4 ms·

What makes you dismiss the years of effort put in by researchers who are quoted supporting the activists?

pvaldes 3y ago
1) To start the science that they use is normally of subpar quality. Sometimes even fake. I can't see why two decades of sociology articles about how playing violin to octopuses make them more lively, should count more than two decades of biology articles looking for cures again each octopus disease known and found by farmers. One of this approaches helped greatly to reduce pain in octopuses, the other just wasted our time. 2) They cherry-pick facts relentlessly. Evidence that goes against their agenda are systematically ignored and the authors mocked. They have a tunnel vision about the themes or interpret the facts as is better for them. See point 1. 3) They pick random facts to push random taboos on some organisms, but declare other similar organisms moral to eat Just because they rank lower in their personal preferences or cultures. Cricket pie anyone? 4) They attribute malice or incompetence to their targets by default People trying to domesticate octopuses "moved by greed". Maybe they want to help alleviate famine? We don't speak about this. Only our acts are pure, they say, while keep asking for money. 5) As their science is weak, they are unable to foresee the holes in their plan, or the collateral damages of their acts. 6) Even worse, they know but choose to ignore the consequences After researchers spend their time informing them again and again of the collateral effects that their actions will have, they proclaim that is for a bigger cause and couldnn't care less about the consequences. They act by a sort of pseudo-religious ideology with random dogmas that can't be changed a Milimeter, even after proven false. Check the history of grey squirrel in Italy, or racoons on Japan. 7) They never, ever, will offer help to fix their own ecological disasters After they cause economical damages of millions of dollars and waste the time of everybody, then shrug and just change their target. 8) They are prone to be deceived and manipulated from outer agents with their own agendas, that treat them as disposable. People "against oil", are happy to be economically supported by oil companies. Are we sure that this activists aren't funded by <nice company killing lots of wild octopuses> to boycott <evil company farming domesticated octopuses>? or by somebody aiming to gain time to build their own farms?. I wouldn't bet my money against this.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  Yea, so, you do understand that your comment does a lot of those things it describes? The net effect is approximately the same as if you’d just say “I hate animal rights and I don’t care about any years of effort put in by researchers if the results don’t support my preferred outcome”.

1) To start the science that they use is normally of subpar quality. Sometimes even fake. I can't see why two decades of sociology articles about how playing violin to octopuses make them more lively, should count more than two decades of biology articles looking for cures again each octopus disease known and found by farmers. One of this approaches helped greatly to reduce pain in octopuses, the other just wasted our time. 2) They cherry-pick facts relentlessly. Evidence that goes against their agenda are systematically ignored and the authors mocked. They have a tunnel vision about the themes or interpret the facts as is better for them. See point 1. 3) They pick random facts to push random taboos on some organisms, but declare other similar organisms moral to eat Just because they rank lower in their personal preferences or cultures. Cricket pie anyone? 4) They attribute malice or incompetence to their targets by default People trying to domesticate octopuses "moved by greed". Maybe they want to help alleviate famine? We don't speak about this. Only our acts are pure, they say, while keep asking for money. 5) As their science is weak, they are unable to foresee the holes in their plan, or the collateral damages of their acts. 6) Even worse, they know but choose to ignore the consequences After researchers spend their time informing them again and again of the collateral effects that their actions will have, they proclaim that is for a bigger cause and couldnn't care less about the consequences. They act by a sort of pseudo-religious ideology with random dogmas that can't be changed a Milimeter, even after proven false. Check the history of grey squirrel in Italy, or racoons on Japan. 7) They never, ever, will offer help to fix their own ecological disasters After they cause economical damages of millions of dollars and waste the time of everybody, then shrug and just change their target. 8) They are prone to be deceived and manipulated from outer agents with their own agendas, that treat them as disposable. People "against oil", are happy to be economically supported by oil companies. Are we sure that this activists aren't funded by <nice company killing lots of wild octopuses> to boycott <evil company farming domesticated octopuses>? or by somebody aiming to gain time to build their own farms?. I wouldn't bet my money against this.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
Yea, so, you do understand that your comment does a lot of those things it describes? The net effect is approximately the same as if you’d just say “I hate animal rights and I don’t care about any years of effort put in by researchers if the results don’t support my preferred outcome”.