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.

Aaaaand this is why it's better to try to solve this through social pressure. We live in a globalized society. A market won't stop existing just because we said so. It'll stop existing when demand goes away.

 Manchu wrote:
How is it anything but imperialism?

You're advocating the application of force to control other people because you think your culture is better than theirs.

We all hold opinions, beliefs and moral answers, we are all likely fairly certain that the opinion, belief or moral answer we hold is the best one, or we'd have swapped it out for another one.

We all therefore hold that others should be doing what we're doing or being more like us in some way, shape or form, because the answer we have is the right or best or most suitable.

So, according to your definition, provided above, we're all imperialists.

I would guess then, given your vast definition and the fact that if we judge all humanity to that standard, we're all guilty of wanting others to be like us, yep, guess that's 'imperialism'.

I think your definition is wrong, personally, as imperialism cannot, from where I'm sitting, be the action or belief of an individual, but the conquest of a culture by another.

The animal rights pressure being applied to the Far East is far more easily attributable to globalization, which is currently steered by Western powers and therefore given towards Western morality.

MGS, You're argument is much simpler than that:

(1) Morality is a matter of perspective

(2) What I perceive as moral is moral for me

(3) It is also moral for others to the extent that I can make them agree

(4) I should make them agree

So you see, if someone was stronger than you and could force you to skin animals alive, according to your argument, that's all perfectly legitimate.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er, isn't that what we do every day with that whole armed forces/drones/threat of 15,000 fusion warheads?

Some people say that's exactly what we're doing. Others say that morality is universal because humanity is one thing. People in China have the same right to life, food, raiment, shelter, leisure, etc, as people in Tibet, or Spain, or anywhere else because they are humans regardless of what their own customs and governments hold.

.

Life has proven that the only rights you have are the ones you take and can defend. As you noted, ask the people in Tibet how many rights they have right now (actually don't they'll be dead soon after you ask them in public thanks to the Chinese internal security forces).

 Frazzled wrote:
Life has proven that the only rights you have are the ones you take and can defend.

No. Just because someone violates your rights does not mean you don't have them.

 Manchu wrote:
MGS, You're argument is much simpler than that:

(1) Morality is a matter of perspective

(2) What I perceive as moral is moral for me

(3) It is also moral for others to the extent that I can make them agree

(4) I should make them agree

So you see, if someone was stronger than you and could force you to skin animals alive, according to your argument, that's all perfectly legitimate.

... we've already done this a few times in the last argument, but sure, I'll repeat it again...

It would be legitimate for them if their morality was somehow constructed to hold the skinning of animals to be sacrosanct... it would remain terrible for me given my own constructed morality.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Just make sure you're the one writing the rules.

You mean, holding the gun.

Of course.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe they have the ultimate truth, they want to take away birthdays and christmas, which I find a terrible idea, they think it's great and they are much happier without it, they think they are doing good, I think they are peddling misery.

In their constructed morality and belief, they have to help me.

In mine, they are wrong and present a direct threat to my ability to consume cake and booze.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Life has proven that the only rights you have are the ones you take and can defend.

No. Just because someone violates your rights does not mean you don't have them.

Matter of perspective I guess. Anyone can say they have rights to anything, but its utterly irrelevant unless they have the power to back it up. I mean TBone thinks he should have steak, every day. But without the use of opposable thumbs he can't act on that other than annoying everyone with constant barking in the kitchen. Rodney, on the other hand can pursue his rights more thoroughly as he can leap onto the kitchen table in half a second (a leaping wiener dog is a sight) and eat your food.

Rodney the only dog alive who eats roadkill so disgusting even vultures wouldn't touch it.

If someone murders your loved ones, does that prove they never had a right to live?

I'm kind of nauseated by this debate actually. Nevermind.

 Manchu wrote:
If someone murders your loved ones, does that prove they never had a right to live?

I'm kind of nauseated by this debate actually. Nevermind.

Who determines rights? Again, I believe I have the right to be fed nachos by scantilly clad college cheerleaders. The Wife, crazily enough disagrees.
Do I have that right? Why not?

 Manchu wrote:
If someone murders your loved ones, does that prove they never had a right to live?

No. Again, you're doing this wrong.
If your loved ones arrived on an island where ritual sacrifices were selected from those who arrived on the island and everyone in the society agreed this was a right thing to appease their angry invisible giant in the sky, then, for the islanders, the loved ones of yours should die. It's terrible for you, terrible for your loved ones and utterly correct for the islanders.

 Manchu wrote:

I'm kind of nauseated by this debate actually. Nevermind.

I was nauseated by it towards the end of the last debate, yet you insisted on bringing it back up. Let it die, we won't budge each other on it and I'm surprised you felt the need to dredge it to the surface.

Cut off it's fins and let it sink to the bottom of the ocean.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm surprised you felt the need to dredge it to the surface

Me too. There's something about your insistence of bullying others into doing what you want for no other reason (even in your own mind) than you feel very strongly about what you want that really, really irritates me. But you're right, it's not worth talking about.

Childrins play nice now. Don't make me break out episodes of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm surprised you felt the need to dredge it to the surface

Me too. There's something about your insistence of bullying others into doing what you want for no other reason (even in your own mind) than you feel very strongly about what you want that really, really irritates me. But you're right, it's not worth talking about.

People thinking they are right and others should recognize it or concede to it isn't something I have a monopoly on, indeed, you going 3 pages of a thread with me over your views on the intrinsic nature of human rights would suggest you share that very trait...

Also, your jumping into that thread to say 'lol disney fans' about people talking about their belief in animals rights really really irritated me and showed a disregard for what others felt, especially given you and other religious posters expectation, supported by the rules of this site, that your held beliefs be treated with respect, it read as hypocritical and something I was fairly disappointed in given your previous decent posting, but I got over it, you'll get over me irritating you as well.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm surprised you felt the need to dredge it to the surface

Me too. There's something about your insistence of bullying others into doing what you want for no other reason (even in your own mind) than you feel very strongly about what you want that really, really irritates me. But you're right, it's not worth talking about.

People thinking they are right and others should recognize it or concede to it isn't something I have a monopoly on, indeed, you going 3 pages of a thread with me over your views on the intrinsic nature of human rights would suggest you share that very trait...

Also, your jumping into that thread to say 'lol disney fans' about people talking about their belief in animals rights really really irritated me and showed a disregard for what others felt, especially given you and other religious posters expectation, supported by the rules of this site, that your held beliefs be treated with respect, it read as hypocritical and something I was fairly disappointed in given your previous decent posting, but I got over it, you'll get over me irritating you as well.

Hey hey there, don't snippy on religion. Don't assume I didn't agree with you.

Manchu does have a point though, it's not our place to idly label these people villains. And it's certainly not our place to ride in like some shining knight and strike them down. As a civilized society, we're supposed to move people through reason and compassion.

Well, at least that's what we're supposed to do, doesn't always work out that way.

As for whether these people are broken or not; I think they're just numb to it. These people are the poor and starving and don't see much humanity around them.

My grandma takes shark medication for her arthritis (don't argue with her). If you told these fisherman they could be making money off the whole shark skeleton, they might not be as wasteful. Tell the skinner killing the dog would make things easier and he might listen.

there's my ray of sunshine for today.

MGS: When it comes down to it, though, this is just about having idiosyncratically warm feelings toward animals. And as you yourself note, these feelings come from the place and time in which you live. That's what I meant by Disney. Disney conflates human beings with animals. And apparently you do, too. You clearly want to punish people who disagree with you about how animals should be treated but you also reserve that, according to them, it might be that they are doing nothing wrong.

Except you are saying that there is something wrong with them -- something "vile and disgusting." According to the rest of your philosophy, it is impossible for you to know that. All you can know is whether you consider them vile. So it comes out to you saying that we should make them do what you want because you say they're vile.

This is the same as some Christians saying homosexuals should be harmed because they are "vile." It was never and will never be right to harm homosexual people because of their homosexuality regardless of what the prevailing social values were or are.

You post as if you've done something really special by chucking religion out of your life but from what I see all you've managed to do is keep all the terrible parts and get rid of the good, like an acknowledgment of objective human dignity.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Manchu does have a point though, it's not our place to idly label these people villains. And it's certainly not our place to ride in like some shining knight and strike them down. As a civilized society, we're supposed to move people through reason and compassion.

Well, at least that's what we're supposed to do, doesn't always work out that way.

As for whether these people are broken or not; I think they're just numb to it. These people are the poor and starving and don't see much humanity around them.

No, the people consuming the shark fin soup or buying tiger cocks or rhino horns are not poor, that shiz is not cheap.

I'm not attacking the African fisherman who can get a weeks wage by landing a thresher and definning it, I'm blasting the wealthy and the 'mystique' of China and elsewhere who place all this weight of cultural importance on eating it. From the people I've spoken to who've eaten it, you can't even taste the shark in there anyway. It's pointless.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Manchu does have a point though, it's not our place to idly label these people villains. And it's certainly not our place to ride in like some shining knight and strike them down. As a civilized society, we're supposed to move people through reason and compassion.

Well, at least that's what we're supposed to do, doesn't always work out that way.

As for whether these people are broken or not; I think they're just numb to it. These people are the poor and starving and don't see much humanity around them.

No, the people consuming the shark fin soup or buying tiger cocks or rhino horns are not poor, that shiz is not cheap.

I'm not attacking the African fisherman who can get a weeks wage by landing a thresher and definning it, I'm blasting the wealthy and the 'mystique' of China and elsewhere who place all this weight of cultural importance on eating it. From the people I've spoken to who've eaten it, you can't even taste the shark in there anyway. It's pointless.

Now that is much more interesting. The question is how they can do it. Perhaps they've blinded themselves to it, sticking their head in the sand, the same way we don't think about factory farms.

That's why I quoted Mencius earlier. The issue is, when you see these things done it's hard to participate. But, and this is where MGS has an excellent point, there are people who skin animals alive and then leave them to die. And they don't seem to have a problem with it.

How do we explain that?

Can we not agree that killing endangered animals is wrong and that anyone that needs a boner pill should look into cialis and one of the 50 enhancement product emails I get daily instead of baby panda livers?

 kronk wrote:
Can we not agree that killing endangered animals is wrong and that anyone that needs a boner pill should look into cialis and one of the 50 enhancement product emails I get daily instead of baby panda livers?

I'm eating who's liver?!?!

 Manchu wrote:
MGS: When it comes down to it, though, this is just about having idiosyncratically warm feelings toward animals. And as you yourself note, these feelings come from the place and time in which you live. That's what I meant by Disney. Disney conflates human beings with animals. And apparently you do, too. You clearly want to punish people who disagree with you about how animals should be treated but you also reserve that, according to them, it might be that they are doing nothing wrong.

Again, yet...again...
I do not 'conflate' human beings with animals, in terms of our emotional states or intellect. I do not believe cats and dogs discuss their state of being or feel just as we feel. What I do believe in is that the human being is an animal, an advanced ape. We belong to the animal kingdom.
I want to punish people who breach my code of ethics, I am not uncommon in wanting that, I'm sure every parent feels a rush of violent urge or ill will whenever they hear about a child abused. I, more to the point, want the 'bad thing' to stop. Again, this is a fairly human wish. I'm sure the parents of children married to grown men in islamic countries are following their religious and cultural norms, yet from where we are sitting this is a terrible thing and must be stopped.

 Manchu wrote:

Except you are saying that there is something wrong with them -- something "vile and disgusting." According to the rest of your philosophy, it is impossible for you to know that. All you can know is whether you consider them vile. So it comes out to you saying that we should make them do what you want because you say they're vile.

Of course it's possible for me to know that they are, to me, vile and disgusting. They aren't vile and disgusting to themselves.

 Manchu wrote:

This is the same as some Christians saying homosexuals should be harmed because they are "vile." It was never and will never be right to harm homosexual people because of their homosexuality regardless of what the prevailing social values were or are.

'be right', no, not to you or I, absolutely. However, there are plenty of people walking the face of the earth now, who, in the name of their God, do indeed do terrible harm to people for their sexuality and believe themselves 'right'.

 Manchu wrote:

You post as if you've done something really special by chucking religion out of your life but from what I see all you've managed to do is keep all the terrible parts and get rid of the good, like an acknowledgment of objective human dignity.

You're reading that into my posts, I've always rather liked the idea of being religious, it must be a wonderful thing to awaken every morning with the comfort of an ever present and loving deity to watch over and protect you, it likely removes so many dilemmas and so much anxiety from life, unfortunately no creator being has ever spoken to me. As I tell my evangelical grandmother, who insists I am to be a great preacher one day, on the day God speaks to me, I will listen.
You hold to objective human dignity but find the notions of dignity for other species to be laughable, all I've said from the beginning of our conversation is that if you can believe in one, the belief in the other should not be dismissed as absolutely easily as you seem to do. You stand absolutely in the defense of one abstract thing and then tell me the other abstract thing is ridiculous. It's a double standard to me.

You hold to objective human dignity but find the notions of dignity for other species to be laughable

No, I say animals don't have rights because they are not persons. They do have dignity, as creatures, and it is a human obligation not to abuse them and this is what I understand my religious tradition to mean.

 kronk wrote:
Can we not agree that killing endangered animals is wrong and that anyone that needs a boner pill should look into cialis and one of the 50 enhancement product emails I get daily instead of baby panda livers?

Yes. We just want someone to be angry at, that's all.

 Manchu wrote:

You hold to objective human dignity but find the notions of dignity for other species to be laughable

No, I say animals don't have rights because they are not persons. They do have dignity, as creatures, and it is a human obligation not to abuse them and this is what I understand my religious tradition to mean.

Is this because you believe humans have a special place in creation? A soul?

Not really ... at best, "soul" could be used as a kind of placeholder word for the apparent qualities of human beings that make usunique in creation, which is what I'm actually talking about. There is no other animal that is also a person. I think that if we start talking about "souls" we're getting into some weird connotations about evolution and intelligent design, which to me is a huge red herring. Besides, it's not as if the rest of creation has no "spiritual" aspect. In any case, as a Catholic, I completely reject that the soul is like the driver inside the vehicle of the body.

 Manchu wrote:
Not really ... at best, "soul" could be used as a kind of placeholder word for the apparent qualities of human beings that make usunique in creation, which is what I'm actually talking about. There is no other animal that is also a person. I think that if we start talking about "souls" we're getting into some weird connotations about evolution and intelligent design, which to me is a huge red herring. Besides, it's not as if the rest of creation has no "spiritual" aspect. In any case, as a Catholic, I completely reject that the soul is like the driver inside the vehicle of the body.

Not to go too off tangent... but, could you elaborate what you meant by this. " In any case, as a Catholic, I completely reject that the soul is like the driver inside the vehicle of the body."? (or PM me).

 Manchu wrote:
Not really ... at best, "soul" could be used as a kind of placeholder word for the apparent qualities of human beings that make usunique in creation, which is what I'm actually talking about. There is no other animal that is also a person. I think that if we start talking about "souls" we're getting into some weird connotations about evolution and intelligent design, which to me is a huge red herring. Besides, it's not as if the rest of creation has no "spiritual" aspect. In any case, as a Catholic, I completely reject that the soul is like the driver inside the vehicle of the body.

And we come full circle to the fundamental difference.

You believe person/soul/humanity is a separate thing, an existing thing that remains a whole and definite. I believe person/soul/humanity is a construct, an existing thing that dwells, constructed, in the human brain, as part of the construct we call the mind. You have no evidence to prove me wrong, I have no argument to sway you from your position.

Irresistible force, I give you the immovable object.