#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
I killed puppies once.
Do you believe it is ever okay to kill puppies or kittens?
| Add New Argument |
|
5
points
You people who think that this is o.k., are sick, disgusting, inhumane, people. I don't care if your trying to be funny or just being sarcastic.. It's like saying, "Is it o.k. if I killed my parents?" and you replied "No, it's fine and it funny".... You people are sick, I may seem a bit over the top but you cruel, inhumane... you are not even people, should go to jail.. or at least give some community service... I am truly APPALLED. 4
points
Killing animals is a disgusting act of blind cruelty, animals are innocent, they are not capable of malice or deceit, anyone who harms an animal as a means to self gratify is pathetic in every sense of the word. If someones morality allows them to commit such barbarous acts against helpless creatures then that is no morality to which I would ever subscribe, that kind of behaviour is simply depraved, and if I ever bear witness to such an act I will not remain passive, I can assure you. 1
point
Are you disputing whether animals are actually innocent, because you're supporting my argument. "does this mean that bacteria and trees are also innocent?" Well, they don't have same kind advanced consciousness of most mamals (or other non-human animals), but to a lesser extent, yes they are. "What makes something innocent, exactly?" Well, for me, morality is only applicable to humans, therefore the actions of animals cannot be judged as being moral or immoral - this I beleive makes them innocent. And the fact that if they are abused they can suffer significant psychological torment/trauma that effectively scars them for life (like all those sad puppy dogs in the dog shelter adverts) only reinforces the depravity associated with their needless/senseless abuse. It's really more of a judgement on the guy who needs to get his rocks off by torturing a defenseless animal. "What makes something innocent, exactly?" No prior knowledge of any kind of morality, or any idea what morality is. yes they are. then the issue isn't of the abuse of the innocent, because if that were so, you'd oppose harming bacteria and trees, wouldn't you? morality is only applicable to humans why apply moral standards to things that aren't applicable to morality? If animals are outside of morality it would make little sense to suggest that they deserve to be treated with any kind of morality. reinforces the depravity associated with their needless/senseless abuse. Feeling bad for abused animals doesn't qualify as a reason to say that we must stop abuse of animals. It's really more of a judgement on the guy who needs to get his rocks off by torturing a defenseless animal. If your entire argument is just about how it's sick, that's fine. But if you feel that we must adhere to a certain moral standard that says that killing or hurting animals is wrong, I'd have to disagree. I'd personally never torture an animal, but if someone else does I don't believe that they should be stopped (by the law). 1
point
"then the issue isn't of the abuse of the innocent, because if that were so, you'd oppose harming bacteria and trees, wouldn't you?" I do oppose the needless destruction of bacteria and trees, don't misunderstand my position, if I'm hungry and stranded out in the wideness I will grab the closest thing that can provide me with nourishment, and if that happens to be a cute little bunny rabbit I'll snap its neck and tuck in once I have gutted it and roasted it on the BBQ. If there is no need to harm bacteria or trees, then they should be left alone, destroying life for the sake of it serves no purpose, it is mindless. "why apply moral standards to things that aren't applicable to morality? If animals are outside of morality it would make little sense to suggest that they deserve to be treated with any kind of morality." At this stage you're just trolling, I made my position quite clear, i.e. "It's really more of a judgement on the guy who needs to get his rocks off by torturing a defenseless animal." The whole point of my argument is that I don't apply moral standards to things that aren't applicable to morality, I apply them to people I perceive as acting immorally. "Feeling bad for abused animals doesn't qualify as a reason to say that we must stop abuse of animals." In isolation it doesn't, and that's exactly why I based my argument on more than that. "If your entire argument is just about how it's sick, that's fine. " No it's mainly about how sick the person doing the torturing is. "I'd personally never torture an animal, but if someone else does I don't believe that they should be stopped (by the law)." I'm not talking about the law. The whole point of my argument is that I don't apply moral standards to things that aren't applicable to morality, I apply them to people I perceive as acting immorally. But why is hurting an animal morally wrong? I see that you're against hurting bacteria and trees, so I suppose a child pulling grass out of the ground when he's bored is acting immoral? If this is the case... I suppose I don't hold myself to the same moral standards as you do. I believe that morality is a code for those who abide by morality. Non-aggression principle is a good one, for it says "don't hurt a man who doesn't hurt you." Both of us are in a mutual moral understanding. Animals, on the other hand, have no morality to abide by. Why would I apply my morality to it? No it's mainly about how sick the person doing the torturing is. Mentally sick? And why? I'm not talking about the law. Good. because it would be idiotic to believe that animals should be protected under the law. 1
point
"But why is hurting an animal morally wrong?" Because it implies that the person doing the hurting is a moral degenerate. "I see that you're against hurting bacteria and trees, so I suppose a child pulling grass out of the ground when he's bored is acting immoral?" Firstly, a young child is fairly innocent as its mind has not developed. If I saw an adult pulling up grass for fun I'd have to question that persons sanity. Secondly, it isn't all that immoral, I mean, when taking about life forms that have no self awareness a different standard should be applied. There is no inconsistency here. Common sense can easily guide the way, I mean, a few bushes being pulled up for fun is one thing , the destruction of a few acres of forest for fun is quite another, i.e. scale is crucial I'm not a Jain, but any wasting of resources that essentially equates to wasting of life itself should be viewed as a bad thing. If you ask why, I have to ask what exactly it is you value, do you value the survival of life on this planet, or that of your own species? "Animals, on the other hand, have no morality to abide by. Why would I apply my morality to it?" We rely on the natural world for our own lives and livelyhood, we are connected to it, and until such a time as we manage to decouple ourselves from the earths metabolism, we will remain so, therefore we are obligated to preserve it - that is assuming we care about preserving ourselves. This effectively means we need to apply a common set of rules or code of behaviour (i.e. morality) in dealing with the natural environment in order to ensure the survival of our own species, but also to preserve the multitudinous life forms existing on this planet, which by their very existence enrich our own lives. "Mentally sick? And why?" Simple, torturing or killing animals for fun is a sure sign of sociopathy or psychopathy in a person, there are other reasons but this is the most important, do I need to reference the litany of sociological and psychological studies showing the correlation between the two? because the science on this is pretty sound. "because it would be idiotic to believe that animals should be protected under the law." Animals are already protected under the law, what is so bad about it? Because it implies that the person doing the hurting is a moral degenerate But why? If I saw an adult pulling up grass for fun I'd have to question that persons sanity. I was laying on the ground in a forest the other day. Was pretty high. It felt good to pull the grass out as I lay there. Do you question my sanity, now? Skip the high jokes. Really, what am I doing wrong or morally repugnant, if anything? when taking about life forms that have no self awareness a different standard should be applied. So there are levels of immorality. Well, I'd have to see how you're coming up with your scale, yo. Common sense can easily guide the way, I mean, a few bushes being pulled up for fun is one thing , the destruction of a few acres of forest for fun is quite another, i.e. scale is crucial Once again, why? If you go down the whole "global warming" aspect, I'd suppose it has MORE to do with the sake of humanity than it does with the fact that we're hurting non-humans. but any wasting of resources that essentially equates to wasting of life itself should be viewed as a bad thing. Wasting of what kind of life? And why? do you value the survival of life on this planet, or that of your own species? I value my own life. Anything that gets in the way is against my values. Anything that gets in the way of my interests is against my values. But animal rights for the sake of animal rights? I see no logic. We rely on the natural world for our own lives and livelyhood, we are connected to it, and until such a time as we manage to decouple ourselves from the earths metabolism, we will remain so, therefore we are obligated to preserve it - that is assuming we care about preserving ourselves. So it IS about human survival. Well, science can take care of that. So you can stop caring about animal abuse, now. This effectively means we need to apply a common set of rules or code of behaviour (i.e. morality) in dealing with the natural environment in order to ensure the survival of our own species, but also to preserve the multitudinous life forms existing on this planet, which by their very existence enrich our own lives. Animal abuse has no effect on the the existence of anything except for that very creature that is being abused. So no, this is clearly not a good enough explanation. Unless you have more to it, animal abuse is justifiable so far. Simple, torturing or killing animals for fun is a sure sign of sociopathy or psychopathy in a person, there are other reasons but this is the most important, do I need to reference the litany of sociological and psychological studies showing the correlation between the two? because the science on this is pretty sound. So your justification is based on assumptions. I suppose you believe in the myth that Psychology is an exact science... This is what i hope to dismantle in a few years. The idea that Psychology has turned us into readable machines. We're not. Animal abuse can be a sign of antisocial behavior, but if we eliminated the idea that animals deserve to be treated as anything but tools, animal abuse would no longer even be seen as against the norm. It would just be what some people enjoy doing, and our standards for taking down possible antisocials would develop. Limiting human behavior is a cop-out. Animals are already protected under the law, what is so bad about it? Wait... so you do support animal rights laws? I'm confused, what are you saying, sir? 1
point
"But why?" As I said at the beginning, based on my morality, anyone who tortures and kills animals for fun is immoral. I don't consider someone who enjoys inflicting pain on living things moral. "Do you question my sanity, now? " No, you were stoned, plus I included a second qualification concerning scale in my previous argument. "Really, what am I doing wrong or morally repugnant, if anything?" Well, if you enjoyed it so much that you dedicated all your time to destroying as much of the natural world (that still exists) as possible, then yes, I would view that as morally repugnant. I think most morals have evolved by necessity, if everyone decided tomorrow that it was great fun to destroy nature, and they all set about doing it, we would go extinct pretty quickly. "So there are levels of immorality.Well, I'd have to see how you're coming up with your scale, yo." For me there is, it depends on your capacity for empathy. "If you go down the whole "global warming" aspect, I'd suppose it has MORE to do with the sake of humanity than it does with the fact that we're hurting non-humans. " Yes, it does have more to do with humanity than non-humans, I am a human, it is only natural that I will be most concerned with my own species, however we are part of the natural world. "Wasting of what kind of life? And why?" Wasting anything that can be used to perpetuate life, why? in order to ensure the continued growth and proliferation of the natural world, and of ourselves. "I value my own life. Anything that gets in the way is against my values. Anything that gets in the way of my interests is against my values. But animal rights for the sake of animal rights? I see no logic." That is because you have no conception of what your life would be like without the natural world. "So it IS about human survival." Primarily yes. "Well, science can take care of that. So you can stop caring about animal abuse, now." Explain. "Animal abuse has no effect on the the existence of anything except for that very creature that is being abused. So no, this is clearly not a good enough explanation. Unless you have more to it, animal abuse is justifiable so far." If everyone took the attitude that you are condoning then the destruction of the natural world would be accelerating unabated, the fact that people recognize the folly in this opinion is the only thing stopping us from completely annihilating the natural world for our own selfish interests. But I fear with the ever increasing world population it may not matter. "So your justification is based on assumptions. I suppose you believe in the myth that Psychology is an exact science... " No, but it most certainly strong enough evidence upon which to base an opinion. What would take to convince you? I mean, if someone who slits the throats of puppies called by your house, would you feel at apprehensive? or would you afford him the same trust as anyone else? "This is what i hope to dismantle in a few years. The idea that Psychology has turned us into readable machines." I agree that it is unrealistic to beleive human psychology is determinate. "Animal abuse can be a sign of antisocial behavior," I agree, being anti-social can lead a person to commit violent acts on animals, but once he has done, assuming he enjoyed it (i.e. the feeling of power it gave him), I believe it is quite probable he will develop a predilection towards harming al living things, and humans are by no means excluded. "It would just be what some people enjoy doing," People have always killed animals for sport if that is what you mean, however I'm talking about an experience that is much more sadistic and intimate, e.g. carefully chaining an animal down and torturing it to death When I was in Cambodia I came across a place that let you shoot a chicken to pieces with an AK-47, it was just to squeeze money out of ignorant tourists who had spilled over from Thailand, the chicken was tied down, there was no sport in it, it was just for ignorant moronic pleasure. It fucking disgusted me to my core. Actually, that reminds of a part of Charles Bukowskis autobiography of his childhood, i.e. "One day I was standing around, waiting as usual, not friendly with the gang, no longer really wanting to be, when Gene rushed up to me, "Hey, Henry, come on!" "What is it?" "COME ON!" Gene started running and I ran after him. We ran down the driveway and into the Gibsons' backyard. The Gibsons had a large brick wall all around their backyard. "LOOK! HE'S GOT THE CAT CORNERED! HE'S GOING TO KILL IT!" There was a small white cat backed into a corner of the wall. It couldn't go up and it couldn't go in one direction or the other. Its back was arched and it was spitting, its claws ready. But it was very small and Chuck's bulldog, Barney, was growling and moving closer and closer. I got the feeling that the cat had been put there by the guys and then the bulldog had been brought in. I felt it strongly because of the way Chuck and Eddie and Gene were watching: they had a guilty look. "You guys did this," I said. "No," said Chuck, "it's the cat's fault. It came in here. Let it fight its way out." "I hate you bastards," I said. "Barney's going to kill that cat," said Gene. "Barney will rip it to pieces," said Eddie. "He's afraid of the claws but when he moves in it will be all over." Barney was a large brown bulldog with slobbering jaws. He was dumb and fat with senseless brown eyes. His growl was steady and he kept inching forward, the hairs standing up on his neck and along his back. I felt like kicking him in his stupid ass but I figured he would rip my leg off. He was entirely intent upon the kill. The white cat wasn't even fully grown. It hissed and waited, pressed against the wall, a beautiful creature, so clean. The dog moved slowly forward. Why did the guys need this? This wasn't a matter of courage, it was just dirty play. Where were the grownups? Where were the authorities? They were always around accusing me. Now where were they? I thought of rushing in, grabbing the cat and running, but I didn't have the nerve. I was afraid that the bulldog would attack me. The knowledge that I didn't have the courage to do what was necessary made me feel terrible. I began to feel physically sick. I was weak. I didn't want it to happen yet I couldn't think of any way to stop it. "Chuck," I said, "let the cat go, please. Call your dog off." Chuck didn't answer. He just kept watching. Then he said, "Barney, go get him! Get that cat!" Barney moved forward and suddenly the cat leaped. It was a furious blur of white and hissing, claws and teeth. Barney backed off and the cat retreated to the wall again. "Go get him, Barney," Chuck said again. "God damn you, shut up!" I told him. "Don't talk to me that way," Chuck said. Barney began to move in again. "You guys set this up," I said. I heard a slight sound behind us and looked around. I saw old Mr. Gibson watching from behind his bedroom window. He wanted the cat to get killed too, just like the guys. Why? Old Mr. Gibson was our mailman with the false teeth. He had a wife who stayed in the house all the time. She only came out to empty the garbage. Mrs. Gibson always wore a net over her hair and she was always dressed in a nightgown, bathrobe and slippers. Then as I watched, Mrs. Gibson, dressed as always came and stood next to her husband, waiting for the kill. Old Mr. Gibson was one of the few men in the neighborhood with a job but he still needed to see the cat killed. Gibson was just like Chuck, Eddie and Gene. There were too many of them. The bulldog moved closer. I couldn't watch the kill. I felt a great shame at leaving the cat like that. There was always the chance that the cat might try to escape, but I knew that they would prevent it. That cat wasn't only facing the bulldog, it was facing Humanity. I turned and walked away, out of the yard, up the driveway and to the sidewalk. I walked along the sidewalk toward where I lived and there in the front yard of his home, my father stood waiting. "Where have you been?" he asked. I didn't answer. "Get inside," he said, "and stop looking so unhappy or I'll give you something that will really make you unhappy!" - Ham On Rye, Charles Buwkowski, Chapter 20 "Wait... so you do support animal rights laws? I'm confused, what are you saying, sir?" I'm not for them, I'm not against them, I recognise the need for them, but I am largely indifferent. based on my morality Your morality, as you've explained, comes from the overall good of humanity. Tolerating animal abuse doesn't go against your morality. No, you were stoned I do it sober. Just when i'm bored and sitting on the ground. I just find myself sitting on the ground more when I'm stoned. Well, if you enjoyed it so much that you dedicated all your time to destroying as much of the natural world (that still exists) as possible, then yes, I would view that as morally repugnant. I think most morals have evolved by necessity, if everyone decided tomorrow that it was great fun to destroy nature, and they all set about doing it, we would go extinct pretty quickly. So truly, if everyone decided to abuse animals all at once, then it would be bad. But as long as the animal abusers are a minority, there's nothing to worry about. I know. For me there is, it depends on your capacity for empathy. So you admit that your morality is completely subjective. Sure, but I am still curious on the reasoning behind yours, specifically (since you seem to despise those who go against it). however we are part of the natural world. I don't see why you needed to say "however." We are a part of the natural world... yes? so? let's use it to our advantage. in order to ensure the continued growth and proliferation of the natural world, and of ourselves. The ol' Tragedy of the Commons argument. The thing about the ToC is that things never progress if you just say "don't abuse the nature, man." We'd still be using three cows instead of mass farming. That is because you have no conception of what your life would be like without the natural world. Well, none of us do, because that's impossible. The natural world can't disappear. Hurrdurr. If it ever does, it would most likely be from an implosion from the Universe, wiping everything out. Even so, it's theorized that the Big Bang would just happen again. So no matter how hard we try, the natural world is here to stay. I think YOU'RE having a problem thinking that you can conceptualize your life without the natural world :( Explain We've used science to combat the disadvantageous aspects of nature (disease, predators, weather, etc), and we use science to combat any reactions to our use of science. But most importantly, animal abuse does not, in any way, cause any kind of natural disaster. I'd like to know why you believe this, though... If everyone took the attitude that you are condoning then the destruction of the natural world would be accelerating unabated Why? Why would people just go on a murderous rampage just because they didn't care that some people like to abuse animals? I've never purposefully harmed an animal, so really, if everyone were like me there would be no animal abuse. or would you afford him the same trust as anyone else? I put little trust in most people. I keep caution for many different things. People smoking crack are far more likely to steal, but I'm not going to take away their right to smoke crack just because of the potential of to commit a crime against a human being. It fucking disgusted me to my core. How sad that you're so angry all the time. I'm not for them, I'm not against them, I recognise the need for them, but I am largely indifferent. You're indifferent for something that you feel we need? How odd. 2
points
"Your morality, as you've explained, comes from the overall good of humanity. Tolerating animal abuse doesn't go against your morality." Not exactly. We are just a complex manifestation of nature, while self interest dictates that I should care primarily about myself I am not so short sighted as to be unable to see where my self interest lies. I feel we have the capacity serve as natures nervous system, or to serve as a cancer on it. I am for the overall good of humanity but I view "the overall good of humanity" and "the overall good of nature" as being "somewhat" mutually inclusive, therefore I can not condone in any way the mindless torture and killing of animals, not least because I believe this would engender strongly self destructive tendencies within our species. "So truly, if everyone decided to abuse animals all at once, then it would be bad. But as long as the animal abusers are a minority, there's nothing to worry about." Having society as a whole condone such activity (which is what you seem to be advocating) is not a great way to ensure animal abusers remain a minority. "So you admit that your morality is completely subjective." I don't view morality as being completely one or the other, although if forced to chose - then I believe subjective to be a far more accurate way of characterising/describing it. "Sure, but I am still curious on the reasoning behind yours, specifically (since you seem to despise those who go against it)" I have convictions and principles that I am very passionate about, my morality is derived from the totality of my being, I get the impression yours is derived soley from your intellect. However my views are not inflexible, in fact they are quite dynamic and malleable, as i believe they should be. "I don't see why you needed to say "however." We are a part of the natural world... yes? so? let's use it to our advantage." What I mean is although we are physically distinct I believe we remained fastened to it in ways we cannot currently comprehend, and thus we should tred carefully. "The ol' Tragedy of the Commons argument. The thing about the ToC is that things never progress if you just say "don't abuse the nature, man."" That is not my position at all, I believe we can and should use (or "abuse", but i don;t like that word) nature for whatever end serves our own best interests, but this should be done responsibly with full awareness of the risk, and the possible consequences. Conservation and sustainability are the required to ensure we utilise the finite resources we have at our disposal in a way that best serves mankind, and nature. "Well, none of us do, because that's impossible. The natural world can't disappear." I am talking about nature, not the universe, and yes it can disappear (in the way it currently exists), quite easily actually. "Hurrdurr. " And a hurr-de-durr-de-durr to you to;-) "We've used science to combat the disadvantageous aspects of nature (disease, predators, weather, etc), and we use science to combat any reactions to our use of science." So you believe science is the only thing we need to progress as a species or to ensure our own survival? "But most importantly, animal abuse does not, in any way, cause any kind of natural disaster. I'd like to know why you believe this, though..." In isolation, no, but you have already expanded the discussion to nature with your pulling up grass example. Animal abuse is a destructive act executed for sadistic pleasure, knowing what we know about animals, and knowing what how it feels to be in pain, anyone who perpetrates such acts is on a path to self destruction and moral corruption, and all the available evidence points towards that person becoming a killer of people. I have known such people, it breeds psychopathy and sociopathy. You didn't answer my question: "What would it take to convince you?", why should sweep aside the available evidence? Or do you not believe it creates sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies in the people that perpetrate such acts? At the very least you seem to be going against Occams razor. "Why? Why would people just go on a murderous rampage just because they didn't care that some people like to abuse animals?" Because ideas, when accepted on a large scale, drastically alter the behavior of humanity as a whole, just look at effect Christianity has had on the human mind of the past 2000 yrs. I'm not saying people are just going to get up and go on a murderous rampage, I'm saying it would be yet another self destructive tendency to add to our growing repertoire. "I've never purposefully harmed an animal" Kudos. "so really, if everyone were like me there would be no animal abuse. " Everyone is not like you. "but I'm not going to take away their right to smoke crack just because of the potential of to commit a crime against a human being." Nor would I but I'm not going to condone the smoking of crack as something morally acceptable either. "How sad that you're so angry all the time." Anger and disgust are not synonyms, if you want to continue this discussion you are going to have to stop inferring things about my emotional and psychological condition. If it is your wish to turn this into a contest to see which one of us can more accurately psychoanalyze the other, then I have no interest in competing. "You're indifferent for something that you feel we need? How odd." It isn't odd at all, but I don't intend on explaining why as it will change the debate topic to something I am not willing to discuss. Admittedly that sounds like a cop out, and I suppose it is. therefore I can not condone in any way the mindless torture and killing of animals, not least because I believe this would engender strongly self destructive tendencies within our species. So you're paranoid. But still, no reasoning that any of this is actually true... you're just afraid. Sort of like a Conservative. Having society as a whole condone such activity (which is what you seem to be advocating) is not a great way to ensure animal abusers remain a minority. This is ridiculous, you're acting like we all have this urge to torture animals that we suppress through morality. I suppose you'd say that everyone being okay with gay lifestyles will lead to gays no longer being a minority. I believe we remained fastened to it in ways we cannot currently comprehend, and thus we should tred carefully. Thinking like that would have prevented many innovations in science (especially genetic engineering and cloning). but this should be done responsibly with full awareness of the risk, and the possible consequences. Yes, and we already know that animal abusers are not putting us at risk. Conservation and sustainability are the required to ensure we utilise the finite resources we have at our disposal in a way that best serves mankind, and nature. No matter how many times people have predicted that oil would deplete if we use it at the amount we were using it, we've still got a shit load of oil left (and we've only been using more over the decades). Nothing is infinite, but to truly believe that we're low on any resources is... eh. Not to mention that, through scientific innovations, we've found ways to keep our resources high and plentiful (also thanks to Capitalism). I am talking about nature, not the universe, and yes it can disappear (in the way it currently exists), quite easily actually. Oh really? How? I'm curious. So you believe science is the only thing we need to progress as a species or to ensure our own survival? Even better, it makes survival and progression much faster and more positive. If we depended on nature we'd be beating each other over the head with sticks and dying of polio. Not to mention that science is just us using the tools of nature to our advantage. Everything we do, technically, is natural. I don't see why people get so mad at the fact that we're manipulating the indifferent building blocks of nature. and all the available evidence points towards that person becoming a killer of people. I have known such people, it breeds psychopathy and sociopathy. No, not all the available evidence. Animal abuse is done because of the removal of sentience in the eyes of the person doing the abuse. It can also be from an increase in aggression, but this is not a guarantee. Michael Vick has never killed a human, and people like you hated him not because he had the potential to be a serial killer but because you feel bad for animals. Bringing up symptoms of antisocial behavior is just a cop-out of admitting that it's about how you view animals as more than just lower beasts. I have symptoms of antisocial behavior (not animal abuse), and it would make little sense to believe that i'm going to kill people. Or do you not believe it creates sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies in the people that perpetrate such acts? Not always. But this is because this is what I study already. It's far more complex (probably why you hide behind Occam's Razor to make your point). Because ideas, when accepted on a large scale, drastically alter the behavior of humanity as a whole, just look at effect Christianity has had on the human mind of the past 2000 yrs. Once again, back to gay lifestyles being tolerated does not mean more people will become gay. It's a bad argument to suggest that just because I don't care what people do in the spare time I am more likely to do the same thing. Everyone is not like you. yep, and everyone is not like anyone else. We're individuals. Some like to torture animals, others don't. Nor would I but I'm not going to condone the smoking of crack as something morally acceptable either. How can smoking crack be against any morality? Where do you draw the line, really? Either people live like you or they're immoral? You've done LSD, and people on LSD can do some pretty dangerous things. Why are you so much better than someone who decides that what their shitty life needs is a boost from crack? Admittedly that sounds like a cop out, and I suppose it is. Yes, it is. 1
point
"So you're paranoid." By what reasoning did you arrive at that conclusion? "no reasoning that any of this is actually true... you're just afraid." Not really, I just don't believe in unnecessary animal violence. "Sort of like a Conservative." I can assure you I'm not a conservative, it is becoming apparent to me that you cannot conduct a debate without trying to categorise your opponent. "This is ridiculous," It really isn't. "you're acting like we all have this urge to torture animals that we suppress through morality." No you're just mischaracterising my position again (you seem to like doing that). When changes take place in culture and social theory human behaviour as whole changes accordingly. I mean, it seems obvious to me that when animal violence isn't axiomatically ruled immoral by a society, then the frequency of such incidents will increase appreciably - this is a perfectly rational position to hold. "I suppose you'd say that everyone being okay with gay lifestyles will lead to gays no longer being a minority." No, I don't equate animal violence with homosexuality, they are simply not comparable; let's try to stay on topic please. "Thinking like that would have prevented many innovations in science (especially genetic engineering and cloning)." I don't believe so, responsible science is always based on an awareness of the acceptable level of risk - this doesn't mean risks are not taken, it simply means risks are quantified, and if the results indicate that the potential pitfalls are greater than the rewards associated with proceeding in a certain direction, then a different approach is taken. What you are in effect saying is that all the greatest innovations and discoveries in the field of genetics were the result of irresponsible science. "No matter how many times people have predicted that oil would deplete if we use it at the amount we were using it, we've still got a shit load of oil left (and we've only been using more over the decades)." Peak oil has come and gone according to most analysts, and the ones who disagree don’t deny its impending reality. One way of illustrating this is how Saudi Arabia couldn’t fill the oil deficit in Europe left by the embargo on Iran; there were severe limits on the rate at which they could ramp up production. The numbers of voices (however credible) claiming there is still a shit load of oil left are few and far between. "through scientific innovations, we've found ways to keep our resources high and plentiful" Have you studied science at third level? I mean, do you have a degree in a core science or engineering discipline from a reputable university? "also thanks to Capitalism" Let's not even go there. "Oh really? How? I'm curious." This will not be easy to explain in a few lines but I’ll try. Gaia theory postulates that all life and non-living components of the planet constitute an incredibly complex interacting system that can be thought of behaving as if it were a single organism. This means the planet is self-regulating in terms of its own temperature and chemistry. All the life support systems (i.e. everything, even rocks) feed in and out of this system of unfathomable complexity, science still has no idea of the possible repercussion of this. There is a distinct possibly that as the concentration of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the planet will at first resist the perturbation in an attempt to stabilise itself (i.e. negative feedback, e.g. the oceans carrying capacity of dissolved CO2 being pushed to a max leading to greater growth in algae in an attempt to absorb greater CO2 thus offsetting the change). However if you’ve ever studied control engineering you’ll know that if you push the set points of any dynamic self-regulating system, such as you, or me, or the earth (represented by a system of highly non-linear differential equations), beyond certain threshold values, the system can change from stabilising negative feedback to destabilising positive feedback. This means it becomes an amplifier of change as dictated by the change in the gains of the systems transfer functions, with the magnitude being determined by their sensitivity. If this happens most of the planets land will become uninhabitable very quickly as a slight rise in CO2 concentration could lead to a rapid rise in the global mean temperature (~ order of degrees). Most IPCC scientists have stated that the measures taken by the worlds governments fall way short of the mark necessary for ensuring the safety of our species. All their climate model predictions that have been realised over the past 20 or so years have underestimated the true extent of the damage. “Even better, it makes survival and progression much faster and more positive.” And where do morality and ethics come in? ” Everything we do, technically, is natural.” In the strict sense of the word, yes you are right, but that doesn’t mean our actions can’t irrevocably destroy the life on this planet (including ourselves), everything will still be natural, we just won’t there to notice. “I don't see why people get so mad at the fact that we're manipulating the indifferent building blocks of nature.” I don’t see how you have absolutely no understanding of the inherent risks associated with the destructive behaviour you seem to advocating. “No, not all the available evidence.” Ya, just the majority. ” Animal abuse is done because of the removal of sentience in the eyes of the person doing the abuse.” I don’t believe this position accords with current conventional wisdom. “ It's far more complex (probably why you hide behind Occam's Razor to make your point).” I’m not trying to hide behind anything; you almost make it sound like Occam’s razor isn’t a feasible defence. “Once again, back to gay lifestyles being tolerated does not mean more people will become gay.” Once again, Homosexuality ≠ Animal Cruelty “Some like to torture animals, others don't.” Most people don’t like to torture animals because most people aren’t burgeoning sociopaths/psychopaths. “How can smoking crack be against any morality?” I’m not against recreational crack smoking per se, however anyone who develops a dependency will self destruct, therefore I don’t condone something that leads to the degneration of lives. “Either people live like you or they're immoral?” Not at all. “You've done LSD, and people on LSD can do some pretty dangerous things.” Again, not really comparable for a variety of reasons, people won’t develop a serious LSD dependency. ” Why are you so much better than someone who decides that what their shitty life needs is a boost from crack?” I’m not better than them, my behaviour is. Not really, I just don't believe in unnecessary animal violence. Yeah, I don't believe in being gay. But I will not get all whiney whenever someone does something that I personally don't do (although, I'm bi... so I guess i party do so, but I guess meat eating is to bi as animal abuse is to gay). it seems obvious to me that when animal violence isn't axiomatically ruled immoral by a society, then the frequency of such incidents will increase appreciably - this is a perfectly rational position to hold. And this is why I brought up the gay analogy. Saying that people NOT finding something immoral will lead to a drastic increase in this act is NOT a rational position to hold. Be it on the lifestyles of gays, drug users, animal abusers, football fans, etc. Acceptance of someone else's lifestyle will not cause an increase in this lifestyle. I don't equate animal violence with homosexuality Both are lifestyles that are not tolerated. How you claim that accepting the actions of a animal abuser will increase animal abuse is easily comparable to the argument that accepting the actions of a gay will increase gay acts. What you are in effect saying is that all the greatest innovations and discoveries in the field of genetics were the result of irresponsible science. No, they were the result of general science. Some may be irresponsible, others may not be. However, paranoia that irresponsible science is something to fear and get controlling over is exactly what LIMITS scientific innovations. Why must their be authority, and why is this authority right? Let the scientists change the world, they've done a pretty good job so far. I mean, do you have a degree in a core science or engineering discipline from a reputable university? I'm sorry... are you saying that our resources are near depletion and that we're all doomed? Or do you believe that industrialization and agriculture are myths? Most IPCC scientists have stated that the measures taken by the worlds governments fall way short of the mark necessary for ensuring the safety of our species. All their climate model predictions that have been realised over the past 20 or so years have underestimated the true extent of the damage. So I suppose animal abuse is causing global warming... damn :( And where do morality and ethics come in? idk, throw them in and I'll see if they stick. I don’t see how you have absolutely no understanding of the inherent risks associated with the destructive behaviour you seem to advocating. You mean the risks of being tolerant of animal abusers? No, I'm still unaware. you almost make it sound like Occam’s razor isn’t a feasible defence. No... saying "remember, Occam's Razor" isn't a feasible defense. Most people don’t like to torture animals because most people aren’t burgeoning sociopaths/psychopaths. Even if this is true, are you suggesting that tolerance of animal abuse will increase anti-social disorders? therefore I don’t condone something that leads to the degneration of lives. Like drinking? You just love to judge. people won’t develop a serious LSD dependency. Some have, but what's better to note is the amount of dormant schizophrenics and bipolars who become schizophrenics and bipolars after taking LSD, Mushrooms, and other psychedelics. Now, this is my specialty and I have much interest in the human brain, but dismissal of the potential harm of drugs that you've taken personally just to try to make a moral point bothers me. Drugs are complex, sir. And drug addiction and abuse are complex, as well. Crack addicts aren't immoral in my eyes... maybe it comes from the whole acceptance and understanding thing that's in my ethics or w/e, or maybe it comes from my studies on the issues of drug abuse. But one thing I've learned from all this Psychology shit that I love so much is that judgment of those who keep to themselves is irrational. If a man abuses a dog (like Michael Vick hosting dog fights), people don't have any rational for why they hate him other than the fact that THEY believe that animals and their feelings are important. We can't hurt animals... just because they're cute and friendly. And then we put men and women into prisons and treat them like animals just because of the lifestyles that they live (in lower income neighborhoods, cock fighting and dog fighting are common). It's treating them like they're not human just because you feel bad for things that are actually not human. 1
point
"Yeah, I don't believe in being gay." Well there is lot of evidence to support the thesis that being homosexual is genetic, the same cannot be said of people that abuse animals. "But I will not get all whiney whenever someone does something that I personally don't do" Believe I don't get whiny, take my fucking word for it. "but I guess meat eating is to bi as animal abuse is to gay" Interesting, too bad that's not grounded in reality. "And this is why I brought up the gay analogy." And that's why I told you they are not comparable, they are not comparable for a variety of reasons, but the proven presence of gay genes is the most salient, now, i am going to have to dig up peer reviewed papers? Can you give me one solid reason to doubt the available evidence, because something tells me if you could have you would have by now. "Saying that people NOT finding something immoral will lead to a drastic increase in this act is NOT a rational position to hold." Yes it is, its equivalent to saying if the rules of the road were abolished there would be an increase in road related fatalities. "Be it on the lifestyles of gays, drug users, animal abusers, football fans, etc. " That's certainly a motley crew. "Acceptance of someone else's lifestyle will not cause an increase in this lifestyle." Animal abuse is not a lifestyle choice, it is a disorder, seriously, what do you think a professional psychologist would say if you told him that? "Both are lifestyles that are not tolerated." Well if animal abuse is a lifestyle choice, I guess raping women and defecating in public are lifestyle choices as well. "How you claim that accepting the actions of a animal abuser will increase animal abuse is easily comparable to the argument that accepting the actions of a gay will increase gay acts." No its not, and I've already explained why. "No, they were the result of general science. Some may be irresponsible, others may not be." No, they were all largely responsible (within certain constraints), that's why there hasn't been an accidental epidemic. "paranoia that irresponsible science is something to fear" Its not paranoia when its based on scientific fact, this is getting ridiculous. "I'm sorry... are you saying that our resources are near depletion and that we're all doomed? Or do you believe that industrialization and agriculture are myths?" Are you serious? I ask a question and you reply with two questions. "So I suppose animal abuse is causing global warming... damn :(" You asked a very specific question and I gave you a very specific answer, what did you expect me to say, you asked how nature could be completely destroyed, I gave you a plausible scenario backed by many prominent contemporary scientists and based on the available evidence. Are you really this dense or are you just doing it to annoy me? "throw them in and I'll see if they stick." Why am not surprised, I have divined you well. "So I suppose animal abuse is causing global warming... damn :(.....You mean the risks of being tolerant of animal abusers? No, I'm still unaware." We both know the topic has broadened at this stage, look, I can be ignorant as well: You: No matter how many times people have predicted that oil would deplete if we use it at the amount we were using it, we've still got a shit load of oil left Me: Nobody ever predicted animal abuse would deplete, plus we still have a shit load of animals, a huh huh, a huh huh. "No... saying "remember, Occam's Razor" isn't a feasible defense. " OK, I'll say it differently, all the the available evidence is in favour fo the position I'm advocating, it is the most likely, and it has adequately explained the phenomena thus far. To disprove it, any claim to the contrary will require evidence you don't have, cause if you did you would have published it and changed current conventional wisdom on this issue. How was that? "Even if this is true, are you suggesting that tolerance of animal abuse will increase anti-social disorders?" Depends what you mean by anti-social, that covers a fairly broad spectrum of human behaviour. "Like drinking? You just love to judge." I don't judge people for having vices, I judge them for not being able to control those vices, there is a substantial difference. I'll get to the last chunk later, I'm quite busy ATM. "Some have," I think we can both agree it isn't many. "but what's better to note is the amount of dormant schizophrenics and bipolars who become schizophrenics and bipolars after taking LSD, Mushrooms, and other psychedelics" Of course, it opens up valves in the mind that do not simply close again when the experience ends, and if the person already had schizophrenic tendencies taking psychedelics will definitely amplify those tendencies. "Now, this is my specialty" Take my word for it when I say I know I great deal about this topic myself. "I have much interest in the human brain," I'm sure you know far more about the human brain than I do. "but dismissal of the potential harm of drugs that you've taken personally just to try to make a moral point bothers me." I'm not dismissing the potential harm drugs can do, I know far more about the potential harm of drugs than you will ever know, I can guarantee you that, however I will deny people the right to destroy their bodies if they see fit to do so - that doesn't mean I'm obligated to respect them for it. "Drugs are complex, sir." Yes, I do know that, sir. If only you knew me, i can assure you you would not be making such asinine statements. "And drug addiction and abuse are complex, as well." Please stop, just stop, i don't like taking about myself on this site so please stop with this arrogance. "Crack addicts aren't immoral in my eyes" Then you either have a very deranged morality or you've never met a crack addict. "maybe it comes from the whole acceptance and understanding thing that's in my ethics or w/e," I accept them for who they are as well - that doesn't mean I approve of who they are. "or maybe it comes from my studies on the issues of drug abuse." If I were you i would stick with that. "judgment of those who keep to themselves is irrational." I do not judge people who keep to themselves, I keep to myself. "If a man abuses a dog (like Michael Vick hosting dog fights), people don't have any rational for why they hate him other than the fact that THEY believe that animals and their feelings are important. " I think I have successfully outlined why it isn't as simple as that, but even assuming it is, why is that so hard to understand that people are turned off by a person who derives pleasure from torturing a helpless animal? "And then we put men and women into prisons and treat them like animals just because of the lifestyles that they live " Again, do you know any people that have been in prison? "in lower income neighborhoods, cock fighting and dog fighting are common" I've seen cock fighting, never saw dog fighting. I wouldn't judge someone too harshly for it, I'm talking about someone who ties an animal down and tortures it. "It's treating them like they're not human just because you feel bad for things that are actually not human." I don't believe it to be as simple as that. Well there is lot of evidence to support the thesis that being homosexual is genetic, the same cannot be said of people that abuse animals Two points: 1. why does it have to be genetic in order to be acceptable? 2. You linked animal abuse to sociopathy, which is very biological. Sociopaths are known to have limited functions in empathetic areas of their brain, as well as more action in the aggression category, with a unique skill for calculation (depending on the sociopath, of course). Gays have certain similar genetic traits, but straight people can have the same genetics and not be gay. Genetics are not the overall determiner in either sexuality or violent behavior. Believe I don't get whiny, take my fucking word for it. Well, whatever you call it, I don't get that. proven presence of gay genes is the most salient There is no "gay gene." At least, not shown in any studies that I've looked over. There are genes that gays share, as pointed out, but straights can have the same genes. The nature vs. nurture debate goes even into sexuality. Sexuality is something that I take much interest in when it comes to my Psych studies (i used to be more into abnormal Psych, but sexuality just seems... sexier). However, I'd like to see these studies you speak of that say that there are "gay genes." If anyone should know about these (in my current level of studies) it should be me. I'd hate to be out of the loop... terrible. its equivalent to saying if the rules of the road were abolished there would be an increase in road related fatalities. What rules? You mean laws? I thought you said this wasn't about laws :( Or is there some kind of road rules that people naturally abide by that I don't know about? The way people drive come much more from experience and car type than any social contract. The safer and better the cars are and the more experienced the driver, the more risky type driving will be done. Inexperienced drivers in unsafe cars will drive slow and by the "road rules" that I suppose you speak of. It has little to do with social contract and more to do with survival instinct. Animal abuse is not a lifestyle choice, it is a disorder A disorder because they do not choose to abuse the animals? Well, I suppose that would make it genetic. Which makes sense, because psychiatrical and psychological disorders come greatly from genetic factors. However, there is no "animal abuse" gene. There are genetic factors that contribute to animal abuse. However, there are also environmental factors, such as how you're raised in respect to animals. Those in poor neighborhoods do not view animals in the same light as middle class and higher class families. This is why mistreatment of dogs and dog-fighting are far more abundant in the ghettos and projects (and dog fighting comes with mistreatment of the dogs... such as electrocution and drownings). I guess raping women and defecating in public are lifestyle choices as well. Raping women is an act against another human. Whether it's a lifestyle choice or not doesn't matter, it's harming another individual. Same can not be said for animal abuse, which doesn't hurt a human so it doesn't matter. As for defecating in public... yes, it is a lifestyle choice. It is also comparable to anti-social behavior, depending on the the reasoning for the defecation. However, other reasons could be schizophrenia, which is not a choice. It is a disorder (genetic). Depends what you mean by anti-social, that covers a fairly broad spectrum of human behaviour. Sociopathy is no longer used. We now call it anti-social. Easier for symptoms to be gathered and clarified. As for not wanting to hang out with people, but not enough to be "anti-social," they're just a-social. Depends what you mean by anti-social, that covers a fairly broad spectrum of human behaviour. So if someone just abuses a handful of animals in their lifetime, would you not judge them either? Or is there something more to animal abuse that makes you not like them? And don't try and say that "if everyone abused animals, the world would turn to shit." Everyone doesn't abuse animals. Most people don't. Some do, and they aren't making a dent in the world. Clearly your problem with them has more to do with your application of sentience to animals. I assure you, though, that if you didn't judge them YOU wouldn't turn into an animal abuser. Once again, look at me, I don't abuse animals AND I don't judge those who do. Depends what you mean by anti-social, that covers a fairly broad spectrum of human behaviour. Unless you study Psychology (with interests in sexology and neurology) more than I do(I've gotten lazy these past few months, maybe from me not being sure with what I even want to do with my life; become a Theoretical writer in Psychology or just try to write screenplays and such), I'd say you're right. Please stop, just stop, i don't like taking about myself on this site so please stop with this arrogance. Oh please, you love talking about yourself and how many "people" you talk to and all the "places" you've traveled to as your "evidence" for why you can make so many bold claims. Then you either have a very deranged morality or you've never met a crack addict. I'd say the former. Crack addicts are sad people, to me. I feel bad for them. I'd never judge them on their actions. They are victims. Now, when they steal or murder, the action I condemn is thievery and murder for selfish motivations (or delusions, but that is more common with meth addicts than with crack addicts). But most crack addicts are slaves to their addiction. Actually, all addicts are slaves to their addictions. Judging them and calling them immoral would make me feel like a terrible person. I accept them for who they are as well - that doesn't mean I approve of who they are. You disapprove enough to call them immoral. I'm guessing you hold morality to a high ground, and that, to me, is pretty intense to say that they are immoral. I'd say that you're not accepting, but tolerant, just above ethno (or moral) centric. I do not judge people who keep to themselves, I keep to myself. Animal abusers keep to themselves. They abuse animals and not humans. If they abuse animals, stop them. But most of them are doing it because they do not view the animal as anything more than a lower beast for human benefit. They'll beat animals into submission, skin them alive, and kill them in very inhumane ways just because they can and don't see other reasons not to. why is that so hard to understand that people are turned off by a person who derives pleasure from torturing a helpless animal? It's not hard to understand the irrational feelings we have for animals. Hell, I love my Dog, even though I know he's a lower beast that's doomed to die in just a few years. But I've taken time to realize that transference of that love for animals unto those who don't feel the same way is selfish and unnecessary and even infringement on their rights as humans. And when I see that someone like you has such scorn for them, I'd hope to at least point out to you how emotionally based and irrational it really is. It comes a bit from primal instinct mixed with modern cultural norms. We've added human characteristics to animals and have a parental love for them and become pissed off when others decide to deviate from the cultural norm and treat them as they are... lower beasts. So I can't go around speaking my beliefs and hoping that everyone will just agree. But this is a debate forum where I can hope for logic instead of emotion. Again, do you know any people that have been in prison? Yes... why? I know a couple for reasons of thievery. I don't know any murderers, personally, but I do know a good amount who have been put there for what I feel are unjust reasons. Imprisoning people who do not harm other people seems pointless, immoral, unjust, and just plain said. We shouldn't still be doing this in a modern time where individual rights are championed. I'm talking about someone who ties an animal down and tortures it. In dog fighting, this is somewhat the case. As a form of conditioning to get the dog aggressive enough to fight. Also, to kill it if it doesn't conform or win. This was the case for Michael Vick. But this is something common in dog fighting. Cock fighting is different, because cocks are naturally more aggressive towards other cocks, like fighter fish. 1
point
” Two points: 1. why does it have to be genetic in order to be acceptable?” If something is shown to be a genetic predisposition then the same standard of morality should (IMHO) not be applied, the reason for this should be obvious, if someone is genetically predisposed towards certain actions they can hardly be blamed for something as much as someone who is not. “2. You linked animal abuse to sociopathy, which is very biological. Sociopaths are known to have limited functions in empathetic areas of their brain, as well as more action in the aggression category, with a unique skill for calculation (depending on the sociopath, of course).” Yes, but the evidence showing sociopathy/psychopathy to be genetic is sparse at best, and even if the same amount of evidence for “gay genes” was available for sociopaths, that would still not refute the hypothesis that animal abuse leads to sociopathic behaviour. The distinction I made is obvious, if you can’t see that that’s your problem. “Gays have certain similar genetic traits, but straight people can have the same genetics and not be gay.” Yes, welcome to the exciting world of genetics, just because you have certain genes does not mean they will be pivotal in determining your life choices or career, they merely increase the likelihood of you making those choices, genes are indicators, nothing more, I’m sure there are millions of couch potatoes born with the athlete gene ACTN3. “Genetics are not the overall determiner in either sexuality or violent behavior.” Again, do you have any 3rd level degree in a core science or engineering discipline, because I suspect you don’t. “There is no "gay gene." At least, not shown in any studies that I've looked over.” You are taking what I’m saying far too literally and you’re assuming I possess the same knowledge of science as a child. “There are genes that gays share, as pointed out, but straights can have the same genes.” Of course they can, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of genetics knows that – the point I made is a very obvious one: I made a distinction between sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour and its relation to animal abuse, you then proceeded to compare it with homosexuality which I said is ridiculous, you said why, I said genetics. The evidence linking homosexual behaviour and certain genes is substantial, the evidence linking genes to sociopathy/psychopathy is nowhere near as substantial, and even if it was there would be no reason to suggest that animal abuse doesn’t engender such behaviour in people not possessing the genes. “However, I'd like to see these studies you speak of that say that there are "gay genes." If anyone should know about these (in my current level of studies) it should be me. I'd hate to be out of the loop... terrible.” Sorry you’re not up-to-date in your field fella, here are some of those studies: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/ http://www.andrologyjournal.org/cgi/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. “What rules? You mean laws? I thought you said this wasn't about laws :(“ No, I said I wasn’t taking about laws in relation to animal abuse. I was making a very simple point and using it as an analogy, i.e. if the rules of the road were abolished it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the frequency road related accidents/fatalities would increase. This is not a radical proposition once you accept the reality of casuality;-) “Or is there some kind of road rules that people naturally abide by that I don't know about?” Well, I don’t know exactly what people do where you live so that was assumption on my part, but I assumed like where I live it’s illegal to drive on the opposite side of the road, go over the imposed speed limit, etc. “The way people drive come much more from experience and car type than any social contract.” I agree, but that doesn’t mean the rules of the road don’t make driving safer. “The safer and better the cars are and the more experienced the driver, the more risky type driving will be done” Again, couldn’t agree more. “ It has little to do with social contract and more to do with survival instinct.” Yes, this is largely true, but it doesn’t negate what I said. “A disorder because they do not choose to abuse the animals? Well, I suppose that would make it genetic.” Not necessarily. ” “This is why mistreatment of dogs and dog-fighting are far more abundant in the ghettos and projects (and dog fighting comes with mistreatment of the dogs... such as electrocution and drownings).” Dog fighting involves sport and competition. “Whether it's a lifestyle choice or not doesn't matter, it's harming another individual.” So you would advocate all human behaviours that don’t directly and adversely affect the lives of humans even if there is strong evidence to suggest that the secondary effects of such behaviours directly and adversely affect the lives of humans, and the natural environment? “Same can not be said for animal abuse, which doesn't hurt a human so it doesn't matter.” Yes, completely destroying the Amazon rainforest (which acts as the planets lungs) wouldn't hurt humans directly either (except the indigenous tribes living within in) but it would take a supreme idiot to try to argue that it wouldn’t have grave implications for the survival of our species based on the available evidence. “However, other reasons could be schizophrenia, which is not a choice. It is a disorder (genetic).” Please stop trying to subtlety suggest that mental disorders and a person’s genetics are co-dependent because we both know (or I do anyway) that the science on that is far from sound. Some argue it is entirely a matter of value judgements, others argue that the causes of disorders are entirely objective and scientifically verifiable. “So if someone just abuses a handful of animals in their lifetime, would you not judge them either?” Depends on the circumstances, every position a person takes when scrutinised heavily enough will seem a least little bit unreasonable as there are exceptions to every rule, but I feel your position on this is infinitely more unreasonable than mine. I have been in the presence of people who harm animals for pleasure, they are not nice people, you would not want them in your presence I can assure you, you would feel quite nervous and unsafe, so to say that that kind of behaviour should be allowed is frankly irresponsible, but something tells me that isn’t the only position you hold that is highly irresponsible. I will give you credit for how well you can defend these positions, however, that doesn’t detract from their irresponsible nature. “Or is there something more to animal abuse that makes you not like them?” We both now there’s plenty more, but arguments are not won and lost based on subjective emotions/passions/feelings, but this only brings me back to my point about my morality, I don’t simply utilise my intellect in determining what is moral, but something tells me you do, and probably the left (logical side) side of your brain in doing so. There is enough information out there to support/rationalise almost any position/proposition, I don’t mean to go all Nietzschean but truth really is relative, and when you use your intellect as the only guide I believe that is a sure way towards self destruction of one form or another (again it is dependent on ones opinion), or else to a kind of scientific dictatorship/fascism (ala Goddard’s movie “Alphaville”) ” “Everyone doesn't abuse animals. Most people don't. Some do, and they aren't making a dent in the world.” Once behaviours become acceptable morally they become more prevalent, and they produce similar behaviours/tendencies of the same or greater destructive potential. The evidence to support my claim that animal abuse leads to psychopathy/sociopathy is irrefutable, it is not a large leap in reasoning to believe that acceptance of animal abuse would increase those tendencies. ” “Clearly your problem with them has more to do with your application of sentience to animals.” That’s not it at all; it is to do with the direction I would like the human race to go in. ” “Once again, look at me, I don't abuse animals AND I don't judge those who do.” Worthless anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that the preponderance of animal abusers are bad people until such a time as large scale studies are done proving that it is just a choice with no harmful or self destructive implications. “Oh please, you love talking about yourself and how many "people" you talk to and all the "places" you've traveled to as your "evidence" for why you can make so many bold claims.” Firstly, do I detect a hint of jealousy in the tone of your voice? Secondly, when have I ever referenced the amount of “people” I talk to? I don’t think I’ve ever said anything like that in an argument (I’m open to being proven wrong), because (on average) I don’t talk to a great deal of people. Thirdly, yes, I have mentioned my travels in the past as means to prove certain points that I would most definitely not characterise as “bold”, in fact, I would say they were closer to being “self-evident”, but even so, I do not do this regularly, in fact, I’m pretty sure if someone analysed the totality of everything I’ve ever posted on this site, my references to my travel would probably not amount to more a dozen, and that’s being generous. “I'd say the former. Crack addicts are sad people, to me. I feel bad for them. I'd never judge them on their actions. They are victims. Now, when they steal or murder, the action I condemn is thievery and murder for selfish motivations (or delusions, but that is more common with meth addicts than with crack addicts). But most crack addicts are slaves to their addiction. Actually, all addicts are slaves to their addictions. Judging them and calling them immoral would make me feel like a terrible person.” That’s all well and good, I feel sorry for them as well, but that doesn’t mean I don’t treat them with contempt, they had their choices, and they made the wrong ones, for most of them it is entirely self inflicted. I will admit that people who are dealt a shitty hand in life deserve far more sympathy, but many were simply lazy weak willed people taking what viewed as the easy option, that kind of behaviour is not excusable. “You disapprove enough to call them immoral. I'm guessing you hold morality to a high ground, and that, to me, is pretty intense to say that they are immoral.” Understanding only goes so far, for example, if someone is trying to make a fool of me, I can “turn the other cheek” and b sympathetic by telling myself he is just insecure about his own image of himself, and he needs to massage his own ego by making others feel inferior, but that is a cowardly response (unless you can truly forgive someone for their misgivings, and very few can because it takes a level of spiritual enlightenment only a handful of people ever achieve). The same logic can be applied to drug addicts, I can understand them, I can sympathise greatly with their position but the decision they made led them to become the people they are. ” “Now, when they steal or murder, the action I condemn is thievery and murder for selfish motivations” The action should never be considered separate for the person committing it. I hear this with drug addicts all them the time, they externalise their problem, they speak of heroine like some evil genius that has taken control of them, in my opinion people are responsible for themselves, in trying to externalise the problem they miss the harsh but necessary realistion that they are the fucking problem. “But most of them are doing it because they do not view the animal as anything more than a lower beast for human benefit.” We can throw this point back and forth all day, I’ve made my position clear enough at this stage, and I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that condoning such behaviour would not increase its frequency. “It's not hard to understand the irrational feelings we have for animals” Why are they irrational, I just read Hemmingways “the old man and sea” this morning, it seems entirely rational to me. ” “Hell, I love my Dog, even though I know he's a lower beast that's doomed to die in just a few years. But I've taken time to realize that transference of that love for animals unto those who don't feel the same way is selfish and unnecessary and even infringement on their rights as humans.” I’m not talking about love I’m talking about respect. “And when I see that someone like you has such scorn for them, I'd hope to at least point out to you how emotionally based and irrational it really is.” My defence is not emotionally biased inasmuch it is emotionally guided, and I don’t think its the least bit irrational. Again, I feel you have no comprehension of possible (near probable) the consequences of the positions you seem to espouse, lines need to be drawn in certain places, and I have no problem with animals being used for our own ends as long as those ends are not purely sadistic. “So I can't go around speaking my beliefs and hoping that everyone will just agree. But this is a debate forum where I can hope for logic instead of emotion.” This is not as simple Logic vs. Emotion and I’m surprised you’ve attempted to characterise it as such. “Yes... why?” Because there is no substitute for the felt presence of direct experience. “ In dog fighting, this is somewhat the case.” Dog fighting is done for sport, it involves too dogs fighting, it is not comparable to what I’m talking about. “As a form of conditioning to get the dog aggressive enough to fight.” Again, not the same thing and you know it. “Also, to kill it if it doesn't conform or win.” This depends on the circumstances, but ya, I think that’s pretty barbaric. If something is shown to be a genetic predisposition then the same standard of morality should (IMHO) not be applied, So I suppose you wouldn't apply your morality to those with antisocial personality disorder (what you call sociopathy) because it is mostly genetic. Even more so than other disorders. This would apply, as well, to my statement on how, yes, it is very genetic. And according to the evidence, pretty much as much as being gay. The only difference, though, is that "gay genes" have not been discovered. Abnormalities, as you've shown in your second two articles, can contribute... I already knew this. In fact, mouse studies, not your third article but earlier ones, I read about years ago were trying to suggest the same thing. The only problem is that it all comes out to possible ways that sexuality can be altered in early stages. And it's funny, cause you're only helping show that being gay, in a genetic sense, is very similar to being an antisocial. lol. Again, do you have any 3rd level degree in a core science or engineering discipline, because I suspect you don’t. I suppose you do? And your degree told you that genetics are the overall determiner in sexual or violent behavior? Interesting... The battle of nurture vs. nature has been ongoing. At first believing that it's completely genetic, then believing that it's completely environmental, and then thinking that it's both, and now... I suppose, it's back to genetic? if the rules of the road were abolished it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the frequency road related accidents/fatalities would increase. where I live it’s illegal to drive on the opposite side of the road, go over the imposed speed limit, etc. So you ARE talking about laws. Not necessarily. You said it wasn't a choice, and now you're saying it's not predisposed. I ask you, are they being forced? Dog fighting involves sport and competition. oh, so if animal abuse was reduced to a sport, that would make it okay with you? strange morality... even if there is strong evidence to suggest that the secondary effects of such behaviours directly and adversely affect the lives of humans, No evidence has been brought forward suggesting that animal abuse does that... you're constantly dancing around that :( but it would take a supreme idiot to try to argue that it wouldn’t have grave implications for the survival of our species based on the available evidence. Good thing destroying the Rain Forests isn't the same as animal abuse. Cause, you know, no evidence suggests that animal abuse does any impact to the world. Like, yeah, sure, if everyone did it ALL the time, we might run out of animals. But that's reasoning based on paranoia. Why would the entire world just start abusing animals out of nowhere? Get real. it is to do with the direction I would like the human race to go in. What direction? Worthless anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that the preponderance of animal abusers are bad people until such a time as large scale studies are done proving that it is just a choice with no harmful or self destructive implications. That's not what I brought it up. You seem to fear that people will start abusing animals if they accept that others choose to do so... But I accept it, and I don't do it. But it is interesting that you don't need evidence proving that animal abuse acceptance is harmful to society, but need evidence if someone says "hey, I don't think I should judge animal abusers." I have been in the presence of people who harm animals for pleasure, they are not nice people, I'll use your words "worthless anecdotal evidence." so to say that that kind of behaviour should be allowed is frankly irresponsible, but something tells me that isn’t the only position you hold that is highly irresponsible. why? and why? probably the left (logical side) side of your brain in doing so. yes, I base most of my philosophical and political beliefs based on logic. I don't believe in infringement on the rights of others just because I don't share the same preference as them. truth really is relative, and when you use your intellect as the only guide I believe that is a sure way towards self destruction of one form or another Well, if you're right, a statement like that is only relative. So really, it doesn't matter. I'll stick with the logic. The evidence to support my claim that animal abuse leads to psychopathy/sociopathy is irrefutable, Leads to? No. We've been over this. It's a symptom. Acceptance of a symptom doesn't cause a disease. In fact, it helps us find the disease and see if we can treat it or just watch over it. Or, people can continue to hide in the dark all their lives, abusing animals. A ruthless Killer we could have spotted if only they didn't hide in shame for an action that shouldn't be illegal or even spat at. it is not a large leap in reasoning to believe that acceptance of animal abuse would increase those tendencies. Well, in your reasoning, I guess not. do I detect a hint of jealousy in the tone of your voice? No. why? when have I ever referenced the amount of “people” I talk to? When talking about foreign policy or such. Can't pin point it directly, but you've said how you spoke to some kind of Middle Easterners in some country and they expressed some kind of feeling... I think Iran. And I guess you didn't talk to all those animal abusers you just said you met. but that doesn’t mean I don’t treat them with contempt, they had their choices, and they made the wrong ones, for most of them it is entirely self inflicted. Contempt for someone for smoking crack? Holy shit... Yeah, maybe I'm not as wise and educated as you clearly are, but I just can't feel contempt for someone like that. Maybe an animal abuser only a year ago, but crack addicts? Damn dude... I'd hate it if I needed to impress you with a gun to my head. if someone is trying to make a fool of me, An action against you vs. The same logic can be applied to drug addicts, An action against themselves. Well, at least your psychological profile is becoming more evident. The action should never be considered separate for the person committing it. That wasn't the point. The point is that if they are abusing drugs, I will not condemn their drug abuse. And if they commit thievery, I will not let their drug abuse be an excuse. the action of thievery and murder are separate from the drug abuse. Most drug addicts or abusers are harmless. Only the harmful ones should be condemned. This is what I was saying. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that condoning such behaviour would not increase its frequency Like, by a percent? Or by a significant enough amount to make enough animals instinct and thus ruining the ecosystem? Work with me here. I’m not talking about love I’m talking about respect. Lol. I'm not even going to go there. the consequences of the positions you seem to espouse, lines need to be drawn in certain places, and I have no problem with animals being used for our own ends as long as those ends are not purely sadistic. What consequences? Please, what's wrong with AAA (animal abuse acceptance... i think i'll start an organization)? Because there is no substitute for the felt presence of direct experience. Maybe... but that isn't for here. That's for "who can chug the most beer" contest type stuff. As for the dog stuff, i already made my point on that. If all it takes for you to accept dog abuse is the fact that it's for a competition or sport... would all animal abuse then become acceptable if someone points out "hey, we're competing over here." I'd suppose I could do that in my organization. Put together sports where the goal is to chop as many toes off as possible before the time runs out. People would make money, they'd laugh and share drinks and swap stories of this one dog that almost got out of its restraint. And then when someone one day brings up how this dog abuse competition is made up of animal abuse to you, you'd be like "that is sports and competition, not the same." 1
point
” “So I suppose you wouldn't apply your morality to those with antisocial personality disorder (what you call sociopathy) because it is mostly genetic.” You are trying to equate sociopathy/psychopathy with antisocial personality disorder. The wiki article you provided points something you’ve neglected, i.e. (Antisocial behaviour) ≠ (Sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour), rather: (Antisocial behaviour) ⊂ (Sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour) You think by equating s/p with antisocial personality disorder (and thereby broadening s/p’s definition substantially to include a multitude of other “antisocial” behaviours) you can then point to the amount evidence linking ASPD with people’s genetics to that linking homosexuality with people’s genetics. That is far too much of an oversimplification to be in any sense meaningful. The reality is the amount evidence showing homosexuality to be the result of genetic factors is more considerable than ASPD, let alone a subset of it. Your genetic evidence is inclusive of all subtypes of ASPD. Also, please don't respond with: all the evidence for ASPD applies to s/p because one is a subset of the other, as that is not a vlaid argument. “This would apply, as well, to my statement on how, yes, it is very genetic. And according to the evidence, pretty much as much as being gay.” Not true, the evidence for homosexuality being genetic is more compelling than for s/p. “The only difference, though, is that "gay genes" have not been discovered.” The Xq28 genetic marker suggests otherwise, although its linkage has been disputed in the peer reviewed literature. “And it's funny, cause you're only helping show that being gay, in a genetic sense, is very similar to being an antisocial. Lol” Yes, lol, you’re entirely correct, however when I said s/p I didn’t mean ASPD. The distinction between gay and s/p is clear, more evidence points to the fact that a gay person is born gay; (on average) there is no choice involved, the same cannot be said of s/p. Also, being gay won't harm anyone, being a sociopath/psychopath is destined to lead to the harm of others. “And your degree told you that genetics are the overall determiner in sexual or violent behavior?” This is getting rather annoying; I never asserted that, you tried to put those words in my mouth. I’m baffled as to how you got the idea I was trying to assert that. You are trying to pin something on me I never even intimated, something which is obviously wrong to anyone with a vague understanding of science. I find that insulting. “So you ARE talking about laws.” No I am not. I am using the fact that if the rules of the road were abolished the no. of road related deaths would increase as an analogy. I thought this was quite clear. “You said it wasn't a choice, and now you're saying it's not predisposed. I ask you, are they being forced?” It may well be a choice, I am not so arrogant as to hold steadfastly to a position that I believe may well be wrong. It may be that after enough psychological conditioning the person is environmentally predisposed towards that behaviour. Then when presented with the opportunity to abuse an animal, he does so for the purposes of gratification. Such a person suffers from a psychological disorder. ” “oh, so if animal abuse was reduced to a sport, that would make it okay with you? strange morality...” It isn’t strange at all. Letting two animals kill each other for sport is in a very different league to tying one down to torture and kill it for pleasure. In the latter case there is no element of competition, it is pure sadism – that has a very different effect on the mind of person committing the act than simply watching two cocks fight it out. “No evidence has been brought forward suggesting that animal abuse does that... you're constantly dancing around that :(” I’m not dancing around with anything. Here is what digged up in a quick 2min search: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/45/5/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ http://www.norodeo.org/info/ http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/ ” “Good thing destroying the Rain Forests isn't the same as animal abuse.” Just another analogy meant to serve as an illustration of how the secondary effects of actions can be incredibly destructive. “Cause, you know, no evidence suggests that animal abuse does any impact to the world.” Well there really is no need to perform such studies as animal abuse it outlawed in virtually all the countries of the world. The evidence suggests that animal abusers turn into people abusers, that alone (for me) is enough evidence for me. “Cause, you know, no evidence suggests that animal abuse does any impact to the world. Like, yeah, sure, if everyone did it ALL the time, we might run out of animals. But that's reasoning based on paranoia. Why would the entire world just start abusing animals out of nowhere? Get real.” Obviously I don’t believe that would ever happen, it was just mean to serve as an extreme example of a worst case scenario, but it seems quite obvious that if restrictions are eased animal abuse would appreciably increase, and as a natural consequence, so would all its associated adverse affects. “You seem to fear that people will start abusing animals if they accept that others choose to do so... But I accept it, and I don't do it.” Then you have more faith in people than me. “But it is interesting that you don't need evidence proving that animal abuse acceptance is harmful to society,” Any behaviour that is becomes acceptable will increase - that is a virtual truism. Once the deterrents to a specific kind of behaviour are eliminated that behaviour will increase, it needs no evidence, it is prima facie plausible, I think it is you who needs to get real. “I'll use your words "worthless anecdotal evidence.” You’re entirely correct, it is simply experiential evidence that led me to current position. “why?” Because more people will partake of it, even people that would otherwise not have done so, and then the destructive secondary effects will begin to plague society. “and why?” Just an opinion, I’ve got nothing tangible to back it with, I’m just letting you know. ” “yes, I base most of my philosophical and political beliefs based on logic.” So do I “Well, if you're right, a statement like that is only relative. So really, it doesn't matter. I'll stick with the logic.” Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not advocating what is termed “epistemological relativism”, I base my positions on logic as well. You believe that you have arrived at the correct position based on logic and the available evidence, but so do I. The question is, are we both correct? Or, can we both be correct? There isn’t a definitive answer either way because the issue we’re discussing is too abstract and the evidence is too vague, so really it just comes down to which position convincing based on the available evidence. Obviously I believe mine is. “Leads to? No. We've been over this. It's a symptom.” Yes, we have been over this, and it quite apparent that it is not an either/or proposition. “Well, in your reasoning, I guess not.” No, in anyone’s reasoning, but clearly you’re not familiar with cause and effect. “No. why?” Because i thought i did and I was seeking clarification. “When talking about foreign policy or such. Can't pin point it directly, but you've said how you spoke to some kind of Middle Easterners in some country and they expressed some kind of feeling... I think Iran.” Completely defamatory mischaracterisation. “And I guess you didn't talk to all those animal abusers you just said you met.” I won’t reference such things in future, clearly free-minded discussion is not permitted when debating with you. “Contempt for someone for smoking crack? Holy shit... Yeah, maybe I'm not as wise and educated as you clearly are, but I just can't feel contempt for someone like that.” I don’t expect you to understand. ” “An action against you vs.” Ok replace me with someone else; I was only speaking in the first person as I was the one formulating the thought. “An action against themselves.” Much of their actions are not against themselves. ” “Well, at least your psychological profile is becoming more evident.” If you say so bro. “The point is that if they are abusing drugs, I will not condemn their drug abuse. And if they commit thievery, I will not let their drug abuse be an excuse. the action of thievery and murder are separate from the drug abuse.” We alone aloneare responsible for our actions. When we so something wrong we have to own up to it (at least to ourselves). Our essence is largely moulded from the reactions we have with the outside world. A person’s actions define who they are; you cannot and should not separate them. ” “Most drug addicts or abusers are harmless” That is because they have virtually no power over you, but they still morally bankrupt. ” “Like, by a percent? Or by a significant enough amount to make enough animals instinct and thus ruining the ecosystem? Work with me here.” My scenarios illustrating the danger facing the world’s ecosystem are vague at best, and not directly related to animal abuse. My position is as follows: Animal abuse should not be condoned by society as if it was it would increase along with the destructive behaviours with which it is associated. “What consequences? Please, what's wrong with AAA (animal abuse acceptance... i think i'll start an organization)?” Go ahead; see how much support you get, it would also be interesting to see what kind of people would be interested in joining. “If all it takes for you to accept dog abuse is the fact that it's for a competition or sport... would all animal abuse then become acceptable if someone points out "hey, we're competing over here.” Not exactly. “Put together sports where the goal is to chop as many toes off as possible before the time runs out. . People would make money, they'd laugh and share drinks and swap stories of this one dog that almost got out of its restraint. And then when someone one day brings up how this dog abuse competition is made up of animal abuse to you, you'd be like "that is sports and competition, not the same."” Cock fighting and dog fighting happen naturally anyway, they are naturally aggressive territorial animals. You are describing a competition based solely on sadism. when I said s/p I didn’t mean ASPD. No, sociopathy and psychopathy are considered more biological than where they come from, ASPD. ASPD is genetic, mostly, but extreme forms of it like Socio and Psychopathy are seen from great delusions that can be schizophrenic or psychotic. So really, it's even MORE physiological than general ASPD. Environmental influences, of course, have to do with it, and I agree. But to just dismiss the evidence by a play with words is a bit dishonest, yo. I use ASPD to describe general Sociopathy because they are very similar in description. In my first year of study, they didn't even like using the term sociopath; they said "it's mainly just Anti-social these days; sociopath is more of a horror movie thing." The terms are are changing all the time, but the evidence remains the same. Sociopaths have greatly altered physio-psychology, and their brains are made up very differently from ours. It IS genetic, hereditary, and possibly even from disease (in relation to Psychopaths who can suffer from Schizophrenia or Psychosis, but even Sociopaths with bipolar disorder). I’m baffled as to how you got the idea I was trying to assert that Oh, so you don't have any degree in genetics. Well, how many courses have you at least taken? I've taken a bit. part of my studies. But I suppose you'd have to have some kind of knowledge over me in the subject to dismiss all that I say with the simple "do you have a blankity blank degree?" I am using the fact that if the rules of the road were abolished the no. of road related deaths would increase as an analogy. You're still not being clear in if you're talking about social contract or actual legislation. Which rules are you afraid of being abolished? Both social and lawful? Letting two animals kill each other for sport is in a very different league to tying one down to torture and kill it for pleasure. It's not "letting" dogs kill each other. They don't do that in dog fights... I think you've been ignoring me. they are conditioned through very violent and aggressive measures. Cock fighting and fish fighting, no, but dog fighting, yes. All in the name of sport, of course. I’m not dancing around with anything. Here is what digged up in a quick 2min search: Good to see that your evidence agrees with me in saying that it's a symptom. So I suppose all the points I made about symptoms and how it could be easier to deal with them should be acknowledge not that I got that out of the way (good thing you provided those links without reading them). Hell, two of them even say that animal abuse doesn't LEAD to ASPD, it is a, wait for it. ... ... ... symptom. A predictor. lol The evidence suggests that animal abusers turn into people abusers, Then let's try and help these people before they do that. Instead of condemning their action, recognize it. ASPD is a disease that can be treated. But maybe that's my Psychology talking again... so empathetic towards the mentally sick. serve as an extreme example of a worst case scenario And that's why I'm not going to be too worried about acceptance and individual rights in the case of animal abuse... cause it's an extreme example of a worst case scenario. like stepping on a hypodermic needle infested with AIDS if I leave my house. Then you have more faith in people than me. Not really faith to be skeptical about something actually happening. You have faith in people... being animal abusers. Any behaviour that is becomes acceptable will increase Only if the people are predisposed to committing the action. If someone doesn't want to do something but accepts that others do, this will not make them do it. If to you the act is an act of sadism and sociopathy, why believe that the amount of people who do it will greatly increase? Will Sadism and sociopathy just go up... are you familiar with how people become sadists or sociopaths? You believe that you have arrived at the correct position based on logic To the contrary. I believe that since we can't be certain on these actions, we should not be so quick to judge and condemn others if the evidence is not sound (or in your case, even present). There is no evidence to say that animal abuse harms anyone but the animal. Since animals are lower beasts for human benefit, the feelings of the animal does not matter. Your reasoning for being judgmental and calling for possible legislation (i know, you don't care about legislation) is based on the idea that if we do accept it, it will become a world-wide epidemic. But since there is no evidence to back that claim, I can not join you in that belief. It's more about lack of belief than actual belief. Completely defamatory mischaracterisation. So you didn't talk to them? What did you say you did? Looked them in the eye and figured out their views on the Iranian government? I won’t reference such things with you in future. See, slowly but surely I'm molding you into a better debater. I don’t expect you to understand. Well, I guess I can make my assumption. But this is a debate... where evidence and reasoning is required. I won't say that I understand your personal contempt towards crack addicts because that would be dishonest. I just hope that if you are to argue that they are immoral and you reasonably hold contempt for them you could provide the argument for why and not be so dismissive when I challenge it with a "that seems harsh, yo." Ok replace me with someone else Ok. It is STILL an action against ANOTHER person. Much of their actions are not against themselves. Sometimes. But being addicted is the action we're speaking of. And as stated, and you even agree, most drug addicts are harmless towards others. A person’s actions define who they are And stereotyping is making an assertion about an entire group of people based on some characteristics from some members of the group. Once again: You agree that most drug addicts are harmless towards others and your defense for that next argument is That is because they have virtually no power over you, but they still morally bankrupt. But at least we got this out of the way. 1
point
"No, sociopathy and psychopathy are considered more biological than where they come from, ASPD." Says who? As far as I can tell this is an ongoing debate, also, psychopathy and sociopathy are synonyms. I think you’re the one being disingenuous; you clearly have far more expertise in this area than I, yet you clearly concealing what you know not to be a consensus. My original point, which you’ve been chasing me for last three posts about, was that homosexuality is largely recognised as not being a choice; the same cannot be said of s/p, i.e. i.e. "In many cases the choice of the term reflects the users views on the origins and determinants of the clinical or disorder described in this book. Thus, some clinicians and researchers - as well as most sociologists and criminologists - who believe that the syndrome is forged entirely by social forces and early experiences prefer the term sociopathy, whereas those - including this writer - who feel the psychological, biological, and genetic factors also contribute to the development of the syndrome generally use the term psychopath. The same individual therefore could be diagnosed as a sociopath by one expert and as a psychopath by another." The debate on whether homosexuality is partially forged by psychological, biological, and genetic factors is over, the same cannot be of s/p, and therefore my original point stands, yo. " ASPD is genetic, mostly, but extreme forms of it like Socio and Psychopathy are seen from great delusions that can be schizophrenic or psychotic." Or entirely based on social forces and early childhood experiences which you’ve completely neglected, most likely not by accident. "So really, it's even MORE physiological than general ASPD. " Is this where I'm supposed to nod my head and bow in appreciation of your vast intellect because you included the qualifier "so really", your case is even more tenuous than mine. "Environmental influences, of course, have to do with it, and I agree." Yes, of course they do, in fact, so much so that many experts in the relevant fields consider them the sole determinant. "But to just dismiss the evidence by a play with words is a bit dishonest, yo." No, what’s dishonest is trying hide what we were discussing under the umbrella of "anti-social behaviour" given that it covers a vest cornucopia of human behaviour, then trying to assert that s/p is mostly biological/physiological/genetic when the jury is still clearly out on that one. I got that from that wiki article you provided, thanks btw. "I use ASPD to describe general Sociopathy because they are very similar in description." Ya, right. "Sociopaths have greatly altered physio-psychology, and their brains are made up very differently from ours." So why do many claim it has nothing do with physiology/biology/genetics? "Oh, so you don't have any degree in genetics." When did I try to assert I had a degree in genetics? And what exactly made you think I thought people’s genetics were the only factor in determining their behaviour? Please point to the statements I made that led you to believe these things cause as far as I can tell you're making shit up off the top of your head and have been for a while. "Well, how many courses have you at least taken?" I've taken over 4 courses in the biological sciences but we didn't cover a whole lot of genetics, it wasn;t that relevant. However I have read plenty of books that deal directly with the topic. "You're still not being clear in if you're talking about social contract or actual legislation." Actual legislation. It's merely a statement of fact, remove the rules people are legally obliged to follow, and the behaviours that those rules are intended to reduce will corresponding increase. "Which rules are you afraid of being abolished?" I'm not afraid of any rules being abolished. "they are conditioned through very violent and aggressive measures." Ya, I know, the same thing is done with people, it simply serves to bring out the violent side of their nature. It is in no way equivalent to simply tying the animal down and torturing it to death for sadistic pleasure. "All in the name of sport, of course." Please stop speaking about it as if I give it my patented seal of approval when there is sport involved, I've already told you that lines need to be drawn in certain places, they may seem arbitrary to you but not to me. "Good to see that your evidence agrees with me in saying that it's a symptom." When I disagree with not being a symptom? I don't think any of statements were in opposition to that, in fact some of them were in favor of it, i.e. “Animal abuse is not a lifestyle choice, it is a disorder,” I will openly admit it may well be a symptom, again, I didn't assert the opposite. The question is whether is it a symptom of a genetic/physiological/biological or simply environmental, the question of whether is it a symptom or not seems a little chicken and egg to me. "So I suppose all the points I made about symptoms and how it could be easier to deal with them should be acknowledge not that I got that out of the way (good thing you provided those links without reading them)." I read the abstracts; I knew exactly what they said, what exactly makes you think I didn't? Your lack of respect for me is rapidly making me lose interest in this debate, do you really think I’d post those links without at least knowing their substantive content, I admit I wasn’t going to read through them, I;ve got more important things to do, but to suggest I just f=glimpsed at the titles is disprespectful. "Hell, two of them even say that animal abuse doesn't LEAD to ASPD, it is a, wait for it....symptom. A predictor. lol" You seem to saying this as if you caught me out on something. Where exactly did I say it wasn;t a symptom? I openly admit I don’t know, I openly admit that for most of the debate I have been saying animal abuse leads to sociopathy, but how does that fact in any way negate the validity of my position? If a person has been conditioned by their environment to do abuse animals than they have already (in all likelihood) become sociopaths and my original point’s stands. "And that's why I'm not going to be too worried about acceptance and individual rights in the case of animal abuse... cause it's an extreme example of a worst case scenario." How is it a worst case scenario? I get the impression you and me are on completely different wavelengths. At the very least animal abuse lowers a person tolerance for abuse of all kinds, why should that kind of behaviour be condoned? "like stepping on a hypodermic needle infested with AIDS if I leave my house." WTF? "You have faith in people... being animal abusers." Not really, I just wouldn't condone such behaviour because it would increase its prevalence along with its associated bad behaviours. "Only if the people are predisposed to committing the action." So you think all those that are predisposed to committing the action are already doing it? "If someone doesn't want to do something but accepts that others do, this will not make them do it." That is only true up to a point. "If to you the act is an act of sadism and sociopathy, why believe that the amount of people who do it will greatly increase? Will Sadism and sociopathy just go up... are you familiar with how people become sadists or sociopaths?" Yes, I am, I am quite familiar with how a person’s behaviour and environment shape them for better or worse. "I believe that since we can't be certain on these actions, we should not be so quick to judge and condemn others if the evidence is not sound (or in your case, even present)." What do you mean not even present? What evidence am I lacking exactly? "There is no evidence to say that animal abuse harms anyone but the animal. " The act of hurting an animal only hurts the animal, this I must agree with, just the same way hurting a human doesn't hurt an animal. It’s about what that behaviour does to the person. "Your reasoning for being judgmental and calling for possible legislation (i know, you don't care about legislation) is based on the idea that if we do accept it, it will become a world-wide epidemic" No I don't believe it will become a worldwide epidemic, from the beginning I’ve basically been saying it would increase the behaviour, and the negative consequences associated with the behaviour, stop mischaracterising my position. "So you didn't talk to them?" Talk to whom? What you talking about? You expect me to know when you type: "When talking about foreign policy or such. Can't pin point it directly, but you've said how you spoke to some kind of Middle Easterners in some country and they expressed some kind of feeling... I think Iran." Yes, I talked to people in Iran, specifically to students in Tehran, I even travelled with one, but also older people, although it was mainly students as they were more interested and less suspicious of westerners, some of them (in Tehran) openly told me they had no religion. What does this have to do with anything? What exactly are you even referring to? "What did you say you did?" I did lots of things; do you want a synopsis of my entire trip? Unless you can tell me what you're talking about I won't be able to recollect exactly what it is you're referring to. "Looked them in the eye and figured out their views on the Iranian government?" What? I can safely say I have never said anything like that and I’ve been on this site absolutely hammered many many times. "See, slowly but surely I'm molding you into a better debater. " Thank you. "Well, I guess I can make my assumption." Make all the assumptions you want, I can assure you they will most likely be the wrong ones, in fact, they will be probably be way off. "I won't say that I understand your personal contempt towards crack addicts because that would be dishonest." I don't treat them with contempt unless I am treated with contempt by them, what I mean is I don't deal with them, in fact, I ignore any addict I see or that asks me for money, I've dealt with plenty and I know what they're like. By "treat with contempt" I meant that I don't acknowledge their existence (for any reason), if they ask for money I say i have none for you, and if they persist I tell them to fuck right off, that's what I mean by contempt. Winos are different however, I have a lot of time for winos, some are great fun, some are dangerous, but some are most gejnuine and real people you'll ever meet, , fucks sake, most of the men in my country would probably be considered heavy drinkers or winos where you live. "I just hope that if you are to argue that they are immoral and you reasonably hold contempt for them you could provide the argument for why and not be so dismissive when I challenge it with a "that seems harsh, yo."" It's very simple, they are the totality of all their previous/current actions, all their previous/current actions were/are bad, ergo; they are bad. Again, this isn't a concrete unchangeable position I hold, if I understand the circumstances I can make a better judgement, after all, some people are dealt a shitty hand in life and deserve unrequited sympathy regardless of their condition. "It is STILL an action against ANOTHER person." Your logic is very strange, being hopelessly addicted to drugs presupposes violence, or at the very least, criminal behaviour - there is nothing radical about this position, what’s radical is separating one behaviour from another, saying I'm only going to condemn them when they do something wrong but not condemn the action that makes them do wrong. They commit crime in order to feed a habit you think it is perfectly fine, great logic. "And as stated, and you even agree, most drug addicts are harmless towards others." Not because they are harmless people, many of them seem harmless until they know they can exert power over somebody. Like those junkies who threaten to inject people with aids. In fact I wouldn't say most junkies are harmless at all, they only seem harmless, they are desperate, and desperate people resort to desperate measures, especially if they feel they can get away with it. "And stereotyping is making an assertion about an entire group of people based on some characteristics from some members of the group." I'm not stereotyping, again, where do you get these baseless allegations? What I have said can be applied to all junkies, albeit in unequal measure. clearly concealing what you know not to be a consensus. We're getting nowhere with this and it's off topic. The point isn't that it's a consensus, but that it's a lifestyle that one doesn't simply "choose" as much as being gay. If what bothers you is sadism, it is for sexual pleasure (in general, sadists get a sexual thrill from harming others close to our own for sex with a loved one). People aren't going to start tying down animals and torturing them just because they recognize that some like to do that sort of stuff. Like playing with fecal matter or getting fucked in the ass. It's a lifestyle (I used the term choice just because that's how people like to phrase "lifestyle choice"). Actual legislation. Okay, so it wouldn't have to do with my push for acceptance of different lifestyles (that include animal torturers). Instead, by saying that people are more likely to speed and run red lights if the "actual legislation" is removed you have made it clear that the issue here is legislation. Sure, there may be a small rise in animal torture, mostly for profitable reasons, though, not sadistic pleasure (like Dog fighting and slaughter-houses). I still don't see how this is wrong besides... your moral outlook. But since you have said before that it ISN'T about legislation, the road rules comparison wouldn't really apply... how many people hate speeders or people who drive irresponsibly? Who are these people? I think you need to clarify this position greatly before we can continue (if we even should) this part of the argument. I've already told you that lines need to be drawn in certain places, So is the line drawn on "for sport's sake?" Just so that we're clear. Your lack of respect for me is rapidly making me lose interest in this debate I don't respect anyone unless they impress me. I've said this a few times before. Like Eliot Spitzer... I disagree with the man, but how he handled Ron Paul earned my respect for his argument. I can never really respect a full person... maybe Socrates considering the time period he was in... But your angry debate style I find deserving of no respect. Nothing personal, but someone as furious and insulting as you makes me only want to respond in the same way. It's more like a mutual thing. I argue in the language that you do. Look at how I argue against Davidh (of course, I try to keep it a level above him considering how he uses actual insults, and I don't like to do that, personally). I openly admit that for most of the debate I have been saying animal abuse leads to sociopathy, but how does that fact in any way negate the validity of my position? Because the articles you used in trying to support your position did not support your position. However, they did support what I was saying, which is awesome. How is it a worst case scenario? I don't know. You words was that it was an extreme example in a worst case scenario... I was just saying "yeah." I just wouldn't condone such behaviour because it would increase its prevalence What evidence do you have to support this? I think you're better off if you just say "I believe, personally, that it would increase its prevalence." I am quite familiar with how a person’s behaviour and environment shape them for better or worse. Acceptance of animal abuse, like what I do... please tell me how this will shape me into a sociopath or sadist or w/e you seem to be afraid of? It’s about what that behaviour does to the person. So you're worried about the animal abuser? Then why would you judge him and make him feel like a monster instead of accepting that maybe he has a problem, if you feel this way? Why hold such contempt for all these people that you seem to view as victims? Or do you think that once one tortures an animal it is too late for them? Yes, I talked to people in Iran, specifically to students in Tehran, I even travelled with one, but also older people, although it was mainly students as they were more interested and less suspicious of westerners, some of them (in Tehran) openly told me they had no religion. Yeah, that was it. You've mentioned that a couple of times before. I won't count this time cause I sorted of baited you. But yeah, you love that. I don't treat them with contempt unless I am treated with contempt by them, Well, I'm glad that you hold a different position since before you said "I have contempt towards [crack addicts]." But yes, only hold contempt towards those who commit an action against YOU. Not those who are victims and slaves to their addiction but haven't done anything to you or others. I hope, at least, that you'll keep this position. It's a good one. if they ask for money I say i have none for you, and if they persist I tell them to fuck right off, that's what I mean by contempt. That's not contempt. That's ignoring their pleas. That's not bad, since you believe that they're going to use the money to feed their addiction. Contempt is scorn. It is a hatred for something or someone. they are the totality of all their previous/current actions, all their previous/current actions were/are bad, ergo; they are bad. Being a crack addict makes them bad people? Yeah... I don't believe that. Well, I don't believe in good or bad people... just good or bad actions. Sure, it's bad to smoke crack and get addicted, but did they even know the path they were going down? Are they educated about the harms of crack? Are they smart enough to assess their situation? Is their life cheery enough that they can even care about their own well-being? I suppose it is much easier to say "they're bad people." being hopelessly addicted to drugs presupposes violence, or at the very least, criminal behaviour - there is nothing radical about this position It's one thing for something to be a predictor and another thing for it to be a truth for an individual. That's, once again, where stereotypes come in. I liked it better when you said if I understand the circumstances I can make a better judgement mainly because it shows how things should be. Stop judging those who are addicted to drugs... I pity them, especially when I understand their position more. But when I don't know their position, I withhold my judgement. I hold no faith in stereotypes. 1
point
"We're getting nowhere with this and it's off topic. T" You've been chasing me on this for the last 3-4 posts, but now that I've found a credible source that is in direct contradiction to the point you were trying to catch me out on, suddenly we're getting nowhere and its off topic, funny eh? "The point isn't that it's a consensus, but that it's a lifestyle that one doesn't simply "choose" as much as being gay. " Sorry bro, the distinction I made originally before you decided chase me on this point was essentially the following: Homosexuality is genetic/biological, no expert would try to claim that those factors don;t at the very least contribute, however many experts believe genetics/biology play no part at all in making a person a sociopath/psychopath. The distinction I made originally is clear and all your subsequent attacks on this point are moot. "Sure, there may be a small rise in animal torture, mostly for profitable reasons, though, not sadistic pleasure (like Dog fighting and slaughter-houses). " How do you know? "I still don't see how this is wrong besides... your moral outlook." And that fact that cruelty to animals is a sure sign of sociopathy/psychopathy, and any individual that partakes is likely to develop such tendencies if he hasn't already by virtue of his environment (and possibly some experts but not all believe his genetics and biology). Your scrutinisation has certainly helped me refine my position, thanks (honestly). "But since you have said before that it ISN'T about legislation," I have said it isn't about legislation, its about human behaviour, and how people behave when rules and restrictions are removed. I'm not willing to put forth what I actually believe about this because I'm simply not willing to talk openly about such matters, if you wish to believe that means I;m in favour of this or that I can;t stop you. "So is the line drawn on "for sport's sake?" Just so that we're clear." No, I'd draw the line at torture and death for sadistic pleasure, but that's just me. "I don't respect anyone unless they impress me." And do you feel you "impress" others? "maybe Socrates considering the time period he was in... " That doesn't surprise me. "But your angry debate style I find deserving of no respect." I'd expect no less. "Nothing personal, but someone as furious and insulting as you ." No problem, I'm sure you believe your characterizations to be fair and reasonable, from where you stand I'm sure it seems prudent. "It's more like a mutual thing. I argue in the language that you do" You do not argue in the language that I do. "but how does that fact in any way negate the validity of my position? Because the articles you used in trying to support your position did not support your position. However, they did support what I was saying, which is awesome." Fair enough, I already admitted that I didn't know animal abuse could simply be a symptom of sociopathy, so ya, you did catch me out there, but I still don;t see how it negates my original position. If somehow harms animal he is either showing symptoms of his condition (i.e. s/p) or else, from partaking in the action he will develop s/p tendencies. The evidence I presented supports both. No matter what way you view animal abuse is still bad and my original point about it causing s/p in people who weren't already sociopaths/psychopaths still stands, am I missing something here? "I don't know. You words was that it was an extreme example in a worst case scenario... I was just saying "yeah."" What I mean is, even though it wouldn;t result in everyone rushing out to commit animal abuse, isn;t the fact that it would increase it, and thereby increase its associated s/p, not a good enough reason in itself? "What evidence do you have to support this? I think you're better off if you just say "I believe, personally, that it would increase its prevalence." " Evidence, my God man we've been over this, it's prima facie plausible to assume that removing legislation to commit animal abuse would increase animal abuse, if laws against committing crime were removed, do you believe crime would increase? Do I need to present a study showing how if laws for theft were removed theft would increase? If animal abuse laws were removed it would mainly start out as a way for people make profit, but it would allow anyone who has ever even contemplated doing it the freedom to do it, and not only this, among certain groups it would become a sadistic past time; just a few weeks ago a group knackers poured petrol over a horse and set it on fire in a large field for fun while drinking and taking drugs not far from where I live. Call me crazy, but given the evidence showing what that behaviour does to people, and given the fact that I have known people which such morality, I will never condone it in any way. This isn;t some law abiding position, I would hold the same view if I were the only one on earth with it, I can assure you. "Acceptance of animal abuse, like what I do... please tell me how this will shape me into a sociopath or sadist or w/e you seem to be afraid of?" Its about more than simple acceptance, its about getting your hands dirty, and I'm not talking about going out and killing for sport. "So you're worried about the animal abuser?" No. "Why hold such contempt for all these people that you seem to view as victims? " Answer me a simple question, assuming no genetic or biological predisposition, do you believe someone can be a victim of themselves? "Yeah, that was it. You've mentioned that a couple of times before. I won't count this time cause I sorted of baited you. But yeah, you love that." That's about the third time I've ever stated it, but whatever, you clearly enjoy reading my arguments so i won't hold it against you. "That's not contempt. That's ignoring their pleas. That's not bad, since you believe that they're going to use the money to feed their addiction. Contempt is scorn. It is a hatred for something or someone. " I know it is, I know my position is the wrong one, but its too deeply ingrained for me to change it, but I am trying.I do hold a certain amount of contempt for them, for instance, if I saw someone being badly beaten I would always intervene, but if I knew that person was a junkie I'd be more inclined to let him be beaten, even though I'd like to think I'd still at the very least sus the situation out. "Well, I'm glad that you hold a different position since before you said "I have contempt towards [crack addicts]." " What I mean is I would do far far less for an addict than any normal person. "But yes, only hold contempt towards those who commit an action against YOU." Ya, I agree. "Being a crack addict makes them bad people? " Well, not exactly, it makes them far more untrustworthy, not that I trust anyone anyway but addicts need to be treated with far more suspicion. "Yeah... I don't believe that. Well, I don't believe in good or bad people... just good or bad actions." There is a lot of truth to that position, but again, I think in matters such as this, absolute positions like the one above are pure folly. "Sure, it's bad to smoke crack and get addicted, but did they even know the path they were going down? Are they educated about the harms of crack? Are they smart enough to assess their situation?" Again, no categorical answers exist for those questions. "I suppose it is much easier to say "they're bad people."" Believe me, I have even more disdain for that label than you do, although I won't explain why, but sometimes it is necessary. "I liked it better when you said if I understand the circumstances I can make a better judgment mainly because it shows how things should be. S" That is how I assess all situations, but like anyone else I have my biases and prejudices, and they are hard remove for reasons I am unwilling to talk about. "Stop judging those who are addicted to drugs... I pity them," So you don't agree with Nietzsche? "especially when I understand their position more." Everyones position is different. "I hold no faith in stereotypes." Believing stereotypes are complete bull is as stupid as believing they paint an exact picture of any situation, again, judgment is required. I believe it is far more logical to take stereotypes for what they are, i.e. gravely exaggerated truths You've been chasing me on this for the last 3-4 posts Only because you differ the difference in lifestyle choices for reasons of genetics, making acceptance of one different from another, as if that makes a big deal. First off, if being gay was 100% environmental, would you then say "well, I suppose it's fine to discriminate against them," or would you still be tolerant of them? Please. How do you know? I don't know. That's why I said there "may" be an increase. The difference is that you seem to be quite sure of it. And that fact that cruelty to animals is a sure sign of sociopathy/psychopathy, and any individual that partakes is likely to develop such tendencies if he hasn't already by virtue of his environment So you hate someone because they have a symptom for a POSSIBLE tendency to kill people? A mentality like that keeps us from being able to understand and fix the problem of anti-socials. how people behave when rules and restrictions are removed. Acceptance is not rules. It's about understanding and compassion and empathy. I'd draw the line at torture and death for sadistic pleasure So that we're clear, torture and death for sports is okay? And do you feel you "impress" others? I don't see why I would expect others to be impressed by me. My goal is to make an argument built by reason, not to impress another person. I'd hope for them to merely respond in a calm and rational manner. You do not argue in the language that I do My apologies. I don't mean in the same stylistic language. Only to match the amount of insulting language you may use. However, your emotional basis for arguing is part of your actual content, so it would be nearly impossible for me to do the same unless I changed my actual beliefs. from partaking in the action he will develop s/p tendencies. The evidence I presented supports both. No, it only supports that it's a symptom. Like having diarrhea is a symptom of AIDS, but it will not help in the development of AIDS. No matter what way you view animal abuse is still bad and my original point about it causing s/p in people who weren't already sociopaths/psychopaths still stands No, because the evidence does not say it causes. It says it's a symptom. Refer to my AIDS comment. it's prima facie plausible to assume that removing legislation to commit animal abuse would increase animal abuse, if laws against committing crime were removed, do you believe crime would increase? If you want animal abuse to decrease, maybe legalizing it will actually have better results than putting people in jail for it. Maybe have them attend a seminar to learn about the dangers of animal abuse and how they can receive treatment. But your statement is far from true, either way. That's hardly the point. Even if there is an increase (which I see no reason why there would be MORE sadists in this world just because a law is removed), how significant would it be? And why would it matter? I would hold the same view if I were the only one on earth with it, I can assure you. All of a sudden? Sure. But if you grew up in a world like this? Unlikely. Our beliefs and values are shaped by our environment. If everyone thinks something is okay, it's highly unlikely that even one person will hold a deviating belief unless they had some form of Psychosis. As well, I don't really see it possible for an entire planet to accept anything. Most people are intolerant of one thing or the other. Its about more than simple acceptance, its about getting your hands dirty Will accepting people get their hands dirty? If not, why is there a problem with acceptance? do you believe someone can be a victim of themselves? As much of a victim as the Katrina victims. They lived in a very dangerous area and were then a victim of their disastrous environment. We can speculate all we want about the decisions these people should have made, but most humans care more about helping others who are in need. This includes drug addicts. I don't care about what official title you'd prefer to give to drug addicts. I pity them, victims or not. I know my position is the wrong one If you truly know that, change it. Most importantly, keep it out of debate. What I mean is I would do far far less for an addict than any normal person. Do whatever you want. Your actions are of no concern of mine. I just hope that you'd respect someone else's right to life and property. but addicts need to be treated with far more suspicion. If this is the mentality you need to survive, go ahead, not everyone can be expert people reader. But there is no NEED to treat anyone differently. I hold everyone to the same standard. There is nothing wrong with this. For you, it wouldn't work, but for me, it works just fine. absolute positions like the one above are pure folly. Absolutism isn't always right, but why is it wrong to say that there are no good or bad people, just good or bad actions? Is there something I'm missing here? Do you believe in souls or something? I have even more disdain for that label than you do Yet you use it and I don't... interesting. And I don't have much disdain for anything. Which is why there is actually some truth to what you said. but like anyone else I have my biases and prejudices Clearly. But this is a debate format. So you don't agree with Nietzsche? There is not a person in this Universe that I've found to agree completely with. I take what I like from others and drop what I don't. 1
point
“Only because you differ the difference in lifestyle choices for reasons of genetics, making acceptance of one different from another, as if that makes a big deal.First off, if being gay was 100% environmental, would you then say "well, I suppose it's fine to discriminate against them," or would you still be tolerant of them?” Are you kidding, the second I mentioned genetics you began chasing me on that point, if I then something to the effect that genetics wasn’t the only reason why I discriminated against sociopaths then you would have viewed it as an attempt to deflect your questions and scrutiny, and don’t say you wouldn’t have, you were chasing me hard on that point, probably thought you were closing in for the kill. The fact is I’ve already given more reasons why I would discriminate against them, you just haven’t been reading my arguments, i.e. “Also, being gay won't harm anyone, being a sociopath/psychopath is destined to lead to the harm of others.” That was four posts back. “Please.” Please what? “I don't know. That's why I said there "may" be an increase. The difference is that you seem to be quite sure of it.” No, it’s simply the most rational position to hold in light of the available evidence. “So you hate someone because they have a symptom for a POSSIBLE tendency to kill” First off, please don’t speak about animal abuse as a symptom of sociopathy/psychopathy as if it’s an established fact as this simply isn’t the case, secondly where did I say I would hate anyone for that fact? I thought we were discussing whether animal abuse should or should be condoned, stop putting words in my mouth. “A mentality like that keeps us from being able to understand and fix the problem of anti-socials.” Ok, so for arguments sake, let’s assume you’re right about animal abuse only being a symptom of s/p and not also pre-cursor to it, so am I to take (as your above statement suggests) that you believe allowing these mentally ill sociopaths/psychopaths to explore their condition by torturing and killing as many animals as possible will help “fix” them? ” “Acceptance is not rules. It's about understanding and compassion and empathy. “ Please don’t even try to lecture me on understanding, compassion, and empathy. “So that we're clear, torture and death for sports is okay?” No, I do not approve in the least of dog or cock fighting, or anything else like that, but I recognise the distinction between something done purely for sadistic pleasure, like that incident with the horse I mentioned in my previous post. Now, you may say, but what if those guys started taking bets on how long it would take for the horse to die, then would it be ok? No, because it was still enacted solely for sadistic pleasure, in cock or dog fighting it is done to see which animal can best the other. I still don’t approve, but I can understand it. “My goal is to make an argument built by reason, not to impress another person.” And how much do you believe your arguments are influenced by your own particular prejudices? Also, I share your reverence for the rational, but surely you know that in order to recognise and eliminate your prejudices the first thing that needs to be done is to acknowledge them. For instance, you called Noam Chomsky a piece of shit in the past, for the life of me I cannot figure out a reasonable basis for that assertion. He’s one of the most logical rational individuals (and morally consistent) individuals I can think of. “My apologies. I don't mean in the same stylistic language.” I wasn’t taking stylistically either; I’m saying your insults are not akin to mine, but also, many of the comments you believe to be insulting are probably not meant as such. “No, it only supports that it's a symptom. Like having diarrhea is a symptom of AIDS, but it will not help in the development of AIDS.” No it supported both, two of the articles I presented do not support animal abuse as symptom of sociopathy, they support it being a pre-cursor, which is what I have been asserting from the beginning, i.e. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/45/5/ http://www.norodeo.org/info/ The top article also has links to many other similar ones that don’t support the hypothesis that animal abuse is merely a symptom, e.g. http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/5/ I’m quite open to being proven wrong on this as it would alter how I view the topic, but from what I know I don’t believe the science is all that sound on whether it is a symptom or not, but if you want to pursue this particular digression, fair enough, as I said, I think it’s a little chicken and egg. “No, because the evidence does not say it causes. It says it's a symptom.” No, some evidence suggests that but if you can prove to me that animal abuse being a symptom of s/p is considered conventional wisdom in the field of psychology/psychiatry/whatever, and that any expert who proposes otherwise is considered a crackpot, then I will gladly concede the point. “If you want animal abuse to decrease, maybe legalizing it will actually have better results than putting people in jail for it.” Animal abuse is in no way equivalent to drugs. If they legalise it, people will begin to use it for profit, the opposite is true with drug regulation. “But your statement is far from true, either way.” And how true do you believe your position is? “which I see no reason why there would be MORE sadists in this world just because a law is removed” There are plenty of sadists hiding in the woodwork. “how significant would it be?” I cannot say, any estimation I make would be based on false premises, in order to find out it would have to be done. “And why would it matter?” So you’re ok with allowing people the chance to explore their sociopathic tendencies, and in all likelihood, causing sociopathic tendencies to be engendered in those who would have otherwise not been so inclined? “All of a sudden? Sure. But if you grew up in a world like this? Unlikely.” Agreed, however, that’s irrelevant. “If everyone thinks something is okay, it's highly unlikely that even one person will hold a deviating belief unless they had some form of Psychosis.” This is not necessarily the case; although I can’t prove it I believe it is likely that most us have innate human qualities, and although they can be dampened and in some cases destroyed, i don't beleive that can ever be completely eradicated in the way that you suggest, incidentally, a very similar point was made by Chomsky to Michel Foucault in their famous debate. “As well, I don't really see it possible for an entire planet to accept anything. Most people are intolerant of one thing or the other.” I wouldn’t see it as an impossibility by any stretch of the imagination, however given the state of our current reality I am inclined to tentatively agree. “Will accepting people get their hands dirty? If not, why is there a problem with acceptance?” I suppose if you really want to find out you need to tie an animal down and torture it to death for sadistic pleasure while it squirms, screeches and writhes in agony. “We can speculate all we want about the decisions these people should have made, but most humans care more about helping others who are in need. This includes drug addicts.” I’m asking a very specific question, do you beleive people, leaving aside all other influences, can be victims of themselves? “I pity them, victims or not.” There’s that word pity again. I don’t pity drugs addicts, because I don’t feel in anyway superior to them, I see myself in them, I know I could be them and they could be me. I empathise with people when I can, if i cannot comprehend their situation I try to sympathise, but I never pity, or least I try exceptionally hard not to. I find pity disgusting. “If you truly know that, change it. Most importantly, keep it out of debate.” You’re the one asking probing questions. “Do whatever you want. Your actions are of no concern of mine. I just hope that you'd respect someone else's right to life and property.” If you don’t want the answers, don’t ask the questions. “If this is the mentality you need to survive, go ahead, not everyone can be expert people reader.” Whatever. “But there is no NEED to treat anyone differently. I hold everyone to the same standard. There is nothing wrong with this. For you, it wouldn't work, but for me, it works just fine.” Fair enough, we’ve clearly lived extraordinarily different lives. “Absolutism isn't always right, but why is it wrong to say that there are no good or bad people, just good or bad actions?” So what would call a person who only commits bad actions? A victim of his own nature? A person who can’t control himself? Would you just completely externalise all those bad actions and place no blame on him? I find that highly unsatisfying. Are you saying you don't believe in accountability? “Do you believe in souls or something?” Please, let's not go there, the short answer is no, at least in the sense that you seem to be implying. “Yet you use it and I don't... interesting.” Yes, very. “And I don't have much disdain for anything.” Fair enough, if you say so, I think we all a certain amount of disdain, when we try to conceal it it can find far more destructive outlets and modes of expression, unbenounced to ourselves of course. I don't mean to sound like I am trying to lecture, this is just what I think, I may be wrong, many of the views we have discussed are not ones I hold too tightly. “There is not a person in this Universe that I've found to agree completely with. I take what I like from others and drop what I don't.” I agree 100%, however, I’m talking specifically about his views on pity; it was probably the single biggest flaw he exposed in the Christian doctrine. "The fact is I’ve already given more reasons why I would discriminate against them, you just haven’t been reading my arguments, i.e. “Also, being gay won't harm anyone, being a sociopath/psychopath is destined to lead to the harm of others.” " Actually, there are articles that show how homosexuality in society has a negative effect on people who are exposed to gay sex. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
allowing these mentally ill sociopaths/psychopaths to explore their condition by torturing and killing as many animals as possible will help “fix” them? Making them commit their acts in the dark because it becomes a "black" market act isn't going to help. If you are afraid of anti-socials, the proper way to out them would be to allow the acts that do not harm people. You can spot them. However, I feel that there's more to animal abuse than just the potential to harm people that you have a problem with. It's like people who watch snuff films. Snuff films should not be treated as illegal or dark acts just because many find it morally repulsive. Psychologists will find it much easier to spot these anti-socials if it becomes an acceptable trait. Same occurred with depression, schizophrenia, and Autism. Symptoms that were once seen as morally repulsive for one reason or another kept many of these people in the dark and untreatable. Once the symptoms were seen as part of a sickness or even mental defect, we saw that these symptoms were not as morally repulsive as one might have thought. Humans find unusual and obscure acts as taboo, so animal abuse is something that I understand to be "morally disgusting" to most mainstream thinkers. However, my issue isn't with animals, mine is with fixing people. Once again, maybe it comes down to my Psychology interests that can corrupt my morality, and maybe you view me as a disgusting person for not caring about the act of animal abuse, but I can not hold the same disgust that you do for people who abuse animals. No, because it was still enacted solely for sadistic pleasure, in cock or dog fighting it is done to see which animal can best the other. I still don’t approve, but I can understand it. So your problem with sadistic pleasure then comes from you not understanding it? And how much do you believe your arguments are influenced by your own particular prejudices? Completely. I hold little prejudices against any group, but if we use the term prejudice in the same we do bias, I am completely biased... everyone is. The ego can not be suppressed by reason. The ego is why we argue at all. you called Noam Chomsky a piece of shit in the past, I can call Noam Chomsky whatever I want. If you want to bring up Noam Chomsky, I'll call him Santa Clause if I feel like it. If you want to bring up an argument, I'll work against that instead. I have a bias against Chomsky only when it suits me. But if I ever debated the man I would not just say "you're a piece of shit." I'd merely contest any points I find displeasing. He’s one of the most logical rational individuals (and morally consistent) individuals I can think of. Good to see you have a role model. they support it being a pre-cursor, which is what I have been asserting from the beginning, i.e. Maybe I'm terrible at reading, but the two articles you provided did not say that animal abuse was anything more than a symptom. They found a correlation... this is not a causal relationship. It does not suggest that animal abuse LEADS to humanistic murder. It says that many sociopaths have tortured animals during child hood. Now, as you claimed, there are many articles along with the first link, but if any of them say that animal abuse will actually create a sociopath (suggesting we can stop sociopathy by not allowing animal abuse, I suppose) please show it to me. I think it’s a little chicken and egg. I'd have no issue with your claims if we were discussing whether sociopathy is a bad thing. However, I can not say that animal abuse means definite human murder... it doesn't. As far as your links are concerned, animal abuse is a symptom of sociopathy. but if you can prove to me that animal abuse being a symptom of s/p is considered conventional wisdom in the field of psychology/psychiatry/whatever, and that any expert who proposes otherwise is considered a crackpot, then I will gladly concede the point. So far all of your research (well, the research you looked up) says that it is NOT causal. It is ONLY a symptom so far as we know. The only one suggesting that it is more than just a symptom, so far, is you. Animal abuse is in no way equivalent to drugs. If they legalise it, people will begin to use it for profit, the opposite is true with drug regulation. Because... drugs aren't used for profit? That really wasn't the point, but now I'm way more interested in this. There are plenty of sadists hiding in the woodwork. Afraid of the law? Or afraid of your moral disapproval? I cannot say, any estimation I make would be based on false premises, in order to find out it would have to be done Yes, just like the estimation that it would increase at all. So you’re ok with allowing people the chance to explore their sociopathic tendencies, and in all likelihood, causing sociopathic tendencies to be engendered in those who would have otherwise not been so inclined? Put words in my mouth fallacy? But anyway, no, I'm fine with free individuals being allowed to commit acts that do not infringe on the rights of other individuals. I see animals as tools for human benefit, so any kind of animal abuse either for sadistic pleasure or profit is fine with me. I personally will never partake in their actions, nor would I even like to witness it (like scat porn or bestiality), but as human beings I can not find my personal love for animals to get in the way of the individual freedoms of other people. I am not a God, I am merely a person, who may or may not commit acts that others find morally disgusting. i don't beleive that can ever be completely eradicated in the way that you suggest I didn't suggest that, but this whole topic is off topic. I suppose if you really want to find out you need to tie an animal down and torture it to death for sadistic pleasure while it squirms, screeches and writhes in agony. But why should I? I personally find no appeal in it. In fact, I am freaked out by the idea of having to torture an animal. But I'm also freaked out by the idea of enlisting in the army and going to battle to kill people that may or may not be bad. I'm freaked out by having to eat bugs or lay in a bed with cockroaches. But I will withhold judgment on anyone who enjoys the acts that I find gross or w/e until I get to know them. That is my duty as a student of Psychology (if duty is even important). There’s that word pity again. I don’t pity drugs addicts, because I don’t feel in anyway superior to them, I see myself in them, I know I could be them and they could be me. I empathise with people when I can, if i cannot comprehend their situation I try to sympathise, but I never pity, or least I try exceptionally hard not to. I find pity disgusting. sigh Whatever word you like. I don't judge them harshly or find them morally repugnant. victim or not. we’ve clearly lived extraordinarily different lives. Yes. So what would call a person who only commits bad actions? A victim of his own nature? A person who can’t control himself? Would you just completely externalise all those bad actions and place no blame on him? I find that highly unsatisfying. Are you saying you don't believe in accountability? No one can actually no if all the actions they committed were bad or not. Especially since it's all relative on whether actions can be considered good or bad. Another reason why I don't judge drug addicts. Maybe heroin addicts are better off doped up until they die versus the life they were living before. The last thing I'd do is just think that they are bad and I am good... or closer to good than them. I have no idea if I would do anything differently if I lived the same life. A lot to do, however, with behavioral psychology, though. Sure, genetic factors can make a big difference, but let's say you basically just switch places with the person at birth, same parents, same genetics, same life experiences, same environment... A complete hypothetical, but removing the belief in souls and god, one would have to believe that everything would turn out exactly the same. Now, if we just switch babies so that the genetics are different, there could be major differences. But if you held the same genetics as Hitler and lived the same life as Hitler, you would have been the leader of the Third Reich. Of course, complete speculation, but to judge others based on this idea that you would do anything different is also a complete assumption. you DON'T know if you'd do ANYTHING differently because you simply weren't there. You weren't them at the time. You were you, with your own genetics and life experiences to dictate your decisions. They do not have the luxury of having your genetics and experiences. they have their own, which lead them to their decisions. at least in the sense that you seem to be implying. The sense I was implying was ANY kind of souls. anything that implies a sense of immortality or an ego separate of the brain. Or "good" and "bad" energy or chi. Even that Quantum theory stuff that some spiritualists try to alter so that they can somehow prove that karma exists. All of this could help greatly, for if you are so judgmental of those who you see as "weak-willed" or w/e, maybe it can be explained by your belief that they have "souls" that are tainted by evil or w/e. Sure, the wording can be different to you, but as someone who believes in NONE of that, I find it interesting when it comes in on a debate about moral relativism. I’m talking specifically about his views on pity Well, his views on pity were similar to Rand's views on sacrifice. I accept both views. I don't really know how they differ from me. Now, maybe it came from my misuse of the word pity, or maybe there's an argument, but I'd like to know specifically what makes you think that I "suffer with" anyone, as Nietzsche viewed the act of pity. He had a problem with Christians pitying sinners and sufferers and making the world seem like a shit hold that needs to be saved by God and Christ. This only caused more suffering for people were unable to progress society because they were too busy thinking they needed to suffer with others. Like Rand, Nietzsche, with these specific statements on Pity, advocated the individual's pursuit of happiness, which inadvertently was good for the rest of society. Rand looked at it through an economic stand-point, which I think helped explained it even more (most mathematically well put by Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, and Milton Friedman). 1
point
"Making them commit their acts in the dark because it becomes a "black" market act isn't going to help." Why are you speaking in the past tense, it has always been banned, also, I disagree, allowing them the freedom to kill animals in public will not help them or anyone else. "If you are afraid of anti-socials, the proper way to out them would be to allow the acts that do not harm people. You can spot them. " Aren't you making the implicit assumption there that every person who has these tendencies will explore them anyway, thus we need to allow it to happen out in the open? "However, I feel that there's more to animal abuse than just the potential to harm people that you have a problem with." I do as well, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. "Psychologists will find it much easier to spot these anti-socials if it becomes an acceptable trait." I agree, that's because there will probably be far more around than ever before. Also, stop acting as if I accepted the label anti-social, I've already justified why that label is inadequate, it equates a serial killer to a kid with a social phobia. "Symptoms that were once seen as morally repulsive for one reason or another kept many of these people in the dark and untreatable. Once the symptoms were seen as part of a sickness or even mental defect, we saw that these symptoms were not as morally repulsive as one might have thought." I'm still waiting on evidence showing how animal abuse being solely a symptom of a psychopathological disorder is considered conventional wisdom. "Humans find unusual and obscure acts as taboo, so animal abuse is something that I understand to be "morally disgusting" to most mainstream thinkers." It goes far deeper than that but I'll go along with this. "Once again, maybe it comes down to my Psychology interests that can corrupt my morality, and maybe you view me as a disgusting person for not caring about the act of animal abuse," I don’t know you, but I would view that acceptance as being an unsavoury aspect of your persona, at the same time, I wouldn’t hold it against you, we all have our flaws but some are too serious to simply be indifferen towards. "Completely. I hold little prejudices against any group, " Are you not contradicting yourself here? "I can call Noam Chomsky whatever I want. If you want to bring up Noam Chomsky, I'll call him Santa Clause if I feel like it." Chill. The only reason I brought him up was your comment about respecting people who justify their arguments using reason, well Chomsky is a perfect example of this, in fact, I can't think of a better one, why do you hold him in such contempt? "If you want to bring up an argument, I'll work against that instead." I've tried many times but you never really engaged me properly. The time you labelled him a piece of shit you provided an episode of the Penn and Teller show as evidence, a complete hatchet job by a pair of semi-comedians that made the ridiculous claim that he (Noam) was indoctrinating American youth into his leftist agenda. “I have a bias against Chomsky only when it suits me.” When does it suit you? And how does it suit you personally? I realise you may not want to answer. “Good to see you have a role model.” I’ve never had a role model, all my life I have been without one, and it wasn’t due to a lack of desire to have one, admittedly people like Chomsky have served as one at times, but to call him a role model of mine would be a colossal embellishment. Also, why is it good? “Maybe I'm terrible at reading, but the two articles you provided did not say that animal abuse was anything more than a symptom. They found a correlation...” I never said they put forth the hypothesis that animal abuse was a per-cursor to sociopathy, I said the evidence supported that view, i.e. in the sense that it supports more than animal abuse being symptomatic of socioapthy. “this is not a causal relationship. It does not suggest that animal abuse LEADS to humanistic murder. It says that many sociopaths have tortured animals during child hood. Now, as you claimed, there are many articles along with the first link, but if any of them say that animal abuse will actually create a sociopath (suggesting we can stop sociopathy by not allowing animal abuse, I suppose) please show it to me.” Yes, exactly, many people tortured animals before becoming fully fledged sociopaths (i.e. socipathy can follow on from animal abuse), I never said killing animals will definitely lead to the death of a human, I said it develops or engenders sociopath/psychopathic tendencies in the person doing it. “(suggesting we can stop sociopathy by not allowing animal abuse, I suppose)” Not at all, I’m not going to pretend to have knowledge I don’t have, I merely think (based on what I do know) animal abuse being condoned by society would be morally depraved. “I'd have no issue with your claims if we were discussing whether sociopathy is a bad thing. However, I can not say that animal abuse means definite human murder... it doesn't. As far as your links are concerned, animal abuse is a symptom of sociopathy.” I never said animal abuse means definite human murder, where did I say that? You think you can just slip that in there without me noticing? “So far all of your research (well, the research you looked up) says that it is NOT causal. It is ONLY a symptom so far as we know. The only one suggesting that it is more than just a symptom, so far, is you.” I know, the results are vague on most studies of this kind, they mostly postulate a link between the two, they don’t speculate on its origins or the genesis of the behaviour as there is simply isn't adequate evidence upon which one can deduce a definitive conclusion. I’ve already admitted that you have changed my position on this, I openly admit it may be a symptom, or a pre-cursor, or both. The evidence is too inconclusive to assert one or the other. You cannot say it is a symptom with anymore certainty than I can say it is a pre-cursor. The science on this is by no means conclusive, some positions assert that animal abuse is a symptom of socipathy/psychopathy, some broaden it to include antisocial behaviour, others say it is symptomatic of conduct disorder (how that is different from the others I don't know), whereas some say it is a pre-cursor - this has been called the “graduation hypothesis” (i.e. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/47/1/ This has apparently gained a lot of traction, particularly in the field of criminology. It was what I based my original position on (without realising it fully), and it asserts that animal abuse (particularly at an early age) can predict violence towards humans. Now I’m sure all these theories doesn’t cover all everything, and I’m sure everything in between these positions is believed by some so called expert and has some valid empirical evidence to back it. Also, from looking in to this I can see many experts beleive it is symptomatic (and they maybe in the majority), but it cannot conclusively be said it is solely a symptom of s/p, and definitely not of solely one of anti-social behaviour. The reality is there is a clear link between criminal/sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour and animal abuse. A conclusive causal relationship elucidating this link has never been established due to a lack of definitive evidence in of the directions mentioned. I suspect human behaviour of this sort is too multifaceted to pin down accurately anyway. Until such a time as this link is established your position is no more valid than my own. “Because... drugs aren't used for profit? That really wasn't the point, but now I'm way more interested in this.” What I meant was that the government would hardly regulate animal abuse, therefore it would become a black market venture like the drugs trade is now. “Afraid of the law? Or afraid of your moral disapproval?” As I said, I’m not afraid, it’s just a preference. I do not seek control of forces I do not understand. “Yes, just like the estimation that it would increase at all.” No, you asked how severe the increase would be, I said I do not know, I do believe there would be an increase, that is why laws are made in the first place, to prevent certain kinds of behaviour thinking that the removal of that law would not increase that behaviour is simply illogical, but you’re still pressing me on this (like you have been for the last 5 posts), probably because you don’t want to admit it to yourself. “Put words in my mouth fallacy?” Me putting words in your mouth? I did no such thing, or at least i didn;t mean to, you on the other have been actively engaged in putting words in my mouth, e.g. (1.) Assuming I accepted the label "anti-social" when I clearly rejected it in my previous posts (2.) Saying I believe animal abuse is pre-destined to end in homicide. (3.) The estimation of increasing animal abuse, I made my position on this clear, yet you continute to ignore it as if i haven't (admittedly this is more like taking words out of my mouth). Let’s look at what I actually said: Me: “So you’re ok with allowing people the chance to explore their sociopathic tendencies” I’m sorry if I didn’t include the qualification that I was referring exclusively to animal abuse, I thought that was implied, you are ok with sociopaths abusing animals, aren’t you? Me: “and in all likelihood, causing sociopathic tendencies to be engendered in those who would have otherwise not been so inclined” This constitutes the risk involved in allowing the free practice of animal abuse, regardless of how probably you think it is, it is a still a risk - the evidence is far too inconclusive to say otherwise. So, you’re ok with taking that risk, yes? I do not believe I was putting words in your mouth in either case here. “But anyway, no, I'm fine with free individuals being allowed to commit acts that do not infringe on the rights of other individuals. I see animals as tools for human benefit, so any kind of animal abuse either for sadistic pleasure or profit is fine with me.” Well, that answers both questions; clearly you don’t think my position has any validity. “I am not a God, I am merely a person, who may or may not commit acts that others find morally disgusting.” I see the inherent logic of your position, believe me I do, one of friends is a hardcore libertarian, I still remember a heated argument I had with him a few years back when he said he didn’t give a fuck about the whales, and said he’d consider it fine if they were all hunted to extinction. However, while I understand your position, it is not one to which I will (or can) ever subscribe. “But why should I? I personally find no appeal in it. In fact, I am freaked out by the idea of having to torture an animal.” And what does that tell you? “But I'm also freaked out by the idea of enlisting in the army and going to battle to kill people that may or may not be bad. “ And what does that tell you? Also, I can assure you that the vast preponderance of the people your country has murdered were more innocent than the people who murdered them. “I'm freaked out by having to eat bugs or lay in a bed with cockroaches.” That’s simply an irrational fear or phobia. “But I will withhold judgment on anyone who enjoys the acts that I find gross or w/e until I get to know them. “ Fair enough. “That is my duty as a student of Psychology (if duty is even important).” No, wouldn't that would be your duty as a psychologist if they were a patient of yours? or you were treating them as such? you’re expressing a personal view here. “sigh...Whatever word you like.” Can you not see the irony and the inherent contradiction in saying you don’t hold them in any kind of contempt, and then saying you pity them? And please don’t say its use was arbitrary, use of words is very rarely arbitrary, rather, it tells a story of our own conscious or unconscious opinions/prejudices/desires/etc., a Freudian slip if you will. “I don't judge them harshly or find them morally repugnant. victim or not.” But at the same time you believe you could never be like them, yes? “No one can actually no if all the actions they committed were bad or not. Especially since it's all relative on whether actions can be considered good or bad.” I do not think that the relativity of “good” and “evil” makes these categories invalid, or non-existent. A moral judgement is still required. “Maybe heroin addicts are better off doped up until they die versus the life they were living before.” I do not believe that and never will to be honest, although I have a certain amount of contempt for them, I am still glad of the novelty they bring to existence, therefore I would never want them doped up all the time, in order for them to generate culture they need to participate in the melting pot, keeping them doped up all the time is a truly nightmarish scenario like the mother of the savage from brave new world. “The last thing I'd do is just think that they are bad and I am good... ” Many of them are good, but their environment will turn them bad eventually. "dI have no idea if I would do anything differently if I lived the same life. A lot to do, however, with behavioral psychology, though. Sure, genetic factors can make a big difference, but let's say you basically just switch places with the person at birth, same parents, same genetics, same life experiences, same environment... A complete hypothetical, but removing the belief in souls and god, one would have to believe that everything would turn out exactly the same. Now, if we just switch babies so that the genetics are different, there could be major differences. But if you held the same genetics as Hitler and lived the same life as Hitler, you would have been the leader of the Third Reich." I can sense this is turning into a debate on free will and whether it exists. I have not beleived in free will since I lost my faith at age 11, but very recently this lack of belief in free will has been undergoing somewhat of a transformation, but I am in no position to explain this at the moment. "Of course, complete speculation, but to judge others based on this idea that you would do anything different is also a complete assumption. you DON'T know if you'd do ANYTHING differently because you simply weren't there." As I said, i only judge the ones I know, I try hard not to have contempt for those I don't, but I know myself from expereince that many of those who become addicts do so not for any particular reason, like a fucked up life, or it was their only escape, many do it because they had no strong motivation in any other direction. Addiction just wins by default, how can you be indifferent towards such behaviour? "You weren't them at the time. You were you, with your own genetics and life experiences to dictate your decisions. They do not have the luxury of having your genetics and experiences. they have their own, which lead them to their decisions." I can't comment on this. "The sense I was implying was ANY kind of souls." I beleive in what is knowable, i.e. a material soul This is the brain and nervous system, I do not claim to have any knowledge (for anyone else) that cannot be verified empirically. "Sure, the wording can be different to you, but as someone who believes in NONE of that, I find it interesting when it comes in on a debate about moral relativism." Why? “Well, his views on pity were similar to Rand's views on sacrifice. I accept both views. I don't really know how they differ from me. Now, maybe it came from my misuse of the word pity, or maybe there's an argument,” Yes it did, I don’t mean to be so anal, I have used that word myself in the past but it is something that needs to be conditioned out of our collective consciousness. “but I'd like to know specifically what makes you think that I "suffer with" anyone,” We all suffer with people in varying degrees. “Like Rand, Nietzsche, with these specific statements on Pity, advocated the individual's pursuit of happiness,” No he didn’t, Nietzsche is nothing like Rand in that regard, and I don’t need to read rand to know that. He saw the way society was headed, he anticapted the dangers of nihilism, and he didn’t like what he saw, he knew, even given his relativism, that certain paths were bad for the overall good of the human spirit which he sought to raise up with his philosophy. Rand (even though I haven’t read any of her works but I’ve read enough to know the positions she espoused) was nothing like Nietzsche, she selected portions of his philosophy in a piece meal fashion in order to suit her philosophy, and she denounced Nietzsche as a metaphysician and a mystic because his asymmetric philosophy didn’t concord with her rigid objectivism. “which inadvertently was good for the rest of society.” I believe your ideas on what is good for the rest of society are deeply flawed. allowing them the freedom to kill animals in public will not help them or anyone else. in your opinion. Sure. But I don't advocate making something illegal just because I can't see how it would be beneficial. Anal sex is hardly beneficial towards society in a provable manner, yet that doesn't matter. It's up to the individuals engaging in anal sex. Aren't you making the implicit assumption there that every person who has these tendencies will explore them anyway, thus we need to allow it to happen out in the open? More of a reverse. If you believe that they are staying in the closet just because it's illegal, I am merely being a skeptic of that view. It's just a contrary reasoning to the assumption that people will not explore these tendencies merely because of the legislation or social stigma towards the acts. I agree, that's because there will probably be far more around than ever before. Complete assumption. Also, stop acting as if I accepted the label anti-social, I've already justified why that label is inadequate, it equates a serial killer to a kid with a social phobia. Anti-social does not refer to a kid with social phobia. You're thinking of social anxiety or agorophobia. anti-socials are people who do societies that are against societal and cultural standards of safety and health. Now, I guess the only problem with applying animal abuse to that is the suggestion that animal abuse is detrimental towards society (your beliefs, not mine). If anything, by using that term I am in exact accordance with your belief on the matter. I'm still waiting on evidence showing how animal abuse being solely a symptom of a psychopathological disorder is considered conventional wisdom. That really doesn't matter. The point is that unless you can show otherwise, there's no reason to start treating something as a gateway to other things. sort of like the belief that marijuana is a gateway drug. It's not proven that marijuana ISN'T a gateway drug. But to say that it's anything more than just a symptom of future drug abuse requires evidence. To reduce your beliefs as mere paranoia doesn't require evidence, for I am going with the assumption that unless you can show evidence that animal abuse will actually LEAD to (as opposed to just something that sociopaths do before they start killing humans as a natural tendency) I don't have to accept your statement. The time you labelled him a piece of shit you provided an episode of the Penn and Teller show as evidence, a complete hatchet job by a pair of semi-comedians that made the ridiculous claim that he (Noam) was indoctrinating American youth into his leftist agenda. I didn't like his dismissal of something that was actually happening, and even support for it later on in his comments. It was like "it doesn't exist, but I support it." But that is hardly the matter or even our current argument. This is getting far off topic. I never said they put forth the hypothesis that animal abuse was a per-cursor to sociopathy, I said the evidence supported that view, i.e. in the sense that it supports more than animal abuse being symptomatic of socioapthy. As much as you wish to switch around your views, I think the most important aspect of this all is that animal abuse, according to your evidence, has been shown to be nothing more than a symptom to sociopathy and general anti-social behavior. I said it develops or engenders sociopath/psychopathic tendencies in the person doing it. Which there is no evidence to support that claim. Once again, the evidence you point towards shows that it is AT MOST symptomatic with the available evidence. I merely think (based on what I do know) animal abuse being condoned by society would be morally depraved. So you know enough about morals and deprivation to make a claim like that? You cannot say it is a symptom with anymore certainty than I can say it is a pre-cursor. Well, it is a symptom. That's what correlations are about. Symptoms/correlations do not say "it isn't a cause." but it cannot conclusively be said it is solely a symptom of s/p, and definitely not of solely one of anti-social behaviour. I didn't say that. But I won't give in to your statements that it "engenders" sociopathy when the evidence for such a statement is non-existent. therefore it would become a black market venture like the drugs trade is now. Only if it's illegal. That's how black markets are formed. I do believe there would be an increase And there is no evidence for that assumption. Assuming I accepted the label "anti-social" when I clearly rejected it in my previous posts I never said you've accepted the term. but I've been using that term to explain things that are... anti-social. If YOU don't know that much about Psychology and disorders, that's fine. However, I will not censor myself just because you only like the term Sociopathy. Saying I believe animal abuse is pre-destined to end in homicide. Hardly. But any notion beyond evidence is my problem. According to the evidence, it is at most a symptom. Your belief that it "engenders" or "develops" sociopathy is merely an opinion. The estimation of increasing animal abuse, I made my position on this clear, yet you continute to ignore it as if i haven't (admittedly this is more like taking words out of my mouth). but you DO believe that animal abuse will increase. Just because you don't have an exact number doesn't excuse your belief that it WILL increase. the evidence is far too inconclusive to say otherwise. So, you’re ok with taking that risk, yes? Sure. The evidence on drug use is inconclusive in many areas. Yet I am okay with taking the risk on allowing drug use to be completely legal and tolerated. I do not fear that it would cause society to crumble. But hey, i'm willing to risk the entire collapse of society for the sake of eliminating rules that restrict personal behavior. That’s simply an irrational fear or phobia. Laying in a bathtub filled with cockroaches and worms? Sure. Same could be said about going to War or Torturing an animal. Are you saying, though, that you see no symptomatic warnings for those who actually enjoy laying in bathtubs filled with cockroaches and worms? a Freudian slip if you will. A Freudian slip has to do with verbal communication. Written really just has to do with my understanding of the word pity. I don't add that much strength to the word, and I never knew that it meant "suffer with." Now, after a few years of studying and drug use... I've been able to understand greatly the feelings that others go through. This may very well be my reason for not judging others of all types, but I think you're trying to just play around with pity to try to add ammo to your argument. whatever, do what you want. I'm getting bored of this anyway. But at the same time you believe you could never be like them, yes? I don't know. I don't have the same genetics and haven't lived in the same environment. I am a separate individual. To compare myself to them and to judge them based on that would be retarded at this point. I'm done with that. i only judge the ones I know Well, I assume you don't know all animal abusers. So I will only accept your contempt for the ones you know. even so, I really don't even care at this point. I believe your ideas on what is good for the rest of society are deeply flawed. I don't know what is good for society. But I don't want elite groups to act like they do know and indoctrinate it on to the rest of us. Whether liberty is good for society or not, I find it the default way to live until someone can prove that a certain mandate is better. 1
point
"Sure. But I don't advocate making something illegal just because I can't see how it would be beneficial." I'm not advocating making anything illegal, as I said, I am indifferent. "If you believe that they are staying in the closet just because it's illegal" It isn't a matter of staying in the closet, you're talking about making the practice acceptable - this I think may create a breeding ground for it. "Complete assumption." I know, however so is the converse, i.e. your position "Anti-social does not refer to a kid with social phobia. You're thinking of social anxiety or agorophobia. anti-socials are people who do societies that are against societal and cultural standards of safety and health" Yes, you’re right, I should have realised that given that I looked through the subtypes already. "Now, I guess the only problem with applying animal abuse to that is the suggestion that animal abuse is detrimental towards society (your beliefs, not mine). If anything, by using that term I am in exact accordance with your belief on the matter." Not quite, you apply the label anti-social as if the link between anti-social behaviour and animal abuse is as common and well established as that of animal abuse and s/p, while there is some evidence to suggest that ant-socials are prone to animal abuse, it is nowhere near as well established as the link between animal abuse and sociopathy/psychopathy behaviour (i.e. violence against humans). I'm simply reasoning deductively based on the available evidence, you're the one going against convention, but then again, this is far from my field so I'm not going to pretend to have any special insight. "That really doesn't matter. " For the sake of the argument is does. "The point is that unless you can show otherwise, there's no reason to start treating something as a gateway to other things.......o say that it's anything more than just a symptom of future drug abuse requires evidence. To reduce your beliefs as mere paranoia doesn't require evidence, for I am going with the assumption that unless you can show evidence that animal abuse will actually LEAD to (as opposed to just something that sociopaths do before they start killing humans as a natural tendency) I don't have to accept your statement." I already have presented evidence to the contrary, you just conveniently skirted around it - the graduation hypothesis is what I was basing my original opinion on. This hypothesis has a significant amount of evidence to support it. "I didn't like his dismissal of something that was actually happening, and even support for it later on in his comments. It was like "it doesn't exist, but I support it."" For the sake of argument, assuming that ridiculous claim to be true, do you think that justifies the label "piece of shit"? Also, can you not see that it was a complete hatchet job on a semi-comedy show for the general public? "As much as you wish to switch around your views," Please explain how I am doing that? I have been consistent in my views since the start of this debate, even though I must admit you’ve done a lot to make me reconsider my position, for which I am grateful, however, I will never condone animal abuse. "I think the most important aspect of this all is that animal abuse, according to your evidence, has been shown to be nothing more than a symptom to sociopathy and general anti-social behavior." No, the evidence supports the hypothesis that animal abuse progresses to violent crime against humans, it is one of the only hypotheses that posits a time dependency to the violence i.e. the graduation hypothesis You may say that evidence was also indicative of animal abuse being symptomatic of soiopathy, as either type of crime may precede the other, but you cannot say it doesn't support both as it clearly only posits a link, the evidence doesn't draw the conclusion that it is one or the other, so what makes you think you are qualified to? If you want more evidence for the graduation hypothesis just investigate the field of criminology, e.g. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/ "Which there is no evidence to support that claim. " How much evidence do you need, it’s a valid hypothesis that has yet to be disproved, here's a book that largely supports it: http://books.google.ie/ "Once again, the evidence you point towards shows that it is AT MOST symptomatic with the available evidence." No, the evidence showed that animal abuse is a pre-cursor to human abuse. How did you come the conclusion that "AT MOST" it supports it being symptomatic? It doesn’t refute the fact that it may be symptomatic, but how does it “AT MOST” show that it is? "I merely think (based on what I do know) " Yes, I think based on what I know as well, I don't base my thinking on things I do know, I do not make connections where there are none, that would be unscientific, in relation to this matter I cannot be certain, but neither can you - there is evidence enough to support both points of view - this is fact. "animal abuse being condoned by society would be morally depraved." Don't you mean "wouldn't"? "So you know enough about morals and deprivation to make a claim like that?" I don't claim to have any universal truths, but I have a moral code, it is mine and I know all I need to know about it. "Well, it is a symptom. That's what correlations are about. Symptoms/correlations do not say "it isn't a cause." " The fundamental issue is whether animal abuse leads to human violence, or whether it is simply a symptom of sociopathy, and can therefore happen before or after human violence, or perhaps not at all, i.e. the person committing the act is a sociopath whether he kills animals or not, therefore the act itself doesn't lag or predict the sociopath’s behaviour This is your position, this the position I do not quite agree with, although I can see it is definitely worth taking seriously. But to claim that your position is the correct one even though it is far being proven conclusively (and is disputed by others) is wrong. "I didn't say that. But I won't give in to your statements that it "engenders" sociopathy when the evidence for such a statement is non-existent." Well the graduation hypothesis doesn't attempt to make a clinical/psychological diagnosis of a person - this is because it is a hypothesis within the fields of criminology and sociology, but sociopathy in my view is doing violence against others with little or no remorse, at least not enough to stop you form committing the crime. "Only if it's illegal. That's how black markets are formed." Black market was a bad choice of phrase. If drugs were legal the government would supply and regulate them, the black market would disappear. I think if animal abuse was legalised, assuming the government didn't exploit it for profit (no more than it does currently), a type of "black market" would arise, except obviously it wouldn't be illegal so it is wrong to call it that. "And there is no evidence for that assumption." Prima facie plausible means it is sufficient to establish as factual unless evidence surfaces to the contrary. If you think it is not prima facie plausible then you must believe the law against animal abuse has done literally nothing to reduce the frequency of its occurrence - this what you think, yes? "I never said you've accepted the term. but I've been using that term to explain things that are... anti-social. If YOU don't know that much about Psychology and disorders, that's fine. " It isn't about what I like, the link between animal abuse and sociopathy/psychopathy is very well established - it is not correct to generalise to include anti-social behaviour when the evidence on that is suspect (or in too short of a supply), that isn't logical. "However, I will not censor myself just because you only like the term Sociopathy." There is evidence linking animal abuse to "anti-social" behaviour but it is nowhere near as conclusive as that linking animal abuse to sociopathy. "But any notion beyond evidence is my problem. According to the evidence, it is at most a symptom. Your belief that it "engenders" or "develops" sociopathy is merely an opinion." If terminology is your problem I would be happy to change "sociopathy" to "violence against humans with no remorse" so it exactly parallels the terminology of the graduation hypothesis. However, the graduation hypothesis is far from just an opinion, it has existed in one form or another for over 300 years, the actual label "graduation hypothesis" comes from the FBI (circa 1970). I openly admit I was unaware of it when I started this debate, but I knew my opinion was backed up by evidence as I base my opinions on fact. ”but you DO believe that animal abuse will increase. Just because you don't have an exact number doesn't excuse your belief that it WILL increase” Yes, because any rational person would have to conclude that a law against something will reduce that specific something, especially if society is in agreement that it should be illegal. ”The evidence on drug use is inconclusive in many areas. Yet I am okay with taking the risk on allowing drug use to be completely legal and tolerated. I do not fear that it would cause society to crumble.” The two are not comparable, but again, my opinion isn’t based on whether society would or would or crumble. I just don’t condone animal abuse. ”Are you saying, though, that you see no symptomatic warnings for those who actually enjoy laying in bathtubs filled with cockroaches and worms?” Symptomatic of what? This whole thing is simply nature vs. nurture as you said, I originally fell on the side of nurture, even though I am now not so sure, but you seem to be falling on the side of nature. You think these people are sociopaths regardless, and animal abuse is just an expression of it, but as the source I referenced previously stated, many believe the causes of this behaviour to be purely environmental. Therefore allowing animal abuse could easily created sociopaths where there would not have otherwise been created. ”A Freudian slip has to do with verbal communication.” I know, that’s why I said “if you will”, i.e. if you will allow me the indiscretion You must admit that although this communication medium is textual, it can (at times) seem like it is approximating verbal communication. ” Written really just has to do with my understanding of the word pity. I don't add that much strength to the word, and I never knew that it meant "suffer with." Pity implies a kind of contemptuous sorrow. It isn't a matter of staying in the closet, you're talking about making the practice acceptable - this I think may create a breeding ground for it. Responding to your suggestion that it being illegal is making it less frequent. however so is the converse, i.e. your position My position... being that there's no reason to believe that something will occur more. I'm not saying it will be less. I am merely lacking faith in your position. I'm simply reasoning deductively based on the available evidence, you're the one going against convention, but then again, this is far from my field so I'm not going to pretend to have any special insight. I do not feel honest if I reduce the act of animal abuse to an action of a "sociopath." It anti-social in the sense that it is a negative act towards society (as you and other anti-animal cruelty believers believe animal abuse to be). the graduation hypothesis is what I was basing my original opinion on. Made no mention of the graduation hypothesis till now. And is that all you have? The Graduation Hypothesis is nothing more than what we've been kicking around this whole time. It is simply an observance of the correlation between childhood animal abuse and future murderers. Never does it say "animal abuse helps create the murderer." Still, to say that it does is ONLY an opinion, even if you wish to use the Graduation Hypothesis. I happen to highly agree with it, as studies of Abnormal Psych was my general interest at first. However, this still doesn't help prove that it is anything MORE than a symptom. I shall apply this to your segments saying "graduation hypothesis." There is evidence linking animal abuse to "anti-social" behaviour but it is nowhere near as conclusive as that linking animal abuse to sociopathy. Or Psychopathy. Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Anti-Socials. I don't claim to have any universal truths, but I have a moral code, it is mine and I know all I need to know about it. yes, to judge someone who killed puppies once... because puppy killers are more likely to be anti-socials/sociopaths/psychopaths/ I can say that I've changed your morality within this debate. If drugs were legal the government would supply and regulate them, the black market would disappear. The black market doesn't disappear if there is still regulation (look at prescription drugs). And if the government supplies instead of the free people, there will still be a black market. The only way to eliminate the black market is to completely legalize drugs and apply no regulations. I think if animal abuse was legalised, assuming the government didn't exploit it for profit (no more than it does currently), a type of "black market" would arise, except obviously it wouldn't be illegal so it is wrong to call it that. or better, if completely legalized and unregulated, those who enjoy torturing animals will continue to do so, and those who find profit in it (for whatever reason) will attempt to make profit in it (like Michael Vick). I see no problem with this. If you think it is not prima facie plausible then you must believe the law against animal abuse has done literally nothing to reduce the frequency of its occurrence - this what you think, yes? No. I believe that we don't know this, and to make the assertion that it does is dishonest. Like, maybe it will increase... but maybe it won't. Hell, maybe it will go down. We don't know. No matter what, though, I still don't see what will be the problem. Are you... afraid of an epidemic? Or is any slight increase bad to you... because the act itself is what's bad? Answerd by: I just don’t condone animal abuse. Why not? I guess this was the start of our back-and-fourth. So... are we going to start over? because any rational person would have to conclude that a law against something will reduce that specific something, especially if society is in agreement that it should be illegal. If most of society is against it, why is legality necessary? I see the point in murder, to punish someone for killing another person. However, the killing of an animal... what is the use in putting someone behind bars if they did not harm or violate the rights of another individual? Once again, we're starting over. 1
point
"Responding to your suggestion that it being illegal is making it less frequent." Of course it is, I mean, again, I can't prove it with evidence, just the same way I can't prove that if nudists were allowed to be naked in public we wouldn't see more naked people in public, but its the most rational position to take. "I'm not saying it will be less. I am merely lacking faith in your position." Why? You clearly already expressed faith in a few posts back, i.e. "Sure, there may be a small rise in animal torture, mostly for profitable reasons, though, not sadistic pleasure" Its very simply, you either think there will be an increase, a decrease, or neither, I believe the most logical position to take is to believe there would be an increase, why do think that's wrong? "I do not feel honest if I reduce the act of animal abuse to an action of a "sociopath."" Why not? You would simply be echoing what the evidence shows. "It anti-social in the sense that it is a negative act towards society (as you and other anti-animal cruelty believers believe animal abuse to be)." Given that sociopathy is simply a subtype of anti-social behaviour, and given the established link between it and animal abuse (which is clearly far stronger than between animal abuse and anti-social behaviour), doesn't it seem possible (or even likely) that many of these anti-socials could be budding sociopaths, and that animal abuse might simply be an avenue towards realising their sociopathy/psychopathy? I do realsie how many hypothetical were in that blurb, but still, given the important of environmental factors, isn't it worth taking seriously. My heart goes out to these people, I can empathise with them on a very deep level, but cannot see how allowing them free rain to commit these acts will "improve" their condition. "Made no mention of the graduation hypothesis till now." Actually I mentioned it two posts back, I even included a link: "The science on this is by no means conclusive, some positions assert that animal abuse is a symptom of socipathy/psychopathy, some broaden it to include antisocial behaviour, others say it is symptomatic of conduct disorder (how that is different from the others I don't know), whereas some say it is a pre-cursor - this has been called the “graduation hypothesis” (i.e. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/47/1/ But I also openly acknowledged in my last post that I had not heard of it at the beginning of this debate. "And is that all you have? The Graduation Hypothesis is nothing more than what we've been kicking around this whole time. It is simply an observance of the correlation between childhood animal abuse and future murderers." Exactly, assuming environmental factors predominate - which I believe they do for a variety of reasons - then the time dependency of the hypothesis rules out the notion of animal abuse as merely a symptom of s/p. How can someone being expressing a symptom of something they have yet to acquire? "Never does it say "animal abuse helps create the murderer."" I know, if a hypothesis said that I would have brought it up a long time ago, that's why I'm not trying to claim my position is the correct one, that's why you have definitely given me a lot of food for thought. "Still, to say that it does is ONLY an opinion," Yes, I KNOW, just the same way that saying it doesn't is only an opinion, both opinion's are backed by evidence in one form or another but the evidence is inconclusive, after all if environmental factors are the sole determinant in this, that effectively blows your "its a symptom of an underlying condition" position out of the water. This is more or less what I've been saying for about 3 posts now. Don't me wrong, i respect your position, i acknowledge your superior knowledge in this field, but I do feel as though I have some insight into human nature, and I have seen with my own eyes what a persons environment can do to there psychology - while I am not so arrogant as to not acknowledge the validity of your position, there is no reason why I should acknowledge its superiority over my own. "Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Anti-Socials." I know, they are same, but like my source said, sociopathy is the term generally used by those who believe environmental factors predominate. "I can say that I've changed your morality within this debate." Yes I suppose in a a certain sense you have, but it depends, if you consider morality a collection of ideas on what is the "correct" kind of behaviour in interacting with ones environment, then yes, you have definitely (at the very least) added to those ideas. But if you view it as a tool for determining ones reactive attitudes when presented with situations that go against it, then no, you have not altered how I would behave. This is because morality is far more than simply an intellectual question. In order to change my morality in this sense, your position would need to be proven conclusively beyond any reasonable doubt, and even then I believe would have severe trouble trying to internalise it. "or better, if completely legalized and unregulated, those who enjoy torturing animals will continue to do so, and those who find profit in it (for whatever reason) will attempt to make profit in it (like Michael Vick). I see no problem with this." I've explained why I believe this to be (objectively) a bad idea. It really has a lot to do with how I view human nature, everyone has a shadow, some are more in control of it than others, I do not believe animal abuse to be something as trivial as you make it seem, but I am not going to argue on the basis of things that a purely subjective, even if it is those very sensibilities that mould my own morality. This is because I know it's cheap debating currency, and is not something that you would (or could) take seriously. I would say you need to look within, ask yourself why is there such a disconnect between what you would feel comfortable doing, and what behaviour you would condone. "No. I believe that we don't know this, and to make the assertion that it does is dishonest. Like, maybe it will increase... but maybe it won't. Hell, maybe it will go down. We don't know." See third response down. "No matter what, though, I still don't see what will be the problem. Are you... afraid of an epidemic? Or is any slight increase bad to you... because the act itself is what's bad? Answerd by:" Is to do with the problem of evil, the existence of evil is something I believe the human race as a whole as never gotten to grips with on any serious level. I think WW2 is a perfect example of this. Most societies draw the simple conclusion that they are "good", therefore their actions no matter how despicable, selfish, destructive etc. are also good, obviously those that would seek to resist them or try to harm them in any way are "evil". Nowhere is this more true than in the Western world, and nowhere is more true within the western world than in the US. Don't get me wrong, its also true the ME as well, this is perfectly exemplified by Iran's use of the term "great Satan", I much prefer the Oriental views (i.e. Taoist, Zen Buddhist, etc.) on good and evil, and morality in general. They seem to be light years ahead of us in this respect, even though they were formulated when we were still in the dark ages. "Why not? I guess this was the start of our back-and-fourth. So... are we going to start over?" I could probably come up a few more "objective" reasons not to allow this kind of behaviour but I don't think they will be enough to change your position. "If most of society is against it, why is legality necessary?" I agree. 1
point
"Responding to your suggestion that it being illegal is making it less frequent." Of course it is, I mean, again, I can't prove it with evidence, just the same way I can't prove that if nudists were allowed to be naked in public we wouldn't see more naked people in public, but its the most rational position to take. "I'm not saying it will be less. I am merely lacking faith in your position." Why? You clearly already expressed faith in a few posts back, i.e. "Sure, there may be a small rise in animal torture, mostly for profitable reasons, though, not sadistic pleasure" Its very simply, you either think there will be an increase, a decrease, or neither, I believe the most logical position to take is to believe there would be an increase, why do think that's wrong? "I do not feel honest if I reduce the act of animal abuse to an action of a "sociopath."" Why not? You would simply be echoing what the evidence shows. "It anti-social in the sense that it is a negative act towards society (as you and other anti-animal cruelty believers believe animal abuse to be)." Given that sociopathy is simply a subtype of anti-social behaviour, and given the established link between it and animal abuse (which is clearly far stronger than between animal abuse and anti-social behaviour), doesn't it seem possible (or even likely) that many of these anti-socials could be budding sociopaths, and that animal abuse might simply be an avenue towards realising their sociopathy/psychopathy? I do realsie how many hypothetical were in that blurb, but still, given the important of environmental factors, isn't it worth taking seriously. My heart goes out to these people, I can empathise with them on a very deep level, but cannot see how allowing them free rain to commit these acts will "improve" their condition. "Made no mention of the graduation hypothesis till now." Actually I mentioned it two posts back, I even included a link: "The science on this is by no means conclusive, some positions assert that animal abuse is a symptom of socipathy/psychopathy, some broaden it to include antisocial behaviour, others say it is symptomatic of conduct disorder (how that is different from the others I don't know), whereas some say it is a pre-cursor - this has been called the “graduation hypothesis” (i.e. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/47/1/ But I also openly acknowledged in my last post that I had not heard of it at the beginning of this debate. "And is that all you have? The Graduation Hypothesis is nothing more than what we've been kicking around this whole time. It is simply an observance of the correlation between childhood animal abuse and future murderers." Exactly, assuming environmental factors predominate - which I believe they do for a variety of reasons - then the time dependency of the hypothesis rules out the notion of animal abuse as merely a symptom of s/p. How can someone being expressing a symptom of something they have yet to acquire? "Never does it say "animal abuse helps create the murderer."" I know, if a hypothesis said that I would have brought it up a long time ago, that's why I'm not trying to claim my position is the correct one, that's why you have definitely given me a lot of food for thought. "Still, to say that it does is ONLY an opinion," Yes, I KNOW, just the same way that saying it doesn't is only an opinion, both opinion's are backed by evidence in one form or another but the evidence is inconclusive, after all if environmental factors are the sole determinant in this, that effectively blows your "its a symptom of an underlying condition" position out of the water. Afterall, if a persons environment is what determines their behaviour, then their environment is what engender certain types of behaviour within them, if the cause of those behaviours are in no way innate, then notion that they were merely symptomatic of an underlying dormant condition is invalidated. This is more or less what I've been saying for about 3 posts now. Don't me wrong, i respect your position, i acknowledge your superior knowledge in this field, but I do feel as though I have some insight into human nature, and I have seen with my own eyes what a persons environment can do to there psychology - while I am not so arrogant as to not acknowledge the validity of your position, there is no reason why I should acknowledge its superiority over my own. "Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Anti-Socials." I know, they are same, but like my source said, sociopathy is the term generally used by those who believe environmental factors predominate. "I can say that I've changed your morality within this debate." Yes I suppose in a a certain sense you have, but it depends, if you consider morality a collection of ideas on what is the "correct" kind of behaviour in interacting with ones environment, then yes, you have definitely (at the very least) added to those ideas. But if you view it as a tool for determining ones reactive attitudes when presented with situations that go against it, then no, you have not altered how I would behave. This is because morality is far more than simply an intellectual question. In order to change my morality in this sense, your position would need to be proven conclusively beyond any reasonable doubt, and even then I believe would have severe trouble trying to internalise it. "or better, if completely legalized and unregulated, those who enjoy torturing animals will continue to do so, and those who find profit in it (for whatever reason) will attempt to make profit in it (like Michael Vick). I see no problem with this." I've explained why I believe this to be (objectively) a bad idea. It really has a lot to do with how I view human nature, everyone has a shadow, some are more in control of it than others, I do not believe animal abuse to be something as trivial as you make it seem. I would say you need to look within, ask yourself why is there such a disconnect between what you would feel comfortable doing, and what behaviour you would condone. "No. I believe that we don't know this, and to make the assertion that it does is dishonest. Like, maybe it will increase... but maybe it won't. Hell, maybe it will go down. We don't know." See third response down. "No matter what, though, I still don't see what will be the problem. Are you... afraid of an epidemic? Or is any slight increase bad to you... because the act itself is what's bad? Answerd by:" Is to do with the problem of evil, I don't think the human race as a whole as never gotten to grips with on any serious level. I think WW2 is a perfect example of this. Most societies draw the simple conclusion that they are "good", therefore their actions no matter how despicable, selfish, destructive etc., are also good, obviously those that would seek to resist them or try to harm them in any way are "evil". Nowhere is this more true than in the Western world, and nowhere is more true within the western world than in the US. Don't get me wrong, its also true the ME as well, this is perfectly exemplified by Iran's or Al Queda's use of the term "great Satan", I much prefer the Oriental views (i.e. Taoist, Zen Buddhist, etc.) on good and evil, and morality in general. They seem to be light years ahead of us in this respect, even though they were formulated when we were still in the dark ages. "Why not? I guess this was the start of our back-and-fourth. So... are we going to start over?" I could probably come up a few more "objective" reasons not to allow this kind of behaviour but I don't think they will be enough to change your position. "If most of society is against it, why is legality necessary?" I agree. we wouldn't see more naked people in public Sure, but they'd still be naked in private. Why not? Because it is not only sociopaths whom partake in the act. Psychopaths and other anti-socials do as well. I can empathise with them on a very deep level Oh, so NOW you can empathize with sociopaths. that's why I'm not trying to claim my position is the correct one, that's why you have definitely given me a lot of food for thought. So I suppose your hatred towards them has been quelled? It really has a lot to do with how I view human nature, everyone has a shadow, some are more in control of it than others, I do not believe animal abuse to be something as trivial as you make it seem. Then it is not, as you said, objective. It's based on YOUR subjective view of human nature and where YOU want it to go, even though there's no evidence to say that any lifestyle you promote is better for human nature. It is not, in any way, objective. I much prefer the Oriental views (i.e. Taoist, Zen Buddhist, etc.) on good and evil, and morality in general. They seem to be light years ahead of us in this respect, even though they were formulated when we were still in the dark ages. I prefer the Nihilist view of morality, in that it's made up for our own purposes. Buddhists believed in reincarnation and a magical force called Karma. Taoists worship a magic man in the sky, like Christians, and they have rituals for this magic man in the sky and the deceased and their spirits. As cute as their philosophies may be, it's all just a religion. Christianity and Islam have been taken to extreme levels, but we can see some noble people of those faiths as well. That doesn't make what they believe in any less bullshit. As an Atheist, I try to be all post-theist with these religions. I accept them for what they are, but I seem them to be of little use but to just keep the masses in a light-hearted mood so that they can continue to work for the superstructure. Opiate of the people. 1
point
3
points
I am not completely opposed to murder. I mean, I realize that it goes against my philosophy of life and of politics, but I find it hard to value something - anything - of which there are so many billions of substitutes. It isn't like I'm going to go out and kill a person, but I just don't view it as being as heinous as most people. Puppies, or dogs, are of far, far less consequence than a human, so let's try to explain it this way: if you and I were acquaintances, then you were to tell me that you had once killed a puppy for fun, I would not hold it against you. Just so long as you keep away from my pets. 4
points
"if you and I were acquaintances, then you were to tell me that you had once killed a puppy for fun, I would not hold it against you." Somehow I doubt your sincerity, any person who commits such acts against helpless creatures is a stones throw from doing lifewise to humans, not holding it against him would be idiotic in my opinion. 1
point
"Doubt it all you want." Actually you're right, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're incredibly nieve on this particular issue. "I've known plenty of weird people in my time, ranging from extremely friendly, teetotalers to violent, rather depraved druggies.I make little distinction between them. " Yes, I've been in the presence of many types of people myself as I have a fairly colourful past, however I do make a distinction between them, I knew a guy (or more accurately, I was in the presence of guy a few times) who used to lock cats into microwaves to watch them burn. I'm sure by you wouldn't hold that against him, the trouble is he had the same attitude towards people. He's is currently in prison for grievous bodily harm, he was an extremely dangerous person known to have stabbed a lot people (and possibly killed one). Not to hold that against him and treat him like any other guy is the height of stupidity. And I can guarantee you if you did you would be punished quite severely for it. "I couldn't care less what others do by themselves." I do, if a person spends their free time roaming the streets abducting children I'd prefer not to be friends with that guy. 1
point
It all boils down to circumstance. If, the puppies, kittens, dogs cats e.t.c were in a vast amount of pain, then killing them would be for the better. Ce pendant, if you simply did not like animals, then killing them would not be the right way of disposing of them. And it is also a matter of how. If you give a quick bash to the back of the head, and its over. If however, you start hacking at their throats with a blunt knife, that is wrong. 0
points
0
points
1
point
|
