[ SECRET POST #1791 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1791 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________



25.


__________________________________________________



26.


__________________________________________________



27.


__________________________________________________



28.


__________________________________________________



29.


__________________________________________________



30.


__________________________________________________



31.


__________________________________________________



32.


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 08 pages, 179 secrets from Secret Submission Post #256.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

What?

Do you seriously not appreciate the difference in intelligence and sapience between a dolphin and a chicken?

Are you fucking brain damaged?

[twistedbones.livejournal.com]

it's common to eat pigs too and they're more intelligent than your dog and your cat together, so grouping them by intelligence isn't an argument for picking one over the other.
just because dolphins are cute it does not mean they have "more right to live" than a chicken.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Pigs weren't mentioned in your example. And you're right they're a very intelligent animal (I'd disagree with more intelligent then dogs, but that starts to fall under the nuance of what intelligence is), so if someone loves their bacon, but is anti-eating other animals that runs into some problems of hypocrisy*.

And yes, what marker would you use for right to life then? Why do human beings have a greater right to live then any other animal if we discard intelligence as a measure?

*this hasn't really been touched upon elsewhere but I'll pre-empt it. Dogs specifically you can make a defence of being a special class simply because they've evolved alongside us in a co-dependent relationship for ten thousand years, making our relationship unique to that of any other animal, and being able to consume them is indicative of an uncomfortable lack of empathy.

[twistedbones.livejournal.com]

Human beings do not have a greater right to live than any other animal and I think it's really sad that you think so.
It's a fact that due to our intelligence we are currently at the top of the food chain but that does not make us more "worhty" of life in any way.
I'm not against eating meat in principle, I do it too.
I just think it's silly to say that it would be more morally acceptable to eat a chicken than it is to eat a dolphin or a dog or a pig or whatever, because animal is animal and they're still slaughtered, no matter how high their IQ is.

I can understand why someone would have difficulties eating a dog if they keep one as a pet but you can't say that someone doing so even if they do keep dogs as pets shows lack of empathy. Just because you have a special relationship to one animal it does not have to transcend to the whole species.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

W-what, alright we're going to have to break this down because we seem to be diving into solipsism.

What are the tautologies you're using here? What do you hold to be the foundation of morality?

And I'm not suggesting that I myself have a special relationship with a dog that applies to everyone. I'm suggesting that ten thousand years of evolution means that our species have an affinity for each other, and the way this plays into empathy. Something which is fairly well backed.

[twistedbones.livejournal.com]

I thought what I said was fairly straight-forward. You can't base moral value on intelligence. Using your logic, less intelligent people have less right to live than intelligent people. Are you saying that's true of humans, too? Why should it be true of animals then? Humans are only more developed animals after all.

I was using you as in the communal you. But you're going by Western morals right now. Just because some people might believe dogs aren't on the same level as other animals you can't just make it a fix point for everyone and accuse them of lacking empathy when they don't agree.
Farmers live alongside animals for years, tending them, taking care of them. Some even teach their pigs tricks when they're young. These pigs are still slaughtered. Because it's the farmer's job. My best friend has chickens, has named them all and spends a lot of time taking care of them. She loves them. That doesn't mean she won't eat chicken meat when it's offered to her though. Doesn't make her any less empathetic than "normal" people.
The point is, it doesn't matter which species the animal belongs to. If you're saying humans have the right to slaughter animals for food, they have the right to slaughter all animals for food (provided they're not nearly extinct or something.) You can't accuse someone of being morally wrong just because they like to breed and slaughter dogs and eat them. (In many Asian countries that's completely normal, by the way. They, too, keep dogs as pets.)

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

To be honest. Yes, I believe this to be the case.

I guess it'd be most accurate to say my approach is close to Peter Singers.

And you're simplifying everything into one category, entirely ignoring nuance. 'Animal' as a category is almost meaningless. A grasshopper isn't a pigeon, isn't a dolphin. All these things exist on a continuum and have different moral value associated to them. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.

And it may be totally normal for that to happen in Asian countries, but I don't subscribe to cultural relativism (p. much because you can't and still hold to moral facts, you either believe in an absolute moral truth or collapse into nihilism, anything else is an intellectually incoherent half way house.) so believe it to be wrong.

[twistedbones.livejournal.com]

If you're planning to eat them, then yes, to me a grasshopper is a pigeon is a dolphin.
I do argue otherwise, I've done so for the last few comments.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Moreover, using "intelligence" as the basis of whether or not killing is morally justifiable is extremely dangerous territory, because many animals are more intelligent than developmentally challenged humans. A dog is more intelligent than a baby, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd argue killing either is morally equivalent. You might argue that the baby has more "potential" to become intelligent, but this still doesn't solve the quandary of mentally handicapped humans, who don't.

...Eerily enough, after pointing this out, I have found people who will admit (in private) that this does mean killing a dog is worse, morally, than killing the mentally handicapped.

Which is horrid. But the logical conclusion of this kind of thinking. At least they're consistent.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

(On Singer, as referenced above) "He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".[22] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.[23]"

Which is to say, I'm not sure I'd go as far as him, but he makes some extremely compelling arguments. I guess mostly I'd puss out and go down the route of the inner life of a human being effectively unmeasurable, and whilst someone may on the surface appear to be less intelligent then some of the higher life forms we can't know with certainty this is the case so have to hold the sanctity of their life over say a dog.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

That's a very interest point. I'd agree with you that I'd probably puss out myself with a anthrocentric rationale of the morality of championing one's own kind/putting their lives above those of other species, but...

...I wonder how many people, if, say, the zombie apocalypse happened and they had a choice between caring for a dog or caring for a severely mentally disabled human being (they don't have enough resources for both) would honestly choose the latter. With no one watching.

[(Anonymous)]

tbh I would choose the dog if the person wasn't someone I knew and if I wasn't part of a group who could help care for the person. if there's a zombie apocalypse, then you would probably have to be on the run a lot and someone who couldn't care for themselves would slow you down a lot and become a huge burden.

and also, I'm a terrible person

I'm glad I'm anon

[(Anonymous)]

Call me crazy, but I care a lot more for the life of my chickens than for some dolphins. I don't care how unintelligent they might be. They're my chickens and are worth more than the life of a wild animal.

[(Anonymous)]

You're pretty fucking dumb, but we haven't eaten you yet.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god. I hope you know just how dumb you sound. Intelligence and sapience don't matter. Ayrt is right, if your cause is truly for animal rights, no there is no difference and you do sound incredibly hypocritical. Like the omg but this one's soo cute!111!1! people who are just as bad. And you're using brain-damage as an insult (overreacting by the way)? Yeah, you sound like a treat to know.