Human"ism"

[svoboda]

To keep you busy, thereby reducing your opportunities to club too many baby seals to death, I'll ask you a few more things. <br> <br>[color=blue]How are you being 'ruled' by the community? Unless you are one of the animals onto whose back an ear is being grown, then nobody is going to tell you what to do. </font color=blue> <br> <br>My concerns have not been taken seriously by the community in question, my deeply held beliefs have been disregarded, my views ignored. This is marginalising, this is oppressive. In this sense I am being ruled. <br> <br>[color=blue]Anarchism is by humans and for humans. Animal slavery doesn't contradict anarchism.</font color=blue> <br> <br>Really? I thought anarchism was supposed to be a holistic view of the world, presupposing a particular way of relating to everyone and everything on this planet. But wait, haven't you advocated slavery for mentally handicapped individuals? Unless you show that they are animals, your proposal to exploit them contradicts even your own peculiar conceptualisation of anarchism as being "by humans and for humans". <br> <br>[color=blue]Yep, but in the context of their lower intelligence, the same physical sensation ranks lower in animals than people. In order to determine whether it's okay to harm an animal, then animal intelligence multiplied by animal pain must be less than harmer intelligence multiplied by harmer enjoyment.</font color=blue> <br> <br>I am totally horrified and wondering how and by what criteria the level of intelligence, the level of pain and the level of enjoyment would be measured. Just like Kevehs, I am not satisfied at all with your previous answer, so please don't make vague references to abilities by creatures to manufacture nuclear weapons. I want to know how -exactly- someone who adopts your philosophy goes about measuring intelligence, pain, and enjoyment in order to determine whether it's ok to harm animals.

[ThePeccary]

Is there any qualitative difference between this person's actions in relation to the stupid, and your relation to animals? <br> <br>The intelligent person is more likely to return a negative result in the Pec^TM utilitarian happiness equation. And stupid people might be tempted to copy him, too, which shouldn't be disregarded. <br> <br>Yet another of your statements to throw onto the pile of "obviously controversial statements for which Pec offered no support at all." <br> <br>Prove me wrong, then. <br> <br>Why? Because you decided that was the case? <br> <br>Yes. That is why I eat meat. <br> <br>I am still completely baffled by the nuclear standard you are using to measure intelligence. Perhaps this is a sign of my lower inherent capacity. <br> <br>It's not a standard. If lettuce developed nuclear weapons wouldn't you reconsider eating it? <br> <br> <br> <br>Eeewwww... Utilitarianism... Gross.... <br> <br>Don't be afraid, it's pefectly natural...

[ThePeccary]

My concerns have not been taken seriously by the community in question, my deeply held beliefs have been disregarded, my views ignored. This is marginalising, this is oppressive. In this sense I am being ruled. <br> <br>Okay, but if your views over-rode the views of the community, and the animals weren't used for testing, then wouldn't you become the ruler of the community? Wouldn't you marginalize and oppress them by disregarding their deeply held beliefs? <br> <br>So what solution do you propose so that everyone gets their own way? How is it possible to appease those who want the animals to remain free and those who want the animals to be tortured in the name of science? <br> <br>Really? I thought anarchism was supposed to be a holistic view of the world, presupposing a particular way of relating to everyone and everything on this planet. But wait, haven't you advocated slavery for mentally handicapped individuals? Unless you show that they are animals, your proposal to exploit them contradicts even your own peculiar conceptualisation of anarchism as being "by humans and for humans". <br> <br>Enslavement of mentally handicapped people may be contrary to anarchism, but it's still a good idea. <br> <br> I am totally horrified and wondering how and by what criteria the level of intelligence, the level of pain and the level of enjoyment would be measured. Just like Kevehs, I am not satisfied at all with your previous answer, so please don't make vague references to abilities by creatures to manufacture nuclear weapons. I want to know how -exactly- someone who adopts your philosophy goes about measuring intelligence, pain, and enjoyment in order to determine whether it's ok to harm animals. <br> <br>I prepared an animal intelligence test, where I asked them when a train accelerating at 9ms^-2 from Detroit would pass a train travelling at 75mph from Denver. Animals giving answers such as 'Moo', 'Baa', 'Woof' and 'Quack' failed the test, and were beaten soundly in order to encourage their evolution. <br> <br>As for measuring their happiness, I simply assumed that the things that make humans happy would generally make animals happy, and the things that make humans unhappy will generally affect animals in the same way.

[Kevehs]

>>>>> <br>Prove me wrong, then. <br>>>>>> <br> <br>When you bother to support any of those statements with a shred of evidence or an argument, I will take the time to show exactly where I think the argument has gone wrong. Not only do I believe it is impossible to "prove" anything wrong in a discussion, I know as a fact that it is impossible to prove wrong an argument that has never been expressed. <br> <br>>>>>> <br>It's not a standard. <br>>>>>> <br> <br>Then please forgive me my confusion, as your previous response to my question was incoherent: <br> <br>[color=green]Kevehs: <br>How are you measuring the intelligence of humans to create this standard? </font color=green> <br> <br>[color=purple]Pec: <br>Once dolphins start creating nuclear bombs then I'll reconsider eating them. </font color=purple> <br> <br>>>>>> <br>The intelligent person is more likely to return a negative result in the PecTM utilitarian happiness equation. And stupid people might be tempted to copy him, too, which shouldn't be disregarded. <br>>>>>> <br> <br>The first of these differences is not qualitative, and the second is not a difference at all. Anyone who has spent a lot of time around dogs, for example, would probably note that a dog treated badly by a human will often copy that behavior in regards to other humans and dogs. <br> <br>And as for utilitarianism being completely natural, I won't argue the point. I will, however, argue that utilitarianism does not meet my needs as a moral creature, so I don't subscribe to it (though often my morality looks similar at a surface glance). I do not believe that all value is centered around me, or that all value is centered around human beings. Furthermore, I have not found as a matter of practical experience that moral questions can be weighed in the quantitative manner in which utilitarianism attempts to judge them.

[ThePeccary]

Not only do I believe it is impossible to "prove" anything wrong in a discussion, I know as a fact that it is impossible to prove wrong an argument that has never been expressed. <br> <br>You could provide evidence of non-human contribution to anarchist theory (proving it's just not 'by humans')... <br> <br>Then please forgive me my confusion, as your previous response to my question was incoherent: <br> <br>Kevehs: <br>How are you measuring the intelligence of humans to create this standard? <br> <br>Pec: <br>Once dolphins start creating nuclear bombs then I'll reconsider eating them. <br> <br>My fault entirely. Sorry. <br> <br>The first of these differences is not qualitative, <br> <br>You're right, sorry. <br> <br>I do not believe that all value is centered around me, or that all value is centered around human beings. <br> <br>I don't believe that all value is centred around humans, but I do believe that humans have more value than animals.

[Kevehs]

>>>> <br>You could provide evidence of non-human contribution to anarchist theory (proving it's just not 'by humans')... <br>>>>> <br> <br>I'm not sure if it would "prove" that, but I certainly could attempt to provide such evidence if I believed it existed. I don't think I'm going to, however, until you provide some argument for me to counter. I understand this is the old-fashioned way of doing it, but it is the method I'm most comfortable with. I get tired of second-guessing people all the time.

[ThePeccary]

You could provide evidence of non-human contribution to anarchist theory (proving it's just not 'by humans')... <br>>>>> <br> <br>I'm not sure if it would "prove" that <br> <br>Nope, you've lost me. If you could prove that a cat, for instance, had contributed directly to anarchist theory, then you would have disproved my theory that anarchism is exclusively "by humans" by demonstrating that anarchism is "by humans and a cat". <br> <br>A couple of interesting questions have occured to me during these past number of posts: <br> <br>1) Should we, as anarchists, offer our help and support to chickens that are being pecked half to death by other chickens higher up in the pecking order, or any other animals who are victims of a heirarchy? Or is this the type of interference that we should move underground to avoid? <br> <br>2) Although democracy is very far from perfect, what less bad ways exist or could exist of deciding whether or not animals are used in tests that could potentially eradicate diseases?

[Kevehs]

>>>> <br>Nope, you've lost me. If you could prove that a cat, for instance, had contributed directly to anarchist theory, then you would have disproved my theory that anarchism is exclusively "by humans" by demonstrating that anarchism is "by humans and a cat". <br>>>>> <br> <br>Sure, but that would require that I give sufficient evidence to "prove" something in the first place, namely that the cat has contributed to anarchist theory. As a radical skeptic, I question all knowledge and the method of obtaining that knowledge to some degree. Depending on how you define the term "prove," this could imply that I cannot prove anything according to my own philosophy. Thus, offering some bit of evidence, as you suggested previously, would not prove you wrong. <br> <br>>>>> <br>1) Should we, as anarchists, offer our help and support to chickens that are being pecked half to death by other chickens higher up in the pecking order, or any other animals who are victims of a heirarchy? <br>>>>> <br> <br>I'm not sure. It is a question that could be explored in some depth, and would probably require a much better knowledge of non-human creatures than we currently have. However, the answer to this question is not necessarily a requirement to answer the question of whether or not we should (in a moral sense) directly harm chickens ourselves. <br> <br>>>>> <br>Or is this the type of interference that we should move underground to avoid? <br>>>>> <br> <br>I think you might have meant this as a joke, but in a way my answer is yes. I feel that from what we do know and don't know of the world around us, it is easy to deduce that there are functioning systems far beyond our current comprehension that we interact with on a daily basis. Since we don't understand those systems, we can't really know if our relation is on the whole positve, negative, both, or neither. <br> <br>A part of my motivation for wanting to move underground is to partially remove ourselves from directly impacting those systems as much as possible until we have a much better understanding of them. Of course, moving underground does not eliminate our impact on those systems, and impacts other systems to a greater degree as well. However, I believe that according to our current knowledge, the systems we will impact by moving underground are both less fragile and less complex than those we currently impact. If our knowledge concerning this issue changes over time, then it may turn out that moving underground was a mistake. However, we can only act to the best of our current knowledge at this time.

[svoboda]

[color=blue] So what solution do you propose so that everyone gets their own way? How is it possible to appease those who want the animals to remain free and those who want the animals to be tortured in the name of science?</font color=blue> <br> <br>I guess we shouldn't make a collective decision on this issue if there is a disagreement. The question should remain open for discussions and debates. If at some point we reach a collective unanimous decision, fine. If we don't, perhaps this is a kind of question which should forever remain unanswered. In the absence of a collective decision, some people might continue torturing animals, yet, the very existence of the opposition would make them evaluate their actions more carefully than they would have done had the community collectively endorsed the torture of animals. <br> <br>[color=blue]Although democracy is very far from perfect, what less bad ways exist or could exist of deciding whether or not animals are used in tests that could potentially eradicate diseases?</font color=blue> <br> <br>It's a moral issue, and probably each scientist should decide for themselves whether such tests should be conducted. <br> <br>[color=blue]Should we, as anarchists, offer our help and support to chickens that are being pecked half to death by other chickens higher up in the pecking order, or any other animals who are victims of a heirarchy?</font color=blue> <br> <br>What you've described is violence causing pain and suffering to some creatures, and, according to my morality, this is wrong. I don't know what "we, as anarchists", should or shouldn't do, but I, as a human being, would offer my help and support to such chickens simply because they are victims of violence and they suffer.

[ThePeccary]

each scientist should decide for themselves whether such tests should be conducted. <br> <br>But I don't want the scientists to conduct the tests. My concerns have not been taken seriously by the scientific community in question, my deeply held beliefs have been disregarded, my views ignored. This is marginalising, this is oppressive. In this sense I am being ruled.

[svoboda]

I'll copy-paste the relevant stuff, adding emphasis: <br> <br>Svo: If I am unfortunate enough to live in such a society, and the local community decides to torture animals and enslave the mentally handicapped, and if I object to that, can the local community disregard my objections? <br> <br>Pec: They can, but they should at least hear you out. If your position is 'better' than theirs there is always a chance they will change their minds. <br> <br>Svo: In this case, how is your society which claims the mantle of anarchism different from the society I live in today? My views can be "heard out" even today (writing newspaper articles, lobbying of all sorts, etc.), yet I am being ruled by others. Looks like in your society I will still be ruled but others, but instead of elected representatives, those others would be the local community. Is this right? But if I would be ruled, is your society anarchist? <br> <br>Pec: How are you being 'ruled' by the community? Unless you are one of the animals onto whose back an ear is being grown, then nobody is going to tell you what to do. <br> <br>Svo: My concerns have not been taken seriously by the community in question, my deeply held beliefs have been disregarded, my views ignored. This is marginalising, this is oppressive. In this sense I am being ruled. <br> <br>__________________________________________________________________________________________ <br> <br>Svo: each scientist should decide for themselves whether such tests should be conducted. <br> <br>Pec: But I don't want the scientists to conduct the tests. My concerns have not been taken seriously by the scientific community in question, my deeply held beliefs have been disregarded, my views ignored. This is marginalising, this is oppressive. In this sense I am being ruled. <br>__________________________________________________________________________________________ <br> <br>Now my question is: do you see the difference between individual scientists making individual moral choices and a community making a collective decision by majority, thereby disregarding views of some members of the community in question?

[ThePeccary]

Now my question is: do you see the difference between individual scientists making individual moral choices thereby disregarding views of some members of the community in question and a community making a collective decision by majority, thereby disregarding views of some members of the community in question? <br> <br>Not really. <br> <br>You still haven't provided me with a compelling reason that the community should not be involved in the decision making process when the animals affect the community. <br> <br>When the community makes their decision by majority, there is at least a guarantee that the views of no more than 49% of the community who care about the issue enough to vote will be disregarded. When the scientist assumes he knows better, he disregards the views of 100% of the community. <br> <br>Your interpretation of the idea of being ruled confuses me, to be honest. Were the community to vote against animal tests, and actually infringe on your freedom to inject shampoo into rabbit's corneas, they wouldn't be ruling you as they wouldn't be disregarding your wishes. If the community were to allow animal tests, and you were free to do absolutely anything you want including forcing chimps to take LSD, then you are being ruled because you don't get your own way and other people are allowed to do things you don't want them to do. <br> <br>So, if an individual decides to disregard your views that's fine, that individual isn't your ruler. <br>If a community decides to disregard your views that's terrible, that community is your ruler. <br>How does that work again?

[ThePeccary]

I happen to think that giving factual evidence to support a case is pretty futile, and facts are best used to refute a case. <br> <br>After all, even though any number of facts may appear to back up a position or statement, if even only one fact contradicts that position, then the position must be erroneous. <br> <br>Which is why I feel justified in making crazy assertions left, right and centre and never giving a jot of evidence to support my lunatic ravings.

[Kevehs]

That is fine Pec, it is your decision, just don't expect me to bother criticising a position you have never fully expressed. <br> <br>Let us take the cat and anarchy case, for example. Theorectically, I could drone on with a long string of "facts" which on some interpretations demonstrate all the cat scientists and philosophers that have contributed so much for so long to anarchist philosophy. However, since you never gave an argument to begin with, I don't know if those facts are even relevant. What if, for example, your argument was that cat's never made a substantial contribution to the "human" aspect of anarchism? Then giving examples of a cat's general contribution to anarchism would be useless. Just like you can't prove a negative (i.e. you cannot prove that ufo's don't exist), it is very difficult if not impossible to disprove a statement that is given no support. If you don't believe me, then we can try a little game. I will make a statement and you disprove it. <br> <br>"In reality, ThePeccary is a statist." <br> <br>In classical debate, the burden is on me to supply the argument before you supply a counter. I can understand some reasons why someone would reject this tradition, but I have yet to do so myself.

[ThePeccary]

we can try a little game. I will make a statement and you disprove it. <br> <br>"In reality, ThePeccary is a statist." <br> <br>Is it not possible to arrive at the correct conclusion even if this conclusion is arrived at in the 'wrong' way? If this can be the case, then disproving the argument used to arrive at a given conclusion doesn't necessarily disprove the conclusion. <br> <br>As far as I can tell, the best way to convince anyone I'm not a statist is to just repeat it a lot...