fun fact: cows are carnivores. CW: baby chicken being eaten alive
Removed by modNSFW
Removed by modNSFW
fun fact: cows are carnivores. CW: baby chicken being eaten alive
Removed by modNSFWThe video is to prove a point really fast, but, cows actually do only eat proteins. They have three stomachs that they use to feed grass to bacterial colonies, which they then pull into their fourth stomach to eat, with any of the grass that's left un-eaten by the bacteria being shit straight out without being processed any further. They don't eat the grass, the grass is there to feed what they do eat, which is supplemented by eating any large animal small enough to fit in their mouth. I read a study once that almost all cows when dissected had at least 1 animal in their digestive system at a time.
The notion that cows are good peaceful harmless herbivores who eat nothing but grass is nonsense. Here's a video of a cow eating the corpse of a donkey. Of note: there's grass right next to the body. And it isn't just a result of cows being fucked up by human domestication, wild deer (who you cannot blame on humans malnourishing it or contaminating its feed or whatever) do it too.
constructing an elaborate worldview out of a kindergarten level understanding of biology and then getting extremely smug about it annoys me relentlessly. Cows would eat you if they had the chance
just shut the fuck up and go away :LIB:
so you can't actually discuss this thing you believe in good faith without lashing out at others?
stop responding then lol
you arnt discussing in good faith, so why would i?
I definitely am discussing in good faith, because I actually want to drill down and examine these notions more fully, not just double-down & snidely dismiss others or pretend like I occupied some "moral" high ground all along
nope
you are literally dismissing what i said because you have in your head some idea of what i might say and are preemptively responding to that instead of attempting to find out my actual beliefs by addressing what i did say
Yes, I am here discussing in good faith
You attempted to snidely dismiss me when I tried to bring up these ethical arguments from a critical perspective
I don't know what your beliefs are, true, and I said as much when I pointed out how we're stuck quibbling& deflecting here because you seem unwilling to discuss in good faith
I just know that you lashed out when I suggested that many animals probably have an "animal" ethics & decision-making calculus based specifically within the confines of their own evolutionary & ecological/social development
no.
once you said this, you were "snidely dismissing" anything i had to say. that is not good faith, and that is the point at which i stopped giving any shits about this conversation.
btfo :LIB:
you tried to be dismissive & disregarded me in bad faith in your comment immediately before the one you just quoted, I was only mirroring your temperament
you fundamentally misrepresented what I said, and then attacked that instead... pretty unconvincing
no. i didnt.
now, you could say i was rude in pointing out that your reply to my first comment was almost entirely nonsensical drivel, but it was not "overemotional" or in bad faith.
i pointed out that the entire preposed argument was based on a faulty framework that made everything following irrelevant, because that is the case.
Yes, you were definitely responding in bad faith, and continued to take this name-calling & dismissive approach in every subsequent response you made
I also said that if concern for meat consumption by others is based on a faulty framework of unevenly applied "human ethics" to animals, without any real recognition of animal ethics & social behavior, then it borders on dogma & you keep going out of your way to prove this
I will disengage if we can stop responding to one another here
get over it.
not a thing. animals do not have ethics.
feel free to fuck off at anytime tho, idgaf
animal ethics is one of the most rich areas of philosophical & legal and biological scientific understanding
animals certainly have social & ecological considerations & their decisions & behaviors are moderated in many ways, genetically & environmentally & between individuals, that promote certain adaptations and social frameworks over others
I will no longer respond when I stop receiving these notifications
Assuming animals did have their own "ethics" in a way that suggests an internal evaluation of right or wrong, it would not necessarily follow that those ethics would mirror humanity's, for a huge number of reasons.
If perception, group dynamics, breeding habits, parent-offspring-sibling relationships, level and kind of intelligence, environment, diet, neurochemistry all vary wildly, an animals "ethics" if that is a meaningful concept could be as broadly different from ours, and thus our own standards not necessarily applicable just because it's engaged in a *kind * of ethics.
Yes, you can. In fact, we as humans even do this with members of our own species who have diminished capacity, in holding them to a different standard if their perception or affect or intellectual capability greatly differ: an individual suffering schizophrenia or pronounced intellectual disability will often receive a different prison sentence (rightly) because of their different capacity.
An ethical framework that precludes the eating of non-human animals does not thereby humanize or personify animals to the degree it requires of them the same moral behaviour. I do not expect the same moral decision making from a 3 year old child as an adult human. Why? Because of their level of intellectual capacity, they cannot understand the ethics of say having to repay debts or obligations.
I would say it should be an obvious point to begin with that a mature and complex intellect are a prerequisite for being subject to moral rules.
Put it much more simply: do you think animals understand human moral rules? do you think animals are capable of grasping the categorical imperative or the best calculus for maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering? If they aren't ever capable of knowing those rules, knowing it applies to them, why would we (humans) apply it to them? I know they're not capable of grasping that morality, I know that if I expected them to hold to it they would fail, they would not understand they've failed and do not care they've failed.
No, because we don't know whether they're capable of feeling shame or whether they would understand what about this instance should cause them shame or the rationale for why this action and not others is shameful.
Here's an action I hope we would agree is immoral, unethical, bad: one human engaging in sex with another without the other's willingness, using overt and coercive means to procure sex. This happens all of the time in and amongst animals. Territorial violence and unprovoked aggression to the point of murder also happen all of the time in and amongst animals. It is absolutely pointless to try and get grizzly bears or bottlenose dolphins to understand not to do these things. Does it therefore follow then that it is pointless to try and get humans to understand these things are bad?
I didn't say anything about it mirroring humanity's ethics. But even different human groups have different taboos & stigmas & sociological behavior that hardly can be said to be homogeneous, and certain practices in Papuan tribal groups would shock or concern certain people in industrial society. We can see similarities in kin selection & reciprocal altruism between species, however. Honor killings for instance also may not be "universally" acceptable, but that doesn't keep affinity groups in those areas from carrying them out.
Members of human society with diminished capacity are not without will & certainly not without humanity. You're talking about whether there is a conscience that animals or schizophrenics have, and that's its own issue. We're still talking about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to eat animals, not whether it's "right" or "wrong" to execute the severely mentally handicapped. Schizophrenics get executed quite often.
Do I think Harambe should've been killed? Not necessarily. Do I think human-eating tigers & lions in the wild should be killed? Probably. I am not saying that animals in either instance made "moral" calculations, and specifically was referring to their own conspecific circumstances & animal social behavioral contexts.
Animals are deserving of a very high level of ethical consideration, but not exceeding or even necessarily equal to fellow humans. You admit this when you say that animals can't make moral decisions or be held accountable juridicially for "deviations"/what humans would label as excesses in their behavior. We're already agreeing that animals don't get the same "moral" or "spiritual" acknowledgment
I am not saying we should get animals to understand these things. I am saying that basic & culturally imbibed ethical standards lead us to consider kinship ties & interpersonal relationships before "out-group" individuals. Animals in many contexts also behave in this way. These kinship ties & interpersonal relationships also lead us to consider animals less than other humans. Not saying this is universal or concrete or immutable, I am saying that wild animals & even domesticated animals have their own conspecific & interspecies calculations & aren't profligate killers or completely unmoored in these decisions. Animals protect their young, and herds/schools protect one another from predators, etc.
It follows that humans will still eat meat whether some people think it's wrong or morally repugnant, and it will certainly never be "illegal"... unless that's where you're wanting to go.
If animal ethics doesn't mirror humans, and they can't understand human ethics, why on earth would we attempt to apply human ethics to them?
I'm not talking about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to eat animals at all, I'm talking about whether it necessarily follows that for animals to be objects of moral or ethical consideration, they have to be subject to the same moral system. We don't expect children to be beholden to the same moral obligations or stipulations as adults because their understanding lacks the capacity. Animals understanding lacks the capacity.
Not eating animals doesn't mean you've placed their level of consideration at or above humans.
Sure, and they still do not understand deontological ethics or the principle of maximizing the most happiness, they have their own distinct quasi-ethics. Great. So why for us not to eat them does it follow they have to also become vegetarians? This is the crucial point of disagreement.
People are going to keep committing marital infidelity though it may be wrong or unethical. The fact that people keep on doing something does not make it good. On the contrary, if people did not have the urge or tendency to commit immoral actions, presumably there would be no need for moral or ethical systems whatsoever.
I have no idea what human consumption will look like in the future or the legality thereof, and I haven't stated any particular preference.
I said we can't apply human ethics to them, that's my whole point. We have to apply animal ethics to these matters as our human conventions & industry & social standards shift. We can't consider animals as equals from a human morality standpoint, that's what this entire exchange is about. We can however apply exceedingly high ethical considerations in the law concerning how animals are protected in the wild & in industries using animals.
I didn't say animals have to be subject to the same moral system, I am saying that animals make their own calculations & have factors limiting their own behaviors, just as humans do. These aren't the same "moral" calculus between species.
Not eating animals is simply not eating animals. One can choose not to eat animals without it being a crusade or coming with an overarching universalized ethical justification.
I don't think that humans necessarily "understand" deontological ethics or maximizing "happiness" either. These aren't simple binaries, nor are they concise arguments. And I don't think we can try to pass them off as simple or 1:1 scalable across different societies.
Also didn't say animals have to become vegetarians. Nowhere did I ever say that. You keep setting up this argumentative point that I never made, and attacking it.
Haven't stated any particular preference along those lines either.
They are not subject to human moral prescriptions (like do not eat things that feel pain, as a hypothetical) because they are not moral agents, but despite their lack of moral agency may still be the object of human morals.
We don't need to treat them as equals to refrain from eating them. I do not treat a child as though it has the same moral understanding or obligation as me, but I still have more complex moral obligations towards the child.
You asked "should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?" with the argument "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."
You've argued for us to refrain from eating animals, we have to expect the same from animals. This is not the case.
If you are in fact agreeing that it can be ethical for humans to refrain from eating meat while animals have different ethics, there is no argument.
Animals aren't human children, and we can make discerning & specific differentiations between the two. This comes back to the kin selection & other evolutionary biological principles influencing conspecific animal & human behaviors. Human children can be reasoned with after a certain age, this is a legal & long-standing philosophical principle. Legal proscriptions & basic societal level taboos condemn mistreatment of children, and eating human children is among the lowest human acts. Saying that I don't think it's totally immoral for someone to eat animals doesn't mean I think it's okay for them to eat children. I think you can agree with that.
That's not me saying that animals should be vegetarians, nor is it me saying that animals can be reasoned with in any way. I am saying that using this interpersonal shaming to try & make the case that animal meat shouldn't be consumed isn't the same as making the ethical case for treating animals better.
I didn't argue that refraining from eating animals is the same as moral recognition of individual animal personhood, something I do not personally believe in. I subscribe somewhat to a "relational" approach, and recognize that animal husbandry & agriculture depend totally on irreversible social/animal relationships that date from prehistory. There is no undoing this history, and humans' and animals' futures will remain intertwined.
I do not agree that it's always unethical for humans to eat animals, but for the sake of our conversation I recognize the individual human's ability & validity in coming up with such a rationale in deciding for themselves not to use animal products.
The point of highlighting children as a comparison is to show that despite us (human adults) having higher order moral obligations than children, we treat them with a greater degree of consideration than they themselves are capable of giving.
We (humans) can have higher order moral obligations (such as do not eat animals) than animals themselves are capable of.
There is no way that "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves. should we shame the cow or show them how much more ethical it would’ve been to not eat the baby chick?" is supposed to be interpreted to mean "using this interpersonal shaming to try & make the case that animal meat shouldn’t be consumed isn’t the same as making the ethical case for treating animals better."
This is the point of disagreement. You can think it's ethical not to eat animals without expecting non-human animals to refrain from eating animals. If that's something you agree with, then there is no argument at all.
Human children reach an "age of reason" and can be dissuaded from certain behaviors and convinced to recognize social limitations by this stage of development. We do not treat children as equal to animals in these considerations
I do not think that an individual choosing to refrain from eating animals is a "higher order moral obligation", that boils down to your opinion in this instance. I do recognize the individual's right & validity in making such a decision for themselves though.
In bringing up humanization & personification of animals, I wasn't saying that I think the cow that ate the chick can be reasoned with. I was saying the opposite. In the second instance, I was referring to interpersonal shaming among people who eat meat and those who don't. I choose not to moralize against vegans, because I recognize it's a personal & valid decision they are making. Vegans don't have to believe that meat-eaters are "moral actors" or inviolate in anyway, but that doesn't mean meat-eaters are unequivocally immoral or inferior in their "objective" moral standing.
You can think so, sure. But I don't expect non-human animals to refrain from eating animals, nor do I expect humans to refrain from eating animals. I do expect humans to refrain from eating humans though, and I recognize humans have to protect themselves in rare instances from being eaten by non-human animals.
Yeah, nobody said anything about treating children like animals. "The point of highlighting children as a comparison is to show that despite us (human adults) having higher order moral obligations than children, we treat them with a greater degree of consideration than they themselves are capable of giving.
We (humans) can have higher order moral obligations (such as do not eat animals) than animals themselves are capable of."
That's nice, I have no interest in debating that. I'm only opposing the assertion "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."
Agree or disagree: you can give animals ethical consideration such as not eating them and do not need to apply that ethical framework to animals themselves.
You still haven't opposed the assertion I made, you've only attempted to confuse it. We humans have higher order moral obligations to one another within the species, and we have moral obligations of a different kind to the natural world and its non-human inhabitants. These sets of moral obligations aren't wholly separate, but the specific considerations & rationale are. We should treat animals as ethically as possible where we have direct interaction & contact with them. We should also treat natural ecology & habitat with moral obligatory concern.
These things are, in my opinion, more about self-preservation of the human species than they are about maintaining universally morally unassailable argumentative positions. It's about preservation of habitable & sustainable human living.
We can and do give animals ethical consideration. Refraining from abusing or causing undue harm and needless suffering to animals is a first order concern. This doesn't mean that applying human ethical frameworks to animals is justified.
Individuals can refrain from eating animals, and they can use personal ethical justifications in doing so. But that doesn't mean they can map their personal ethical justifications 1:1 onto the rest of the human species. Just as I do not think meat-eaters who try to "ethically" justify meat-eating should shame vegans into eating meat.
Okay, just for my own clarification, can you explain why exactly "you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves" in a sentence or two?
If we expect animals to be treated as persons, then it would follow that animals would have the same or similar legal rights & cultural & institutional & rational considerations from the society as humans are supposed to get.
If we aren't issuing animals human passports or giving animals human citizenship & trying and sentencing them for criminal behavior, things that children can be subject to, then we are recognizing a sliding/hierarchical scale in these ethical considerations. We can justify or dismiss the cow eating the baby chick because it's not immoral for the cow to do so, but that's an explicit admission that the cow & baby chick aren't worthy of the same moral concern and strictures that humans are. We can think it's immoral for the human to eat the chick & the cow, but that doesn't mean we're benighted in thinking that, and it doesn't mean we're unequivocally morally correct in thinking that. There are contradictions to acknowledge here
We do not expect animals to be treated as persons. Not eating animals is not the same thing as "treating them as persons." Nobody expects animals to be treated as persons.
Cows and baby chicks can be considered less worthy of moral consideration than humans, and still worthy of consideration to the extent of not eating them. Not eating them does not elevate them to the same status as humans.
I agree that we do not expect animals to be treated as persons. Which is why expecting other people to refrain from eating animals on strictly ethical & human moral grounds is not a cogent argument.
We recognize that predators & omnivorous animals can eat meat and not have any soul-searching required of them. We also recognize that large predatory animals, after killing or eating humans, acquire a "taste" for human blood & must be culled or prevented from being able to attack more humans. We are placing material human concerns above ethical animal concerns in all of these instances.
I also agree that not eating animals doesn't elevate those animals, and while it's a valid & perfectly rational choice for individuals to refrain from eating animals, it's not a universally scalable or objective moral truth that everyone on Earth has to take on or feel inordinate shame over.
I'm not arguing about the morality of eating animals, I'm arguing about whether animals need to subscribe to human morality for us humans to have moral considerations (including not eating them) towards them.
It is does not follow from the assertion humans should not eat animals that animals must require the same morality.
I'm not arguing about the morality of eating animals either, I am simply responding to your misinterpretations of what I've said.
I also never said anything about animals needing to do or become something in order to have moral considerations from humans. I said the opposite, and you still seem to be stuck on your misinterpretation of what I said. I said that animals deserve to have moral considerations & deserve to not be abused or subjected to excessive mistreatment from humans. But requiring humans to not eat the animals they typically hunt or raise for meat is not a moral consideration that is universal or scalable to all of humankind.
Never questioned or downplayed the individual's validity in choosing to not eat meat. Nor do I think meat-eaters should shame vegans.
I agree that it doesn't follow that animals require human-equivalent morality. Also that interpersonal stigma and trying to shame others into never eating animals is not an effective or coherent approach
If that's in agreement, then we can see that the assertion “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves," is incorrect because "it doesn't follow that animals require human-equivalent morality." It is in fact possible to treat animals in an ethical framework without having to apply that human framework between animals. You even provide an example of an ethical framework you expect of humans towards animals ("not to be abused or subjected to excessive mistreatment") which does not then require "applying that framework to animals themselves."
You again are misinterpreting what I've said here. We can't humanize non-human animals, nor apply human-human morality to animal ethical concerns, and this is largely but not totally due to the fact that animals aren't subject to human interpersonal/cultural, jurisprudential, or legal ethics.
I agree it's possible to treat animals ethically with regard to human-animal morality, and it remains true that applying a "human framework" isn't relevant in this instance.
Yes, I do expect animals to not attack or be violent toward humans (while realizing these animals do not operate or make decisions on the same ethical/rational level as humans). I also said that animals that do attack humans are usually & justifiably removed or forcibly prevented from repeating such attacks. They also aren't subject to criminal prosecution or human morality in these instances.
So I am still not sure what you're contending with exactly, outside of your mischaracterizations of what I've said
Okay, but as we know, not eating an animal is *not * the same as humanizing them or applying human-human morality.
So if (just as a possibility) it was ethical to refrain from eating animals, this would not require animals themselves to refrain from eating animals. This is in opposition to the assertion “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves."
Consciously choosing to not eat animals isn't the same as humanizing them, I agree. I also think it's a perfectly valid personal decision based on personal calculations
Your hypothetical seems strangely generous to your own position. Can we also imagine (just as a possibility) that it is amoral or not always unethical for humans to eat animals?
Either hypothetical is not in opposition to my assertion.
We could absolutely assume as a hypothetical the position it's in fact a moral good to eat animals.
Okay, now we've considered it.
Back to the question of whether it's true that “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." It is not. If we take the hypothetical position for argument's sake that eating animals *was * ethically bad, it does not follow that we would then have to apply the framework eating animals is bad to animals themselves.
We are not taking your hypothetical position for argument's sake though, that's why we're discussing this
No, as I've said repeatedly I am not actually debating whether eating animal meat is good or not. I'm arguing that it does not follow that for animals to be an object of human ethical consideration animals themselves must follow this morality, in contradistinction to your statement “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves." The hypothetical only illustrates by substitution that the logical form remains valid and the assertion that the same framework must apply to animals is false.
We can't humanize/personify animals and then neglect to apply that framework & expectations of moral behavior from animals themselves. You've already said that you don't personify animals, and then you also said that you don't expect animals to behave under human moral limitations. So you've agreed with the statement in your responses
Therefore, the statement still stands
We're not.
Not eating animals does not require any humanizing or personifying animals.
I agree we aren't
Not eating animals does not require more than the valid personal decision to not eat animals
Right, and also refraining from eating animals as an ethical decision does not require animals following along.
I never said it did
Let's break down the ideas, bit by bit.
1.a. We don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals.
1.b. The framework here is understood to mean refraining from eating other animals.
The rhetorical answer to this question is we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick. The effect of this is to reinforce the clauses outlined above, which connect the act of not eating the animal (1.b ) with humanizing or personifying the animal (1.a), resulting in the scenario that animals would have to follow human morality (2) as illustrated by 2.a (shaming cows for eating chicks).
If either of my summaries of 1.a, 1.b or 2 are incorrect readings of the points outlined, please clarify.
I am saying we don't need to humanize or personify non-human animals. That's all I've said this whole time. No, the framework is not understood to mean that, it's understood to mean the personifying & humanizing & essentializing of human-human ethical considerations within animal behaviors.
I said we shouldn't shame a cow for eating a chick, because I think it's silly to do so. And you agree that we shouldn't do that.
You've already said that you don't personify/humanize animals, and then you said that you don't apply those ethical frameworks to animals.
So right now, you're hand-waving & deflecting & trying to make an enormous ordeal out of agreeing with me
When you said "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" and then provide an example of shaming a cow for eating a chick, you are in fact not saying that refraining from eating animals requires animals to be shamed for the same.
So your position is that it can be ethical to not eat animals and this would not require animals to have the same morality.
I haven't the time or inclination to track down any of the other myriad errors in labyrinthine side points, but the acknowledgement that we could hold the ethical principles not to eat animals without requiring animals to have the same principle is sufficient.
If the statement "you can't humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework, and not apply it to animals themselves" is unrelated to not eating animals, this is a significant error in communication.
You can attempt to protest here that it was somehow clear, but a quick review of the number of other people who interpreted your statement that way coupled with the lack of any coherent rejoinder to this objection suggests some self-work in your communication skills would benefit you greatly. The other option is to insist everyone misinterpreting your statement has the issue, and not your communication, which would also recommend some interpersonal development.
I said you can't humanize or personify non-humans animals, and you agreed with me. Then I said we can't apply human-human ethical frameworks to animal behaviors, and you agreed with that also. I didn't provide the example. The example is literally the video in OP's link.
My position is that it's not unethical to not eat animals, but shaming others who do is also not constructive or consistent.
You seem to have a lot of time to agree with me & spin your wheels here, and yet it was only you and one other person who misinterpreted what I said. You doubled down on this misinterpretation, and then tripled down. Yet my original statement still holds, mostly because you agreed with it in different places.
You are making significant errors in communication by dragging this simple exchange over several days to nitpick a statement that you've agreed with in multiple previous messages. I know you're here in bad faith, but your faux-pedantic "exacting logician scold" schtick really isn't moving the meter here.
I haven't protested anything, you're still just making sure that the miscommunication is furthered here by wagging your finger and pretending you're offering legitimate criticism or good natured correction. You admit you didn't read what I've said correctly, and yet still try to project that onto me lol.
"self-work"? is that you just being silly now? If you didn't have all this time to belabor one sentence that you are purposely misreading, then I would almost think you were trolling.
Yes, and as I've said repeatedly refraining from eating animals is not a human-human ethical framework, so instead we can apply human-animal ethics which refrains from eating animals.
Right, awesome, and if your position when you said “you can’t humanize/personify non-human animals using this ethical framework and then neglect applying that framework to animals themselves" is not that "to refrain from animals as an ethical choice would require animals to do so as well" I can point you to the other visible interpretations of your comment to that effect. That should really make you ponder why multiple would be interpreting it that. Refusal to do so, yeah, emotional work if not more pronounced therapy. It can do wonders.
No, human-animal ethics doesn't require everyone to refrain from eating animals, and we can outline & legally posit ethical treatment without trying to get others to accept our own personal dogma about never eating or using animal products.
I didn't say it was an ethical choice to not eat animals, I said it was a valid and personal choice, and also not an unethical one. I also said that this personal decision has mostly personal impact & reach.
You definitely seem like you need to do emotional work & pronounced therapy if you spend multiple days in a row trying desperately to get strangers online into some semantic "gotcha" over your opinions on eating meat lol.
It's not multiple people misinterpreting me, in fact in going over this exchange, you were the only one to misinterpret it. The other person disengaged and left it alone.
I'm not debating about whether it's required. I'm saying *if * it was required as a moral principle, *then * it would not follow that animals would be expected to follow it.
I haven't made my opinions on eating meat enter into this at all. I had turkey nachos for dinner, but I certainly do need to do a lot of emotional work which I take proactive and continued effort in. If you can't say the same for yourself, seriously consider therapy.
I am saying it's not required as a moral principle, that's not really me debating. And then I am saying it does not follow that animals have to adhere.
Trying to smugly pathologize strangers online after you troll them for 2 days is definitely not the good faith or sincere outreach you appear to be making it out to be. But I think you knew that
There's no trolling involved at all. You've *also * been posting over 2 days and with more volume (indicated by the comments up thread) with the indication you're unable to stop. I have no idea what you're pathology is, but I'm confident and with full sincerity you should consider therapy.
I've simply been restating my position, you're the one who persists in confusion.
You should consider why you keep wanting to reiterate how confused you are about these things. You seem to want to drag the exchange down to the level you feel most comfortable, that is, petty quibbling & personality foibles.
Not sure why you're projecting your own personal shortcomings & need for emotional support & therapy onto others. I do not judge you negatively for needing this attention, and wish you the best in getting to that better place
No, I can break down and summarize lucidly any single point you're trying to make, and I can do that in a format where you either agree with my summaries or clarify the misinterpretation. Through conflating distinct topics and failing to settle on specific meanings when pressed you've presented a view that is confused. You can take your argument to a rhetoric professor or in one specializing in moral and ethical philosophy, they too would be happy to tell you why you're wrong.
Oh, I'm not projecting, you have demonstrably maladaptive practices. But you can lead a horse to water, and yada yada
You've not summarized or broken down any point, and there hasn't been any "format" on which we are discussing this for you to be able to show off this "skill" or whatever you're jacking yourself off here about. You've consistently been unable to actually pin point why you're here or what exactly your angle is, and yet you continue to drag the exchange down to this snide personal level.
You are neither a moral nor a legal philosopher, so I am not sure why you think you can speak as one or for one.
You've also been pretending to be both a professor and a clinician here, two things you don't appear to be qualified for as far as I can tell.
You've admitted to needing therapy & seeking out such resources yourself, so you definitely are projecting here on those grounds alone lol, but I am glad you've led yourself to that water & are drinking from the limpid pool of so much mental stability.
Hey, if you're actually a well-adjusted, happy and healthy individual however evident my surprise, that's great. Really.
If there's possibly another reason underlying the need to keep coming back to the same topic repeatedly without being able to stop, you might discover it later.
😂
Likewise to you on both points, really
Thanks!
Yes, I actually have a pathological need to get the last word in. Is the same true of you?
At least you admit it, that's like the first step or something right?
Oh I've always known this. But is it impossible for you to stop? You also have a pathological need to have the last word?
No
You don't have a pathological need to have the last word?
So eventually we'll hit a point where I will be the last one to reply, I wonder when that will be 😂
Probably not for a while
And what's the animating factor in your inability to stop responding?
What do you mean
You seemingly can't stop replying, what is your reason for replying other than a need to have the last word?
hmm I'm still not sure what you mean
People, when they do things, have motivations, goals, drives or likes or dislikes or preferences that propel their behaviour.
Rather than doing a crossword, or watching television, you're on Chapo on a long thread nobody is going to read but you (I'm also reading it, obviously).
I've outlined my motivation here, by an obsessive dint I typically endeavor to say the last thing. What's motivating your desire to reply?
deleted by creator
That's your motivation, I'm just responding to notifications lol
Again, you don't have to project your own personality foibles onto others. This isn't a pissing contest
You can actually clear the notification by clicking it. Which is a lot less work than going into the text and thinking of what the text says and your own response to what the text says.
Especially because since as I've already said, I'm motivated by the obsessive's need to give summation. If you stopped replying, I would have had the last word, and not keep replying. This would result in no more notifications. Instead, you're choosing to continue the conversation, and generate more notifications. Something keeps bringing you back. What is it?
Nah, it's no work at all to respond
So it's not any work to respond and you don't actually care about ending the notifications, but you can't announce what reason you have for replying, feigning ignorance. If you can't think of any answer to the question "why do you keep replying," I'd probably swing back around to guessing it actually was to have the last word.
All I said was that I am responding to notifications
Yeah, and I just showed you how to end the notifications. Do you mean to say you keep replying because you're so conditioned by the bell and purple icon that you can't help yourself from replying?
I don't care about your tips and pointers though, and I will respond to notifications when they are addressing me
weird how you think you can go online and tell other people what to do lol
So it actually is the case that you are so conditioned by a bell and purple icon that you are compelled to reply, the purple icon and bell directing your behaviour? And you can't stop as long as you see the purple icon?
No, you're addressing me directly. I respond when people ask me questions
Are you really going to be this brainless of a troll?
So even if you had no interest in a conversation, you would reply to every question asked of you by anyone, ever?
I'm definitely not going to try feebly to diagnose strangers on ChaCha lol. I know you're fascinated with me, but the feeling isn't mutual I can assure you
So you will reply to any question directed at you even if you're not interested in having a conversation? What's the fondest memory you have of your mother?
Not sure
What was your worst birthday like?
hard to tell
What hobby do you find personally most fulfilling?
dunno. different stuff i guess
It's almost astonishing, despite the fact that you stated you felt a need to reply to any question directed at you, you're actually uninterested in answering the questions (if you lean into "urrrr these are my real anzwers" lol okay buddy sure).
So it's also not the exchange of information from a question and answer that's prompting your continued engagement. At this point, I'm trying to imagine your motivation for replying if it isn't to have the last word.
You're so conditioned by a question mark in your direction that you feel compelled to reply, without actually answering the question, but you have to make it known you've seen the question?
I responded to the questions lol... but I am not going to reveal all this personal information to you just because you feel the need to act infantile & obsessive online. Again, you are the one who is dragging this exchange into the petty & the personal.
It definitely is the notifications that prompt me. You're just acting silly here
I respond to notifications... sorry you're unable to allow others what you so desperately need for yourself
Right, but you could end them. After you've clicked the bell notifying you of the reply and read this, congratulations, stop here, no more notifications.
[...]
Still here, huh? So you have a (apparently) non-pathological need to reply to everything directed at you, despite not wanting to engage. I obviously remain intent on closing the conversation.
In lieu of wasting airspace between your (completely normal) compulsion to reply to everything with anything even if you don't enjoy it, and my insistence on attempting to have the last say, this will serve as a study group for the first volume of Marx's Capital, for just the two of us. I'll present you with a bit of Marx from next on out, and you give your interpretation. Or if you don't want to interpret Marx, your opposition. If it's just the need to reply you have to fulfill, you'll be able to do that too. I look forward to our continued correspondence.
You're the one still sending me notifications. Not really all that big of a deal for me to respond when messages are sent me way
You've already mentioned that you have a pathological compulsion, so that's your kink.
If your messages are cogent & not petty or quibbling then I will respond in kind.
"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity."
Yes, the commodity contains within it certain quantities of crystallized labor time & therefore alienated human potential & human striving. The material relations between people become social relations between things
Honestly this is going to be a blast, I haven't read Capital in... 11 years now, jeez, and just copying and pasting it here is going to give cause to reread it. Hope you like linen.
"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production."
Yes, "socially necessary labor" doesn't distinguish in the particulars between human needs and human wants... they're all wants and these wants are almost never satiated. Thus the compulsion of capitalist production to socially reproduce that mode every day & every pay period & every generation
"Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention."
Perhaps a grillpill break would be more advisable than continuing this
Thank you for warning me! I will definitely stop responding when this person does
I don't grill though
Cooking meat at high temperatures produces cancer-causing chemicals called heterocyclic amines
That's pretty childish, cmon. This isn't a healthy or productive interaction for either of you
I agree! I wanted it to be productive & thought there could be some exchange of information and perspective
Definitely don't want to be bogged down examining the tone of these arguments & just want to not have these notifications