5 ms·

Weird that these statements are made (and I don't mean by you, it's a trope to make them by people in general in discussions like this, I'm not picking you out)

Weird that these statements are made (and I don't mean by you, it's a trope to make them by people in general in discussions like this, I'm not picking you out) that it somehow justifies, or ameliorates, the awfulness of experimenting then dissecting (as someone said) a helpless intelligent creature. I think these statements justify animal trials and using it to benefit humans definitely. But it doesn't justify or make better that it's still an awful thing to do to an animal and for the animal I think. It's weird right like where they get the blood of some sort of poor little sea creature that's got a blue copper containing blood it's just awful. I really think we need to revise and reform a lot of how industry interacts with and especially commoditizes animals. I'm not saying we need to be vegans at all but I think there's so much room for improving how we talk think and act about this stuff. To make I guess what is probably an obvious point but I think the reasonableness of that point is not obvious but I think it can be a reasonable and obvious point without really attacking anybody and that non-threatening nature of that reasonable and obvious point I think is what is important about what I'm saying. It's possible. Less this comment be dismissed as some sort of low effort outrage--my heart's beating 50 beats a minute right now I'm not upset. I just think we can improve things there massively but that doesn't make anybody a monster.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures, then the fact we perform ethics-reviewed anesthetised procedures and later dissect the same animals really shouldn't keep you up at night.
- graderjs 5y ago
  - bendbro 5y ago
    You suggest someone can't "understand", "reduce", or "invalidate" another's morals, but these quotes below from you contradict that. > ... I really think we need to revise ... > ... I'm not saying we need to be vegans ... > ... improving how we talk think and act about ...
    - graderjs 5y ago
      > You suggest someone can't "understand" Not that someone (as in anyone, as in "no one can understand"), just that particular someone, owing to their criticism saying, "Given you think X, you should also think Y" indicates they don't understand what I think. > "reduce", As in take what I say or think, and misinterpret it, reduce it down to something that seems to not make sense. > or "invalidate" another's morals Yeah, because someone else's misunderstanding and misinterpretation doesn't touch and certainly doesn't invalidate my actual moral sensitivity. So whatever that is, this person's criticism did not affect that and is not about that. Even tho it presents itself as being so...which is deceptive... So much on the internet is making a point out of a misinterpretation of what other's are saying. So it's vital to reframe and point that out...otherwise you end up arguing on terms which you didn't set, which are self-serving to the (accidental? sometimes) provocateur/trix and which aren't anything to do with what you're saying. It's easy to get dragged off your point into a logically coherent cul-de-sac which has nothing to do with your stance but somehow, because you didn't point out the deceptive reframing, you are arguing it as if it does have to do with your stance. I think a lot of damage gets done that way. It's important to avoid it. So..in that spirit...what was your misinterpreted reframing (whether deliberate or accidental)....? Basically this: You are saying that I am suggesting that we cannot invalidate another's morals, while saying you think that's exactly what I'm doing. Actually I'm not saying we cannot invalidate/understand other's morals--I'm saying if you don't understand (or if you do misinterpret <=> "reduce") my point of view, whatever you say about it doesn't, and can't, invalidate it. I doubt you'd disagree with that: e.g. An argument that claims to square the circle without grasping the problem, does not succeed, despite the true believer's fervent insistence. But I'm also not making some general point in that response about "No One Can Invalidate Any One's Morals". That's a reductive/misinterpretation an (evil / deliberate / accidental) reframing. I'm talking about me, specifically. Me personally. So all I'm is protecting my moral sensitivity, which I like very much, thank you, from random invalid criticism--which if I was to let them get to me, would really hurt. Why would you want to get in the way of that, or try to contradict me? Like...you'd like to see me hurt? That's not very good. Think about it: So, I'm just supposed to think--oh, I spent my life developing my moral sensitivity, through all my experiences, and reflections upon those, and some random comes along on the internet--and proved that I'm wrong: so I was wrong about everything that happened in my life, I failed to properly grasp my experiences, I came to the wrong conclusions. I've been wrong about everything. Man that would be painful! And really upsetting, and imbalancing. Why would you want someone to go through that? You really think, that's what I deserve? Just imagine everything you thought you understood, was founded on a lie--a lie ensured, basically by your own self-deceptive, self-serving stupidity. And some random on the internet made you realize that! Well, I would think that way--if I thought they actually clearly saw what I think, and understood it, and presented it faithfully. But they didn't. Can you grasp how incredibly painful it would be to go through that? So all I'm doing is not making that much of what people say on the internet. But being clear about how I'm doing it, and why. Does that make sense? I mean someone could hit on exactly the thread that unravels my fragile sense of self...if that's what I had. But I think my sense of self is more robust than that, forged by fires of many different difficult and joyous experiences. But it's still possible for me to be deceiving myself, and I'm still open to hearing that and having my mind and heart opened by some random, and seeing their point of view. That empathy is exactly why I need a strong defense as well--if I was to take on everything that people said about what I said, as if they were right...just because I could see and feel how they thought that way...it would be too much. Just because they have a view, doesn't mean it's right...and actually it would be stupid of me to act like other people were always right. And this time, this guy wasn't. Sometimes people are tho...But normally people who are so insightful as to be able to pull on the thread that unravels you...know what they are doing (because it's no mean skill) and they deliver it with compassion. So a good first level filter (which isn't always accurate), is: does this person show any real understanding of me, or compassion? If the answer is no--odds are they have no idea what they are talking about about you. But sometimes, people do get it right. And show me something I would rather not face about myself. And when that happens I just go to pieces and then try to pick up the pieces...To incorporate that new truth into my being. I rework everything to better face the world and reality the way it is. Luckily, it doesn't happen all that often. Which makes sense because I've always been like this: I spent the time, doing me, and reflecting on many things, and someone else is not just going to come along and see all that and get it, and say, "Oh, you know in this life long personal project of yourself being you, I saw a spot you missed. Here" But sometimes they do. But mostly...they are people who know you very well, and who deliver it with compassion. But most of those evolutions just come from myself, looking at the world and evolving in line with it. Because I know me best, and can take care of me best. As is the case for basically everyone. But we also all have blindspots and so being open to learn from others, to empathize with their view, being able to be wrong...is a requirement for ending up being right. I'm sure you'd agree. It's like the true spirit of the scientific method applied to personal development... But being right about me, doesn't make me right about others...But being perceptive and insightful makes me more likely to be right...But even so, none of that really matters here, because I'm not trying to tug on a thread that unravels someone...I'm not speaking about anyone in particular in the quotes you give, just about the trope talking points, and zeitgeist discourse "current thinking" about this topic. So when I am talking like I understand it, I'm not contradicting myself because I wasn't saying, "no one can understand anyone else". And I think I'm leaving the barn doors wide open, I don't think I'm reducing or misinterpreting anything there, mainly because I'm being so general. Am I invalidating the moral sensitivity, of hypothetical people who I don't mention as individuals (but rather address as the collective 'we', of which I am a part) by saying 'improving how we talk think and act about'...Invalidating? I'd say more encouraging a correction. Does that mean I'm saying it's wrong? Well, it's not as right as a way we can do it better. But I'm specifically saying, that point can be made, without turning anyone into a monster. And it's important to do that...So my point is very much not about "making wrong" or "invalidating". What's important is we can make it better. Like, that's a real nuance, a real distinction that's valid. Think about it: If I say you make your relationship with your wife-to-be, better, if I acknowledge how I've seen you do that over the last 6 months to 1 year, and you also agreed that you had made it better, am I saying what you did before was "wrong"? I mean, it might have been, but I'm not saying that...I'm just saying we can make it better. That's really important--to be open to getting better. Because if you're not open to that, and if you're sure you're already "as good as can be", or already "learned everything there is to learn", then that puts you at risk of being a real arrogant, self-righteous person who's convinced they're always right, and then does all sorts of harm to others, because they can always fake justify it as "well I know everything, I'm right". But really maybe they're just afraid to be wrong...which makes sense...because being wrong is hard. But you got to do it sometimes otherwise you won't end up being right.
  - fastball 5y ago
- libertine 5y ago
  >If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures Not only we can heat... we stuff our faces into it several times a day and we keep rearranging the forms we eat it. We even make an effort to make it more enticing to children in the form of small golden nuggets like it's some sort of a treasure of flavor.
  - Simon_says 5y ago
    > treasure of flavor. Heck yea, it is!
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Why are you so focused on the western context for animal experiments? I'm sure it's more comforting to think about ethics boards and well run universities. But there are exemptions for militaries and other loopholes for smaller creatures, regular stories of abuse in labs, to say nothing of ghastly experiments done in China, which doesn't have ANY national or regional protection laws, among other countries. The post was about human consideration of animals as a resource generally. It's not much of an argument saying that since eating animals is a thing, (the comfortably narrowly selected example of) other things we do with them is no cause for questions.
hulitu 5y ago
If you think that humans make terrible things to animals, you should check what they do to other humans. There are "beautiful, human" stories about a certain Dr. Mengele, or Unit 731 or Guantanamo...
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  The weird thing was, the parties from the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army, responsible for atrocious experiments on humans, were pardoned by the allies in exchange for their findings and research results.
  - skissane 5y ago
    The Allies never pardoned Mengele. He escaped capture and execution due to a combination of bureaucratic bungling (he was captured by the US in 1945, and while in custody his name was added to a list of wanted major war criminals, but somehow the list never made it to the POW camp authorities until after they'd already released him), then the US government somehow forming the false belief that he had already died, then the obstacles Mossad encountered trying to track him down in early 1960s Argentina, then Mossad deciding that the security threat posed by the Arab states (in the years leading up to the Six Day War) was a higher priority, and that by the time (1985) that public pressure had built to the point that the Israeli, West German and US governments were motivated to make a serious effort to find him, he had already died (while vacationing under a false name in Brazil in 1979). He escaped justice through ineptitude, lack of political will and competing priorities, luck, and the assistance of the Nazi underground, not due to any active decision to forgive his monstrous deeds.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Unlike Nazi rocket science, Nazi human experiments didn't produce very valuable results.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Oh really? So people can be cruel to each other? Great insight. Whataboutism. This was about animal treatment.
kolinko 5y ago
> But it doesn't justify or make better that it's still an awful thing to do to an animal and for the animal I think. Utilitarian vs deontology ethics. Most people believe that it's better for one pig to suffer than for thousands of people to die. Even the strictest of vegans I know do not oppose animal testing in medicine if it is done to save human suffering.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures, then the fact we perform ethics-reviewed anesthetised procedures and later dissect the same animals really shouldn't keep you up at night.

graderjs 5y ago
- bendbro 5y ago
  You suggest someone can't "understand", "reduce", or "invalidate" another's morals, but these quotes below from you contradict that. > ... I really think we need to revise ... > ... I'm not saying we need to be vegans ... > ... improving how we talk think and act about ...
  - graderjs 5y ago
    > You suggest someone can't "understand" Not that someone (as in anyone, as in "no one can understand"), just that particular someone, owing to their criticism saying, "Given you think X, you should also think Y" indicates they don't understand what I think. > "reduce", As in take what I say or think, and misinterpret it, reduce it down to something that seems to not make sense. > or "invalidate" another's morals Yeah, because someone else's misunderstanding and misinterpretation doesn't touch and certainly doesn't invalidate my actual moral sensitivity. So whatever that is, this person's criticism did not affect that and is not about that. Even tho it presents itself as being so...which is deceptive... So much on the internet is making a point out of a misinterpretation of what other's are saying. So it's vital to reframe and point that out...otherwise you end up arguing on terms which you didn't set, which are self-serving to the (accidental? sometimes) provocateur/trix and which aren't anything to do with what you're saying. It's easy to get dragged off your point into a logically coherent cul-de-sac which has nothing to do with your stance but somehow, because you didn't point out the deceptive reframing, you are arguing it as if it does have to do with your stance. I think a lot of damage gets done that way. It's important to avoid it. So..in that spirit...what was your misinterpreted reframing (whether deliberate or accidental)....? Basically this: You are saying that I am suggesting that we cannot invalidate another's morals, while saying you think that's exactly what I'm doing. Actually I'm not saying we cannot invalidate/understand other's morals--I'm saying if you don't understand (or if you do misinterpret <=> "reduce") my point of view, whatever you say about it doesn't, and can't, invalidate it. I doubt you'd disagree with that: e.g. An argument that claims to square the circle without grasping the problem, does not succeed, despite the true believer's fervent insistence. But I'm also not making some general point in that response about "No One Can Invalidate Any One's Morals". That's a reductive/misinterpretation an (evil / deliberate / accidental) reframing. I'm talking about me, specifically. Me personally. So all I'm is protecting my moral sensitivity, which I like very much, thank you, from random invalid criticism--which if I was to let them get to me, would really hurt. Why would you want to get in the way of that, or try to contradict me? Like...you'd like to see me hurt? That's not very good. Think about it: So, I'm just supposed to think--oh, I spent my life developing my moral sensitivity, through all my experiences, and reflections upon those, and some random comes along on the internet--and proved that I'm wrong: so I was wrong about everything that happened in my life, I failed to properly grasp my experiences, I came to the wrong conclusions. I've been wrong about everything. Man that would be painful! And really upsetting, and imbalancing. Why would you want someone to go through that? You really think, that's what I deserve? Just imagine everything you thought you understood, was founded on a lie--a lie ensured, basically by your own self-deceptive, self-serving stupidity. And some random on the internet made you realize that! Well, I would think that way--if I thought they actually clearly saw what I think, and understood it, and presented it faithfully. But they didn't. Can you grasp how incredibly painful it would be to go through that? So all I'm doing is not making that much of what people say on the internet. But being clear about how I'm doing it, and why. Does that make sense? I mean someone could hit on exactly the thread that unravels my fragile sense of self...if that's what I had. But I think my sense of self is more robust than that, forged by fires of many different difficult and joyous experiences. But it's still possible for me to be deceiving myself, and I'm still open to hearing that and having my mind and heart opened by some random, and seeing their point of view. That empathy is exactly why I need a strong defense as well--if I was to take on everything that people said about what I said, as if they were right...just because I could see and feel how they thought that way...it would be too much. Just because they have a view, doesn't mean it's right...and actually it would be stupid of me to act like other people were always right. And this time, this guy wasn't. Sometimes people are tho...But normally people who are so insightful as to be able to pull on the thread that unravels you...know what they are doing (because it's no mean skill) and they deliver it with compassion. So a good first level filter (which isn't always accurate), is: does this person show any real understanding of me, or compassion? If the answer is no--odds are they have no idea what they are talking about about you. But sometimes, people do get it right. And show me something I would rather not face about myself. And when that happens I just go to pieces and then try to pick up the pieces...To incorporate that new truth into my being. I rework everything to better face the world and reality the way it is. Luckily, it doesn't happen all that often. Which makes sense because I've always been like this: I spent the time, doing me, and reflecting on many things, and someone else is not just going to come along and see all that and get it, and say, "Oh, you know in this life long personal project of yourself being you, I saw a spot you missed. Here" But sometimes they do. But mostly...they are people who know you very well, and who deliver it with compassion. But most of those evolutions just come from myself, looking at the world and evolving in line with it. Because I know me best, and can take care of me best. As is the case for basically everyone. But we also all have blindspots and so being open to learn from others, to empathize with their view, being able to be wrong...is a requirement for ending up being right. I'm sure you'd agree. It's like the true spirit of the scientific method applied to personal development... But being right about me, doesn't make me right about others...But being perceptive and insightful makes me more likely to be right...But even so, none of that really matters here, because I'm not trying to tug on a thread that unravels someone...I'm not speaking about anyone in particular in the quotes you give, just about the trope talking points, and zeitgeist discourse "current thinking" about this topic. So when I am talking like I understand it, I'm not contradicting myself because I wasn't saying, "no one can understand anyone else". And I think I'm leaving the barn doors wide open, I don't think I'm reducing or misinterpreting anything there, mainly because I'm being so general. Am I invalidating the moral sensitivity, of hypothetical people who I don't mention as individuals (but rather address as the collective 'we', of which I am a part) by saying 'improving how we talk think and act about'...Invalidating? I'd say more encouraging a correction. Does that mean I'm saying it's wrong? Well, it's not as right as a way we can do it better. But I'm specifically saying, that point can be made, without turning anyone into a monster. And it's important to do that...So my point is very much not about "making wrong" or "invalidating". What's important is we can make it better. Like, that's a real nuance, a real distinction that's valid. Think about it: If I say you make your relationship with your wife-to-be, better, if I acknowledge how I've seen you do that over the last 6 months to 1 year, and you also agreed that you had made it better, am I saying what you did before was "wrong"? I mean, it might have been, but I'm not saying that...I'm just saying we can make it better. That's really important--to be open to getting better. Because if you're not open to that, and if you're sure you're already "as good as can be", or already "learned everything there is to learn", then that puts you at risk of being a real arrogant, self-righteous person who's convinced they're always right, and then does all sorts of harm to others, because they can always fake justify it as "well I know everything, I'm right". But really maybe they're just afraid to be wrong...which makes sense...because being wrong is hard. But you got to do it sometimes otherwise you won't end up being right.
- fastball 5y ago
libertine 5y ago
>If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures Not only we can heat... we stuff our faces into it several times a day and we keep rearranging the forms we eat it. We even make an effort to make it more enticing to children in the form of small golden nuggets like it's some sort of a treasure of flavor.
- Simon_says 5y ago
  > treasure of flavor. Heck yea, it is!
Sporktacular 5y ago
Why are you so focused on the western context for animal experiments? I'm sure it's more comforting to think about ethics boards and well run universities. But there are exemptions for militaries and other loopholes for smaller creatures, regular stories of abuse in labs, to say nothing of ghastly experiments done in China, which doesn't have ANY national or regional protection laws, among other countries. The post was about human consideration of animals as a resource generally. It's not much of an argument saying that since eating animals is a thing, (the comfortably narrowly selected example of) other things we do with them is no cause for questions.

hulitu 5y ago

If you think that humans make terrible things to animals, you should check what they do to other humans. There are "beautiful, human" stories about a certain Dr. Mengele, or Unit 731 or Guantanamo...

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
The weird thing was, the parties from the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army, responsible for atrocious experiments on humans, were pardoned by the allies in exchange for their findings and research results.
- skissane 5y ago
  The Allies never pardoned Mengele. He escaped capture and execution due to a combination of bureaucratic bungling (he was captured by the US in 1945, and while in custody his name was added to a list of wanted major war criminals, but somehow the list never made it to the POW camp authorities until after they'd already released him), then the US government somehow forming the false belief that he had already died, then the obstacles Mossad encountered trying to track him down in early 1960s Argentina, then Mossad deciding that the security threat posed by the Arab states (in the years leading up to the Six Day War) was a higher priority, and that by the time (1985) that public pressure had built to the point that the Israeli, West German and US governments were motivated to make a serious effort to find him, he had already died (while vacationing under a false name in Brazil in 1979). He escaped justice through ineptitude, lack of political will and competing priorities, luck, and the assistance of the Nazi underground, not due to any active decision to forgive his monstrous deeds.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Unlike Nazi rocket science, Nazi human experiments didn't produce very valuable results.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Oh really? So people can be cruel to each other? Great insight. Whataboutism. This was about animal treatment.

kolinko 5y ago

> But it doesn't justify or make better that it's still an awful thing to do to an animal and for the animal I think. Utilitarian vs deontology ethics. Most people believe that it's better for one pig to suffer than for thousands of people to die. Even the strictest of vegans I know do not oppose animal testing in medicine if it is done to save human suffering.