25 Oct 04
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderwell the reason i used those examples is because you seem to have a difficult time relating the concept of consideration to non-humans. (i can find you examples of where humans did change their minds and gave consideration to non-humans adopting what was in that time thought by some to be an 'extreme' position.)
UMM, all those examples concern the treatment of human beings; I doubt sheep are going to get the vote in any time frame that humanity has to worry about.
In Sufferagesuccotashship,
2BitLawyer
this is not totally surprising because some people had trouble relating the concept of consideration even to humans throughout history - so for some people it is understandably a large jump to extend the idea to non-humans.
in the 70s and 80s, i certainly didn't have the slightest idea that maybe animals should be given consideration to live a life free from pain and exploitation. i certainly argued against it back then, using some of the 'logic' you have been using in this thread.
however, i did look further into it and changed my mind (admittedly over time) even though i realized it wasn't likely that sheep were going to get the vote - so i figured i'd give them (and others) mine.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfWell your opinions certainly are mallable: you used to give no consideration to the "rights" of animals now you give more consideration to these "rights" than those of human beings. I have no problem with saying that the welfare of human beings trumps the well-being of sheep by many magnitudes, so your attempt to convey some kind of moral superiority is laughable. And for you to act like you are a compassionate person to your fellow man flies in the face of your arguments here where you are unconcerned with the welfare of the Australian wool farmers and their families if that welfare needs to be sacrificed for the well-being of some sheep.
well the reason i used those examples is because you seem to have a difficult time relating the concept of consideration to non-humans. i can find you examples of where humans did change their minds and adopted what was in their time conside ...[text shortened]... figured i'd give them (and others) mine.
in friendship,
prad
In Ohthehumanitysheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
8 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderthe thread really isn't about me even though you keep trying to make it out to be.
Well your opinions certainly are mallable: you used to give no consideration to the "rights" of animals now you give more consideration to these "rights" than those of human beings. I have no problem with saying that the we ...[text shortened]... sheep.
In Ohthehumanitysheep,
2BitLawyer
people learn more and they change their minds. this is not an unusual thing - it might even happen to you.
i think you are being a bit silly thinking that all humans consider the welfare of humans to trump the welfare of animals by magnitudes. that is the position taken by many who like to "attempt to convey some kind of moral superiority" by expressing their deep concern for human welfare - in rather inappropriate places too.
what people really care about (regardless of what they say) are those who are in close proximity to them (in some form or other). for instance, from one of your earlier posts i gathered you have a dog. now, since you spend money on that dog to feed it, house it, give it medical attention, groom it, provide it with recreational opportunities, you obviously value its welfare more than some unfortunate child in africa who is starving and will die soon.
if you are like the average dog owner, you probably spend over $1000/year on your dog - many spend far more. the foster children we supported in central america cost only $30/month so you can imagine how well they would have done on an average dog's allowance.
but most people, however well-meaning they are towards other humans, are not going to transfer funds that go to their non-human companions or to their well-to-do associates or even their personal and possibly unnecessary indulgences (eg smoke and alcohol etc) out of concern for the welfare of less fortunate humans - even if these really could use a helping hand.
i'm not saying this is wrong, but this is how it is and the 'human welfare' argument really doesn't mean much in practical terms.
most humans look out for their own - regardless of the species.
some talk a great deal about the commitment to humanity.
some of us just simply boycott 😉
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderEasybeat claimed that "it is an overreaction to try to inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that has been the norm for more than 100 years."
Is it your claim that wool farming itself is immoral like slavery and should be abolished?
In Let'sgettothenubofthemattership,
2BitLawyer
I provided a counterexample to this argument, and made a prediction regarding a response he, or others, could make. I then pointed out that this response would presume the very thing at issue, and hence be question-begging. Nowhere in this line of argument did I suggest that wool farming is "immoral like slavery".
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrIf your counterexample is so different than the situation being argued, than it probably shouldn't be used. A boycott or preferably more forceful means would have been perfectly justified to end the terrible moral crime of slavery. If wool farming is not a moral crime, than a boycott who's true aim is to destroy wool farming is in no way morally comparable to similar measures to end slavery. You have avoided my question: do you consider wool farming a moral crime like slavery (moral crime meaning in this context a crime against basic morality, not a crime which is justifiable)?
Easybeat claimed that [b]"it is an overreaction to try to inflict financial hardship upon a 'select' group over a practice that has been the norm for more than 100 years."
I provided a counterexample to this argument, and made a prediction regarding a response he, or others, could make. I then pointed out that this response would presume the very ...[text shortened]... . Nowhere in this line of argument did I suggest that wool farming is "immoral like slavery".[/b]
In It'saquestionship,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderit would really help if you'd read the stuff in the thread before writing all about it.
a boycott who's true aim is to destroy wool farming
the intent of the international boycott isn't to destroy wool farming - it's to ban mulesing and live exports (as far as i can see from what is written).
it is specifically directed towards australian wool and here is the purpose (1st post):
to pledge not to use Australian wool in any of its garments until both mulesing and live exports are stopped ...
Please also join us in an international boycott of Australian wool, and contact Australian government officials to urge them to immediately end mulesing and the live export of sheep raised for wool in Australia
now if you say that i want to end wool farming (at least the commercial large scale kind), you could make a claim to some accuracy (but the thread isn't about me as i tried to convey to you earlier).
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfYou might actually try reading my posts. I didn't say "all humans consider the welfare of humans to trump the welfare of animals by magnitudes"; I said I did. Why this thread would be an "inappropriate place" to bring up concerns for human welfare is a mystery to me; you are advocating to destroy the livelihood of millions of people around the world because you think wool farming is somehow "immoral" - what would be an "appropriate" place in your view to voice my concerns for these people and their families (probably nowhere as you seem incapable of believing that an opinion different from yours on this issue might be motivated by anything but ignorance and/or malice)?
the thread really isn't about me even though you keep trying to make it out to be.
people learn more and they change their minds. this is not an unusual thing - it might even happen to you.
i think you are being a bit silly thinking tha ...[text shortened]... manity.
some of us just simply boycott 😉
in friendship,
prad
I very seriously doubt that most people think their dog is more entitled to avoid suffering than a starving child; you are probably projecting your own views. People are understandly suspicious about giving money to "humanitarian" groups as scandals involving the money going to its stated purpose are numerous (if somewhat exaggerrated in the sensationalistic press). You obviously have a very cynical view of the human race if you believe the average member of it would knowingly prefer their dog to live and a child to die. I think that comment is very revealing; I don't share your dark vision of humanity and I would hope neither do most people.
In Gonnabeabritebritesunshineydaysheep,
2BitLawyer
Edit: Your last post takes my words out of context (is Ivanhoe giving you lessons on selective quotation?); I said your motivation is to destroy wool farming, you've said as much IN THIS THREAD. Other people's motivations I don't know, but as it seems to be a fairly small minority I suspect most have the same true motivation as you.
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease refer to Easybeat's argument. Given the criteria he advanced concerning the justification of a boycott, my counter-example is perfectly analogous. So, if his argument succeeds in showing that boycotting the wool industry is unjustified, then it also succeeds in showing that boycotting the slave-driven cotton industry is unjustified. He now has the option of supplementing his original argument with further arguments that, for instance, aim to show that humans have rights and animals do not, and hence that boycotting slave-driven cotton is justified while boycotting sheep-driven wool is not. Without such supplemental argumentation on his part, my counter-example stands.
If your counterexample is so different than the situation being argued, than it probably shouldn't be used. A boycott or preferably more forceful means would have been perfectly justified to end the terrible moral crime of sla ...[text shortened]... fiable)?
In It'saquestionship,
2BitLawyer
EDIT: I inadvertantly avoided your question again. No, I do not consider wool farming a moral crime like slavery. I can imagine circumstances under which wool farming would be permissible. I cannot imagine situations under which enslaving a human being would be permissible.
26 Oct 04
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder
You might actually try reading my posts.
ok, i think may be you might try reading your own posts in that case. see this is what you wrote:
you are advocating to destroy the livelihood of millions of people around the world because you think wool farming is somehow "immoral"
that isn't what the boycott is about. that's not even what i am advocating in this thread - though personally, i am in favor of the elimination of the wool trade. it is a bit of fantasy to state that the livelihood of millions of people around the world are going to be jeapordized because mulesing and live exports are stopped, but it is a typical argument some people try to push forth.
I very seriously doubt that most people think their dog is more entitled to avoid suffering than a starving child
the point is that the money that goes to the pet (or other activity) could go to something else. it has nothing to do with your comment regarding suspicion of "humanitarian" groups. it just happens to be what people do and it is their choice.
I said your motivation is to destroy wool farming, you've said as much IN THIS THREAD.
well you haven't actually said quite that till now though i have said that i am in favour of eliminating the wool trade. what you still don't want to acknowledge is that this is not what the boycott is about. the boycott isn't about my motivations nor is it about ending the wool trade. it is about stopping the practise of mulesing and the live exports.
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by gumbiethank you gumbie for asking such interesting questions.
Thank you for your very complete answers prad. 🙂
I have to say your personal position is remarkably coherent.
I would question whether suffering has anything to do with pain whatsoever, but this would probably deserve a thread to itself.
i think there are many things that can be considered to be suffering and pain is one of them.
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderSometimes anti-cruelty statutes are rationalized as necessary to protect animals themselves, and sometimes they are rationalized in the manner you mention. One of the earliest anti-cruelty statutes, from 1822 in New York, was rationalized in the former manner.
I think the usual rationale for laws against animal cruelty are that the people who engage in animal cruelty are very likely to "graduate" to human cruelty if the initial behavior isn't punished. We would consider a man who skinned a dog alive a serious threat to human beings, not just other dogs because of the manner he acted. By contrast, pe ...[text shortened]... ual danger to humans.
In Ikickedthedogoverthispostship,
2BitLawyer
But this is all irrelevant to the argument I've been presenting, as legal rationales are not necessarily coextensive with moral rationales. The point, again, is that if you recognize a moral obligation not to treat animals under your control in any manner you see fit (e.g., not to skin them alive with a potato-peeler, set them on fire, etc.), then you are thereby committed to the claim that they are not proper objects of ownership.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfI suspect you support this boycott for the same reason that antiabortionists support laws against "partial-birth abortions" (though that is not a medical term); i.e. as a "foot in the door" on the path to eliminate wool farming. Obviously, the measures to replace the practice supposedly objected to are all more costly and difficult and would damage the profitability of the industry and farmers who's livelihood depend on it. As you wouldn't buy wool no matter what, a boycott is irrelevant to your choice in this matter, yet, you vocally support it. Therefore, it seems to me that your motivation and the motivation of most people urging the boycott is to an eventual abolition of wool farming; outright if possible, by making it economically unviable if necessary. Same result.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]You might actually try reading my posts.
ok, i think may be you might try reading your own posts in that case. see this is what you wrote:
you are advocating to destroy the livelihood of millions of people around the world because you think wool farming is somehow "immoral"
that isn't what the boy ...[text shortened]... ade. it is about stopping the practise of mulesing and the live exports.
in friendship,
prad[/b]
My comments regarding your dim view of the human race stand and you did not even pretend to refute them.
In What'sgoingonsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrI might not want to throw my computer out the window either, but that doesn't mean I consider it not "a proper object of ownership".
Sometimes anti-cruelty statutes are rationalized as necessary to protect animals themselves, and sometimes they are rationalized in the manner you mention. One of the earliest anti-cruelty statutes, from 1822 in New York, was rationalized in the former manner.
But this is all irrelevant to the argument I've been presenting, as legal rationales are not nec ...[text shortened]... .), then you are thereby committed to the claim that they are not proper objects of ownership.
I think you're equating two different things: 1) A desire not to harm my property; with 2) My ability to own my property. Obviously, rational human beings don't want to damage or destroy the stuff they own, but that desire is not the same as saying they have no "moral" right to own it. I guess if you believe as Pradtf does that people care more about their pet hamster than a starving child, you would equate that hamster with such human traits that you could "not" own it, it would be part of the family. Most (sane) people would reject that, however. You can't morally own a human being because we presume that he would make a conscious decision not to be owned; we have no evidence that animals can possibly make such a knowing choice, therefore, I don't think there's a moral problem with owning them.
In ThedogneversaidIcan'townhinsheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderyes yes i know your comments always stand and you right along side them - even through an earthquake 😀
I suspect you support this boycott for the same reason that antiabortionists support laws against "partial-birth abortions" (though that is not a medical term); i.e. as a "foot in the door" on the path to eliminate wool farming. Obviously, the measures to replace the practice supposedly objected to are all more costly and difficult and would ...[text shortened]... ou did not even pretend to refute them.
In What'sgoingonsheep,
2BitLawyer
i didn't refute your comments because they don't make much sense and i keep trying to stay on topic which has nothing to do with my "dim view of the human race" as you put it. i haven't even tried to talk about my dim view of your comments, because it too has nothing to do with this thread.
you really do a lot of suspecting. i do not think that Abercrombie & Fitch want the wool trade to end, but they do want the mulesing and live exports to end as do many other groups and individuals. some of these, in all likelihood a minority, also want the entire wool trade to end. they do not support this so as to get a foot in the door (both feet have been in for a while) - but they do see it as a step in the right direction at least as far as animal welfare is concerned.
it is also very strange of you to think why i wouldn't vocally support a boycott even if i don't buy wool. it should be evident that i want mulesing and live exports to end just as much as someone who buys wool.
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSince you are apparently ignoring what I'm actually claiming, I'll repost the relevant claim:
I might not want to throw my computer out the window either, but that doesn't mean I consider it not "a proper object of ownership".
I think you're equating two different things: 1) A desire not to harm my property; with 2) ...[text shortened]... In ThedogneversaidIcan'townhinsheep,
2BitLawyer
The point, again, is that if you recognize a moral obligation not to treat animals under your control in any manner you see fit (e.g., not to skin them alive with a potato-peeler, set them on fire, etc.), then you are thereby committed to the claim that they are not proper objects of ownership.
Now, this is a conditional claim. I've placed the antecedent of this conditional in bold text. Do you see why your comments concerning harming your computer are irrelevent to this claim? They are irrelevent because you nobody takes themselves to have a moral obligation which they owe to their computer. People often take themselves to have moral obligations which they owe to animals. Recognizing such obligations, ones which are owed to animals themselves, is inconsistent with viewing animals as property.
So, again, if you recognize that there are moral constraints on how you may treat animals that you putatively own, then you are committed to viewing them as improper objects of ownership.