6 ms·

Oh come on, really? Contrasting caged animals with jews in concentration camps? Meat consumption equals holocaust? People feeding on meat equal Hitler? I can s

by lgierth 13y ago

Oh come on, really? Contrasting caged animals with jews in concentration camps? Meat consumption equals holocaust? People feeding on meat equal Hitler? I can see the point animal rights activists are tring to make, but the hypocrisy of this movie was already making me sick when I watched it the first time a couple years back.

fasouto 13y ago
>>> Meat consumption equals holocaust? People feeding on meat equal Hitler? There's no such affirmations in the documentary. Not even close.
- lgierth 13y ago
  First Colonialism and Hitler scenes starting at 3:08. What do these two have to do with the consumption of animals? The intention is obviously "hey look it's the basically same".
  - fasouto 13y ago
    They compare the way we treat animals in the farm with the concentration camps. No with meat consumption, meat consumption is not bad at all. Animals can be treated in a good way.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we most closely identify with), but otherwise..? Take this statement for example: "[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." -- Erich Fromm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s ) Do you find this offensive too, or do you agree he has a point? I think the key concept here and elsewhere is "in principle".
- Nursie 13y ago
  What marvellous hyperbole! Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide! I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent out. > "don't stop eating" He said "lost your appetite". > "that must be much the same as" This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> He said "lost your appetite". There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. >> This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world. One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy. --edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        > There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. > it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. > What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies. Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
nawitus 13y ago
So, is the "contrasting" rationally wrong, or merely politically incorrect? The whole point of anti-speciesism is that humans shouldn't be put on a pedestal. So, in effect, you're arguing that an anti-speciesist movie is wrong because it's anti-speciesist.
repseki 13y ago
What hypocrisy? 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust. Meanwhile 56 billion land animals are being raised in similar conditions and slaughtered every single year. That is approximately 6 million every single hour. This is far worse than the holocaust, and it's all for the trivial reason that meat tastes good.
- Oletros 13y ago
  Those claims can't be serious, no sane person can say such stupid things

by lgierth 13y ago

fasouto 13y ago

>>> Meat consumption equals holocaust? People feeding on meat equal Hitler? There's no such affirmations in the documentary. Not even close.

lgierth 13y ago
First Colonialism and Hitler scenes starting at 3:08. What do these two have to do with the consumption of animals? The intention is obviously "hey look it's the basically same".
- fasouto 13y ago
  They compare the way we treat animals in the farm with the concentration camps. No with meat consumption, meat consumption is not bad at all. Animals can be treated in a good way.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we most closely identify with), but otherwise..? Take this statement for example: "[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." -- Erich Fromm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s ) Do you find this offensive too, or do you agree he has a point? I think the key concept here and elsewhere is "in principle".

Nursie 13y ago
What marvellous hyperbole! Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide! I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent out. > "don't stop eating" He said "lost your appetite". > "that must be much the same as" This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> He said "lost your appetite". There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. >> This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world. One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy. --edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      > There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. > it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. > What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies. Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.

nawitus 13y ago

So, is the "contrasting" rationally wrong, or merely politically incorrect? The whole point of anti-speciesism is that humans shouldn't be put on a pedestal. So, in effect, you're arguing that an anti-speciesist movie is wrong because it's anti-speciesist.

repseki 13y ago

What hypocrisy? 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust. Meanwhile 56 billion land animals are being raised in similar conditions and slaughtered every single year. That is approximately 6 million every single hour. This is far worse than the holocaust, and it's all for the trivial reason that meat tastes good.

Oletros 13y ago
Those claims can't be serious, no sane person can say such stupid things