Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cheesecat wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:There is no reason to kill dolphins.

Yeah there is, for food, for the same reason we kill cod, cows, crab, sanke, etc, etc...

I could eat you. You're nutritious enough to provide a hearty meal.

Is that a reason to kill you? Because its the reason you just gave for killing dolphins. So I can only assume that you'd find it acceptable for me to kill you, your entire family, and all your friends and serve them up as a banquet dinner for my friends and family.

Right?

Gailbraithe wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:There is no reason to kill dolphins.

Yeah there is, for food, for the same reason we kill cod, cows, crab, sanke, etc, etc...

I could eat you. You're nutritious enough to provide a hearty meal.

Is that a reason to kill you? Because its the reason you just gave for killing dolphins. So I can only assume that you'd find it acceptable for me to kill you, your entire family, and all your friends and serve them up as a banquet dinner for my friends and family.

Right?

Dolphins aren't humans and I like to keep my human rights and animal rights as two different things.

The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.

Cheesecat wrote:Dolphins aren't humans and I like to keep my human rights and animal rights as two different things.

Okay.

But if the aliens ever show up, I get to talk to them, not you. Because they may find your inability to see beyond the confines of your species and respect the suffering of other clearly sentient beings threatening. And I don't want to give them a reason to make us all into pets or worse.

^ This.

There is something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it clearly delineates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable to do to human beings. Animal rights are not the same. It is not alright to murder another human being, but humans do have the right to eat what they want. As the saying goes: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." So it is with this. I have a right to eat dolphin, chimp, or whatever I want, but I don't have a right to violate your rights in order to satisfy my rights.

Additonally, whether or not its morally bad is debatable. Some things are definitely bad, but this? THis isn't. This is a cultural difference, as the West views dolphins as cute cuddly creature, but on the other hand Japan (or this village in particular, i don't really know) view them as another food source. Who are we to judge them for what they eat? If a group of Hindus from India came to the United States to harass cattle ranchers and tried to shut them down would you applaud them as visionaries trying to put an end to a despicable practice, or would you want them to realize that eating beef in the West is a cultural difference that they should respect?

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.

So what you're saying is they're very much like humans. More so than, say, a tuna.

Which is precisely my point.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.

So what you're saying is they're very much like humans.

Which is more reason for me to care less about them, or just hate some of them.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.

So what you're saying is they're very much like humans. More so than, say, a tuna.

Which is precisely my point.

I do believe earlier in the thread, a post was made that demonstrated regular fish had distinct personalities, yet we still choose to eat and kill them. Just because something demonstrates a few characteristics that hark of intelligence doesn't make that creature a sentient being that should be granted human rights. Chimpanzees and certain birds have been known to use tools, and many many animals are known to teach. You don't see people racing to defend them, do you?

Besides, a few human like characteristics do not a sentient creature make. Well, I suppose that's the wrong semantics...sentience just implies the ability to feel and react. What makes a creature truly intelligent and deserving of human rights is sapience, or basically the ability to reason or use logic. Dolphins clearly don't have that, do they? If they could reason wouldn't they look at this village and say, "Y'know, we should avoid this area since the humans kill us here. Instead, let's go elsewhere where the humans treat us like cute pets!"

Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.

Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.

Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.

OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.

helgrenze wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.

Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.

Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.

OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.

This. In fact, the reports of dolphins raping people is rather a lot higher.

Slap endangered species on the dolphins in question and arguments against the hunt amount to a whole lot more than emotionally based anthropomorphism.

Water filled with blood, slaughterhouses hung with carcasses, both and all associated with that type of imagery can be linked to the animal rights movement. At one point in history people had to look their food in the eye before eating, not that it matters. Comparisons to and concerning people being similar to dolphins fall pretty flat overall. I have more reason to be concerned about primates being hunted than I do for dolphins. If you are going to bring solid reason behind an anthropomorphic, emotionally charged argument, framing intelligence takes a very long time. Longer than a thread on the internet would allow.

Laughing Man wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.

Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.

Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.

OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.

This. In fact, the reports of dolphins raping people is rather a lot higher.

If I was ever raped by a dolphin, you'd better believe I'd be on the next plane to Taiji. feth you, dorphin!

ChrisWWII wrote:I do believe earlier in the thread, a post was made that demonstrated regular fish had distinct personalities, yet we still choose to eat and kill them. Just because something demonstrates a few characteristics that hark of intelligence doesn't make that creature a sentient being that should be granted human rights. Chimpanzees and certain birds have been known to use tools, and many many animals are known to teach. You don't see people racing to defend them, do you?

Actually, I know many people who would leap to their defense. I have many vegetarian and vegan friends.

It's also worth noting (mostly to annoy) that many of the Enlightenment philosophers who created the intellectual foundation of the American experiment were advocates of vegetarianism specifically because of the

Besides, a few human like characteristics do not a sentient creature make. Well, I suppose that's the wrong semantics...sentience just implies the ability to feel and react. What makes a creature truly intelligent and deserving of human rights is sapience, or basically the ability to reason or use logic. Dolphins clearly don't have that, do they? If they could reason wouldn't they look at this village and say, "Y'know, we should avoid this area since the humans kill us here. Instead, let's go elsewhere where the humans treat us like cute pets!"

Dolphins most definitely demonstrate the ability to reason. Dogs demonstrate the ability to reason, and dolphins are far smarter than dogs. Even crows demonstrate the ability to reason.

But that dolphins reason does not mean they reason like us. Humans are time-binders, we record things and it shapes the way e think of the world, how we interact with it. Dolphins may exist in an entirely different perceptual universe, something akin to dreamtime, and may have no sense of a "future" and a "past" which would allow for the kind of complex reasoning that shifting locales would mean. Plus such voyages may be physically impossible for the dolphins, requiring them to swim through stretches of sea they aren't adapted to survive. And it seems extremely unlikely that pods of dolphins in Japan could possibly know of the affairs of pods of dolphins on the other side of the world. It's not like they have global communication networks.

Alright, sure you have vegan and vegetarian friends. So do I. But if they tried to shut down meat processing plants, or tried to stop the farming of cows, chickens or pigs what do you think would happen? Would they be cheered on as fighting an injust law,and be applauded? Or would they be smashed down and told that they need to respect the difference in people? That's the biggest thing I see here. The West sees dolphins one way, and other people another. The Wests view is not necessarily the right one, and we should most definitely not smash down another's view point just because it's different.

As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points. Occam's Razor honestly, as right now we have: 1) Dolphins are unusually intelligent animals but animals none the less or 2) Dolphins are sapient creatures that experience reality in a completely different way from humanity, and that is why they do not display sapience. Which one of these is simpler?

Did you know that whale was on special today at the local supermarket?

Right or wrong, I can tell you all in all honesty, the Japanese do not give a toss about what any animal rights activists think. Buddy, the guy who filmed the slaughter, was lucky if he got deported seeing as the fishermen's union is run by the Yakuza.

Personally, I wouldn't eat dolphin. I've had Whale jerky once. It was like chewing on a tire. I'd never try it again.

Let us not forget the lesson of the Grizzly Man.

Being a lunatic Animal Rights Activist can have it's downside.

ChrisWWII wrote:Alright, sure you have vegan and vegetarian friends. So do I. But if they tried to shut down meat processing plants, or tried to stop the farming of cows, chickens or pigs what do you think would happen? Would they be cheered on as fighting an injust law,and be applauded? Or would they be smashed down and told that they need to respect the difference in people? That's the biggest thing I see here. The West sees dolphins one way, and other people another. The Wests view is not necessarily the right one, and we should most definitely not smash down another's view point just because it's different.

I don't think the point of either of the films/documentaries is whether or not there is a moral/cultural issue at hand. Both the films have people who have emotionally invested themselves in these animals. I will give them that dolphins show many signs of being 'self aware' they recognize that they are living beings. But comparing the psychosocial behavior of a dolphin to a human isn't going to equate to the same kinds of behaviors, so we can't really make that comparison at all. But scientifically they have many signs of 'self awareness'. Which is important in this argument. If a cow could walk and talk like a man I don't believe we would eat them, the same goes for any sapient or sentient creature. Because a dolphin might be using a very different sophisticated form of communication, a very different form of locomotion, and may possibly have a very different cultural/moral view on the world we cannot comprehend them as anything close to being 'human' because they lack qualities we consider human. A communication barrier, if dolphins are actually capable of advanced communication near our level, is present.

A more important question to ask one's self when watching either of these films is "Why do this?". Dolphin is not good for you, it is heavily laden with mercury a known cancer causing substance. Not in small amounts either, large enough to cause problems for people. A majority of the Japanese people, presumably those outside the smaller fishing communities, view dolphins much as we do in the west. They are 'human-like' enough to them as to us to not be eaten knowingly. There are underhanded tactics being used to market dolphin as 'superior' cuts of meat. But that isn't really the issue I'm getting at. For some reason, they keep doing this. Mercury poisoning as a disease was discovered in the mid to late 50's in Japan because of heavy consumption of dolphin meat. We know the effects of mercury on the unborn child, which is severe physical and mental retardation. So, outside of these small communities, eating dolphin is not considered by most Japanese to be a quality of being 'Japanese'. Eating whale might be, but whale are a protected species and that's really another argument. It just seems very strange that the Japanese government would go to such lengths to basically subsidize poison into a portion of their populations diet and do it with extreme fervor.

ChrisWWII wrote:As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points. Occam's Razor honestly, as right now we have: 1) Dolphins are unusually intelligent animals but animals none the less or 2) Dolphins are sapient creatures that experience reality in a completely different way from humanity, and that is why they do not display sapience. Which one of these is simpler?

Sapience and sentience are very different qualities, I don't think you should confuse the two. And just as a reminder- one day you're going to run into a researcher on the internet and he will crush you with stacks and volumes of papers and reports proving his point. But you'll handwave it away. As evidence for something mounts, the populace simply ignores it if it is a problem. Honestly, if you really care about this argument go look into it just a little bit. You can google dolphins+sentient and it'll probably turn up something with some sources cited somewhere. But if you're just taking a stance on something just type "I don't care, I hope they kill more dolphins" and we won't need to continue this.

Monster Rain wrote:

Cane wrote:Japanese laws which constantly clash with the rest of the civilized world. Just because its a law, doesn't mean its truly civilized

And yes it is a "bit of a leap" to compare crabs to dolphins beyond just the letter of the law.

I happen to think that there is a greater gap between humans and dolphins than between dolphins and crabs, from a standpoint of moral equivalency to their being raped or murdered or what have you. If you don't, it would seem that we have reached a fundamental disagreement.

Both are pretty horrible (slaughter and captivity of dolphins versus murder/raping humans) and seems like international opinion largely agrees to such (maybe not so much on the captivity part but the methods behind it) but of course human suffering takes the cake; sorry if I led on otherwise

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.

Yea they're one of the few animals outside of humans to do so. I imagine dolphins held in captivity are much more susceptible to such behavior as well due to the stress involved. You'll find such with intelligent and self-aware creatures at zoo's and aquariums worldwide as well. Like humans, they don't like being held against their will.

Khornholio wrote:Did you know that whale was on special today at the local supermarket?

Right or wrong, I can tell you all in all honesty, the Japanese do not give a toss about what any animal rights activists think. Buddy, the guy who filmed the slaughter, was lucky if he got deported seeing as the fishermen's union is run by the Yakuza.

Yea he mentioned such in "The Cove" and acknowledged it for this series as well; two of his associates have been murdered FWIW. Interesting that abnormally high to toxic levels of mercury are found in dolphin and whale meat yet they're still part of school lunches for children in Japan. Barry's definitely crossing boundaries but on the other hand without such actions there wouldn't be such awareness about the brutal slaughter of dolphins, about 20k annually in that region, or the dubious and secretive manner in which its conducted and supported. And by international standards the Japanese dolphin and whaling harvesters are arguably crossing boundaries as well. Then there's the view of animal captivity in general especially for intelligent and self-aware wild animals.

There's probably less than 1% or so in Japan that really care about the whaling/dolphin practices but for those people its deeply ingrained; in those villages 25% of their last names trace to such history. Also the whole gaijin attitude, its human nature not to like being told what to do by foreigners no matter the issue especially when it comes to whats "right" and "wrong". Yakuza, gaijin, tradition, perceived racism, etc makes for a tall order to have a successful compromise although new generations seem to be moving out of those villages.

Barry's actions cross cultural and legal lines but his intentions seem noble and supported internationally. I support the intentions but both camps leave a lot to be desired when it comes to their methods although there's far less deaths on Barry's side

I do think that the films have a moral/cultural issue at heart, as if it wasn't a cultural thing, or something else why would they do that? Dolphin meat is based on a supply-demand economy just like any product, and obviously, there is a demand for dolphin meat that is fueling this hunt. Why do we look down on this cultural difference as an evil thing? Yes, dolphins show some signs of intelligence, and they have shown some self aware abilities, but that doesn't make them senitent/sapient/whatever word you want to use to define the trait that makes human human. More importantly, dolphins don't walk and talk like humans, they show the ability to be trained, and they recognize their reflections in a mirror. And yes, if we can communicate with dolphins then we can determine that they are in fact sapient/sentient and should be granted whatever rights humans are granted. Until then, however, they are animals, and animal rights do NOT overwhelm human rights no matter what the case.

I don't know why they do this. I'm not a fisherman in Taiji, I'm a student in California. I don't know why they choose to hunt dolphins, but they do. Is it a cultural thing? Is it an economic thing? Probably a combination of both. I'm not sure honestly. Sure, not a lot of people do eat it, and the like, but obviously enough do to support the industry. More importantly, this is not a debate over Japanese government policy, and why they choose to do what they do. If you want to debate the merits of Japanese policy, you can start your own thread to debate it. My question, and what I want to debate is whether or not its justified for these anti-dolphin fishing activists to break laws and the like in order to try and effect a halt to the dolphin hunt. Personally, watching the documentary and seeing what he's done, I'm amazed he hasn't been tossed in jail and held there on a variety of charges. The Japanese alone could charge him with slander, trespassing and unlawful surveillance. The US has charged and convicted him of violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and I swear in the documentary it seems that he is cutting nets (Property Damage) and releasing government dolphins (Defacement of Government Property). I don't think he's justified in his action.

Yes, sentience and sapience are different, and I don't even pretend to understand the philosophical differences between the two terms. I'm using them colloqiually, and trying to use them in their proper forms. And I try to ignore personal attacks, and respond only to actual points, but here I have to rise. How can you insinuate that about me? You have no idea who I am beyond some posts on a random internet forum. I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.

ChrisWWII wrote:I don't know why they choose to hunt dolphins, but they do. Is it a cultural thing? Is it an economic thing?

Main reason is because dolphins are eating their prized Tuna

ChrisWWII wrote:I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.

Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.

And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.

And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.

Gailbraithe wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.

Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.

And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.

And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.

Peter Singer is a raging ass.

Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.

And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.

And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.

I am open minded. I looked at both sides of the issue, and my decision on the matter is that the activists ARE in the wrong for the reasons I have listed multiple times before. I'm sorry, but reading the other sides propaganda is not the same as being open minded and fair. And I will choose for myself what I spend my time on, thank you very much. Animal rights is a hot button issue for me, something I will discuss in an informal setting, and not something I want to write a thesis on. And in all honesty, even reading a summary of the book I find the very thesis of that work as one I fundamentally disagree with. I think I am speciesist if that's the proper word. I am. I think that humans are the top of the food chain, and as such no animal is as important as a human. If I can save one human life by sacrificing 20 dolphins then I'll do it. I can't believe in the viewpoint that an animal is equal to a human in any way shape or form. I'm sorry, but we've reached the point of a fundamental disagreement that is unlikely to be resolved in one sides favor.

ChrisWWII wrote:I am open minded.

No, you aren't.

I looked at both sides of the issue,

No, you haven't.

I'm sorry, but reading the other sides propaganda is not the same as being open minded and fair.

And this is why. As soon as you claim that the argument from one side of the issue -- which you have supposedly looked into both sides of -- is "propaganda," you lose any credibility. Your claim that you are open minded falls flat.

Monster Rain wrote:Peter Singer is a raging ass.

Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.

Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism.

First, Singer didn't coin the term Specieism.

Second, Singer never claims that Specieism is a logical fallacy. Indeed, he plainly states that ascribing characteristics to a species is at the heart of actually defining what a species is and that, as such, there is nothing inherently wrong with having inconsistent standards of 'rights' based on the capacities of any given sort of creature. Instead, Singer argues that 'intelligence' is not a reasonable criteria on which to predicate the importance of one things suffering. If something can suffer, then its suffering is as important as the suffering on any other thing that can suffer.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Peter Singer is a raging ass.

Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.

Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.

Yeah, me and Simon Weisenthal are just picking on poor Peter Singer for no reason at all, right?

I guess he didn't write Rethinking Life and Death then?

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Total dick.

Gailbraithe: I have indeed come to the conclusion that animal rights activists are wrong in the way they pursue their goals, and coming to that conclusion is not close mindedness. If I immediately dismissed the idea as being LOLWUT stupid, that is close mindedness, but deciding my stance and sticking to my guns about it? That is not close mindedness. And honestly, how can you make the claim that I haven't looked into both sides of the issue? Have you followed me around for the last eighteen years observing everything I do? Have you spent a moment talking to me as a person? No. You know me as a few posts on an internet forum, and you can't claim that I am close minded. More importantly, to me nearly everything is propaganda. All forms of modern media are propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Propaganda; Noun; 1: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2: the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. (Credits to dictionary.com))

Moreover, there is a fine criticism of Singer's ideas as given here . Quote: "[The] radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly slowed child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees."

That is not right wings hack spreading a "philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all." In fact, if you call me close minded than you yourself are just as close minded, as you seemed to have reached a conclusion after looking at both sides, just like me.

ChrisWWII wrote:Gailbraithe: I have indeed come to the conclusion that animal rights activists are wrong in the way they pursue their goals, and coming to that conclusion is not close mindedness. If I immediately dismissed the idea as being LOLWUT stupid, that is close mindedness, but deciding my stance and sticking to my guns about it? That is not close mindedness. And honestly, how can you make the claim that I haven't looked into both sides of the issue?

Because you called Animal Liberation by Peter Singer "propaganda," which it's a stupid thing to say. It shows an absolute contempt for the foundation of the entire animal rights movement, and it makes it abundantly clear that you have no intention of approaching the question with an open mind. You dismiss what is widely recognized as the best argument for the case without even considering it, and then you want to claim you are open-minded? Please dude.

Have you followed me around for the last eighteen years observing everything I do? Have you spent a moment talking to me as a person? No. You know me as a few posts on an internet forum, and you can't claim that I am close minded. More importantly, to me nearly everything is propaganda. All forms of modern media are propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Propaganda; Noun; 1: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2: the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. (Credits to dictionary.com))

Moreover, there is a fine criticism of Singer's ideas as given here . Quote: "[The] radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly slowed child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees."

Being open to critiques of Singer's ideas, but refusing to read his book because it's "propaganda" is pretty much the exact opposite of being open-minded. That actually demonstrates extreme prejudice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Peter Singer is a raging ass.

Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.

Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.

Yeah, me and Simon Weisenthal are just picking on poor Peter Singer for no reason at all, right?

I guess he didn't write Rethinking Life and Death then?

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Total dick.

You are of course quoting entirely out of context. The quote comes from a longer essay on reproductive rights and abortion, and makes a case for why abortion is not immoral, and specifically why it is not murder. He then acknowledges that the criteria for personhood that he has cited deny newly born infants a right to life. So he writes:

Peter Singer wrote:Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus.

Must we accept this shocking conclusion? Or does birth somehow make a difference, in some way that has so far been overlooked? Perhaps our focus on the status of the fetus and the infant has led us to neglect other aspects of the situation. He re are two ways in which birth may make a difference, not so much to the fetus/infant and its claim to life, but to others who are affected by it.

First, after birth the pregnant woman is no longer pregnant. The baby is outside her body. Thus her claim to control her own body and her own reproductive system is no longer enough to determine the life or death of the newborn baby. ….

The second different birth makes is that if the baby's mother does not want to keep her child, it can be cared for by someone else who does..."

So as you can see, the statement Monster Rain is dishonestly trying to pass off as representative of Singer's belief is in actuality an idea that Singer quickly rejects as invalid.

Furthermore, Singer is a bioethicist who deals intellectually with the morality of cutting edge medical technlogies, and if you actually read his work and understand his statement in the full context of the actual issues being raised by modern technology, it's hard not to accept his reasoning. Right now medical professionals do many things that are violations of traditional ethical decisions, but are based on sound medical science and compassion reasoning. Like terminating the life support of people who've had their brains turned irreversibly to jelly. If you reject Singer's reasoning, you're left with a DNA-based sanctity of life that says a irreversibly brain dead person whose vital functions can be maintained by machines must be maintained until their organs wear out or the get an infection that can't be treated. It just has to sit there, being alive with no mind, until it gives out of "natural causes." Because that's the "right" thing to do.

It's morbid. It's Golden Thrones for everyone who suffers a traumatic head injury but doesn't have the good fortune to stop breathing before the Apothecaries get to 'em.

ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.

But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.

If the fishermen just caught the filmakers in nets, they probably could sell them at a good price. Could call it-pigfish. Just saying.

I respect them for standing up for what they believe in, even if their cause isn't something I'd champion.