The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10138
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:53 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:Define "good policy" in relation to this kind of attack. If these two terrorists (Nice and Berlin) couldn't drive a truck, would they have done something else, and would more people have died? It's unknowable, and there is no reason to believe fewer people would have died.

A hypothetical and unreasonable goal might be to divert terrorism attacks to say, the countryside, where he runs over like 2 people cuz it's the middle of nowhere.
Or; Policies that Teach and Encourage people to look out and see The World populated with Treasured Brothers and Sisters.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:40 pm UTC

addams wrote:
sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:Define "good policy" in relation to this kind of attack. If these two terrorists (Nice and Berlin) couldn't drive a truck, would they have done something else, and would more people have died? It's unknowable, and there is no reason to believe fewer people would have died.

A hypothetical and unreasonable goal might be to divert terrorism attacks to say, the countryside, where he runs over like 2 people cuz it's the middle of nowhere.
Or; Policies that Teach and Encourage people to look out and see The World populated with Treasured Brothers and Sisters.

Evolutino has trained us to try to get as big a share of the world as possible for our own {families/clans/tribes/species} at the expense of other {families/clans/tribes/species} and it's hard to lift people above that. It's a lovely thought, though, and a worthy one, and to go with it I present an image and a song:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl5vi9ir49g
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Liri » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

I like the fun fact that there's more genetic variation within Africa than the rest of the world combined.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10472
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

Liri wrote:I like the fun fact that there's more genetic variation within Africa than the rest of the world combined.


Africa is genetically diverse, but not as much as the people talking about it tend to claim. Link

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

I don't know the origin of that image or why they used African and Non-African for the colour-coding of the blobs, so I can't know how to feel about it, but it does make sense that the difficult conditions of the narrow land link between two large land masses would be associated with a long-standing genetic split in at least a large part of the population.

Other than that "Black on the left, white on the right" pattern of the blobs, though, what I think ought to count as enlightening is the spread of individual names. Look where Western Pygmy appears. Look where Yorubans shows up. Look who counts as Asian. We think of what we call races as being branches of the family, like Matabele, Zulu and Shona are siblings, Angle, Saxon, Frank, Goth, Teuton, Breton and Spaniard are siblings, Khmer, Viet, Cham, Han, Sin and Dzao are siblings, Comanche, Apache, Sioux, Hopi and Navajo are siblings and so on and Breton and Navajo are cousins, Matabele and Khmer are cousins and so on. That image suggests that, for example, one Yorubans, Afro-American and Asian* are siblings, they have a Yorubans first cousin, two sibling Yorubans second cousins and an Asian third cousin, three Eastern Pygmies, four Afro-Americans, one Hercro and eleven Western Pygmies among their fourth cousins and those Western Pygmies are themselves anywhere from siblings to third cousins, and Papua New Guinea shows up at 4, 7, 9 and 11 o'clock positions. Those cousins I mentioned are more closely related than the people of Papua New Guinea.


* Does that say "Asian" or "Aslan"? It sure looks like an <i>l</i> in some places but I doubt they checked the DNA of a dozen Jesus Lions.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10138
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:56 pm UTC


Thank you for the Song, Sableagle.
...As I muse about what we said and did in the 1970's;

....Well....I Know we were a bunch of Ding Dongs,
But; We may have been on the Right Path in some ways.

Here; A Song for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmzEXywq40

Let's attempt to look toward the same Guiding Star.
Bless your little Pea Pickin' Heart on this short dark day.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:17 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Liri wrote:I like the fun fact that there's more genetic variation within Africa than the rest of the world combined.


Africa is genetically diverse, but not as much as the people talking about it tend to claim. Link

That particular article doesn't give any comparisons, but I was probably reaching, anyway.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:47 am UTC

Vahir wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Vahir wrote:A serial cat killer is on the loose in London.

I'd make a Jack the Ripper pun but this is too morbid. The sick bastard deserves to be locked up for life.

I never understand this particular response to animal cruelty.

Almost everybody in the western world tortures animals for fun every day. We call it eating meat. I mean, sure, technically we let other people do the torturing for us, we don't personally get our hands bloody, but that does not make a moral difference.

I understand cats are cute, I understand the emotional response. But the cognitive dissonance required to not see the hypocrisy of such an emotional response is just so big I don't understand how people manage it.


Hypocrisy? It's the pointlessness of the murders that make it galling. When you slaughter a goat, you do it for food or material. Killing a dog because it gives you jollies is sick, the same way butchering a cow for jollies is. The problem isn't that it's domestic animals being killed, it's that the killing is wasteful and pointless. I'd give the same judgement on somebody who went around farms mutilating cows, as I'm sure pretty much everyone else would.

We don't need meat. The only reason we eat it is because it tastes good. People like to come up with all kinds of justifications, but in the end, eating meat is killing animals for fun. It's more indirect then killing them yourself out of sadistic pleasure, but otherwise the same thing. Objecting to one form but not another is hypocrisy.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:22 am UTC

Diadem wrote:We don't need meat. The only reason we eat it is because it tastes good. People like to come up with all kinds of justifications, but in the end, eating meat is killing animals for fun. It's more indirect then killing them yourself out of sadistic pleasure, but otherwise the same thing. Objecting to one form but not another is hypocrisy.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/201 ... ids-hungry
We don't need meat, or you just trying to make a separate point about animal cruelty?
the chief minister of the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, shot down a proposal to serve eggs in government-run day care centers (anganwadis) in some tribal areas.
These communities have high rates of malnutrition, says Sachin Jain, a local food-rights activist in the state. "The idea behind the proposal was to address the gap in protein deficiency through ... eggs," he says.
But Chouhan wasn't convinced. As Indian newspapers reported, he publicly vowed not to allow eggs to be served as long as he was minister.
Why this vehement opposition to eggs? Well, the local community of Jains, which is strictly vegetarian and also powerful in the state, has previously thwarted efforts to introduce eggs in day care centers and schools. Chouhan is an upper caste Hindu man who recently became a vegetarian.
And the state of Madhya Pradesh is mostly vegetarian, as are some other states, like Karnataka, Rajasthan and Gujarat. For years, the more politically vocal vegetarians in these states have kept eggs out of school lunches and anganwadis.
But here's the thing: While these states as a whole may be mostly vegetarian, the poorest — and most malnourished — Indians generally are not. They would eat eggs, if only they could afford them, says Dipa Sinha, an economist at the Center for Equity Studies in New Delhi and an expert on India's preschool and school feeding programs.
India's free school lunch program alone reaches about 120 million of India's poorest children, and the anganwadis reach millions of younger children. So, the egg war isn't trivial.
Chouhan's office has said the chief minister is "sentimental" about keeping anganwadis egg-free. "This is a very upper caste Hindu sentiment," says Sinha.

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:36 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:We don't need meat. The only reason we eat it is because it tastes good. People like to come up with all kinds of justifications, but in the end, eating meat is killing animals for fun. It's more indirect then killing them yourself out of sadistic pleasure, but otherwise the same thing. Objecting to one form but not another is hypocrisy.

No it's not. There's a huge difference between killing for a purpose and killing being the purpose - else you might as well argue it's hypocritical to object to serial killers but not soldiers.

Most people - even those who enjoy eating meat - are horrified when they see animals being treated cruelly. Animals can be killed painlessly you know. When they aren't, the answer isn't to stop killing animals (since everything dies in the end), the answer is to improve standards.

--------

Temperatures at the North Pole could be up to 20 degrees higher than average this Christmas Eve, in what scientists say is a record-breaking heatwave. Temperatures throughout November and December were 5C higher than average.

Dr Friederike Otto, a senior researcher at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute told BBC News that in pre-industrial times "a heatwave like this would have been extremely rare - we would expect it to occur about every 1,000 years".

Dr Otto added that scientists are "very confident" that the weather patterns were linked to anthropogenic climate change.

"We have used several different climate modelling approaches and observations," she told BBC News. "And in all our methods, we find the same thing; we cannot model a heatwave like this without the anthropogenic signal."


But it's not all bad:

Asked if the conditions on Christmas Eve were likely to affect Santa's all-important journey, Dr Markus said he was confident that his sled would cope with the conditions.

He added: "Santa is most likely overdressed though. Maybe in the future we'll see him in a light jacket or plastic mac."


link

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8475
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:23 pm UTC

The act of being alive in this world leads to animal death. There's absolutely no way to avoid that. You live in a building that was built on top of animal corpses. You're eating food grown in crops whose cultivation killed animals. You buy anything that's not locally sourced and you're contributing to pollution and transportation which kills animals. You take medicine that was tested on animals (animals that were probably then killed). Every single thing that you do causes harm to animals, and it's all for your own good. It's because you value your life over other species. And that's fine, and you have to live with it.

You're not some saint for being vegetarian/vegan/whatever. By the act of living in this modern world, you're actively participating in killing. So please don't act all sanctimonious and better than those who eat meat or use animals in ways that are more obvious than how you do so. And not that it matters, I am vegetarian and have been for that past 22 years.

And I haven't even started talking about how much more expensive and inaccessible a vegetarian/vegan diet is for most people, and trying to shame people into being vegetarian is not only a shitty thing to do, it's also incredibly classist.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:43 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:The act of being alive in this world leads to animal death. There's absolutely no way to avoid that. You live in a building that was built on top of animal corpses. You're eating food grown in crops whose cultivation killed animals. You buy anything that's not locally sourced and you're contributing to pollution and transportation which kills animals. You take medicine that was tested on animals (animals that were probably then killed). Every single thing that you do causes harm to animals, and it's all for your own good. It's because you value your life over other species. And that's fine, and you have to live with it.

You're not some saint for being vegetarian/vegan/whatever. By the act of living in this modern world, you're actively participating in killing. So please don't act all sanctimonious and better than those who eat meat or use animals in ways that are more obvious than how you do so. And not that it matters, I am vegetarian and have been for that past 22 years.

And I haven't even started talking about how much more expensive and inaccessible a vegetarian/vegan diet is for most people, and trying to shame people into being vegetarian is not only a shitty thing to do, it's also incredibly classist.


1. I didn't see sanctimoniousness in Diadem's post, or even indication that they are vegetarian (as opposed to just being self-aware).

2. Vegetarianism and veganism are only expensive if you decide you absolutely must go for the meat imitations. The most basic of general staples--rice (or barley or wheat berries or some other cereal) and beans--will cost a couple dollars for enough to last weeks or months. A bag of frozen vegetables might go for a dollar or two. Add spices, and there's a decent-tasting, nutritious, filling dinner. And it's sure as hell cheaper than an omnivorous diet.

Speaking as an actual vegetarian here too.
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:01 pm UTC

For people already suffering from malnutrition, asking that they impose limits on what they can eat is pretty awful. I know you weren't really responding to the India example, but they don't have the resources to opt not to get meat when that's all that's available that week.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:37 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Diadem wrote:We don't need meat. The only reason we eat it is because it tastes good. People like to come up with all kinds of justifications, but in the end, eating meat is killing animals for fun. It's more indirect then killing them yourself out of sadistic pleasure, but otherwise the same thing. Objecting to one form but not another is hypocrisy.

No it's not. There's a huge difference between killing for a purpose and killing being the purpose - else you might as well argue it's hypocritical to object to serial killers but not soldiers.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The difference between soldiers and serial killers is the reason they kill. If soldiers start killing civilians for fun, then I have no problem saying they are no different than serial killers. But what you're saying is that the general who's giving soldiers the order to kill is basically above reproach, no matter what reason he has for the orders, since he's not the one directly pulling the trigger. That's a weird position to hold.

Whether you kill a cow yourself or hire a butcher to kill it for you makes no moral difference. Are you really arguing otherwise?

elasto wrote:Most people - even those who enjoy eating meat - are horrified when they see animals being treated cruelly.

Yes. And objecting to something while continuing to keep doing it is the very textbook definition of hypocrisy. You are making my point for me.

elasto wrote:Animals can be killed painlessly you know. When they aren't, the answer isn't to stop killing animals (since everything dies in the end), the answer is to improve standards.

They can, they aren't. And the moment of death is hardly the only moment in their lives that matters. Even if killed painlessly, the rest of a farm animal's life still contains a lot of cruelty.


<edit>
Zohar wrote:The act of being alive in this world leads to animal death. There's absolutely no way to avoid that. You live in a building that was built on top of animal corpses. You're eating food grown in crops whose cultivation killed animals. (...) Every single thing that you do causes harm to animals, and it's all for your own good. It's because you value your life over other species. And that's fine, and you have to live with it.

That's a strange argument though. You're saying that because we can't avoid all harm to animals, we may as well stop caring about any harm. It's akin to saying "Well, every time I get into my car I run the risk of causing an accident, so I may as well get drunk and drive 150 in a residential area". It's true that anything that can't be avoided, can't be avoided. But at the same time anything that can be avoided, can be.

Zohar wrote:And I haven't even started talking about how much more expensive and inaccessible a vegetarian/vegan diet is for most people, and trying to shame people into being vegetarian is not only a shitty thing to do, it's also incredibly classist.

Bullshit. Meat is a luxury product. A vegan or vegetarian diet is actually cheaper than a meat diet.
</edit>


Maybe my position is not clear enough, so allow me to reiterate. What I'm saying is that the act of eating meat (or eggs or diary, for that matter) involves a lot of animal cruelty. And that we don't need meat for sustenance. So when all pretense is stripped away, the reason we eat meat is because we like eating meat. In other words, we eat meat 'for fun'. From this it follows that there is no fundamental difference between eating meat, and other forms of hurting animals for fun.

The argument "but meat could be produced cruelty-free" is irrelevant, because that's not the world we live in. You could advocate for reforms, and argue that once those reforms are made eating meat will be different from other forms of animal cruelty. But that doesn't change the situation now.

I'm not even saying we should stop using animals. That's one option, but not the only one. Hypocrisy is preaching A while doing B. There's always two ways out of that. You can either stop doing B, or you can stop doing B. You can either stop being cruel to animals, or you can stop being abhorred by animal cruelty.
Last edited by Diadem on Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8475
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:43 pm UTC

The whole distinction of "You kill animals for meat because it's fun" while completely ignoring every element in our lives increases animal suffering is what I was referring to. As if you're revealing some huge secret that no one knows about before, and you know the way to live life cruelty free.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:37 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:The whole distinction of "You kill animals for meat because it's fun" while completely ignoring every element in our lives increases animal suffering is what I was referring to. As if you're revealing some huge secret that no one knows about before, and you know the way to live life cruelty free.

I think he's saying animal cruelty isn't a big deal, or at least we should be consistent about it. Like the guy torturing puppies could well be venting off steam so that he doesn't torture people. Now that's not how life works, but at least you'd have a consistent philosophy. This still ignores tradeoffs in life where sure you hate something, like armies, but you're forced to buy one yourself because you don't want to be the only one unarmed.

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Whether you kill a cow yourself or hire a butcher to kill it for you makes no moral difference. Are you really arguing otherwise?

No. I'm saying both are moral, assuming both kill in a humane way.

Yes. And objecting to something while continuing to keep doing it is the very textbook definition of hypocrisy. You are making my point for me.

Only if done knowingly. Or are you suggesting that someone can unknowingly be a hypocrite?

They can, they aren't.

Speak for yourself.

And the moment of death is hardly the only moment in their lives that matters. Even if killed painlessly, the rest of a farm animal's life still contains a lot of cruelty.

Again. Speak for yourself. You're talking like it's impossible to source meat that's been raised and killed humanely.

That's a strange argument though. You're saying that because we can't avoid all harm to animals, we may as well stop caring about any harm. It's akin to saying "Well, every time I get into my car I run the risk of causing an accident, so I may as well get drunk and drive 150 in a residential area". It's true that anything that can't be avoided, can't be avoided. But at the same time anything that can be avoided, can be.

No. Your argument wasn't about harm reduction. Your argument was you are not allowed to be horrified about a family pet being tortured and simultaneously eat meat - ignoring that even farming crops causes avoidable cruelty to animals. Yes, it's avoidable because someone could cut each blade of wheat by hand instead of using enormous threshing machines that also scoop up animals.

Maybe my position is not clear enough, so allow me to reiterate. What I'm saying is that the act of eating meat (or eggs or diary, for that matter) involves a lot of animal cruelty. And that we don't need meat for sustenance. So when all pretense is stripped away, the reason we eat meat is because we like eating meat. In other words, we eat meat 'for fun'. From this it follows that there is no fundamental difference between eating meat, and other forms of hurting animals for fun.

Your position isn't clear enough.

My children's school has chickens. They have plenty of room to roam around, and are well fed and looked after. They can take dust baths and frolic in hay and generally live in a utopia. The children would find your claim that they delight in animal cruelty bizarre.

This is how most people hope their meat is raised also.

Call people ignorant? Fine. Call them wilfully ignorant? Also fine. Trump's election is proof enough of that. Call them hypocrites? Nope. Sorry. Not gonna fly.

----

Actually, no. I can put it more succinctly.

There is a big difference between not caring about cruelty occurring and actively wishing to cause cruelty.

You most likely don't care that people worked in cruel workhouse conditions to make your clothes or assemble your smartphone or mine the ore that eventually got shaped into the water pipes in your house or whatever. You don't care because if you did care about all these things all the time, you'd be pathologically paralysed by guilt.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Of course not. Could you take more care to source everything in your life more ethically? Of course. Everyone could. Some just draw the line in a different place to others, that's all. That doesn't make people hypocrites, just human.
Last edited by elasto on Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.

Will still be a problem for those that believe owning a pet is immoral.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.
Nope. Most of the flavour comes from how the soul leaves the animal. It's why humanely killed meat tastes better.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.

Will still be a problem for those that believe owning a pet is immoral.

Just wait for vat-grown pets.

I call this cube of meat-jelly, "Fred".
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:Nope. Most of the flavour comes from how the soul leaves the animal.

That puts me in mind of this SMBC comic

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:36 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
elasto wrote:
Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.

Will still be a problem for those that believe owning a pet is immoral.

Just wait for vat-grown pets.

I call this cube of meat-jelly, "Fred".


There will also be vat-grown human meat. Watch as famous people sell meat made from their cells. When "pescetarian" no longer refers to fish-eating, but instead Joe Pesci.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10138
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.
ah...Weeks; You never let us down.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.

Will still be a problem for those that believe owning a pet is immoral.
I don't understand the connection...?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:06 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:
Weeks wrote:None of this will be a problem when we get vat-grown meat, surely.

Will still be a problem for those that believe owning a pet is immoral.
I don't understand the connection...?

In this thread Tyndmyr pointed out how PETA kill animals - including people's pets - in part because they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10472
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 25, 2016 1:46 am UTC

If there are any moral hang ups, they'll be from the "it's not natural!" crowd, which may include PETA.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:34 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Zohar wrote:The whole distinction of "You kill animals for meat because it's fun" while completely ignoring every element in our lives increases animal suffering is what I was referring to. As if you're revealing some huge secret that no one knows about before, and you know the way to live life cruelty free.

I think he's saying animal cruelty isn't a big deal, or at least we should be consistent about it. Like the guy torturing puppies could well be venting off steam so that he doesn't torture people.

Sortof. I'm primarily saying we should be consistent about it. Whether it's a big deal or not I'm kind torn about myself, to be honest.

It's mostly the moral outrage that annoys me. I mean, even if there's no moral difference, there's obviously a huge psychological difference between someone who eats meat and someone who tortures kittens for fun. And that's relevant. If I learned that my neighbor tortures kittens for fun, I'd be worried too, and if I had kids I might warn them to stay away from such a neighbor. And I'm not saying we as a society shouldn't ban the torturing of kittens. I'm actually in favour of that. But the huge moral outrage you see whenever a case of animal cruelty hits the news just annoys the fuck out of me. Because it's so damn hypocritical.

And yeah, vat-grown meat would be awesome. Animal cruelty free, much healthier, much better for the environment. And once the technology is perfected it should be cheaper and tastier too.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:52 am UTC

elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.

I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.

I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.

I grow clones of my highschool bully, and then I threaten to torture and kill him unless the bully, bully prime?, gives me money.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10472
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:57 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.

I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.


Like I said earlier, many in the PETA crowd will oppose vat meat because it's "unnatural". After all, look at all the idiots opposing GMOs.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Liri » Sun Dec 25, 2016 3:08 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Sortof. I'm primarily saying we should be consistent about it. Whether it's a big deal or not I'm kind torn about myself, to be honest.

It's mostly the moral outrage that annoys me. I mean, even if there's no moral difference, there's obviously a huge psychological difference between someone who eats meat and someone who tortures kittens for fun. And that's relevant.

How do you distinguish moral outrage from, I guess, 'psychological distress' outrage besides someone shouting, "that's immoral!"?

Isn't it possible that a culture can come to the consensus that killing kittens is morally worse than eating chicken, for instance? Morals don't have to be logical or rational, by any means.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:43 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.
I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.

Like I said earlier, many in the PETA crowd will oppose vat meat because it's "unnatural". After all, look at all the idiots opposing GMOs.

Sure, I'm well aware that people will oppose vat-grown meat for other reasons. My question, which no one has responded to yet, is why opposition to pet ownership is related to vat-grown meat in any way.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:59 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.

I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.
I took Weeks comment as flip humor. But think of the benefits of tissue culture to the natural kingdom. Not to mention the stress reduction to PETA members. No more Fois gras. No more Calfskin clothing. No more white baby fur seals.
Diadem wrote:But the huge moral outrage you see whenever a case of animal cruelty hits the news just annoys the fuck out of me. Because it's so damn hypocritical.
I think most people can understand the qualitative difference between slaughtering a cow or abusing one. It seems to be an easy way to show a common moral ground. And it doesn't cost us anything. It's a pretty low moral bar, it doesn't require any complex moral reasoning. Socially it may help us gauge the people whom we interact with. It may be trite, but I am not sure that it is hypocritical.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:07 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:I took Weeks comment as flip humor.
You know me
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10472
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Zohar wrote:The whole distinction of "You kill animals for meat because it's fun" while completely ignoring every element in our lives increases animal suffering is what I was referring to. As if you're revealing some huge secret that no one knows about before, and you know the way to live life cruelty free.

I think he's saying animal cruelty isn't a big deal, or at least we should be consistent about it. Like the guy torturing puppies could well be venting off steam so that he doesn't torture people. Now that's not how life works, but at least you'd have a consistent philosophy. This still ignores tradeoffs in life where sure you hate something, like armies, but you're forced to buy one yourself because you don't want to be the only one unarmed.


Costa Rica seems to be doing alright. I think the way to get around armies is to have a friendly superpower that gets various goods at a reduced rate from you, but does NOT have a corporation or other special interest that operates in your country willing to overthrow your government every time you try to implement a minimum wage that includes a piece of fruit with your bowls of rice.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:39 pm UTC

Isn't that similar to the slowest deer strategy? It only works if your country never has or never will contain anything of importance. No resource or strategic position, or religious stuff. Take Jade. It was a worthless stone in a lot of countries. Now the Chinese have the money to get it. Merchants would love diplomatic pressure that reduces costs in the Jade mines in another country. Say, by over throwing the government every time the minimum wage increases.

And that's not even talking about how closely Westerners hew to those principles when profit is at stake. It's been a mixed bag.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:14 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elasto wrote:they believe owning animals is akin to slavery.

Was just pointing out that growing meat in vats will not cure everyone's moral hangups re the 'correct' relationship between people and animals.
I know some people view pet ownership as a kind of slavery.

I'm still not seeing how that (or anything else about our relationship to animals) relates to growing muscle tissue in labs.


I can see it being viewed as some kind of torture, I suppose. Regardless of that relationship to actual fact. People viewing it as an animal, and the treatment of it constituting abuse or some such. And that sort of belief would probably end up coming from the same quarters as the "pets are slavery" sorts. So, I can see a tenuous connection.

At a certain point though, you can't worry overly much about crazy, non-factual things that someone *may* believe in the future.

Animal cruelty vs humane killing is a reasonable thing, though. I mean, if I'm dead, I give roughly zero craps if I get eaten by whatever alien race has seeded us for future consumption. I'm dead, I won't really care. Being tortured, though, that seems pretty awful. Especially when it provides basically no benefits. I see no hypocrisy there, just a reasonable set of tradeoffs.

Sardia, agreed. To achieve technological development, you have to get industry, and that requires...growing pains. Avoiding having any entity large enough to force through unpleasant things has a lot of hidden costs in lost opportunity. It's always hard to precisely measure the things that *don't* happen, but long term, technological advancement has turned out to be pretty valuable. Relegating yourself to being a small backwater that deals in low volumes of not particularly advanced goods* seems to have limited potential.

*Mostly raw fruits and vegetables.

elasto
Posts: 3719
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:02 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Sure, I'm well aware that people will oppose vat-grown meat for other reasons. My question, which no one has responded to yet, is why opposition to pet ownership is related to vat-grown meat in any way.

Wow. It was just a throwaway line in response to another throwaway line.

The conversation was about how people 'abuse' animals 'for fun'. When someone said 'none of this will be a problem when we have vat-grown meat' I was just pointing out that some people will still believe animals are being 'abused' for 'fun'. That's all.

As Tyndmyr says, at some point you just have to stop pandering to the crazies.

If meat is murder...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:35 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I was just pointing out that some people will still believe animals are being 'abused' for 'fun'.
The quotes should really go around "animals" more than any other word. I didn't get the connection because I don't know of anyone, including PETA-types, who thinks growing muscle tissue in a jar involves any kind of animal in the first place.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests