[Discussion split from:] What Happens to Our Brains When We Get Depressed?

14 Replies, 981 Views

(2021-05-24, 12:44 PM)Typoz Wrote: human) Curiosity killed the cats.


I’m generally against any killing by scientists.

But don’t let Laird hear this, as he considers me...

“Re animal rights and liberation, Steve, I think you're way out of line, lacking in perspective, and, yes, being unreasonable.”
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
(2021-05-27, 10:26 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: I’m generally against any killing by scientists.

But don’t let Laird hear this, as he considers me...

“Re animal rights and liberation, Steve, I think you're way out of line, lacking in perspective, and, yes, being unreasonable.”

I wrote that in response to what I took to be your suggestion that we shouldn't make uncompromising statements about the moral compulsion of refraining from mistreating animals, because the general public is not ready for such statements, and that we should instead just "accept" that mistreatment and "forgive" those who mistreat animals. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that's how it came across to me in context.
(2021-05-28, 04:48 AM)Laird Wrote: I wrote that in response to what I took to be your suggestion that we shouldn't make uncompromising statements about the moral compulsion of refraining from mistreating animals, because the general public is not ready for such statements, and that we should instead just "accept" that mistreatment and "forgive" those who mistreat animals. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that's how it came across to me in context.

Laird, I have always made my views on how I think animals are treated clear to you during any conversations we have had. I have said that I have been a pescatarian (fish eater) for the last three years only because I don’t like the way animals are killed. Ideally I would prefer to exclude seafood also from my diet, but I’m weak and human. You must have known all this when you wrote those words. 

Throughout the thread in question, I have never said anything that contradicted my views on ‘the treatment of animals’. From my perspective all I attempted to do was to add perspective and be more reasonable! It was obviously a pointless exercises. Can’t you see that although I think largely the same way as you on this topic, your own bias still led you to make that statement, which I think is obviously nonsense. I’m not offended by what you wrote, I just think it’s unfair, this is the same reason I replied quite aggressively to your post about Malcolm Kendrick, which started this whole thing. 

It is not reasonable to write a distorted article about anyone that truly believes they’re doing the right thing, certainly a medical doctor that isn’t saying anything outrageous, yet that is the side you appear to choose. The same thing with Tim Noakes, you (perhaps understandably) chose to side with your dietician sister, yet you haven’t done any of your own investigation into Noakes or what his opinions are! To me this is similar to Raimo making a silly statement about censoring Ian McGilchrist when in fact he is just about the most reasonable and likeable scientists that anyone can hear. It isn’t that I know Kendrick well, but you don’t either! Yet it was obvious that you refuse to criticise his vilification as it was a group that you identify with that was attacking him. 

The whole point is not to embarrass anyone, but to show how (as I see it) mixed up our thinking can get when bias is part of our thought process. If it is a flaw in someone as articulate and intelligent as you Laird, bias must surely be lurking in all of us waiting for another opportunity to muck things up.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
(This post was last modified: 2021-05-28, 07:34 AM by Stan Woolley.)
Steve, none of that is responsive to what I wrote. To repeat in slightly different words, perhaps being a little fairer to you: when I wrote the statement to which you object, it was in response to what I understood to be your suggestion that we shouldn't make uncompromising statements about the moral compulsion of refraining from mistreating animals, or at least (here's when the extra fairness comes in) that we shouldn't expect others to make those statements. Either way, in my view, this is an irresponsible position to take. We should always expect - in the sense of requiring and/or demanding - from both ourselves and others moral behaviour and the endorsement of moral behaviour in our (or their) statements. That others in many cases probably won't behave morally or uphold morality in their statements does not mean that we should then stop requiring or demanding it of them, and that we should simply "accept" and "forgive" their failures. That would be to implicitly endorse immoral behaviour.

Does that make my statement any clearer? In any case, given the case you seem to be making, shouldn't you simply forgive me for it and accept it?
(2021-05-28, 07:27 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: you haven’t done any of your own investigation into Noakes or what his opinions are!

How could you possibly know that? In fact, you couldn't, because it's false.
(2021-05-28, 08:12 AM)Laird Wrote: Does that make my statement any clearer? In any case, given the case you seem to be making, shouldn't you simply forgive me for it and accept it?


To me, me first paragraph in Post #3 says it all.

Who said I don’t forgive you? I have no problem accepting it, I only thought you might see your bias and at least think about it.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
(This post was last modified: 2021-05-29, 05:27 AM by Laird. Edit Reason: Correct post number after thread split )
(2021-05-28, 08:23 AM)Laird Wrote: How could you possibly know that? In fact, you couldn't, because it's false.

Fair enough. I apologise.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stan Woolley's post:
  • Laird
(2021-05-28, 01:48 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: To me, me first paragraph in Post #3 says it all.

Fine, and of course I already know your position. I wasn't saying you're out of line in your ethics re animal rights and liberation in general, just as it came up as a topic in our exchange in that thread (in which there were also other topics), in which I interpreted you as I've explained above. Granted, your ethical approach to animals is otherwise commendable, and a lot better than most!
(This post was last modified: 2021-05-29, 05:41 AM by Laird.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Laird's post:
  • Stan Woolley
(2021-05-28, 01:48 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: I only thought you might see your bias and at least think about it.

I don't see any bias. Perhaps I can put it this way. This is the question that I think was at issue in that part of our exchange in the thread:

Should we expect people in general to behave morally with respect to animals and to make morally responsible statements with respect to animals?

If we take "expect" to mean "consider it likely on the balance of probabilities for", then perhaps the answer is indeed "Not at this point in time". This, perhaps, is the interpretation you preferred.

If, though, we take "expect" to mean "demand and require of (in the sense of a moral obligation)", then the answer is unequivocally "Yes". This is the interpretation on which I was basing my comments.

Is that, do you think, a helpful analysis of the apparent miscommunication?
(This post was last modified: 2021-05-29, 05:43 AM by Laird.)
Normally I’d have given the previous post a like as I see it as more reasonable and to a large extent ‘fixes the issue’. One of the things I felt most troubled about had already been corrected. Thank you for that.

I hesitate to give the post a like because I still feel that you have in you a deep passion about ‘animal welfare’ which, frankly, can lead to you giving no ground. I mean none! I don’t think this is a reasonable (or healthy) position.

I can say that I wish that things weren’t as they are about many things. One topic I feel strongly about is the Zionist question, this is probably the one topic I feel most deeply about, of any that currently exist in the world. To me it gets to showing how unfair, hypocritical and fucked up we can become under certain conditions. Yet I also know that while ‘Israel’ is bad, and I think evil may well be present in many hearts, yet I know that man’s thinking around animals is far worse!
 
On an absolute scale, we think literally nothing of slaughtering millions of them daily so that we can eat. We assume that this is a necessary act. Yet on a different level it is definitely evil imo. 

However, this action is not consciously evil, as most of such actions are considered necessary, therefore normal. The difference is, the vast majority of us don’t look at animals and think bad things about them, conscious thought! Whereas, with Israel, they carry out their actions with intent! They are acting very consciously when they bomb Gaza. In their heads many Zionists actively hate. 

I think there is a difference. 

Yet even though I feel strongly about what happens in Gaza and the Palestinian people, I don’t - can’t feel too strongly against their oppressors. They are only acting a certain way. Who’s to say that I wouldn’t act similarly had I been born into a Israeli family? 

I feel that my thinking about some form of loving God makes a difference here. Though I don’t act in a way that I think any such God would prefer. I think I act from my heart. Some here might feel that I am saying this as a way to raise my status. That is for them to think, frankly, I couldn’t give a shit what they think, because I’m speaking from the heart. 

Do you believe in God Laird? Maybe I have asked you this question directly before, if so I apologise for my crap memory, and more importantly for not having taken any answer more seriously.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)