![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 12:04:35
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 0:20:54
Ok, I'm getting the drift.
You started out with internet hunting - which on the surface seems uncontroversial. How could anyone support that, right?
And then took it a step further to ask - is there any moral or ethical difference between internet hunting and physical hunting.
I believe that there is. The way I view it, hunting over the net is more detached, where physical hunting requires a person to be there, pull the trigger (or whatever), gather the kill, clean it and properly store it. Most people would, by doing that, greater appreciate what it is that they are doing.
I don't believe that hunting is - by definition - immoral. But I do believe that some people do it immorally. I'm just not totally sure where I personally would draw that line - and I'm not even sure a line can be drawn.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 13:02:58
In reply to Re: Internet Hunting ... I just have to jump in, posted by so on May 26, 2005, at 11:58:32
A few comments - using my observations. Not to be taken as a definitive answer:
-------------------------------------------
> If one cannot state what one feels about certain things, then what good is a board. Is a discussion not the exchange of views, opinions, arguments?These are interesting questions. If you find a reliable answer I would be interested to read it. I would think if a person inquired of the admin, on some days, some people would get an answer somewhat to the effect that "That's what a discussion can be but not here."
ME: Exchanges of differing views is allowed anywhere around here. However, some of the boards lend themselves to this more than others. This one, for example, is more likely to house debates than others - and in fact was put here to keep these type debates here where those who are troubled by debating won't be as exposed.
--------------------------------------------------
I would tend to concur, but based on my reading here, and my direct interactions, there is some fine difference between a finding and a statement of a feeling. It doesn't leave room for personal findings, sometimes. I've been told that stating what something is "To me" is not the formal "I-statement" preferred of writers here, and even then, some "I-statements" though I don't know for sure which ones, are not tolerated. Well, the statements are tolerated becasue the administration continues to publish them on the server he rents, but the people who write them are sometimes not afforded as much tolerence as others.
> From what I understand we are free to post our opinions and to challenge that of others here but not allowed to attack others because of their opinion.
A governing concept, not reliably applied as I've been able to measure, is that to "put down" an idea can tend to put down people who hold that idea.
ME: It's subtle, to be sure. But from what I've seen "I think hunting is disgusting" would be considered to possible extend to 'hunters are disgusting' and "I'm troubled by hunting" wouldn't.
And "I had bad experiences with therapy" is fine, while "I think therapy is a waste of money" isn't - as it implies that anyone in therapy is wasting money.
Another thing that seems to be factored in is the tone of the thread. If it seems to be getting heated the rules might be applied more strictly in order to keep things from escalating out of control.
--------------------------------------------------
> Again, maybe its an issue distinction between stating an opinion and attacking someone who has a different opinion.
Someday someone might count all these interventions, but until then I can only say "many" are targeted at people who call a contrary opinion wrong, or actions based on a contrary opinion less than honorable.
ME: Exactly. Calling a contrary opinion wrong can be seen as a value judgement against the person holding the opinion.There is a *big* difference in saying you disagree with the opinion (we all are entitled to our opinions) and saying it is wrong.
along the same lines you said:
..............
For example, if a person rights "benzos kill brian cells. It is messed up to prescribe benzos" a typical response in my experience would be along the lines of "it can make people who think otherwise feel put down."
ME: this is true - it can. Perhaps benzos are the only thing that work for this person. Different things work for different people and there really isn't a right or wrong in that tyoe situation. So people might take saying their behavior is messed up to be the same as saying they themselves are messed up.
Gotta run - late for the doc.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 19:22:43
In reply to Re: Back to the point » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 26, 2005, at 12:04:35
> Ok, I'm getting the drift.
> You started out with internet hunting - which on the surface seems uncontroversial. How could anyone support that, right?
> And then took it a step further to ask - is there any moral or ethical difference between internet hunting and physical hunting.Yes :-)
That was the general idea...But then I kept on going...
What is the difference between specism and racism?And then in response to the idea that our teeth have been selected for their ability to let us eat meat... I thought that guys had been selected for being bigger / stronger than females so as to better overpower them (help along the reproduction side of things). But if whatever has been selected for is 'natural' and if it is morally acceptable to do whatever has been naturally selected for then how could we say that guys overpowering women is wrong? (I took it to be fairly uncontroversial that it is wrong).
> The way I view it, hunting over the net is more detached, where physical hunting requires a person to be there, pull the trigger (or whatever), gather the kill, clean it and properly store it. Most people would, by doing that, greater appreciate what it is that they are doing.
Ok. But is 'greater appreciation' enough to make it morally acceptable??? I mean, lets say we were looking at hunting black people over the internet as opposed to IRL. Lets say that it is fairly uncontroversial that internet hunting isn't so good. But does it become morally acceptable if people do it in RL and have 'greater appreciation' for it?
The point of that case is that it is supposed to be fairly uncontroversial that there isn't a difference between whether they are hunted IRL or over the internet. There isn't a difference whether there is 'appreciation' or not.
It isn't anything about the attitude of the person who is hunting them - it is the fact that their right to life has been violated.
People are sentient. They have interests.
Animals are sentient. They have interests.
It is thought to be wrong to treat people as mere means to our ends.
We are supposed to allow them to pursue their own goals.
Not do what we want with them with no consideration for their own interests - just because we can.
I don't understand how it can be different in the case of animals.> I don't believe that hunting is - by definition - immoral. But I do believe that some people do it immorally. I'm just not totally sure where I personally would draw that line - and I'm not even sure a line can be drawn.
Ok.
I guess I think that animals have interests and goals and the capacity to suffer and to feel pain.Their interests should (IMO) be taken as seriously as we take the interests of people.
What we stand to gain by hunting them
Does not compare to what they stand to lose.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back round.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 20:51:04
In reply to Re: Back to the point » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 19:22:43
...All the way back in my second year at uni.
I spent the next few years trying to find a defensible difference between the cases.I haven't been able to find a defensible reason why it is ok to eat meat or hunt.
But I didn't even try to become vegetarian till round October last year.
I haven't lasted with that very well.
Still on the look out for a defensible difference...
But I don't think
our teeth
or appreciation
Can do it...;-)
Posted by so on May 26, 2005, at 21:59:35
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments... » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 20:51:04
Trying in all honesty to avoid either the topic or the propriety of the method of discussion in the context of this board, I can offer that...
Semantically, any philosophical argument that includes "we are supposed" raises questions about whose suppositions are being cited. The syntax introduces a passive/active language problem. It just doesn't say who is acting. Without a declaration of suppositions, the argument can't be processed as an algorithm -- individual comparisons within the argument might be instructive, especially in human terms and certainly for matters of faith, but as a reasonable process, i.e. one where all reasons are declared and theoretically can be reduced to a decision tree, there are undefined steps in the overall process.
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 26, 2005, at 23:44:59
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments... » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 20:51:04
Perhaps meat eating is a remanent of our origins.
Perhaps because for omnivores, meat represents a quick source of high-calorie food. Perhaps not necessary for our survival (especially given all the modern suplements and alternative protein sources) but thousands of years of evolution where access and consumption of meat increased your chances of survival means that we are biologically geared up to "like" it.
In a way my rats are like that. They are omnivorous. Their diet is mostly meat-free but if a stray bug crawls into the cage of if they encounter one during playtime, right away instincts take over and they do all they can to catch and eat it and will squabble with each other to steal it. They have unlimited food all the time in addition to a selection of fruit, veggies and some dairy daily ... yet when a source of animal protein is available, they sistematically favour that source. They will even take a piece of meat or fish over a piece of pecan or a peanut.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 0:21:18
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by Camille Dumont on May 26, 2005, at 23:44:59
With respect to *why* we do tend to like it.
But doesn't bear on whether we *should* eat it.:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 0:29:21
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by so on May 26, 2005, at 21:59:35
Trying in all honesty to make a 'general post' in response to points about *my* post...
> Semantically, any philosophical argument that includes "we are supposed" raises questions about whose suppositions are being cited.
I am assuming that this is the bit that is worrying:
It is thought to be wrong to treat people as mere means to our ends.
We are supposed to allow them to pursue their own goals.So. What is the problem with that?????
>The syntax introduces a passive/active language problem. It just doesn't say who is acting.
People. People are acting / persuing their goals.
>Without a declaration of suppositions,
???
>the argument can't be processed as an algorithm -
???
>- individual comparisons within the argument might be instructive, especially in human terms and certainly for matters of faith, but as a reasonable process, i.e. one where all reasons are declared and theoretically can be reduced to a decision tree, there are undefined steps in the overall process.
?????
You think I have implicit premises?
Do you want me to set up the arguments in standard form???
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 0:32:09
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 0:29:21
So.
If you don't want me to post to you
Then please do me the courtesy of not posting to me.
Yeah, you didn't 'add name of previous poster' but they fairly clearly were remarks about my post.I really don't think it is fair that you respond to my posts like that when I am not supposed to post to you.
Please don't post to me.
Please leave me alone.
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 1:30:17
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by so on May 26, 2005, at 21:59:35
> Trying in all honesty to avoid either the topic
What topic is that, I asked myself, rereading my own words. Oh, yeh -- the topic of the thread. I'm trying to respond to the structure of the argument -- not the propriety, just the structure.Anyway, I probably negated any formal opertunity to ask somebody not to post to me in toto when I informally suggested we just try to disengage in this thread and one other. And I said if I get caught up in it again, it's my problem. Now it seems mi problema es nuestro problema.
Para cualquier razón, no realicé que nadie posee el asunto, solamente alguien pudo demandar la estructura
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 1:32:23
In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 1:30:17
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 2:46:07
In reply to y pudo demandar el título... (nm), posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 1:32:23
I'm having a bit of a hard day.
Took today off work with the flu.
I don't understand whatever language that is.
Is it spanish?
I have no idea.
I just reread the posts....
I guess I don't know whether I am allowed to post to you or not.
I don't know.
I'm lost.
I thought I wasn't supposed to
Thats why I was a bit suprised that you commented on my post.Ah. I see what you mean,
You were looking at the structure...
:-)
Sorry I missed your point there.Can you clarify where we are at with respect to posting to each other?
If its ok, then I'm ok with that.
But if you don't want me to post to you
Then please do me the courtesy of not posting to me.
Thanks.No hard feelings.
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 8:37:55
In reply to Re: I'm sorry.. » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 2:46:07
> I guess I don't know whether I am allowed to post to you or not.
That part was easy for me to understand. After I read your reaction to my posts and saw that you were trying to comply with requirements I don't find consistent, I was concerned about the difficulty you would have trying to sort it all out.
Oddly, I was writing something in response to another of your posts on admin when I first said heck with it and deleted my draft to be replaced by my original "don't post to me" request, then yesterday was writing exactly the same thought (I'll help stop the bleeding just to keep my carpet clean) when your post showed up beneath it.
I appreciate your effort to sort it out -- if "sorry's" are the "way of your people" i accept that, though I would seldom require or expect it. From me, you would more likely hear "I turned down the wrong friggin street three times now, is the map wrong or am I". Either that or, "hey, this is kindof a nice street, anyway" (as thuggish looking youth close in around the car).
> No hard feelings.
>
>Not to blunt the sincere idiom, but the only feelings I ever have are hard feelings. It's easier not to feel at all, but it's all the same in the end.
"hey mister, nice car", the rough-looking kids said with jubilant innocence as I asked for directions. "Get away from that man! Remember what happened to Johnny" their mother shouts from the door of a tenement building.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 10:31:00
In reply to Re: Back to the point » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 26, 2005, at 19:22:43
It seems to me to be a logical that humans evolved as carnivores and to use the shape of the teeth as a way to back that logic up.
I don't see a similar corrallary between the size of men and the premise that it is so they can overpower women.
There are many other possibilities for this bit of evolution. Example (and the one I like):
Women *chose* larger, stronger men because they were better hunter/gatherers and because they were better able to defend the family from predators. After many generations of this choosing the smaller, weaker men became less common.
Nature backs this up - with examples of male animals fighting to the death for the privilege of mating with a desired female. And even to a point with other male animals becoming more and more flashy looking to attract the female of the species.
Some of this natural selection is still occuring in humans. How many women prefer taller men?
I'll get back to the rest of it later - I've got tendonitis in my wrist and it's hard to type.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 27, 2005, at 11:36:28
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 10:31:00
> It seems to me to be a logical that humans evolved as carnivores and to use the shape of the teeth as a way to back that logic up.
>
> I don't see a similar corrallary between the size of men and the premise that it is so they can overpower women.
>That wasn't my understanding of the discussion.
I thought it was: If it's morally okay for one to eat meat, because our tooth structure indicates it is natural, then using that argument it is morally okay for men to rape women, because they are usually stronger.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:22
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 27, 2005, at 11:36:28
Well, I was saying that eating meat is natural for humans and the shape of our teeth is evidence of that.
The reply was that if that was "natural" then so was overpowering women "so as to better overpower them (help along the reproduction side of things)."
And the argument extended that being natural doesn't mean it's moral.
My statement back was that it is possible that wasn't the driving evolutionary force behind the increased size in men.
Of course, I could have easily missed the point.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:13:25
In reply to Re: I'm sorry.., posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 8:37:55
> After I read your reaction to my posts and saw that you were trying to comply with requirements I don't find consistent, I was concerned about the difficulty you would have trying to sort it all out.
:-)
Usually it is clear enough.
I think I got a little confused because stuff was said - then taken back
And I was unclear on the scope of the request first off
(Typically it is global).
> I appreciate your effort to sort it out --Thats ok.
I have been warned about posting to someone who has requested I not post to them before.
If I do that again I expect I will get blocked.
I think that is clear enough...
So.
I don't want to get blocked over it.>if "sorry's" are the "way of your people" i accept that, though I would seldom require or expect it. From me, you would more likely hear "I turned down the wrong friggin street three times now, is the map wrong or am I". Either that or, "hey, this is kindof a nice street, anyway" (as thuggish looking youth close in around the car).
:-)
Yeah.
Sorrys are 'the way of my people'
Though I should be careful with them - otherwise I just go around apologising for my existence much of the time.> Not to blunt the sincere idiom, but the only feelings I ever have are hard feelings. It's easier not to feel at all, but it's all the same in the end.
:-)
(((So)))
I hope you start to feel cared about here.
> "hey mister, nice car", the rough-looking kids said with jubilant innocence as I asked for directions. "Get away from that man! Remember what happened to Johnny" their mother shouts from the door of a tenement building.Yeah.
Life can suck real bad.
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:23:48
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:22
Auntiemel - yep, Gabbi's point was what I was trying to get at...
:-)
The example is slightly tenuous......
Thats why I prefered to get back to the specism / racism analogy.What things are 'selected for' is indeed a tricky notion. There is a lot of work being done in Philosophy of Biology with respect to how to work out the 'proper function' of any characteristic that has been selected for.
Ruth Millikan wrote an incredibly influential (also incredibly dense) article on it and from there things have just taken off....
It does seem that the proper function of caniverous teeth is to enable us to eat meat.
The proper function of guys tending to be bigger is a lot more dubious (as you say)...
There could be lots of related things going on.But all I need... (and then I'd just get rid of the 'rape' analogy...) Is an example of a characteristic that was (fairly uncontroversially) selected for a certain function...
Yet we do not consider it morally acceptable to act in that way.I mean...
People are made of meat. It might be 'natural' to eat them (them being made of meat and all) but it is typically considered morally unacceptable to do so...Hmm.
So you might want to say 'it is always morally acceptable to act on the proper function of an evolved characteristic'.
And that just might be able to work....
But...
I'm not so sure...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:25:32
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:23:48
Auntiemel
Oh
By the way.
Your confusion was understandable.
I was getting a little confused.
What I said was a little confusing...
You had a good point.
I was squirming a bit there...It really can be hard to express stuff clearly sometimes.
:-)
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:06:03
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:22
One problem is defining natural. If natural is literally defined, it is natural for humans to build skyscrapers, and to knock them down. Even if "natural" is used as a term of art that can mean "not anthropocentric," colloquial representations of what is considered "natural" often fall short of summarizing either the available science or popular assumptions about what is natural. If we are to be guided by what has occured in nature, we have much more to consider beyond one tooth structure and one suggested sexual economy.
Some of our ancestors must've eaten meat, as leading scholars have suggested based on analysis of tooth structure. But there were some vegetarians way back in the family tree, too. Australopithecus africanus teeth provide evidence of vegetarianism. Some scholars suggest our male Australo-Africanus ancestors might have been more sexually domineering toward females, and females more sexually submissive than those of other hominid species, as is evidenced by gender-specific size differences. Nobody I know of offers that "it is natural for vegetarians to be sexually domineering" though.
Australo-Africanus society might have given way to more promiscuous hominid societies where males demonstrated toolmaking and social skills to vie for female privilages. Competition for breeding rights might have played out in development of weapon-making and group-hunting skills that led to a more carnivorous culture in which females selected males more likely to provide for offspring and to assist offspring in learning increasingly complex survival skills.
Larger male primates are also associated with polygomous cultures, where size gives males advantages against other males who compete for access to females that do not mate for life, whereas males and females of monogomous primate species are more often similar in size.
Whatever might be the flaws of the carnivoury/sexual aggression comparison in the context of guidelines for this forum, it is not an argument scholars of evolutionary science widely offer and I don't know of any evidence the argument finds much place in folklore.
Posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:12:27
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:25:32
> I was squirming a bit there...
Some males find that attractive, not always but sometimes because of other advantages females might enjoy, such as the ability to withhold social opportunity as a means of gaining compliance ...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:09:56
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:12:27
> > I was squirming a bit there...
>
> Some males find that attractive, not always but sometimes because of other advantages females might enjoy, such as the ability to withhold social opportunity as a means of gaining compliance ...
???
Lost ya there...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:14:49
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by so on May 27, 2005, at 18:06:03
> Whatever might be the flaws of the carnivoury/sexual aggression comparison in the context of guidelines for this forum,
It doesn't seem to be a problem...
At least, I haven't gotten in trouble (yet) for the compparison...
I don't see what the trouble with the comparison was...The point was nailed by Gabbi.
My point was simply that if one holds that the reason why it is morally acceptable to eat meat is because we have evolved characteristics to enable us to do that...
Well, then you would also have to similarly hold that it is *always* morally acceptable to do whatever an evolved characteristic enables us to do...If you want to say 'not always - just sometimes' then you need to be able to say when it is morally acceptable and when it is not...
And the point of this was to try and find a defensible reason for why it was okay to treat animals as a means to our ends in such disregard for the ends the animals have in mind for themselves...
>it is not an argument scholars of evolutionary science widely offer and I don't know of any evidence the argument finds much place in folklore.
Heh heh.
It was my argument.
(Couldn't ya tell)
;-)
I'm no ethicist...
Posted by so on May 28, 2005, at 23:48:19
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption???, posted by alexandra_k on May 28, 2005, at 19:14:49
Judicial social behavior long predated any effort to articulate moral reasoning among humans. One need not hold a moral code to qualify as fully human. Morals need not be internally consistent to have value.
One need not be able to offer a reason for moral behavior, whatever moral reason might be offered need not satisfy all arguments to qualify as a moral reason and no moral reasons satisy everyones arguments. The belief in a universal moral standard is not universally accepted.
If Internet hunting is legal, society has voted there is nothing wrong with it, though some people might find value in questioning the moral integrity of those who do it. Though some offer moral reasons to the debate, a political decision one way or the other would not prove the intergity of a moral argument.
As best I understand the process here, if one says it is sick, terrible, monsterous or anthing else for people to behave in ways many people elsewhere might call reprehensible, and someone reading this board might in the adminstration's view feel put down, the administration might cite the statements as contravening the guidelines of this board and that person might only avoid sanctions if they apologize or in some other way regain the approval of the administrator.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 0:37:58
In reply to Re: Internet Hunting ... I just have to jump in, posted by Camille Dumont on May 26, 2005, at 0:12:01
> I find this incredibly condecending.
>
> gromit> > > Think of what you would want, then have the decency of giving that same humane end to those creatures that you kill.
>
> My view of what is decent is just that ... MY view, the view of Camille Dumont. Nothing more nothing less. The reader remains free to subscribe to my view or not.
>
> Camille DumontPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Posting that your view is that others are indecent could lead them to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.