.


By not using all the methods current industrisal agriculture uses at the moment; including the use of artificial pesticides, the growing of crops that are never distributed (the famous EU 'wheat mountains' and 'milk lakes'), and other factors.


Mechanical farming, AKA combine harvesters and such. These, more than any other farming implement short of hydroponic greenhouses (unproven for mass scale farming yet), are what allowed the population explosion of the last century and a half. Yet at the same time, the use of combine harvesters mean the near total destruction of field animals like voles, rats and the like at harvest time.

How do you propose to go without that?


I'm opposed to certain aspects of domestication, as we've been discussing.

Oh? And what are these certain aspects then?


Such as?


Destruction of natural habitats for living space and paper production. Field animal deaths caused by mechanical harvesting. Use of products which require resources that further spread natural habitat destruction or otherwise release waste material that does the same. That sort of thing.


And, once again, I didn't claim this.

Which I did not state you claimed. I simply pointed out that meat eating among humans is a natural component of their existence. It is not a requirement, certainly, but it is a part of their biology.

<elongated snip>
Enough's enough. You've really stretched this hijack.

You asked for "a summary of what you think PETA is and to what degree you agree with them... this should solve any misconceptions I have, and allow the debate to follow through, I hope." I gave you a summary but the debate has not followed through.

If you want to continue a discussion of my environmental stance, create a new thread discusssing people's attitudes towards vegetarianism or whatever, and I'll give my two cents. However, it doesn't look like we'll be getting back to the actions/motives of PETA or the ALF if we continue discussing me: I'm not a member or active supporter of either group.

Have a good night, and hopefully we'll return in the future to the points you obviously want to discuss. I'm off to drink some (vegetarian) beer.

I find it very telling that you are willing to assign different possibilities to interpret what this person has said, indirectly criticize me for placing a single interpretation, but are only willing to assign just one on what I've said, despite a lack of any such explicit language, and refusing to consider the possibility of alternative interpretations.

Perhaps we are much more similar than you think.

what alternative interpretation should i have thought of? that you really do think foreman values humans and animals equally?