Hls

[straightXed]

I know there are a fair amount of vegans and vegetarians populating this board and after seeing this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11584029)/this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11599380) on the news today, i just wondered how this sits with most of you? Do you condone the actions of these activists? Do you find them utterly dispicable? Or maybe somewhere inbetween. Just would be interested to know if anyone actually backs this mentality really.

[CarlaRant]

No and no. Any sort of physical assault or threat is not acceptable and does not win over any minds.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

yea, NO and NO.

It's stupid 1) because violence is never going to make people who do things that are violent stop. Unless these people (SHAC) thinks they are going to kill all the lab testers etc it just won't happen. Its fucking crazy.
2) its terrible PR. This isn't getting anyone to go vegan, and probably makes people write it off right away.

And honestly, animal testing is a disgusting abominable practice in my opinion. But at least the aims have some bit of a justifiable premise. I mean i don't buy it or think its ok, Rights should trump utility. But at least its an argument you can understand. If these people are so fucking pro animal, shouldn't they be doing this to the people who buy the meat, i mean as Hemacandra so prophetically explains below.

"Those who eat the meat of other [living beings] in order to satisfy their own flesh, they are definitely murderers [themselves], since without a consumer [there can be] no killer." — Acharya Hemacandra (12th c. Jain ascetic/scholar)

this violent animal liberation shit is so fucked up and counterproductive you don't even know. Then we as vegans have to spend time explaining why their can be nutjobs in any movement, instead of explaining why "meat is still murder and dairy is still rape, and i am just as stupid as anyone but i know my mistakes." (thats propagandhi! any fans?!)

[straightXed]

No and no. Any sort of physical assault or threat is not acceptable and does not win over any minds.


clearly it wins over some minds that are impressionable and like the article says, there will be people who see these people as champions of their cause. But of course you are right, its not acceptable and won't win many over.

[straightXed]

yea, NO and NO.

It's stupid 1) because violence is never going to make people who do things that are violent stop. Unless these people (SHAC) thinks they are going to kill all the lab testers etc it just won't happen. Its fucking crazy.

HLS has been the target of many groups/gangs for as long as i can remember. This story is simply the tip of the iceberg. There has been some truly horrendous attacks in the past on innocent families and many of these attacks make me think that the idea of killing all the lab testers is right at the front of their fanatical little minds. So yeah its crazy for sure.




2) its terrible PR. This isn't getting anyone to go vegan, and probably makes people write it off right away.

The PR isn't great is it, but still people pick up the leaflets and soak up the constant barrage of wrongdoings by HLS painted in such a traggic way people will feel for the cause, propaganda designed to make you feel angry and unable to change it. I guess when someone has changed their lifestyle in every way to be vegan the only thing left is to change others and with the emotion stored you can see how this direct action comes to be so full of anger and hate. Scary really isn't it, and to think these people were allowed to make their choice freely...10 years ago they were probably eating burgers etc. But now the rules have changed. So it won't make many people vegan but you have got to worry about the people it does make vegan!


And honestly, animal testing is a disgusting abominable practice in my opinion. But at least the aims have some bit of a justifiable premise. I mean i don't buy it or think its ok, Rights should trump utility. But at least its an argument you can understand. If these people are so fucking pro animal, shouldn't they be doing this to the people who buy the meat, i mean as Hemacandra so prophetically explains below.

"Those who eat the meat of other [living beings] in order to satisfy their own flesh, they are definitely murderers [themselves], since without a consumer [there can be] no killer." — Acharya Hemacandra (12th c. Jain ascetic/scholar)

this violent animal liberation shit is so fucked up and counterproductive you don't even know. Then we as vegans have to spend time explaining why their can be nutjobs in any movement, instead of explaining why "meat is still murder and dairy is still rape, and i am just as stupid as anyone but i know my mistakes." (thats propagandhi! any fans?!)

Not a fan myself!

[xVeganAnarchistx]

yea, exactly, i was hunting deer when i was 12. Now should i have wanted to kill myself? its really screwed up.

And like, HLS is fucking disgusting. And i think they should close down. but you know who is defending those bastards at HLS now, alot of people, like vegans, because SHAC is super crazy.

And yea, its scary to think about the people converted to veganism by these people. The thing is though, alot of the animal liberation movement are not even vegan, sometimes not even vegetarian, now that's fucked up. I have a friend who doesn't do this shit but is probably a supporter of sorts and she eats fucking animals. I'm like are you fucking kidding me!

gah, sorry i hate what this does to the vegan movement haha

[xGriffox]

yea, exactly, i was hunting deer when i was 12. Now should i have wanted to kill myself? its really screwed up.

And like, HLS is fucking disgusting. And i think they should close down. but you know who is defending those bastards at HLS now, alot of people, like vegans, because SHAC is super crazy.

And yea, its scary to think about the people converted to veganism by these people. The thing is though, alot of the animal liberation movement are not even vegan, sometimes not even vegetarian, now that's fucked up. I have a friend who doesn't do this shit but is probably a supporter of sorts and she eats fucking animals. I'm like are you fucking kidding me!

gah, sorry i hate what this does to the vegan movement haha

Animal liberation is not fucked up in any way, shape, or form. Causing property and economic damage to companies which support the torture of animals is 100% fine in my book, the importance is to take the ideology of the ELF/EF! to heart and to seek to deliberately harm no living creature, humans included. Destroying property has tangible effects regardless of the PR it creates, targeting people has very little to no effect while causing unnecessarily bad PR.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

But these guys aren't just breaking in rescueing lab animals. Which i would support (morally) though im uneasy about the press coverage part (utility). They are threatening peoples life, which doesn't really seem like a great idea to me.

I suppose i should be a little clear, i'm totally down for rescuing the animals in labs or free those on farms, if it actually helps the animals. i just feel like in the long term (right now) its not a great move.

[xGriffox]

But these guys aren't just breaking in rescueing lab animals. Which i would support (morally) though im uneasy about the press coverage part (utility). They are threatening peoples life, which doesn't really seem like a great idea to me.


agreed, those that are harassing employee's families and what not don't really seem to be helping anything (in either actual results or press coverage).



I suppose i should be a little clear, i'm totally down for rescuing the animals in labs or free those on farms, if it actually helps the animals. i just feel like in the long term (right now) its not a great move.
why?

[mouseman004]

Animal liberation is not fucked up in any way, shape, or form. Causing property and economic damage to companies which support the torture of animals is 100% fine in my book, the importance is to take the ideology of the ELF/EF! to heart and to seek to deliberately harm no living creature, humans included. Destroying property has tangible effects regardless of the PR it creates, targeting people has very little to no effect while causing unnecessarily bad PR.

Why is property damage okay? Not everybody is going to have the same beliefs as you, so why do you think it is okay to force your opinions on others? You're a vegan, that is awesome, I have the utmost respect for that. But if I am working in a field that works with animals, I shouldn't have to be afraid of some vegans smashing my windows or causing damage to MY property because they don't live their lives the same way I do.

[straightXed]

Animal liberation is not fucked up in any way, shape, or form.

you quoted a message saying that there are followers of ALF that aren't vegan or vegetarian and thus fucked up. You are saying this isn't fucked up? I don't follow. Especially taking into consideration what you go onto say. Its like you aren't actually addressing what was written unless you really do think that meat eating participants in ALF activities isn't fucked up?



Causing property and economic damage to companies which support the torture of animals is 100% fine in my book, the importance is to take the ideology of the ELF/EF! to heart and to seek to deliberately harm no living creature, humans included. Destroying property has tangible effects regardless of the PR it creates, targeting people has very little to no effect while causing unnecessarily bad PR.

I'm of the opinion that you are under playing the effect of the actions of this group has on peoples lives. i know you are probably refering to it having little to no effect for the cause but i just wanted to highlight once more the devastating effects this bullying can have and how it makes those involved completely hipocritical.

[straightXed]

why?

Letting animals out without an actual understanding of how the animals will survive is not a great plan, it can have negative impact on the animals being "saved" and other animals and/or areas of animal habitat. The passion to help animals hasd definitely on occasion caused issues that make the idea a bit of a blunder, i understand the passion there just needs to be a lot more thought to go with it on occasion, i mean looking and the mentality of the people in discussion here they certainly aren't giving me any faith that they are people to take note of and listen too, they come accross as thuggish yobs, hooligans even, not inteligent compassionate people. Big image overhaul need really.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Why is property damage okay? Not everybody is going to have the same beliefs as you, so why do you think it is okay to force your opinions on others? You're a vegan, that is awesome, I have the utmost respect for that. But if I am working in a field that works with animals, I shouldn't have to be afraid of some vegans smashing my windows or causing damage to MY property because they don't live their lives the same way I do.

Ok so i totally agree that bullying people and threatening their lives is wrong. But i guess i agree with Griffon here. The actions that free animals are in the right place. I think its morally totally right. I mean, i would have (if i was brave enough of course) tried to helped chattel slaves free their captivity if i could have. I think its right in that sense. There are things that i think we can agree are right, and that it would be okay to free human slaves, no matter how much that damages someones business. We just disagree on animals mattering in the same way. And its important to take that into a account. That's why i think its usually wrong to physically touch people to make them stop doing something we think is wrong. But then, if you where beating your dog in front of me, i think (assuming bravery) i would physically stop you if i had to.

anyway, the problem with even the property damage is that its not a good idea from a utility standpoint. Its probably acceptable (IMO) but its just really bad PR. like someone said, we look like thugs and not compassionate people.

[straightXed]

Ok so i totally agree that bullying people and threatening their lives is wrong. But i guess i agree with Griffon here. The actions that free animals are in the right place. I think its morally totally right. I mean, i would have (if i was brave enough of course) tried to helped chattel slaves free their captivity if i could have. I think its right in that sense. There are things that i think we can agree are right, and that it would be okay to free human slaves, no matter how much that damages someones business. We just disagree on animals mattering in the same way. And its important to take that into a account. That's why i think its usually wrong to physically touch people to make them stop doing something we think is wrong. But then, if you where beating your dog in front of me, i think (assuming bravery) i would physically stop you if i had to.

Thats interesting, so if you replaced beating the dog with the idea of eating meat in front of you, your actions would be different? Why? (bravery accounted for). I'm just trying to assertain if there is a sliding scale here, is the beating dog act worse to you than the act of eating meat?


anyway, the problem with even the property damage is that its not a good idea from a utility standpoint. Its probably acceptable (IMO) but its just really bad PR. like someone said, we look like thugs and not compassionate people.

If there were no risk of bad PR would you see the property damage as acceptable then?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Thats interesting, so if you replaced beating the dog with the idea of eating meat in front of you, your actions would be different? Why? (bravery accounted for). I'm just trying to assertain if there is a sliding scale here, is the beating dog act worse to you than the act of eating meat?

I guess i'm not really sure of the underlying idea. I think its probably a difference of emergency, the dog is suffering in front of my eyes where i can stop it. Whereas the animal whose was tortured for the meat has already suffered and died. Its the past. I think this kinda relates to the Trolley problem in philosophy if you know what i mean. I suppose its just that one action is happening now and can be stopped. that active defense. Whereas the reason for not eating animals is proactive, stopping the NEXT animal to suffer. Their is a kernal of truth to that "just eat this the cow is already dead" shit.


If there were no risk of bad PR would you see the property damage as acceptable then?

Absolutelty. Animal Industries operate like any other business in capitalism. They people who get rich exploiting animals, or women, or whatever don;t care what they make money off, only that they make money. If we make animal agriculture unprofitable because 1) we raise consciousness (i think this is best route as ill explain) or 2) freeing their "property" we make it less of an effective way to make money and they will move out.

Now i think consciousness raising is best cause it changes the root cause which is demand, not supply. If we destroy a factory farm, then all the others will just get more business you know. IF we destroy demand then they'll all lose business.

[xGriffox]

Why is property damage okay? Not everybody is going to have the same beliefs as you, so why do you think it is okay to force your opinions on others? .
I am talking about property damage of companies with the aim of causing them great economic damage and ideally force them to close down, I am not talking about breaking the windows at your house. I'm not forcing my opinions on others because such an action isn't meant to win over support or make people think the way i think, it is meant to get results and cause these companies to no longer be economically viable.


You're a vegan, that is awesome, I have the utmost respect for that.

why is that awesome and why do you have respect for that?


But if I am working in a field that works with animals, I shouldn't have to be afraid of some vegans smashing my windows or causing damage to MY property because they don't live their lives the same way I do.

1. It won't be your property, it will be your workplace's property.

2. If you work in vivisection at this point in the game such is the nature of your "job"; you are a target of anger for those who disapprove of the systematic torture of animals because, well, you actually torture and mistreat animals. You could just as easily have picked a job that didn't involved sewing shut a monkey's eyes in the name of "medical research".

[xGriffox]

Letting animals out without an actual understanding of how the animals will survive is not a great plan, it can have negative impact on the animals being "saved" and other animals and/or areas of animal habitat.

Animal sanctuaries are generally a good place to bring mistreated animals which is what is done in a good number of AL actions.

So, what should be done about HLS then, in your opinion?

[mouseman004]

.
I am talking about property damage of companies with the aim of causing them great economic damage and ideally force them to close down, I am not talking about breaking the windows at your house. I'm not forcing my opinions on others because such an action isn't meant to win over support or make people think the way i think, it is meant to get results and cause these companies to no longer be economically viable.

But why is it your right to make sure these companies are no longer economically viable? And how is it not forcing your opinion on to others if you are trying to eliminate companies with different ideologies and views than you? If I hate mainstream music, do I have the right to go burn down a virgin megastore for condoning something I am opposed to?




.
why is that awesome and why do you have respect for that?

Having enough control and discipline to live a vegan lifestyle in a world that doesn't make it easy is respectable.




.
1. It won't be your property, it will be your workplace's property.

2. If you work in vivisection at this point in the game such is the nature of your "job"; you are a target of anger for those who disapprove of the systematic torture of animals because, well, you actually torture and mistreat animals. You could just as easily have picked a job that didn't involved sewing shut a monkey's eyes in the name of "medical research".

1. a) If I own the company it is my property
b) If I am financially dependent on the company for the welfare of my family, to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life, and you are trying to shut that company down and therefore end my employment, you may as well be throwing rocks through my house window or setting my car on fire.

While I don't necessarily condone "sewing a monkey's eyes shut", it again comes down to belief and ideology. You may see it as torture, while somebody else may look at animal testing and believe that they are helping make the world a better place by looking to cure aids, or cancer or other fatal diseases. I still don't see why you think that your differing views give you the right to destroy property that is not yours.

[xGriffox]

But why is it your right to make sure these companies are no longer economically viable?

why is it their right to exist and profit off of the suffering of animals? In the same way a company feels it has the right to profit by whatever means it chooses so people feel they have the right to stop said companies if they find their methods objectionable or immoral. It would be the same if someone sought to petition for investors to divest from the company: upon what right do they think they can disrupt this company's business?



Having enough control and discipline to live a vegan lifestyle in a world that doesn't make it easy is respectable.
But having enough courage to literally risk incarceration, potentially years of your life, for something you believe in isn't? I don't follow.






1. a) If I own the company it is my property

let's say you own HLS: Due to your own callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals, you deserve everything you've got coming; i hope a tornado destroys your home. If this seems rash to you think of any perpetrator of crimes you deem truly irredeemable and you will then know exactly how i feel.



b) If I am financially dependent on the company for the welfare of my family, to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life, and you are trying to shut that company down and therefore end my employment, you may as well be throwing rocks through my house window or setting my car on fire.
What gives YOU the right in the first place to make your living off of the death of other sentient beings? Until that right is established I don't think this question is very valid.





You may see it as torture, while somebody else may look at animal testing and believe that they are helping make the world a better place by looking to cure aids, or cancer or other fatal diseases. I still don't see why you think that your differing views give you the right to destroy property that is not yours.
around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

[straightXed]

Animal sanctuaries are generally a good place to bring mistreated animals which is what is done in a good number of AL actions.

Point being that a good number of situations don't end like that unfortunately. But yes, animal sanctuaries are a good place.


So, what should be done about HLS then, in your opinion?

My stance on that isn't important here, thats another discussion.

[straightXed]

I guess i'm not really sure of the underlying idea. I think its probably a difference of emergency, the dog is suffering in front of my eyes where i can stop it. Whereas the animal whose was tortured for the meat has already suffered and died. Its the past. I think this kinda relates to the Trolley problem in philosophy if you know what i mean. I suppose its just that one action is happening now and can be stopped. that active defense. Whereas the reason for not eating animals is proactive, stopping the NEXT animal to suffer. Their is a kernal of truth to that "just eat this the cow is already dead" shit.

The thing is the people from the ALF are using violence to stop animals suffering in the here and now and essentially in front of their eyes. With this in mind its kind of like you have done a u-turn in your thinking about using physical action in the situations in point. You are entitled to u-turn of course i am just trying to establish where you stand on this, its obviously a diificult one as you have conflicting morals with your understanding that the physical action used is wrong but you want to stop any animals suffering.

The interesting thing here is that, dog beaters, HLS workers and regular meat eaters all are involved in both current suffering and past suffering.

And essentially the logic you have used is what a lot of meat eaters use to justify their action, most would say they would not condone any cruelty they see in front of them but continue to support the sluaghter of animals as its already done and the suffering is dead and burried so to speak.




Absolutelty. Animal Industries operate like any other business in capitalism. They people who get rich exploiting animals, or women, or whatever don;t care what they make money off, only that they make money. If we make animal agriculture unprofitable because 1) we raise consciousness (i think this is best route as ill explain) or 2) freeing their "property" we make it less of an effective way to make money and they will move out.

Now i think consciousness raising is best cause it changes the root cause which is demand, not supply. If we destroy a factory farm, then all the others will just get more business you know. IF we destroy demand then they'll all lose business.

I see, i guess somehow i got the idea that you would be against the action for other reasons other than simply bad press.

So how would you go about raising consciousness in those that demand a supply of meat? And as their demand is the point i was making by switching the dog beater for a meat eater i am at a total loss as to what you fully condone in raising this consciousness?!

[xVeganAnarchistx]

The thing is the people from the ALF are using violence to stop animals suffering in the here and now and essentially in front of their eyes. With this in mind its kind of like you have done a u-turn in your thinking about using physical action in the situations in point. You are entitled to u-turn of course i am just trying to establish where you stand on this, its obviously a diificult one as you have conflicting morals with your understanding that the physical action used is wrong but you want to stop any animals suffering.

The interesting thing here is that, dog beaters, HLS workers and regular meat eaters all are involved in both current suffering and past suffering.

And essentially the logic you have used is what a lot of meat eaters use to justify their action, most would say they would not condone any cruelty they see in front of them but continue to support the sluaghter of animals as its already done and the suffering is dead and burried so to speak.

The ALF as far as i know has a policy of not causing physical harm to any animals, the researchers etc included.

Dog Beaters, and HLS workers are doing the damage currently.

Animal products consumers are doing the damage by raising demand. But the products the are using have already inflicted the suffering. I can't rescue the cow from the leather boots someone is wearing.

I mean, stepping in if its right in front of you seems like a its totally ok to me. But the problem is, in the long run (at least for the cases where there is not widespread agreement on like animal abuse of those animals we call pets (cats and dogs have... ALL THE LUCK)) i think its much better to convince people of the merits of going vegan (or not beating your dog) then just beating them up or rescuing their dogs. It just makes it easier in the long run. And the bad press issue.





I see, i guess somehow i got the idea that you would be against the action for other reasons other than simply bad press.

So how would you go about raising consciousness in those that demand a supply of meat? And as their demand is the point i was making by switching the dog beater for a meat eater i am at a total loss as to what you fully condone in raising this consciousness?!

I'm against physical violence in most cases i think. I don't think its right to beat you up or kill you cause you are killing animals, i just don't think people have really had the time to digest it, animal rights is still a pretty new concept. And i waver on whether i'm into nonviolence so that's that.

You get people to go vegan and the demand disappears. That's the consciousness raising. Beating you up or killing you or someone you love does not raise consciousness. It probably lowers it. Maybe i'll condone violence in like a thousand years haha.

[xGriffox]

Point being that a good number of situations don't end like that unfortunately. But yes, animal sanctuaries are a good place.
The unfortunate thing really is the hack jobs that go on in the name of "animal liberation" which are so poorly planned out (such as those discussed as the chief focus of this thread). The idea is to save animal lives in the most effective fashion possible and stop their suffering in the future, not to vent your anger on the individual employees at their homes.

[straightXed]

The ALF as far as i know has a policy of not causing physical harm to any animals, the researchers etc included.

I think you are being quite naive with that, they struggle to put that idea out there as they really have to from a legal standpoint. Policies existing doesn't equate to policies being adhered to.


Dog Beaters, and HLS workers are doing the damage currently.

So no damage is being done by those in the article and they were sent to prison for nothing? But the meat eater is also doing damage currently. You just don't see it, the demand is killing animals. And thats why it is like the argument a lot of meat eaters use, because they can't see the suffering they react to it differently and continue to eat meat. This is why i want to know how you are changing it.


Animal products consumers are doing the damage by raising demand. But the products the are using have already inflicted the suffering. I can't rescue the cow from the leather boots someone is wearing.

But that doesn't change the fact that their demand ensures continual suffering like i mentioned does it, the point is it animal products consumers are both inflicting as well as have inflicted suffering.


I mean, stepping in if its right in front of you seems like a its totally ok to me. But the problem is, in the long run (at least for the cases where there is not widespread agreement on like animal abuse of those animals we call pets (cats and dogs have... ALL THE LUCK)) i think its much better to convince people of the merits of going vegan (or not beating your dog) then just beating them up or rescuing their dogs. It just makes it easier in the long run. And the bad press issue.

Unfortunately the dog beating example wears a little thin, its obviously a completely different situation. But demand for meat is right in front of you too is it not? Point is you are ok with the HLS attacks and your only concern was the bad PR but the demand isn't at HLS and you mentioned wanting to focus on erradicating the demand. Nice GB's quote! I agree that to educate people of your views is much better than educating people by forcing your views upon them however you can. People will be more open to that. But it remains that animals are slaughtered daily, HLS continues to function and so stepping in there seems like something you are saying you condone but am i right in saying you don't condone stepping in on someone who happily disregards your views without entertaining them and wishes animals to be slaughtered continually for his food? It just seems like its all right in front of you when you think of it. I think i pretty much get where you stand now though so thats good...it was getting a bit confusing.







I'm against physical violence in most cases i think. I don't think its right to beat you up or kill you cause you are killing animals, i just don't think people have really had the time to digest it, animal rights is still a pretty new concept. And i waver on whether i'm into nonviolence so that's that.

Time is really quite subjective but i would say assigning rights to animals is not new at all, people have organised groups that deem the killing and eating of animals is wrong for millennia. Would it be right to use physical violence on me if my taste was for human and i made a demand for the killing of humans to feed my dietry choice? I mean if from that demand you lost a loved one and i took delight in eating that loved one in front of you? Pretty fucked up idea i know but i am wondering if perhaps if this could possibly highlight that maybe all life isn't regarded the same way? I mean, i'm not about to sit down in front of you and eat you wife, brother, sister, mother or even a perfect stranger to you but if i did would you treat me the same way as if i sat down to eat a burger in front of you? What i'm really getting at hear is that even as a vegan you are able to condone a lot of animal suffering, i am wondering if this is something you are continually aware of and if so how do you feel about it? I am sorry about the ludicrous human meat idea but its the only way i could think to show the significance of the demand i guess. I do hope it doesn't get misconstrued and go way off topic.


You get people to go vegan and the demand disappears. That's the consciousness raising. Beating you up or killing you or someone you love does not raise consciousness. It probably lowers it. Maybe i'll condone violence in like a thousand years haha.

Yeah i understand what you think consciousness raising would do but how are you doing it? I'm sat eating a burger (beef, not human!) what would you do, tell me its a dead cow? I am conscious of that already and am happy with it? I guess you could show me some evils of abitoirs or even speak of how awful HLS is and as you agree i could retort and lower any possibility of convincing me by siting the violent attacks. So back to square one and it makes me really wonder how anyone who wants to convince people that veganism is right would condone such actions. I think we kind of mentioned this in our initial few posts but it kind of got dropped. You did agree and then it kind of came accross that you didn't as there was this there and now right in front of you issue but like you have again said, it is probably detrimental to your cause.

[straightXed]

The unfortunate thing really is the hack jobs that go on in the name of "animal liberation" which are so poorly planned out (such as those discussed as the chief focus of this thread). The idea is to save animal lives in the most effective fashion possible and stop their suffering in the future, not to vent your anger on the individual employees at their homes.

For many years these kind of hack jobs were exactly what the ALF was all about until it had to change its image and "policies" to ensure it was seen to be abiding by the law...kind of like the BNP has to be with any link to the national front. Whats more unfortunate is that these hack jobs are numerous and those that support it are still large in volume and it is still in the name of animal liberation.

The idea sounds a whole lot more savory than the reality, thats for sure.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

I think you are being quite naive with that, they struggle to put that idea out there as they really have to from a legal standpoint. Policies existing doesn't equate to policies being adhered to.

as far as i know their has never been an ALF action that has done anything physically violent to humans.


So no damage is being done by those in the article and they were sent to prison for nothing? But the meat eater is also doing damage currently. You just don't see it, the demand is killing animals. And thats why it is like the argument a lot of meat eaters use, because they can't see the suffering they react to it differently and continue to eat meat. This is why i want to know how you are changing it.

they were probably sent to prison for property damage. To be honest, i think property rights are really fucked up anyone, so i probably don't think they did anything wrong, except for causing animal suffering by doing terrible PR and scaring the shit of some family when we all are responsible for the demand. I wish they would have tried to rescue animals rather than scare them.


But that doesn't change the fact that their demand ensures continual suffering like i mentioned does it, the point is it animal products consumers are both inflicting as well as have inflicted suffering.

yes they are. But what they are consuming at that moment in front of me is already committed suffering. Aside from the fact that they are using animal products as food makes it seem acceptable to use animals as food it doesn't seem the same.


Unfortunately the dog beating example wears a little thin, its obviously a completely different situation. But demand for meat is right in front of you too is it not? Point is you are ok with the HLS attacks and your only concern was the bad PR but the demand isn't at HLS and you mentioned wanting to focus on erradicating the demand. Nice GB's quote! I agree that to educate people of your views is much better than educating people by forcing your views upon them however you can. People will be more open to that. But it remains that animals are slaughtered daily, HLS continues to function and so stepping in there seems like something you are saying you condone but am i right in saying you don't condone stepping in on someone who happily disregards your views without entertaining them and wishes animals to be slaughtered continually for his food? It just seems like its all right in front of you when you think of it. I think i pretty much get where you stand now though so thats good...it was getting a bit confusing.

I want to focus on demand cause i think its best. If we could do supply side stuff without it being counterproductive. I'd be down. Though, i still think even then, its more effective to attack the demand side. It's a zero sum game, we only can devote so much time and money to animal advocacy and getting people to go vegan is the best option. But that is not to say that rescuing an animal being tortured is not a good thing. I just thinks its not the best use of resources.







Time is really quite subjective but i would say assigning rights to animals is not new at all, people have organised groups that deem the killing and eating of animals is wrong for millennia. Would it be right to use physical violence on me if my taste was for human and i made a demand for the killing of humans to feed my dietry choice? I mean if from that demand you lost a loved one and i took delight in eating that loved one in front of you? Pretty fucked up idea i know but i am wondering if perhaps if this could possibly highlight that maybe all life isn't regarded the same way? I mean, i'm not about to sit down in front of you and eat you wife, brother, sister, mother or even a perfect stranger to you but if i did would you treat me the same way as if i sat down to eat a burger in front of you? What i'm really getting at hear is that even as a vegan you are able to condone a lot of animal suffering, i am wondering if this is something you are continually aware of and if so how do you feel about it? I am sorry about the ludicrous human meat idea but its the only way i could think to show the significance of the demand i guess. I do hope it doesn't get misconstrued and go way off topic.

Yea it would, but it would be better to convince you to stop doing it then to beat you up. Demand side is still better.

I don't regard all life as the same, life i have emotional connections to means more to me. And obviously i'm socialized to think humans matter more, but i don't think i can find any reason to think that.

The loved one case is definitely different, i wouldn't beat you up if you killed any dog (probably) but if you killed my dog, then you would likely get some shit.


Yeah i understand what you think consciousness raising would do but how are you doing it? I'm sat eating a burger (beef, not human!) what would you do, tell me its a dead cow? I am conscious of that already and am happy with it? I guess you could show me some evils of abitoirs or even speak of how awful HLS is and as you agree i could retort and lower any possibility of convincing me by siting the violent attacks. So back to square one and it makes me really wonder how anyone who wants to convince people that veganism is right would condone such actions. I think we kind of mentioned this in our initial few posts but it kind of got dropped. You did agree and then it kind of came across that you didn't as there was this there and now right in front of you issue but like you have again said, it is probably detrimental to your cause.

Its not a good idea to tell people what they are doing is wrong as they are doing. But i will have movie screening. And vegan dinners and pass out literature to people. I am ready to talk about veganism or question people about animals when the time shows up.

The HLS stuff does hurt the movement, and that's why i don't condone them, but freeing animals in a vacuum is a good thing

[mouseman004]

why is it their right to exist and profit off of the suffering of animals? In the same way a company feels it has the right to profit by whatever means it chooses so people feel they have the right to stop said companies if they find their methods objectionable or immoral. It would be the same if someone sought to petition for investors to divest from the company: upon what right do they think they can disrupt this company's business?

That is such a slippery slope argument though, where do you draw the line? I noticed you didn't respond to my mainstream music example. You can't just say "well I disagree with it, so I have a right to stop it". That is not the way the real world works. Protest it all you want, that is your legal right, but when it comes to breaking the law, you do NOT have that right.



But having enough courage to literally risk incarceration, potentially years of your life, for something you believe in isn't? I don't follow.

Nope, whether it comes from the left wing or the right wing, I am against extremism. Unless it is based on issues of human rights (racism, blatent corruption in government etc), breaking the law, being violent or trying to force your views on to others is ignorant and wrong. Peope have different beliefs and no one person's beliefs are held to a higher standard than anybody elses. Just because I happen to have a different opinion doesn't mean you have the right to negatively impact my life. If I am unemployed, can't find work and I have a family to provide for and somebody offers me a job testing on animals, you are damn right I would take it. Human Life > Animal Life.


Do you support militant straight edge? Militant edgers feel really strongly about making sure nobody smokes or drinks, so does that give them the right to beat people up for smoking or to try to force their views on others? And I don't want your response to say anything about "oh well I don't condone violence so this is different", because it doesn't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law whether its graffiti, property damage, burglery or assault.

In my view, breaking the law to try to force your beliefs on others is ignorant.



let's say you own HLS: Due to your own callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals, you deserve everything you've got coming; i hope a tornado destroys your home. If this seems rash to you think of any perpetrator of crimes you deem truly irredeemable and you will then know exactly how i feel.

I am not even going to get in to how fucked up I think this is.


What gives YOU the right in the first place to make your living off of the death of other sentient beings? Until that right is established I don't think this question is very valid.

The fact I am legally allowed to? That right IS established whether or not you agree with it. And the fact that not everybody holds the same view that animals and humans are equal.



around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

If 95% of the population beleived the same things you did then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place and you would have nothing to protest. I don't know why you think I am the wierd one here for not agreeing with your logic.

Your pretentious view of life, and the fact you think that your beliefs somehow put you on a higher plane of existence just blows my mind. This is why I have a problem with the extreme left wing. They make it seem as though everybody who disagrees with them is a bad person or is somehow evil. The rest of the world manages to co-exist with people with different ideologies, so I don't understand why groups like these protestors, and the ALF can't do the same.

[straightXed]

as far as i know their has never been an ALF action that has done anything physically violent to humans.

Well they can't exactly publically lay claim to it if they are trying to stick to this non violent line. But seriously, its incredibly naive to think that all the groups that work in representing the ALF haven't also been involved in violent action to humans. Just because spokes people are quick to dissassociate themselves from any groups found to be intimidating people with violence and terror. So x gets caught and prosecuted for the use of physical violence - Its easy for spokespeople to say that x was not working in the ALF's interests but thats just bullshit. These extremists use all kinds of terror tactics and there is many reports of the threats of the ALF being followed through, when you look at all these stories i really fail to see how anyone can fully buy that the ALF is as clean cut as it tells people it is. I guess your moral choices allows you to be a little more forgiving in your judgement call on them. But i think you are simply being naive.




they were probably sent to prison for property damage. To be honest, i think property rights are really fucked up anyone, so i probably don't think they did anything wrong, except for causing animal suffering by doing terrible PR and scaring the shit of some family when we all are responsible for the demand. I wish they would have tried to rescue animals rather than scare them.

well they were sentenced for the whole hate campaign, the blackmail, the property damage, the costs of about £12m, the paedophile ring stunt, the hate mail, the letter bombs etc. Nothing wrong with that though right, its good to strike fear into and destroy the lives of families who are just going about their lawful lives.






yes they are. But what they are consuming at that moment in front of me is already committed suffering. Aside from the fact that they are using animal products as food makes it seem acceptable to use animals as food it doesn't seem the same.

But what they are demanding is a lifestyle that continually ensures animals being slaughtered...what do you do? I don't think you are going to get the point i have been making here, lets attribute it to being a slightly strenuous explanation on my part.






I want to focus on demand cause i think its best. If we could do supply side stuff without it being counterproductive. I'd be down. Though, i still think even then, its more effective to attack the demand side. It's a zero sum game, we only can devote so much time and money to animal advocacy and getting people to go vegan is the best option. But that is not to say that rescuing an animal being tortured is not a good thing. I just thinks its not the best use of resources.

I guess my feelings on this will depend on your tactics for getting people to go vegan?











Yea it would, but it would be better to convince you to stop doing it then to beat you up. Demand side is still better.

I think the anger and violence ratio to non violence is all over the place...i get get a grasp on how you would really behave at all...i know its hard to actually put yourself in a fabricated situation but your responses do get rather contrasting. Still its interesting to hear what you say nonetheless.




I don't regard all life as the same, life i have emotional connections to means more to me. And obviously i'm socialized to think humans matter more, but i don't think i can find any reason to think that.

Its ok, i think humans matter more too.




The loved one case is definitely different, i wouldn't beat you up if you killed any dog (probably) but if you killed my dog, then you would likely get some shit.

well lets face it, i would be armed with a dead dog. Not really anywhere else to go with that.






Its not a good idea to tell people what they are doing is wrong as they are doing. But i will have movie screening. And vegan dinners and pass out literature to people. I am ready to talk about veganism or question people about animals when the time shows up.

And i'm sure some people become vegan but what of those who don't see any reason to change after you have tried these ways. Is more persistance required or do you just accept their choice? Or is that when the ALF step in and send out the sanitry towels?




The HLS stuff does hurt the movement, and that's why i don't condone them, but freeing animals in a vacuum is a good thing

I think i was replying to the other chap who is posting in this thread about the need to ensure that animal releases are well thought through. There has been some terrible incidents that have occurred where activists haven't fully understood the ramifications of certain releases. Its safe to say not all activists are that smart unfortunately!

[xVeganAnarchistx]

1)I think me and grif are using rights in a way different than you and mouseman. We don't think what is right is whatever the law says (but now, im speaking for myself) but what a reasoned argument compels us to think. Things are right or wrong irrespective of the law. If 95% of people that slavery was just grand, i'd still say they have no right to enslave others (assuming i had heard the well reasoned arguments that i think it is the duty of liberationists of all stripes to explain). For me, and im assuming grif, if the law says i can rape whoever i damn well please, it certainly does not mean i have a right to rape whoever you know.


2)Mouseman, you need to give an argument why humans matters more than animals, and be careful, because if you are arbitrary i'm going to drop some racist or sexist argument on you and make you explain why i should be a racist or sexist, cause its hard work doing all the explaining haha. don't just say cause humans are humans

3)my tactics for getting people to go vegan are reasoned argument, being actually convinced of something keeps you that way for life. Being forced against your will does not, in fact, it often makes you reject reasoned arguments

4)I don't think they do, I feel that humans matter more, but no argument for that position has every convinced me that they actually do
I don't think i have any rational basis for believing that they do. And so i try to not think that. But even if they did, it doesn't really seem to defend us against veganism, cause what does wasteing resources on feeding animals that we bring into existence, animals who live lives of suffering, only so we might be a little happier really have to do with whether animal A is better than animal B or C.

5)I think convincing comes in levels, some of us are predisposed to think any one who can suffer should not have to endure suffering for others comfort. Some are far from that. But the more we talk to people, the more that will be convinced. For the small minority that might always be unreachable, we'll treat them like nazi skins, just build a society where its nearly impossible to be a racist fuck.

[straightXed]

1)I think me and grif are using rights in a way different than you and mouseman. We don't think what is right is whatever the law says (but now, im speaking for myself) but what a reasoned argument compels us to think. Things are right or wrong irrespective of the law. If 95% of people that slavery was just grand, i'd still say they have no right to enslave others (assuming i had heard the well reasoned arguments that i think it is the duty of liberationists of all stripes to explain). For me, and im assuming grif, if the law says i can rape whoever i damn well please, it certainly does not mean i have a right to rape whoever you know.

Oddly enough i reasoned argument is what i use to constitute my belief also. But fortunately the reasoning i use takes into consideration the structured society i live in and attempts to consider everyone in its reasoning. Theres some wild statements flying around here that don't seem to do that, see if you can spot them.



2)Mouseman, you need to give an argument why humans matters more than animals, and be careful, because if you are arbitrary i'm going to drop some racist or sexist argument on you and make you explain why i should be a racist or sexist, cause its hard work doing all the explaining haha. don't just say cause humans are humans

He did give an example that was akin to things you yourself have said. He spoke of looking after immediate family and how they are more important to him. And you yourself said similar things about how you have more connections emotionally. This is just an observation and i shall of course let mouseman answer as he sees fit.


3)my tactics for getting people to go vegan are reasoned argument, being actually convinced of something keeps you that way for life. Being forced against your will does not, in fact, it often makes you reject reasoned arguments

That really is great and all but it doesn't answer where you go after your "tactics" are not convincing someone. Do you then accept someone elses opinion and accept that while you think they are wrong that you can't convince them because they are just as sure of their opinion as you are of yours. At that point where no matter what you do with reasoned argument gets you no where, what is your next choice given that they continue to eat meat?


4)I don't think they do, I feel that humans matter more, but no argument for that position has every convinced me that they actually do
I don't think i have any rational basis for believing that they do. And so i try to not think that. But even if they did, it doesn't really seem to defend us against veganism, cause what does wasteing resources on feeding animals that we bring into existence, animals who live lives of suffering, only so we might be a little happier really have to do with whether animal A is better than animal B or C.


you really should stick with the quoting system when posting, as well as making it easier to follow it also shows consideration for the person/s you are addressing.

to be honest the issue you are having with feeling more for humans is not really what i was getting at, its just gone off the point. i was originally discussing the actions you condone and the ways you deal with the actions you don't etc. this seems to just be born from my human meat example. Which i knew had the potential to leave the actual point i was discussing behind but hoped it wouldn't go to far without getting back on track. so you are of course welcome to list what you consider a waste of resources but its not the direction i was going. sorry about that. That is of course if this paragraph was related to my post?!



5)I think convincing comes in levels, some of us are predisposed to think any one who can suffer should not have to endure suffering for others comfort. Some are far from that. But the more we talk to people, the more that will be convinced. For the small minority that might always be unreachable, we'll treat them like nazi skins, just build a society where its nearly impossible to be a racist fuck.

wow, i'd love to be living in this society where its nearly impossible to be a racist, just this past week there have been reports on local news about racial hate and race related killings of shop owners here. Its all too common and i live in a place that doesn't have a lot of this compared to other areas. I will say that, at this juncture, the more you are talking to me the less you are convincing me that you are open and reasonable and i think thats important in allowing me to make a free choice to feel you are right (or wrong) about being vegan. I am detecting a lot of anger emerging, i am remaining open to your discussion but in the last sentence you basically likened meat eaters to "nazi fucks" and honestly thats not a convincing attitude. I think when people become vegan they eventually forget they were not always one and treat those that still aren't with considerable contempt, its understandable, as meat eaters are doing what you find so awful. But i guess thats your cross to bear, it must be hard to be considerate and respectful to people you probably have grown to think are disgusting in their actions

[xGriffox]

That is such a slippery slope argument though, where do you draw the line? I noticed you didn't respond to my mainstream music example. You can't just say "well I disagree with it, so I have a right to stop it". That is not the way the real world works.

tell me then, how does the real world work? I am curious to know how it is I could be missing out on crucial elements of function in a world which I am very much involved with.



Protest it all you want, that is your legal right, but when it comes to breaking the law, you do NOT have that right.
why do you take the law to be inherently moral?

Also, as a nice aside, you are wrong here. If you protest or go undercover and expose abuse in the United States and cause economic damage through divestment to a company that happens to be involved with animal testing/slaughter/etc. you can be charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The act is vague so as to be able to be used in more than just the cases which involve personal harassment or threats to employees.




Nope, whether it comes from the left wing or the right wing, I am against extremism. Unless it is based on issues of human rights (racism, blatent corruption in government etc), breaking the law, being violent or trying to force your views on to others is ignorant and wrong. Peope have different beliefs and no one person's beliefs are held to a higher standard than anybody elses. Just because I happen to have a different opinion doesn't mean you have the right to negatively impact my life.
I don't understand. I only have the "right" to take action and break the law if it is to remedy the wrongs which you deem to be immoral? I thought breaking the law and taking action apart from legally sanctioned and cop-monitored "protests" was immoral and led only to activist-barbarism and unchanged minds? Why is your example of "human rights issues" any different apart from the fact that YOU think they are justified?



If I am unemployed, can't find work and I have a family to provide for and somebody offers me a job testing on animals, you are damn right I would take it. Human Life > Animal Life.
So if I am unemployed and someone offers me $20 for every dog I kill for their meat it is ok for me to go to the pound, adopt dog after dog, and shoot them to provide for my family? Would you feel comfortable doing this?




Do you support militant straight edge? Militant edgers feel really strongly about making sure nobody smokes or drinks, so does that give them the right to beat people up for smoking or to try to force their views on others?
Nope. But once again, I am about tangible effects of actions. Beating up drunks doesn't change the fact that alcohol is still produced and doesn't even stop those who are attacked from continuing to consume those substances. Rescuing animals, while not destroying the institutions which continually torture them, still makes tangible difference in the way in which they are able to live henceforth from that point on.


And I don't want your response to say anything about "oh well I don't condone violence so this is different", because it doesn't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law whether its graffiti, property damage, burglery or assault.
So all crime is equal? I really don't follow this point. I also find your worship of "law and order" to be a bit too fundamentalist for someone who has a degree in polisci.



In my view, breaking the law to try to force your beliefs on others is ignorant.
unless, as you pointed out above, it is in the interest of advancing causes of human rights against a "corrupt" government. Can you define that word "corrupt" for me and expound upon it as it pertains to "moral" actions which may or may not break the law in response to such an institution?



I am not even going to get in to how fucked up I think this is.

You should! It's just as fucked up to you, I'm sure, as defending those that continuously torture animals for cosmetics and household cleaners is to me. You callously say, "morally sanctioned by the law" and i say, "Death without reason". It really seems we are not on the same moral page, but hey! you've got the law on your side at least ;-)




The fact I am legally allowed to? That right IS established whether or not you agree with it.
All rights are established whether or not you agree with them because governments don't give you your rights, you have them inherently.


And the fact that not everybody holds the same view that animals and humans are equal.
...and not everybody holds the view that they are unequal. I don't see your point.




If 95% of the population beleived the same things you did then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place and you would have nothing to protest. I don't know why you think I am the wierd one here for not agreeing with your logic.
Because you are getting tripped up even within the framework of your own logic.



Your pretentious view of life, and the fact you think that your beliefs somehow put you on a higher plane of existence just blows my mind. This is why I have a problem with the extreme left wing. They make it seem as though everybody who disagrees with them is a bad person or is somehow evil.

I just don't play the moral relativist game; I think something is wrong and you don't, therefore I think you are wrong. I am not going to try to be some dipshit liberal who is "understanding" and "tolerant" of other people's viewpoints when I don't agree with them. That is not to say that I would attack you, that is not to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would not and will never play the game of concessions when it comes to my beliefs and thoughts on an ideological level.



The rest of the world manages to co-exist with people with different ideologies, so I don't understand why groups like these protestors, and the ALF can't do the same.
This just isn't true.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

[straightXed]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

So i guess theres not going to be any direct response to my post. Oh well, i have to say the way this post reads did put a smile on my face. Its been very interesting and enjoyable for me to read and try to assertain where you are comming from.

[xsecx]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

How else are you going to talk about rights? You can believe that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, but how is that really relevant when that's counter the law in a given place. You can talk about how you have the right to destroy property, but when you live in a society and are governed by those laws, it doesn't matter. The idea of absolutely morality only really works in a world where everyone thinks like you do. It's great when talking about things like rape or murder or incest. Things that everyone does actually agree one universally and for the most part always have. It of course falls apart in terms of things like open relationships, polygamy, homosexuality, abortion, property rights, etc. Just because you think you have a moral right to do something, doesn't mean you do. It's the easy way out. You disagree with something you feel like you have the right to act on it. Of course, if you live in a society with laws, you may not. You may actually be interfering with the other persons right to privacy and property rights. Disagreeing with something that at this point in time is legal somewhere doesn't give you the right to act on your feelings, no matter how much you think it should. We live in a society where the collective will is captured by laws. You don't agree with the laws and the rights those laws grant you, change them, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't apply to you and that you have a right to do whatever you feel like you should.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

How else are you going to talk about rights? You can believe that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, but how is that really relevant when that's counter the law in a given place. You can talk about how you have the right to destroy property, but when you live in a society and are governed by those laws, it doesn't matter. The idea of absolutely morality only really works in a world where everyone thinks like you do. It's great when talking about things like rape or murder or incest. Things that everyone does actually agree one universally and for the most part always have. It of course falls apart in terms of things like open relationships, polygamy, homosexuality, abortion, property rights, etc. Just because you think you have a moral right to do something, doesn't mean you do. It's the easy way out. You disagree with something you feel like you have the right to act on it. Of course, if you live in a society with laws, you may not. You may actually be interfering with the other persons right to privacy and property rights. Disagreeing with something that at this point in time is legal somewhere doesn't give you the right to act on your feelings, no matter how much you think it should. We live in a society where the collective will is captured by laws. You don't agree with the laws and the rights those laws grant you, change them, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't apply to you and that you have a right to do whatever you feel like you should.

I know i said i was done..... but

Natural rights, most people think they are not rights cause they come from the state. we created the state whereas i think the rights we are talking about are beyond that. Call it kidding myself, or whatever but i do believe and i think i'm right in believing that if the law said slavery was ok or rape was ok, i would still consider every en-slaver and every rapist wrong, morally wrong, i would say they are violating a right we all have no matter how dark our skin, how smart we are, how good looking, whether we were born with a penis or vagina, or none or both, whatever. I would think that even in that state, that if you followed the laws and had your property be it a wife or a laborer you were morally wrong and violating a moral right. that's what ethics and philosophy has taught me. I'd try to convince you with arguments, but if you don't accept that, or say fuck it then im a racist or a sexist then you are wrong, i don't give to shits what your state says. If you want to buy into that hobbesian shit then go for it, but you are wrong. and thats that. try to prove me otherwise. try to explain to me how slavery or rape is ok if the law says it is, and just cause well all mostly agree now doesn't mean we did all that long ago so that point is moot.

and yea, i'm angry and sorry i'm not being an effective debater now but you are really going to sit their and tell me that all this shit is cultural relative? that if i lived somewhere where rape or slavery was okay that that is the final word. please....

[xsecx]

I know i said i was done..... but

Natural rights, most people think they are not rights cause they come from the state. we created the state whereas i think the rights we are talking about are beyond that. Call it kidding myself, or whatever but i do believe and i think i'm right in believing that if the law said slavery was ok or rape was ok, i would still consider every en-slaver and every rapist wrong, morally wrong, i would say they are violating a right we all have no matter how dark our skin, how smart we are, how good looking, whether we were born with a penis or vagina, or none or both, whatever. I would think that even in that state, that if you followed the laws and had your property be it a wife or a laborer you were morally wrong and violating a moral right. that's what ethics and philosophy has taught me. I'd try to convince you with arguments, but if you don't accept that, or say fuck it then im a racist or a sexist then you are wrong, i don't give to shits what your state says. If you want to buy into that hobbesian shit then go for it, but you are wrong. and thats that. try to prove me otherwise. try to explain to me how slavery or rape is ok if the law says it is, and just cause well all mostly agree now doesn't mean we did all that long ago so that point is moot.

and yea, i'm angry and sorry i'm not being an effective debater now but you are really going to sit their and tell me that all this shit is cultural relative? that if i lived somewhere where rape or slavery was okay that that is the final word. please....

You may want to read what I wrote and respond to it rather than responding emotionally with examples of rape, which I actually talked about. There is a fundamental difference between believing that someone is morally wrong and that giving you the individual the right to act against that person. If you think that having an abortion is wrong, do you as the individual have the right to stop a stranger from having one? Your use of extreme examples of things that are already illegal doesn't really illustrate your point. I'd just like for you to explain what you think natural rights actually gives you since the one thing they don't is legal protection. There is a fundamental difference between believing you have a moral obligation to act and believing you have the right to.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

You may want to read what I wrote and respond to it rather than responding emotionally with examples of rape, which I actually talked about. There is a fundamental difference between believing that someone is morally wrong and that giving you the individual the right to act against that person. If you think that having an abortion is wrong, do you as the individual have the right to stop a stranger from having one? Your use of extreme examples of things that are already illegal doesn't really illustrate your point. I'd just like for you to explain what you think natural rights actually gives you since the one thing they don't is legal protection. There is a fundamental difference between believing you have a moral obligation to act and believing you have the right to.

Again, like the french protests thing, i regret alot of what i said and i'm sorry, anger is no tool for a good debate.

I disagree about how fundamental a moral difference there is. If you are correct (and ill get to this in a second) about having a moral obligation then you have the right to do what that correct position tell you. That is the right i care about, not the law. If you are correct about raping being immoral, you have a right to stop it no matter what the Law says you can do about it.

the problem is that we are fallible human beings, and we are not even 100% sure about rape or slavery, i'd say we are at like 99.5 or whatever but the point is the same. We should try to convince people with rational arguments when we can. violence is a point of no return and that's whats wrong with doing it. I might be right about slavery, but it still might not be a good idea (utility wise) to start killing those who have slaves, for one i might die and not be able to explain my position to more people. Secondly, i might ruin the long term chances of creating a world without slavery cause my actions will be seen as to radical, i mean, though i think John Brown was prob right at Harper's Ferry it could be argued it was not helpful.

Finally, if you argue about abortion with me we will reach some sort of agreement or impasse. And i think their is a right answer about abortion and we can figure it out with enough discussion and agreement, it might take a long damn time, so did stuff like slavery etc.

anyways, i think having a moral obligation is to have a moral right. and that is the right i'm interested in.

again sorry about that stupid shit about slavery and rape and insinuating that you are ok with it.

[xsecx]

Again, like the french protests thing, i regret alot of what i said and i'm sorry, anger is no tool for a good debate.

I disagree about how fundamental a moral difference there is. If you are correct (and ill get to this in a second) about having a moral obligation then you have the right to do what that correct position tell you. That is the right i care about, not the law. If you are correct about raping being immoral, you have a right to stop it no matter what the Law says you can do about it.

the problem is that we are fallible human beings, and we are not even 100% sure about rape or slavery, i'd say we are at like 99.5 or whatever but the point is the same. We should try to convince people with rational arguments when we can. violence is a point of no return and that's whats wrong with doing it. I might be right about slavery, but it still might not be a good idea (utility wise) to start killing those who have slaves, for one i might die and not be able to explain my position to more people. Secondly, i might ruin the long term chances of creating a world without slavery cause my actions will be seen as to radical, i mean, though i think John Brown was prob right at Harper's Ferry it could be argued it was not helpful.

Finally, if you argue about abortion with me we will reach some sort of agreement or impasse. And i think their is a right answer about abortion and we can figure it out with enough discussion and agreement, it might take a long damn time, so did stuff like slavery etc.

anyways, i think having a moral obligation is to have a moral right. and that is the right i'm interested in.

again sorry about that stupid shit about slavery and rape and insinuating that you are ok with it.

You're still focusing on things that for the most part everyone agrees about. If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what? That's why laws exist. In your world you believe you can act because you think it's your right, but to do so you have to infringe on the rights of others and that's why the whole view that the law is irrelevant doesn't really make any kind of sense. The idea of universal right and wrong isn't really practical when you apply it to life. Telling me that you have the right to stop me will only be met with me telling you that you don't. We're then left pointing to the law since it's external from both of us as to see who has the right to do something. Individual morality doesn't dictate rights. Group morality does.

[xsecx]

around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

i'd like to see recent proof of this statement.

[xGriffox]

i'd like to see recent proof of this statement.

hmmm, can't find a really solid source on this or on anything really pertaining to the breakdown of percentages between either medical use or cosmetic. The numbers that keep coming up are 94% for cosmetics and 6% for Biomedicine. See if you can find anything though, I'm up to look at anything.

[xsecx]

hmmm, can't find a really solid source on this or on anything really pertaining to the breakdown of percentages between either medical use or cosmetic. The numbers that keep coming up are 94% for cosmetics and 6% for Biomedicine. See if you can find anything though, I'm up to look at anything.

it doesn't really make sense, that's why I asked. every day more and more brands and products are stopping animal testing so you'd think over time the percentage would/should decrease.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

You're still focusing on things that for the most part everyone agrees about. If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what? That's why laws exist. In your world you believe you can act because you think it's your right, but to do so you have to infringe on the rights of others and that's why the whole view that the law is irrelevant doesn't really make any kind of sense. The idea of universal right and wrong isn't really practical when you apply it to life. Telling me that you have the right to stop me will only be met with me telling you that you don't. We're then left pointing to the law since it's external from both of us as to see who has the right to do something. Individual morality doesn't dictate rights. Group morality does.

yea i just completely disagree, sure it might be harder to come to a consensus on what is right or wrong, hell we haven't really got their on things that nearly all of us agree on like rape, people still do that. The point is, i think the relying on group morality idea is not very good. cause 200 years ago american group morality was pro slavery. or the lawmakers, and the law is what we are supposed to look to you are suggesting, was serfdom in Russia. That's definitively not ok. Say what you will but group morality might usually be right, but i'm not throwing my bet on the herd. Reasoned argument, that's where i'm at.

[xsecx]

yea i just completely disagree, sure it might be harder to come to a consensus on what is right or wrong, hell we haven't really got their on things that nearly all of us agree on like rape, people still do that. The point is, i think the relying on group morality idea is not very good. cause 200 years ago american group morality was pro slavery. or the lawmakers, and the law is what we are supposed to look to you are suggesting, was serfdom in Russia. That's definitively not ok. Say what you will but group morality might usually be right, but i'm not throwing my bet on the herd. Reasoned argument, that's where i'm at.

you completely ignored the main part of my post.

If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what?

so what exactly do you completely disagree with? In your world, there's no point in coming to a consensus because you think you're right and therefore have the right to act as you see fit.

Again, you're back to focusing on extreme examples, if you want to have a reasoned argument, try sticking to examples that aren't extreme like rape, slavery, etc.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

you completely ignored the main part of my post.

If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what?

so what exactly do you completely disagree with? In your world, there's no point in coming to a consensus because you think you're right and therefore have the right to act as you see fit.

Again, you're back to focusing on extreme examples, if you want to have a reasoned argument, try sticking to examples that aren't extreme like rape, slavery, etc.

one of us is wrong. thats the whole points. Both property rights and no property rights can be right. So we have to figure out who is right and who is wrong

you are confusing consensus with compromise. If i am right, and i come to consensus, i am still right, i just changed my opinion. In compromise, which i think is what you meant their, we still disagree but disagree on something else.

cause its easy to say morality is relative if we talk about stuff that we don't agree on. But the point is to say morality either is or isn't and i want you to agree it is before we really talk about moral issues.

[xsecx]

one of us is wrong. thats the whole points. Both property rights and no property rights can be right. So we have to figure out who is right and who is wrong

you are confusing consensus with compromise. If i am right, and i come to consensus, i am still right, i just changed my opinion. In compromise, which i think is what you meant their, we still disagree but disagree on something else.

cause its easy to say morality is relative if we talk about stuff that we don't agree on. But the point is to say morality either is or isn't and i want you to agree it is before we really talk about moral issues.

Why would we need to? You think you're right and have moral superiority to act, and so do I. What's the point of talking? Minds are already made up at that point, and the individual gets to decide whatever they want.

No, I'm not. If you're right, then there's no reason to come to a consensus or even really discuss morality. You're right. In your world where there's a universal right answer, then why would a consensus be necessary? Why would you change your opinion if you're right?

It's easy to say it's relative because it is. Talking morality like there's universal right and wrong, even though it's not possible to know what the universal right and wrong is, then what's the point of discussing it.

Assume that there is a right answer. That one of is right, and one of us is wrong. The fact that we both think we're right and therefore each feel like we can do what we need to do because of that entitlement. Given that there's no way to know which one of us is right, what's the point of seeing morality as universal?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Why would we need to? You think you're right and have moral superiority to act, and so do I. What's the point of talking? Minds are already made up at that point, and the individual gets to decide whatever they want.

No, I'm not. If you're right, then there's no reason to come to a consensus or even really discuss morality. You're right. In your world where there's a universal right answer, then why would a consensus be necessary? Why would you change your opinion if you're right?

It's easy to say it's relative because it is. Talking morality like there's universal right and wrong, even though it's not possible to know what the universal right and wrong is, then what's the point of discussing it.

Assume that there is a right answer. That one of is right, and one of us is wrong. The fact that we both think we're right and therefore each feel like we can do what we need to do because of that entitlement. Given that there's no way to know which one of us is right, what's the point of seeing morality as universal?

I think we already went over this but maybe that was with straightedged x or whatever his tag is. Anyway humans are fallible and can have wrong ideas. So we should be able to defend our positions or change them. Thats the whole sifting and winnowing to find the truth. I would change my opinion because i find something else, a more convincing argument to be right. same way you convince anyone of any other objective truth.

The point of discussing morality as right and wrong and the like to to give us the rational we need to do harm to others in order to stop them from doing something we find is wrong. We would seem to be being unjust if we imprisoned rapists if we did not think rape was morally wrong. Now i'm not saying we should imprison non vegans, or even vegans who fuck up alot or something, at least not now, because we really haven't had the sifting and winnowing that has brought us to that point for alot of moral issues, animal rights for example. Maybe in like a thousand years or so, after we have started to tailor society to discourage rather than encourage animal misuse.

Another reason to talk about objective morality is because that is what their is. We shouldn't lie cause it makes things easier. At least thats my feeling

[xsecx]

I think we already went over this but maybe that was with straightedged x or whatever his tag is. Anyway humans are fallible and can have wrong ideas. So we should be able to defend our positions or change them. Thats the whole sifting and winnowing to find the truth. I would change my opinion because i find something else, a more convincing argument to be right. same way you convince anyone of any other objective truth.


So the truth you had yesterday isn't necessarily the truth of tomorrow. That opinions and morality change through time and circumstance.



The point of discussing morality as right and wrong and the like to to give us the rational we need to do harm to others in order to stop them from doing something we find is wrong. We would seem to be being unjust if we imprisoned rapists if we did not think rape was morally wrong. Now i'm not saying we should imprison non vegans, or even vegans who fuck up alot or something, at least not now, because we really haven't had the sifting and winnowing that has brought us to that point for alot of moral issues, animal rights for example. Maybe in like a thousand years or so, after we have started to tailor society to discourage rather than encourage animal misuse.

Another reason to talk about objective morality is because that is what their is. We shouldn't lie cause it makes things easier. At least thats my feeling

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without bringing up rape as an example? Who's objective morality should we choose when we talk about things, yours or mine? If we both think we're right, how do we decide which morality we should live under? Who gets to decide as a whole, who is right and who is wrong, since one of us has to be?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

So the truth you had yesterday isn't necessarily the truth of tomorrow. That opinions and morality change through time and circumstance.



Is it possible for you to have a discussion without bringing up rape as an example? Who's objective morality should we choose when we talk about things, yours or mine? If we both think we're right, how do we decide which morality we should live under? Who gets to decide as a whole, who is right and who is wrong, since one of us has to be?

Nope, they are the same, we just might not know 100%. The whole problem of empiricism.

Why shouldn't i bring up rape if its great for suggesting the truth of my point? Can you stop arguing with good points haha? No one decides who is right, we figure it out. Rightness and Wrongness does not come from me or you any more than any other laws of nature. I don;t get to decide about how the earth gravity affects me it just does.

[xsecx]

Nope, they are the same, we just might not know 100%. The whole problem of empiricism.

It's the problem of human existence and morality. Even though you're arguing that it's static, it isn't.



Why shouldn't i bring up rape if its great for suggesting the truth of my point? Can you stop arguing with good points haha? No one decides who is right, we figure it out. Rightness and Wrongness does not come from me or you any more than any other laws of nature. I don;t get to decide about how the earth gravity affects me it just does.

Because for this conversation, it's actually one of the worst examples you can talk about. you're not going to find any large group of people who think that rape is right. Abortion, animal rights, gun rights, gay rights, property rights are all much better examples. They're examples where there is a contention and both side believes they are right.

How do we figure it out if we both think we're right? How is morality a law of nature when it's 100% dependent on human interpretation? Gravity exists without you and me, morality only exists because of you and me.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

It's the problem of human existence and morality. Even though you're arguing that it's static, it isn't.



Because for this conversation, it's actually one of the worst examples you can talk about. you're not going to find any large group of people who think that rape is right. Abortion, animal rights, gun rights, gay rights, property rights are all much better examples. They're examples where there is a contention and both side believes they are right.

How do we figure it out if we both think we're right? How is morality a law of nature when it's 100% dependent on human interpretation? Gravity exists without you and me, morality only exists because of you and me.

I don't see how you can really believe that. If something is not moral for all time, thats cool, and those are things that can be tolerated indefinalty. But i would be hard pressed to say thing like, and i know you hate this, rape or slavery are not immoral in the past or possibly in the future, in my mind, it is never ever moral to forcefully have sex with someone without their consent, thats just not something that is okay, ever. The same goes with enslaving someone against their will for no reason other then to have them do labor for you, not acceptable.

I am trying to argue that morality is not relative, so i should use something most people agree is not something that is relative, I don't say morality is objective, look at abortion. People will say they have objective opinions but will disagree. Rape or slavery or something else like that is exactly what i would want to use. I don't get why you wouldn't i guess. Maybe we are arguing over each others heads?

I would think that morality would condemn certain things even if they were never carried it, it would not be important to talk about them, in fact it would be kinda crazy but it wouldn't change the general fact. We could talk about, and probably if we took it seriously, come to agreement about how we should treat self aware moderately intelligent beings, we could see that using them as a means to an end is wrong.
I think morality doesn't matter without you and me, but it is the same whether we know it or not. If someone murders someone else just to steal something from them and has no idea its wrong, they themselves are not immoral or bad, but the action would still be. I hope you get what i'm saying their cause i could be being a littler unclear.

[xsecx]

I don't see how you can really believe that. If something is not moral for all time, thats cool, and those are things that can be tolerated indefinalty. But i would be hard pressed to say thing like, and i know you hate this, rape or slavery are not immoral in the past or possibly in the future, in my mind, it is never ever moral to forcefully have sex with someone without their consent, thats just not something that is okay, ever. The same goes with enslaving someone against their will for no reason other then to have them do labor for you, not acceptable.


If something is immoral in your world, why would it be tolerated indefinitely? What would be an example of this?

Humans have used religion since the beginning of time to justify morality. They honestly believed at the point in time they were doing x or y that they were moral and justified in their actions. Modern viewpoints look at these actions differently because our moral context is different. These actions are immoral to us now, but were not immoral to them then. I don't really understand why you think this is so impossible to grasp. Let's take something like killing animals for food and clothing. I'm going to assume that because you're vegan you believe that this is an immoral act. I'm also going to assume that based on this conversation that you believe that this has also always been an immoral act. In cultures and societies that have had limited access to fruits and vegetables such as the Inuit, in their situation are you going to say that the killing of animals was and is immoral? In modern existence it's relatively easily to be vegan or even vegetarian but that hasn't always been the case. Can you legitimately argue that being vegan has always been the moral choice?




I am trying to argue that morality is not relative, so i should use something most people agree is not something that is relative, I don't say morality is objective, look at abortion. People will say they have objective opinions but will disagree. Rape or slavery or something else like that is exactly what i would want to use. I don't get why you wouldn't i guess. Maybe we are arguing over each others heads?

If it's not relative, then taking something that is agreed upon doesn't prove anything. Talking about something like abortion and demonstrating to me why the morality around it, who is right, then you may convince that it's objective. Only bringing up things people universally agree are immoral doesn't really make a convincing argument, since there are far more things that people disagree on. This tends to suggest that morality is in fact subjective. If you're going to make the statement that all morality is objective, then you need to be able to give multiple examples and those examples can't simply be murder, rape and slavery. What's the objective morality of abortions? Gun rights? Drug and alcohol use? Which is the right answer?



I would think that morality would condemn certain things even if they were never carried it, it would not be important to talk about them, in fact it would be kinda crazy but it wouldn't change the general fact. We could talk about, and probably if we took it seriously, come to agreement about how we should treat self aware moderately intelligent beings, we could see that using them as a means to an end is wrong.
I think morality doesn't matter without you and me, but it is the same whether we know it or not. If someone murders someone else just to steal something from them and has no idea its wrong, they themselves are not immoral or bad, but the action would still be. I hope you get what i'm saying their cause i could be being a littler unclear.

Morality isn't a thing that exists outside of humanity. Humans look at acts and judge them to be moral or immoral. You and I could look at the same act, be presented with the same evidence and come to a completely different viewpoint as to whether or not something was moral or immoral. We could also look at it later in life and reverse positions. It's because our morality is dictated by our experience and our world view, not some overarching "natural law".

[xVeganAnarchistx]

If something is immoral in your world, why would it be tolerated indefinitely? What would be an example of this?

well i think now in a world of abundance its wrong to not feed hungry children or elderly. But 3 thousand years ago in a much scarcer society that might be perfectly okay and thus be tolerated. Further, we should tolerate societies doing that if they live in scarce environments now. But then, i think we should be giving aid to scarce societies now too. So eventually we would deal with it. But assuming their is a society filled with scarcity, that we cannot somehow help. We should not condemn their actions.
This is not as good of an example as i had in mind, but i'm having trouble actually pinning one down, so perhaps you are right in suggesting that i don't really believe that. I guess i probably think that if its not objective its not really a moral issue. The fact that some morality changes over time, like how we ought distribute goods explains relative morality, but it doesn't really make a difference for the here and now which is what you are probably more worried about.


Humans have used religion since the beginning of time to justify morality. They honestly believed at the point in time they were doing x or y that they were moral and justified in their actions. Modern viewpoints look at these actions differently because our moral context is different. These actions are immoral to us now, but were not immoral to them then. I don't really understand why you think this is so impossible to grasp. Let's take something like killing animals for food and clothing. I'm going to assume that because you're vegan you believe that this is an immoral act. I'm also going to assume that based on this conversation that you believe that this has also always been an immoral act. In cultures and societies that have had limited access to fruits and vegetables such as the Inuit, in their situation are you going to say that the killing of animals was and is immoral? In modern existence it's relatively easily to be vegan or even vegetarian but that hasn't always been the case. Can you legitimately argue that being vegan has always been the moral choice?

I don't argue that. And i don't condemn older societies for doing those things, like i don't condemn them for letting people starve, they had no choice. The fact that we have a choice makes it immoral now. Any society with roughly like ours is a society where it is immoral to use animal products. It's objective giving our development level, but its likely much closer to a historical relativism like that of the feeding the starving children or whatever. Now its immoral though and thats what matters.


If it's not relative, then taking something that is agreed upon doesn't prove anything. Talking about something like abortion and demonstrating to me why the morality around it, who is right, then you may convince that it's objective. Only bringing up things people universally agree are immoral doesn't really make a convincing argument, since there are far more things that people disagree on. This tends to suggest that morality is in fact subjective. If you're going to make the statement that all morality is objective, then you need to be able to give multiple examples and those examples can't simply be murder, rape and slavery. What's the objective morality of abortions? Gun rights? Drug and alcohol use? Which is the right answer?

I think you are wrong. If one piece of morality is objective then there is objective morality. It just depends on how broad it is, maybe their are only three objectively wrong things, maybe 3 hundred, point is their is some and that's all i'm arguing, im not saying i know everything that is objectively moral just that some things are. Pointing out a few things that you would likely agree are proves my point. I mean of course you can do as you did, and deny that rape is always wrong, but that's a popularly held position, and most philosophers would disagree, of course majority rules does not make it true it's just a rough estimation, like the law is of morality.


Morality isn't a thing that exists outside of humanity. Humans look at acts and judge them to be moral or immoral. You and I could look at the same act, be presented with the same evidence and come to a completely different viewpoint as to whether or not something was moral or immoral. We could also look at it later in life and reverse positions. It's because our morality is dictated by our experience and our world view, not some overarching "natural law".

I disagree i think if we came to a disagreement one of us would be wrong. And assuming their was a being with the capacity to understand the situation they would eventually find the right answer. I think that if you imagine a being with roughly the same attributes as humans, self awareness, ability to suffer, etc, they would find rape to be wrong too. It's objective for those you can recognize it. Of course i'm not like that damn mouse is raping that other mouse, though that is exactly what it looks like, because they (likely and we could be wrong, though i think we'll agree that unlikely) have the capacity to know its wrong, or to suffer from it in a way that is a moral issue.

[xsecx]

well i think now in a world of abundance its wrong to not feed hungry children or elderly. But 3 thousand years ago in a much scarcer society that might be perfectly okay and thus be tolerated. Further, we should tolerate societies doing that if they live in scarce environments now. But then, i think we should be giving aid to scarce societies now too. So eventually we would deal with it. But assuming their is a society filled with scarcity, that we cannot somehow help. We should not condemn their actions.
This is not as good of an example as i had in mind, but i'm having trouble actually pinning one down, so perhaps you are right in suggesting that i don't really believe that. I guess i probably think that if its not objective its not really a moral issue. The fact that some morality changes over time, like how we ought distribute goods explains relative morality, but it doesn't really make a difference for the here and now which is what you are probably more worried about.


If things are static, and what is moral is written in stone, situations and time doesn't matter. This is the problem with your mindset and it's clearly demonstrated by this example.



I don't argue that. And i don't condemn older societies for doing those things, like i don't condemn them for letting people starve, they had no choice. The fact that we have a choice makes it immoral now. Any society with roughly like ours is a society where it is immoral to use animal products. It's objective giving our development level, but its likely much closer to a historical relativism like that of the feeding the starving children or whatever. Now its immoral though and thats what matters.

Why don't you? They're acting immorally, if moral are not subjective and exist without context. If people don't have choice, then how does the morality of the act change? Also, just because you view something as immoral, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. That doesn't make it immoral it just means you think it is.




I think you are wrong. If one piece of morality is objective then there is objective morality. It just depends on how broad it is, maybe their are only three objectively wrong things, maybe 3 hundred, point is their is some and that's all i'm arguing, im not saying i know everything that is objectively moral just that some things are. Pointing out a few things that you would likely agree are proves my point. I mean of course you can do as you did, and deny that rape is always wrong, but that's a popularly held position, and most philosophers would disagree, of course majority rules does not make it true it's just a rough estimation, like the law is of morality.


Morality doesn't exist in a bubble. Because there are 3 things that people for the most part universally agree one, that doesn't mean that there is objective morality, or that morality is universal. Your original point was that morality was objective and that you saw no point in talking to people who are relativists. Are you now saying that not all morality is objective and some is objective? If so, then who/how decides what is one, and what is the other? If not, then explain to me the morality of the issues I previously listed?




I disagree i think if we came to a disagreement one of us would be wrong. And assuming their was a being with the capacity to understand the situation they would eventually find the right answer. I think that if you imagine a being with roughly the same attributes as humans, self awareness, ability to suffer, etc, they would find rape to be wrong too. It's objective for those you can recognize it. Of course i'm not like that damn mouse is raping that other mouse, though that is exactly what it looks like, because they (likely and we could be wrong, though i think we'll agree that unlikely) have the capacity to know its wrong, or to suffer from it in a way that is a moral issue.

But there isn't a being. All there is, is human consciousness. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? That morality isn't a human construct?

[xVeganAnarchistx]

If things are static, and what is moral is written in stone, situations and time doesn't matter. This is the problem with your mindset and it's clearly demonstrated by this example.

Your either being dishonest or misunderstanding me. I didn't deny some things are historically relative, i just stated, like ten times, that some things at least are certainly not. Things like Rape, Slavery, etc, and that is why i bring those things up.


Why don't you? They're acting immorally, if moral are not subjective and exist without context. If people don't have choice, then how does the morality of the act change? Also, just because you view something as immoral, that doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. That doesn't make it immoral it just means you think it is.

I just said that veganism, is likely more similar to the feeding starving children or the elderly then it is like rape. Historical circumstances do matter. The fact is however that now their is no good reason, as far as i can tell, to cause sentient life to suffer in most of the ways we do it. Of course we can imagine some life boat scenario but short of that their is no reason to sacrifice sentient life. your hamburger has nothing to do with 3000 years ago. So your act of consuming animals is a moral wrong, you are not immoral assuming you disagree though (cause i think you need to understand something as immoral and still do it to be immoral, that's a little bit of Kant that i really value)



Morality doesn't exist in a bubble. Because there are 3 things that people for the most part universally agree one, that doesn't mean that there is objective morality, or that morality is universal. Your original point was that morality was objective and that you saw no point in talking to people who are relativists. Are you now saying that not all morality is objective and some is objective? If so, then who/how decides what is one, and what is the other? If not, then explain to me the morality of the issues I previously listed?

1)Some things are objectively moral, which by definition means their is an objective morality. 2)Some things are historically relative, which coupled with the first statement means their is an 3) objective morality alongside a historically relative morality. Morality is still objective even if their isn't a moral answer to every situation. We could deal with historical relativity by creating some statement so broad as to be useless such as "Act in a way so as to cause the least harm to the most people while not using others as a means to an end, except where that is impossible (like the starving tribe or the lifeboat)" i Suppose we could figure out something like that to explain changing morality, cause it doesn't really change then, but i think its just as easy to say that something is historically relative.



But there isn't a being. All there is, is human consciousness. So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? That morality isn't a human construct?

There certainly could be. Intelligent life, likely will, or did evolve in other places in the universe. Its wrong to rape their as well. Assume something like rape is possible in that context. We did not make up morality as humans. What is immoral objectively depends not on us but on the conditions and the subjects. If by human construct you mean that
talking about what is right or wrong where their is no beings to be affected by (victim of the immorality, or constrained by the morality) said act is a waste of time. I agree. But if you mean, humans just got together and "made up" morality because it made us feel good, (or made us feel less bad) i disagree.

[xsecx]

Your either being dishonest or misunderstanding me. I didn't deny some things are historically relative, i just stated, like ten times, that some things at least are certainly not. Things like Rape, Slavery, etc, and that is why i bring those things up.

Historically relative or morally relative?



I just said that veganism, is likely more similar to the feeding starving children or the elderly then it is like rape. Historical circumstances do matter. The fact is however that now their is no good reason, as far as i can tell, to cause sentient life to suffer in most of the ways we do it. Of course we can imagine some life boat scenario but short of that their is no reason to sacrifice sentient life. your hamburger has nothing to do with 3000 years ago. So your act of consuming animals is a moral wrong, you are not immoral assuming you disagree though (cause i think you need to understand something as immoral and still do it to be immoral, that's a little bit of Kant that i really value)

If morality is objective, why do historical circumstances matter? If that society does not view it as immoral, then how is it immoral? If the majority of people in this country do not believe that eating animals is immoral, how is it immoral? You believing that it's immoral doesn't have any bearing on me.




1)Some things are objectively moral, which by definition means their is an objective morality. 2)Some things are historically relative, which coupled with the first statement means their is an 3) objective morality alongside a historically relative morality. Morality is still objective even if their isn't a moral answer to every situation. We could deal with historical relativity by creating some statement so broad as to be useless such as "Act in a way so as to cause the least harm to the most people while not using others as a means to an end, except where that is impossible (like the starving tribe or the lifeboat)" i Suppose we could figure out something like that to explain changing morality, cause it doesn't really change then, but i think its just as easy to say that something is historically relative.


How can some things be objectively moral? You got painted into a corner and are trying to create some kind of wacky logic to try and reconcile it. This is a black and white conversation. Either morality is objective and there is an objective right and wrong, or morality is subjective and can and does change through time and circumstance. There isn't an option for both.




There certainly could be. Intelligent life, likely will, or did evolve in other places in the universe. Its wrong to rape their as well. Assume something like rape is possible in that context. We did not make up morality as humans. What is immoral objectively depends not on us but on the conditions and the subjects. If by human construct you mean that
talking about what is right or wrong where their is no beings to be affected by (victim of the immorality, or constrained by the morality) said act is a waste of time. I agree. But if you mean, humans just got together and "made up" morality because it made us feel good, (or made us feel less bad) i disagree.

Morality is a human construct just like religion is a human construct. We get together and decide what is right and what is wrong. That gets put into the society by the creation of laws. You kill all of humanity and morality goes away with it.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

Historically relative or morally relative?
If its historically relative that means it is not morally objective so it must be morally relative. But i don't think its really morally relative in the sense that "I think X is Wrong" and "You think X is Right" and we are both correct. Because we are in same place so one of us is right for where we are, just a small t truth instead of Truth i suppose.



If morality is objective, why do historical circumstances matter? If that society does not view it as immoral, then how is it immoral? If the majority of people in this country do not believe that eating animals is immoral, how is it immoral? You believing that it's immoral doesn't have any bearing on me.


Because morality being objective does not mean that every possible action has a moral component, or that every possible action is morally objective. The statement "Morality is Objective" only demands one or more things to be objective to be true.



How can some things be objectively moral? You got painted into a corner and are trying to create some kind of wacky logic to try and reconcile it. This is a black and white conversation. Either morality is objective and there is an objective right and wrong, or morality is subjective and can and does change through time and circumstance. There isn't an option for both.


Morality is Objecitve. I just didn't explain what that means too you. Morally being objective does not mean that morality is objective for every single action, as i said above, some things have no moral component (my favorite music or color) and some things are historically relative (letting the young, the old and the weak die) and Some thing are morally objective (rape, Slavery). You have to deny that something like rape or slavery is always wrong to deny objective morality.


Morality is a human construct just like religion is a human construct. We get together and decide what is right and what is wrong. That gets put into the society by the creation of laws. You kill all of humanity and morality goes away with it.

thats an opinion (and it may be Right) Is that your position? cause then we are at a disagreement and to be honest, i don't know (yet) how to argue with someone against that position. I obviously disagree but i don't really have all that good of reasons beyond that fact that intuitively find it unlikely, and that the idea of rape being unacceptable only because we happened to decide we didn't like it is all their is too it.

[xsecx]

If its historically relative that means it is not morally objective so it must be morally relative. But i don't think its really morally relative in the sense that "I think X is Wrong" and "You think X is Right" and we are both correct. Because we are in same place so one of us is right for where we are, just a small t truth instead of Truth i suppose.

If there is an objective morality, then how can we both be right? If there is an objective morality, then why would historical time matter?





Because morality being objective does not mean that every possible action has a moral component, or that every possible action is morally objective. The statement "Morality is Objective" only demands one or more things to be objective to be true.

how doesn't it? How are some morals objective and some are subjective?





Morality is Objecitve. I just didn't explain what that means too you. Morally being objective does not mean that morality is objective for every single action, as i said above, some things have no moral component (my favorite music or color) and some things are historically relative (letting the young, the old and the weak die) and Some thing are morally objective (rape, Slavery). You have to deny that something like rape or slavery is always wrong to deny objective morality.

not really, since your opinion of color isn't morality. for there to be objective morality, it'd need to apply across the board on all things, but now you're trying to argue that because there are somethings that we agree on, then there must be objective morality, which simply doesn't make sense.



thats an opinion (and it may be Right) Is that your position? cause then we are at a disagreement and to be honest, i don't know (yet) how to argue with someone against that position. I obviously disagree but i don't really have all that good of reasons beyond that fact that intuitively find it unlikely, and that the idea of rape being unacceptable only because we happened to decide we didn't like it is all their is too it.

yes it is. Morality and religion are human constructs. We develop morality as a direct result of our environment, peers and experience. It's shaped throughout our lifes and changes through time. For someone who is raised catholic they will initially believe that homosexuality is wrong. Through interaction with homosexuals they come to realize that a lot of the imposed morality of the church doesn't really apply and doesn't reflect how they feel. Now, the church will tell you that their morals are divine and correct. I believe neither of those are correct.


I seriously have to ask though, what is it with you and rape?