Quote from: Verbatim on May 01, 2015, 07:46:12 AM

Quote from: Camnator on May 01, 2015, 07:33:14 AM

extracting the milk after pregnancy in a way that isn't abusive, would you tolerate that?

Well, no, because like you said, you're basically stealing it for your own purposes. You didn't say that outright, but you implied it with your assertion that it's nonconsensual, which is a good word to use. If you were saving someone's life (somehow) with a cow's milk, then that would be justifiable, but only in niche circumstances like that. Cow's milk is meant for a cow's young. That doesn't mean it's wrong to imbibe it--it's wrong to extract it in the first place.

In my scenario of course I wouldn't try milking it if it kept moving away and made clear signs it wasn't fine with what was happening, but if the calf had matured to the point where it didn't need the milk, and you continued milking the cow which made no hesitation, like, say you had it since it was a calf, which is my intention if I go through with it, and it grew up with you like any dog would and there was a deep bond, does that change anything for you? There are no adverse effects of continuing to milk for the rest of their lives, in reality. Humans can even do this, elderly women have done this decades after their periods have stopped. In fact, it can even be healthy and stimulating. Because really, couldn't you also infer grooming a pet is wrong consider you had no consent of the animal? Humans are animals. Animals interact for mutual benefits all of the time. I'm helping the cow if it allow me, so I allow it to help me if it allows it. I would never use force. I find that extremely unethical.

Going along this line of thought, I'd like to hear Verb's take on using dogs for hunting or shepherding, horses for recreational riding, or really any use of animals beyond a purely pet/owner relationship (though a lot of vegans also protest this). It seems that using animals in any sort of utility capacity is a form of theft, and it stands to reason that they could never consent to any of it, despite appearing to (or genuinely) enjoying it, since non-sapient animals can never give it. And is it okay to let an animal fade into extinction because they no longer serve a purpose? Surely any domesticated animal would be quickly killed off in the wild. It just seems like we've formed a fairly healthy, natural relationship with these animals over time, and while we should strive to never cause undue harm, I'm having a hard time seeing the ethical dilemma in our current situation.

>gloves
septy pls.

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:08:18 PM

>gloves
septy pls.

Comet pls
It gets that cold here during the winter that gloves and hats are necessary

where are you?

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:11:29 PM

Quote from: Septy on May 01, 2015, 01:09:58 PM

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:08:18 PM

>gloves
septy pls.

Comet pls
It gets that cold here during the winter that gloves and hats are necessary

where are you?

East GA

We get ice storms and high winds. Never snow tho even though it gets down to 30 during the winter.

bah, southerners.

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:17:38 PM

Quote from: Septy on May 01, 2015, 01:13:06 PM

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:11:29 PM

Quote from: Septy on May 01, 2015, 01:09:58 PM

Quote from: Comet on May 01, 2015, 01:08:18 PM

>gloves
septy pls.

Comet pls
It gets that cold here during the winter that gloves and hats are necessary

where are you?

East GA

We get ice storms and high winds. Never snow tho even though it gets down to 30 during the winter.

bah, southerners.

Would move to New England area but muh poor

i would love to move to New Hampshire, Vermont, or Washington. moar snow

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not?

Well if you kill them all, there's no way to get it back. at least if you stop hunting animals to extinction, you let them grow back to a point where you can hunt them again, but manageable.

OT: I'm generally against it unless you go get it yourself, or at least very involved in it. Synthetic furs are fine though, and they seem to be everywhere.

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Extinction is bad, mkay? Unless we're talking about Jews, Slavs, gays, blacks, gypsies, Arabs, and the French.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Extinction is bad, mkay? Unless we're talking about Jews, Slavs, gays, blacks, gypsies, Arabs, and the French.

Why is it bad, though?

Quote from: DAS B00T DAS B00T on May 01, 2015, 06:07:24 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Extinction is bad, mkay? Unless we're talking about Jews, Slavs, gays, blacks, gypsies, Arabs, and the French.

Why is it bad, though?

Man made extinction has a tendency to jack up local ecosystems a decent bit. We should try and avoid that.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Not everyone cares about an animal's interests or well-being in a specific sense. Maybe they don't want an entire species to disappear but they might not necessarily care about a single animal.

Human's only have to capacity to care for so many beings, and have varying degrees of empathy.


I remember seeing a vid recently about animals being frozen solid in ice in flash freezes. It showed a few foxes as well as a moose. I felt more for the foxes because they're one of my favorite animals, however even though I realize the moose suffered through the same experience, I didn't feel nearly as much for it. I have a fairly good degree of empathy but it doesn't always apply towards everything and everyone, I'm not a flowing well of it, and I'm not afraid to admit that.

I get that. But I'm talking about the issues that we can actively choose to support or oppose. Losing sleep over things I have no power to change is fruitless, but when I'm presented  with the option to either support or oppose something (such as killing animals for their skin) I will oppose it, to little detriment of my own. This has nothing to do with some theoretical "empathy limit" that we have. It's about making rational, ethical choices in my life, regardless of how it makes me feel emotionally.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 06:10:21 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T DAS B00T on May 01, 2015, 06:07:24 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Extinction is bad, mkay? Unless we're talking about Jews, Slavs, gays, blacks, gypsies, Arabs, and the French.

Why is it bad, though?

Man made extinction has a tendency to jack up local ecosystems a decent bit. We should try and avoid that.

Again, why is ecological imbalance an undesirable thing?

I'm trying to get at whether these concerns are genuinely for the animals themselves, or if they are merely means to an end and people are really just worried about how they, personally, stand to be affected.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 06:09:56 PM

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. People only care about animals because they are benefiting from their role in the ecosystem, or at the very least are just scared of what might happen if they went extinct. It has nothing to do with recognizing the animal as an individual.

That's true, but then again we barely recognise other people as individuals as it is.

We generally recognize it in humans to a far greater extent than animals. This is true even for dogs and other animals that have been accepted into our  culture. We extend affection toward them based on their cuteness and our ability to project humanlike thoughts and behaviour onto them.

You say you oppose it, but if you aren't actively taking measures to prevent it, are you really opposing it, or do you merely just disagree with it?

If you disagree with something and choose not to support it, you are opposing it. This is especially true in a supply/demand economy where speaking with your wallet is the single most effective way to elicit change in the production chain.

And since you actually have to be quite discerning with your purchases (there are a lot of things that contain animal skins these days) it is absolutely an active form of opposition rather than merely a passive one.

Empathy has a lot to do with it, actually, as making a conscious decision to oppose killing of any kind is often the result of ideals and ethics rooted in the emotions felt as a result of empathy for those being killed. It's an integral part of the interdependent system that is your personality/identity.

Okay, but that wasn't what I meant. I don't deny that our moral intuitions have an emotional bedrock, but it has nothing to do with recognizing a practice as moral or immoral on strictly rational grounds. You can acknowledge something as immoral without having any emotional attachment to it, and can proceed to oppose it based solely on your desire to be rational.

If we merely let our emotions dictate ethics, then it wouldn't be the subject of intellectual inquiry that it is.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 06:21:01 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T DAS B00T on May 01, 2015, 06:14:38 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 06:10:21 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T DAS B00T on May 01, 2015, 06:07:24 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 05:49:49 PM

Why does it matter whether the animal is endangered or not? It seems to illustrate that people are only concerned about animal welfare if it stands to benefit them in some way, rather than genuinely caring about the animal's interests.

Extinction is bad, mkay? Unless we're talking about Jews, Slavs, gays, blacks, gypsies, Arabs, and the French.

Why is it bad, though?

Man made extinction has a tendency to jack up local ecosystems a decent bit. We should try and avoid that.

Again, why is ecological imbalance an undesirable thing?

I'm trying to get at whether these concerns are genuinely for the animals themselves, or if they are merely means to an end and people are really just worried about how they stand to be affected.

For me? Mostly the later. The group as a whole is far easier to care about than any individual when you're not essentially living with that being.
And I mean, if you've got a slowly regenerative but still finite resource that grows on a parabolic curve, wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone for a while until it's more self-sustaining and you're able to cull some of the population with minimal effects on it's existence?

Okay. That's what I said from the beginning, though -- peoples' concerns for endangered animals are ultimately self-serving and are not the noble, compassionate qualities they are paraded as being.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 01, 2015, 06:40:57 PM

Okay, but that wasn't what I meant. I don't deny that our moral intuitions have an emotional bedrock, but it has nothing to do with recognizing a practice as moral or immoral on strictly rational grounds. You can acknowledge something as immoral without having any emotional attachment to it, and can proceed to oppose it based solely on your desire to be rational.

If we merely let our emotions dictate ethics, then it wouldn't be the subject of intellectual inquiry that it is.

I don't mean to imply that emotions are the entire basis for ethics. What I mean to convey is that empathy is involved in their conditioning along with everything else that is so it shouldn't just be ignored.

Oh, absolutely not. Empathy can invigorate our desire to act morally and is thus a great asset, but it can also make us behave patently immorally simply because we have an emotional attachment to something -- nepotism comes to mind, but I'm sure there are better examples.

The point is, we should always think critically about something first, regardless of where our emotions lie. And if emotion and logic line up, it's just an added bonus.