4 ms·

That is the failing of any devout believers who walk the line between delusion and reality so much, that they become unable to see their own actions from a crit

by tekkk 6y ago

That is the failing of any devout believers who walk the line between delusion and reality so much, that they become unable to see their own actions from a critical point of view. Those with more grounded views I'd say tend to drift off from the extremity and channel their energy into something else. It's sometimes a shame when the idea these believers, not just anarchists, present might be plausible yet they can't argument it in such way that would make sense to ordinary people. Often of course it springs from some emotional experience that keeps the whole fervor running. I guess once it has become such a big part of their identity to admit that they are wrong, is an earth-shaking blow to their ego which makes its critical examination especially painful.

bbarnett 6y ago
Yes, like decades ago, when the Senior VP of PETA thought all animal testing was wrong, unless of course it was to help her, because who else would fight to stop animal testing? -- https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypocrisy/ https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypo... PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals: “I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” —Glamour, January 1990 -- Such people, generally people on the extreme side of any debate, are often not rational. Not always of course, but.. often.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I mean I am vegan but I wear leather boots. I absolutely do not want leather boots but I work at a farm and do need boots. I found its very hard to find vegan boots and when you search for them you find boutique high fashion not work boots. I also drive an automobile which releases CO2 that is killing animals all over the planet through climate change. I still think mass animal farming is grotesque and that we should end all factory farming immediately and seriously question our assumptions about animals as legal property. Are you saying that in a world where life saving medicine requires animal products that those who use such a medicine cannot legitimately criticize the use of animals in science? It seems to me actually those with little choice in the matter have the most to make noise about. They need help from the rest of society to change the way the medicine is produced. They cannot do that themselves. As a vegan I can completely understand why someone who believes in animal rights would compromise for life saving medicine. I also do not think you or anyone else has to be vegan, but I do think it’s important to talk about. Honestly your comment reminds me of Mr Gotcha: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Animal_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme... You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK. PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life. Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them? Special little them? It's OK.
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re purposefully redirecting the conversation away from yourself because you do not want to discuss animal abuse.
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        That's not what PETA says, though. They say, animal testing is NEVER EVER EVER OK. Ever. They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'. This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".
      - gwerbret 6y ago
        > It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?
- pera 6y ago
  I am not sure that I understand your argument here: are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? If that's the case I think that would be an unattainable standard of morality. Everything we are as a society and as individuals are in part thanks to our use of animals, and I don't think any PETA member denies this fact. Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? In 1990 insulin production was derived from animals.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I've never been a member or otherwise supported PETA, and I don't know how much good they accomplish, but I don't think this is a valid criticism. Similarly, I'm not all that obsessed with stopping climate change, but I don't think there is a substantive criticism when people talk about Al Gore or whoever flying to climate conferences. The fundamental reason I think purported hypocrisy is irrelevant, is that generally organizations and people who are trying to change the world are not part of a religion that is imposing a standard of personal morality. There is always going to be human and animal suffering, and there's always going to be something made of hydrocarbons burning somewhere. The goals people have involve reducing the amount.
- m0zg 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure there wasn't any "synthetically manufactured" insulin in 1990.

by tekkk 6y ago

bbarnett 6y ago

Yes, like decades ago, when the Senior VP of PETA thought all animal testing was wrong, unless of course it was to help her, because who else would fight to stop animal testing? -- https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypocrisy/ https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypo... PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals: “I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” —Glamour, January 1990 -- Such people, generally people on the extreme side of any debate, are often not rational. Not always of course, but.. often.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I mean I am vegan but I wear leather boots. I absolutely do not want leather boots but I work at a farm and do need boots. I found its very hard to find vegan boots and when you search for them you find boutique high fashion not work boots. I also drive an automobile which releases CO2 that is killing animals all over the planet through climate change. I still think mass animal farming is grotesque and that we should end all factory farming immediately and seriously question our assumptions about animals as legal property. Are you saying that in a world where life saving medicine requires animal products that those who use such a medicine cannot legitimately criticize the use of animals in science? It seems to me actually those with little choice in the matter have the most to make noise about. They need help from the rest of society to change the way the medicine is produced. They cannot do that themselves. As a vegan I can completely understand why someone who believes in animal rights would compromise for life saving medicine. I also do not think you or anyone else has to be vegan, but I do think it’s important to talk about. Honestly your comment reminds me of Mr Gotcha: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
- bbarnett 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Animal_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme... You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK. PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life. Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them? Special little them? It's OK.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re purposefully redirecting the conversation away from yourself because you do not want to discuss animal abuse.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      That's not what PETA says, though. They say, animal testing is NEVER EVER EVER OK. Ever. They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'. This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".
    - gwerbret 6y ago
      > It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?
pera 6y ago
I am not sure that I understand your argument here: are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? If that's the case I think that would be an unattainable standard of morality. Everything we are as a society and as individuals are in part thanks to our use of animals, and I don't think any PETA member denies this fact. Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? In 1990 insulin production was derived from animals.
perl4ever 6y ago
I've never been a member or otherwise supported PETA, and I don't know how much good they accomplish, but I don't think this is a valid criticism. Similarly, I'm not all that obsessed with stopping climate change, but I don't think there is a substantive criticism when people talk about Al Gore or whoever flying to climate conferences. The fundamental reason I think purported hypocrisy is irrelevant, is that generally organizations and people who are trying to change the world are not part of a religion that is imposing a standard of personal morality. There is always going to be human and animal suffering, and there's always going to be something made of hydrocarbons burning somewhere. The goals people have involve reducing the amount.
m0zg 6y ago
I'm pretty sure there wasn't any "synthetically manufactured" insulin in 1990.