Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Who are the pests?

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 04:33:23 AM

1. We don't just modify the environment. We intentionally manipulate the overall systems in which nature functions. Civilisation has a fine level of control over nature, suggesting to me that we have separated ourselves from nature, while retaining many of the instincts we evolved from having been a part of nature. No other species fits this description. I guess the problem with such an argument is that we are possibly both defining nature differently. If your definition requires that nature is a system that contains civilised society, then there is no arguing with you as I would be wrong by definition.

You are wrong in your definition. Everything humanity is and does is part and parcel of nature. Unless you can draw a line that isn't completely arbitrary, there is no argument.


Quote
2. I think you've missed the point a little bit while saying that I assert that humans "aren't above all other life", as I actually reject the idea of inherent value in sentient life (as I think most people here do). I personally value my family members ahead of anyone else, as well as having other biases, but a social justice viewpoint is separate from this (whether that viewpoint is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-speciesist etc.) in that what matters is the individual's capacity to value his or her own life. I don't have to like or value someone in order to want basic justice for them. I may have a personal dislike of Mexicans, and assign less value to them because of bias, but I will always stand against racist actions and in favour of social justice because I know that the evidence suggests Mexicans have an equal capacity to value their own lives (yeah...I'm a pinko liberal...sorry).

Understood. Let's just leave it at that since it's ultimately a question of radically different values.


So are you saying that there IS honour in hitting a man with a baseball bat while he is asleep?

Don't dodge. I asked why you wanted to limit the tool kit we have before us.

Personally, in the context of hunting, I'm not looking for honour, I'm looking for a meal.

Quote
but this is irrelevant coming from me

You'll get no argument from me ;)

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 06:20:49 AM
Lol :) That's hilarious:
"I would advocate that any violence against the innocent shouldn't happen in civilised society."
Maybe you don't understand the nature of violence. It isn't something that is allowed or not allowed. It isn't reasoned out into should/shouldn't. It can only be stopped by superior violence, or by the ability to move faster than it.
Yours is such a totally leftist view.

Violence is a fact of life. Civilization has nothing to do with it, apart from decreasing its frequency somewhat, until the violence reasserts itself and finishes off the civilization that tried to outlaw it.
I'm not saying I honestly believe we can eradicate all violence against the innocent. My use of the word "shouldn't" was deliberate, and when it comes down to it, any discussion about ethics is really a discussion about what we should/shouldn't do. Of course you're welcome to reject ethics entirely if you like, and that would be a coherent position.


1. We don't just modify the environment. We intentionally manipulate the overall systems in which nature functions. Civilisation has a fine level of control over nature, suggesting to me that we have separated ourselves from nature, while retaining many of the instincts we evolved from having been a part of nature. No other species fits this description. I guess the problem with such an argument is that we are possibly both defining nature differently. If your definition requires that nature is a system that contains civilised society, then there is no arguing with you as I would be wrong by definition.

You are wrong in your definition. Everything humanity is and does is part and parcel of nature. Unless you can draw a line that isn't completely arbitrary, there is no argument.
nature
ˈneɪtʃə/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Can we at least agree that humans (at least those in civilisation) are the only species that has fine manipulative control of surrounding ecosystems? And that an argument concerning ethics would dictate that this brings with it responsibilities?

Understood. Let's just leave it at that since it's ultimately a question of radically different values.
My position is that if you are ethically opposed to murder of humans, then it would follow that you would have to be vegan. And if you believe that racism and sexism are ethically and logically incoherent ideologies, then you have to be against speciesism in the same way. So if you are not against murder, racism and sexism, then you're right that it's best to leave it at that.

Quote
So are you saying that there IS honour in hitting a man with a baseball bat while he is asleep?

Don't dodge. I asked why you wanted to limit the tool kit we have before us.
Because the question concerned whether killing could be honorable (which I took to require fairness), even though in my opinion neither of these things are even relevant to the ethics of killing. If you think that using the full tool kit is still honorable, then you would logically have to think that it is honorable to kill a man with a baseball bat while he sleeps.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:11:54 PM
Tbh, the lengthy debates like these make for my least favourite threads on the site.

Take a step back!

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:26:22 PM
1 No I will not agree that humans are the only species who have manipulative control over the ecosystem. I will find it agreeable if you accept that differences of modification between all flora and fauna, this includes humans, are differences in scale are not differences in kind. In order to discuss ethics, we'd have to sit down at the beginning and get our metaphysics in order.

2. I don't believe the act of taking a human life is morally impermissible. There are no evil actions only evil minds.

3. OK. your position is that the only honorable way to hunt is through a fair fight. Since the topic is on consumption. let's rule out hunting for sport. Let's use a real world example:

Tigers evolved a set of adaptions that aide them in the hunt. The Tiger, like most form of feline, silently stalks its prey until the opportune moment arises whereupon it leaps from cover and delivers death's knell to the unsuspecting victim. The prey often doesn't see it coming, not unlike a hunter who might use an arrow or bullet to take down his meal. Is the Tiger a dishonorable creature?

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Tbh, the lengthy debates like these make for my least favourite threads on the site.

Take a step back!

Why? Most other threads are: dead ends, one or more few individuals posting articles under a topic, circle jerks repeating mantra from senior posters.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 05:17:54 PM
Tbh, the lengthy debates like these make for my least favourite threads on the site.

Take a step back!

Why? Most other threads are: dead ends, one or more few individuals posting articles under a topic, circle jerks repeating mantra from senior posters.


Hamhusu is right. Take a step back.
Forbinator is doing a Moses and Vigilance is telling him how dumb that is.
Who needs it?
Discussions are good, but emotions are better left to emos.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 05:33:59 PM
To be honest a large chunk of the reason I'm engaging with this guy is to combat the growing consensus that humans are irredeemable omnicidal megalomaniacs. Which isn't to say that humans don't exhibit such things, but there is a general trend inching towards placing human life in that extreme and all non human life on the other without regard for capacity towards either extreme inherent in nature and in life.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 05:46:18 PM
I understand what you are doing, and admire it. You're doing it well.
On the other hand, I see where this is going, and get the feeling we would all be better off if it didn't go there.
Forbinator take note. Please. Thank you.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 06:07:39 PM
You're right, I think I'll leave that last post as a cap on the conversation. All the ground that can be covered has been covered and it's essentially up to Forbinator to come to terms with the information or reject it all, on his own. Arriving at either conclusion would close off this debate so that is that.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 06:28:17 PM
Quote
Wild,

I remembered what I wanted to ask you last night. is hunting the only form of honor regarding the consuming of am animal? I feel like livestock raised on one's own property, given proper care and diet, and slaughtered humanely is honorable. One builds a direct relationship with the creatures as one does a garden and an intimate understanding of the cycles of life.

This still retains the notion that animals are products to be manipulated for human gain.

Hunting is manipulation for human gain, yes, but it does not reduce animals to products - they are free to live until the hunter attempts to capture one. Then a great struggle for life ensues, leaving the weak behind and allowing the stronger, faster to survive.

The reason I object to hunting from humans is due to many reasons, most of which are wrapped in layers of misanthropy.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 06:37:04 PM
How many of you characters has ever actively hunted?
Of the almost none, how many did it purely for survival?
How much success did you have?
What tools did you use?
Do you still hunt?
If not, why did you stop?


Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 09:28:02 PM
Quote
Wild,

I remembered what I wanted to ask you last night. is hunting the only form of honor regarding the consuming of am animal? I feel like livestock raised on one's own property, given proper care and diet, and slaughtered humanely is honorable. One builds a direct relationship with the creatures as one does a garden and an intimate understanding of the cycles of life.

This still retains the notion that animals are products to be manipulated for human gain.

Hunting is manipulation for human gain, yes, but it does not reduce animals to products - they are free to live until the hunter attempts to capture one. Then a great struggle for life ensues, leaving the weak behind and allowing the stronger, faster to survive.

The reason I object to hunting from humans is due to many reasons, most of which are wrapped in layers of misanthropy.

Thanks for the answer. I understand where you're coming from.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 08, 2014, 09:32:58 PM
How many of you characters has ever actively hunted?
Of the almost none, how many did it purely for survival?
How much success did you have?
What tools did you use?
Do you still hunt?
If not, why did you stop?

I have, yes.

I didn't do it for survival. I did it to eat. Also my dad would make cool blankets out of the deer skin. He'd use antlers as decoration or as hunting tools.

I've only ever personally shot turkey, but I've been on hunts where deer and moose were taken.

I used a .22 rifle to shoot the turkey. We also got another turkey that trip which we gave to a family who was friends with the owner of the bungalow we stayed at. They didn't have much money so I'm sure they appreciated it.

No I haven't hunted in years.

Stopped because school took over, also my father and I are not on good terms anymore. I'd love to go again, but I need a gun of my own and a good place to go. Currently looking into both!


Would also like to emphasize that sport hunting is for dickless losers. Eat the meat you hunt you coward, don't waste it.

Re: Who are the pests?
January 09, 2014, 02:27:44 AM
Quote from: crow
Discussions are good, but emotions are better left to emos.-

Hm, I hadn't drawn the connection to emotions, but you could be right.

I would say emotions are better left to art, to be controlled by the one who experiences, and left to fuel.

The problem with arguments, is that generally neither party is really listening to the other. They scan the other person's view for somewhat strawmanned (i.e. not what was really being expressed) versions of the arguments, so they can auto-strike and strengthen their own view, and perhaps to "convert" the malleable to reason as they do.

 I find that usually, all that is going to be said will be said at the start and then reiterated. Something like: thesis -> anti-thesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis, ad infinitum, rather than the much more efficient: thesis -> anti-thesis -> synthesis.

Without a synthesis of views, what is the point?

(I do see the holes in the synthesis view, such as falling into compromise and lowest common denominator opinions, and counter-productive "progress")

Re: Who are the pests?
January 09, 2014, 04:45:59 AM
Quote from: crow
Discussions are good, but emotions are better left to emos.-

Hm, I hadn't drawn the connection to emotions, but you could be right.

I would say emotions are better left to art, to be controlled by the one who experiences, and left to fuel.

The problem with arguments, is that generally neither party is really listening to the other. They scan the other person's view for somewhat strawmanned (i.e. not what was really being expressed) versions of the arguments, so they can auto-strike and strengthen their own view, and perhaps to "convert" the malleable to reason as they do.

 I find that usually, all that is going to be said will be said at the start and then reiterated. Something like: thesis -> anti-thesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis, ad infinitum, rather than the much more efficient: thesis -> anti-thesis -> synthesis.

Without a synthesis of views, what is the point?

(I do see the holes in the synthesis view, such as falling into compromise and lowest common denominator opinions, and counter-productive "progress")

I got ya;

There is nothing wrong with being sexist, racist, speciesist, or with killing a human, or an animal, or yourself, for whatever reason.

There are, however, repercussions.

Synthesis.