Smart talk about school sports »« Now I understand…it’s all your fault!

Comments

  1. says

    By the way, “Philosophia”, who signed a few posts as “Sophia”, has previously commented here as “Gary Fletcher”, and will not be participating in any further discussions.

  2. cicely says

    Left-overs from the Previous Thread:
     
    *hugs* and encouragement for Ogvorbis.
    Who is not a failure.
    Depression lies, lies, lies.
     
    Ouch! Sorry about your molar. I’ve done that root-split thing.
    It was not joyful.

    Fish/ichthys = Jesus/Christ —> “This is my flesh; chow thou down upon it”???
     
    Apostles/”Fishers of men” —> additional implied ritual proxy cannibalism???
     
    *in voice of portentious bodingness*
    “Tonight on the History Channel: The Hidden Rites of the Ancient Christian Mystery Religion!”

    So, it wasn’t really that Henry wanted to marry Anne Boleyn – it was all a piscine conspiracy!

    I have it on Good Authority* that it was the Milk Marketing Board.
     
    * TV Tropes Warning! Scroll down to Agent Mulder in the examples.

    Spring and Fall are my times of year; hate the cold, hate the heat, but these two are just right.


    Fish!
    -

  3. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Hmph. I’m sure I posted a #667, prevthread, about how poor 18/19th century Londoners protested about being sick of eating oysters.

    The restaurant link might have condemned it to the spam filter maybe?

    Oh well.

    but the children dart about the roads with naked, muddy feet; slink into corners to play with oyster-shells and pieces of broken china, or are found tossing halfpennies under the arches of a railway

    [The tenement’s] passages are often strewn with oyster-shells and broken tobacco-pipes

    http://www.mernick.org.uk/thhol/raglon01.html

    Lessee if this gets through!

  4. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Also, prevthread:

    Happy Autumnal Equinox everyone

    Patience!

    20:45 UT, September 22nd. Or about 18 and a half hours, if my addled brain can work timezones right.

    There were house martins massing for the flight south today. (I hadn’t even noticed the swifts go.) Over the road, they have anemones in full bloom, which I guess is also typical. All I’ve got is now-gone-over Phlox. :-(

  5. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    20 and a quarter now. I really suck at daylight savings time!

  6. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Well, philosophia is gone, and sock puppeting (sock puppeteering?) is a good reason to see someone go, but if anyone has any good elaboration on

    (4) To take gender activism as an example: While first and second wave feminism is admirable, third wave has highly questionable tenets.

    Now, my take on waves isn’t standard (yet), but I’m not the only one to cite the different philosophical underpinnings of the different waves, particularly the existentialism of the 2nd wave. What makes the waves different isn’t just that a new generation of people was born (c.f. the first wave that lasted from 1849 to ~1930). So, instead of just saying “there was this feminist born after 1973 who believed in woo”, how about someone actually list something wrong that is an actual tenet of 3rd wave feminism?

    I never see it, save occasionally a straw-feminist version of the straw-postmodernist. It’s like the persons asserting that there are major problems with important tenets of feminisms don’t actually know those tenets – or even how to distinguish the different feminisms from each other!

    Ridiculous, I know.

  7. chigau (違う) says

    All this classifying of Feminism into “waves” should be left to historians.
    In about the year 2113.
    or 2513.

  8. Ichthyic says

    Oi, philosophy wonks…

    I just ran into a game that tries to teach critical thinking skills by reliving the historic philosopher arguments surrounding the nature of morality.

    you play “Socrates”, and your job is to tear apart the basic arguments presented throughout history by various philosophers using standard deductive and argumentative techniques.

    It’s actually the first game I’ve seen to even attempt it.

    might want to take a gander (you might have to create a free kongregate account; not sure)

    http://www.kongregate.com/games/ChiefWakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher#recent_comments

    I thought it was actually pretty well done for a first run.

  9. Ichthyic says

    It’s a good challenge for anyone who doesn’t already know the flaws of each major argument; you have to work them out for yourself. Not only that, but even if you DO know what the fatal flaw is, there is no option to just blurt it out; you have to “show your work” the same way the original counters did.

  10. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We need a hushfile for certain topics, rather than just commenters. Some commenters are fine if they aren’t pushing their personal preaching subject.

  11. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @battycoda:

    No, I squirmed with discomfort for part of it, but by the time he gets to discussing Anita (and getting her last name wrong) he disses her for a number of sins, including wondering why her Tropes v Women is on youtube:

    Youtube is a place for serious videos…like my…2 hour review of the Hobbit 2 trailer

    No, this is satire. uncomfortable satire. But satire.

  12. =8)-DX says

    @battycoda:

    Yeah it’s satire, a bit cheesy, but the fedora (hat-lovers correct me if the hat has a different name) is a giveway: it’s pretty much become youtube memespeak for “grumpy MRA dudebro” (add optional “living in his parent’s basement in his own way”).

  13. Markita Lynda—threadrupt says

    Huge trigger warning for predatory drugging & rape practices. Do not read if you are sensitive!

    Bolivia’s ghost rapes: are you sure we shouldn’t bring back flogging, the death penalty, or lifetime incarceration?

  14. bad Jim says

    Stay safe, theophontes.

    I hate saying things like that. I particularly don’t like people telling me “drive safely” when I stop for lunch on I-5. Maybe it’s because I look like a maniac, but it’s been years since I’ve been able to egt up to 100 mph. Just to show how avid I am for risk, the other day I disabled the power-saving function on my solar-powered watch, so I can now read the time after 11PM.

  15. A. Noyd says

    theophontes (#30)

    Super-typhoon Usagi approacheth, I best be gone…

    Super-typhoon “Bunny Rabbit”? o.O

  16. says

    Good morning

    Ogvorbis
    Best wishes for your tooth.

    MM
    I’m not offended by being told that women and cows are both animals. I’m offended by my concerns as a woman being brushed aside when discussing the topic in favour of “what about the cows?”. Discussions about animal rights and animal welfare are fine when they are the actual topic of a thread.

  17. bad Jim says

    I’ve found naproxen (Aleve) wonderful for tooth pain: relief within minutes. But maybe that’s just me.

    I had a broken tooth that I was trying to tough out, the way I’ve been able to tough out dental pain most of my life, but this time it wasn’t obviously self-limiting; my jaw was swelling, and I could envision life-threatening consequences. On a Saturday, I resolved to make a dental appointment, and allowed myself to take a pill. It was nearly magical; the swelling diminished along with the pain. On Sunday my discomfort was enough that I wanted another Aleve, but not on Monday, when I made the appointment, or Tuesday when they yanked the tooth, and said, to my dismay, that I didn’t need an antibiotic. This was only a couple of hundred dollars, plus having to hear, again, about my father’s dentures being chewed up by our dog.

    Now I have a triple-wide tooth (which is to say a bridge) which was only briefly entertaining. And a couple of crowns. It wasn’t that hard to give up fatalism.

  18. says

    I’ve found naproxen (Aleve) wonderful for tooth pain: relief within minutes. But maybe that’s just me.

    If your tooth has a hole, what works almost as well as an anaesthetic injection around the nerve root is to just shove some Lignocaine gel down the broken tooth(you can buy that OTC as insect bite cream etc). I personally find that oral analgesics generally don’t work well at all with a bad toothache.

    Ichty@20,

    thanks for that, I needed another timesink!!

    ;)

  19. left0ver1under says

    If anything is going to kill space exploration, it’s not budgets or fossil fuels. It’s not even religion.

    It’s political short-sightedness, the closing down of reactors that produce non-weapons plutonium.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/plutonium-238-problem/

    NASA’s Plutonium Problem Could End Deep-Space Exploration

    In 1977, the Voyager 1 spacecraft left Earth on a five-year mission to explore Jupiter and Saturn. Thirty-six years later, the car-size probe is still exploring, still sending its findings home. It has now put more than 19 billion kilometers between itself and the sun. Last week NASA announced that Voyager 1 had become the first man-made object to reach interstellar space. […] Voyager 1 is expected to keep working until 2025 when it will finally run out of power.

    None of this would be possible without the spacecraft’s three batteries filled with plutonium-238. In fact, Most of what humanity knows about the outer planets came back to Earth on plutonium power. Cassini’s ongoing exploration of Saturn, Galileo’s trip to Jupiter, Curiosity’s exploration of the surface of Mars, and the 2015 flyby of Pluto by the New Horizons spacecraft are all fueled by the stuff. The characteristics of this metal’s radioactive decay make it a super-fuel. More importantly, there is no other viable option. Solar power is too weak, chemical batteries don’t last, nuclear fission systems are too heavy. So, we depend on plutonium-238, a fuel largely acquired as by-product of making nuclear weapons.

    But there’s a problem: We’ve almost run out.

    “We’ve got enough to last to the end of this decade. That’s it,” said Steve Johnson, a nuclear chemist at Idaho National Laboratory. And it’s not just the U.S. reserves that are in jeopardy. The entire planet’s stores are nearly depleted.

  20. Nick Gotts says

    left0ver1under@36,

    Well, it hardly looks like an insoluble problem. From your linked article:

    Since 1994, scientists have pleaded with lawmakers for the money to restart production. The DOE believes a relatively modest $10 to 20 million in funding each year through 2020 could yield an operation capable of making between 3.3 and 11 pounds of plutonium-238 annually — plenty to keep a steady stream of spacecraft in business.

  21. Anri says

    =8)-DX:

    Yeah it’s satire, a bit cheesy, but the fedora (hat-lovers correct me if the hat has a different name) is a giveway: it’s pretty much become youtube memespeak for “grumpy MRA dudebro” (add optional “living in his parent’s basement in his own way”).

    Hmm.
    I habitually wear a Jack Skellington fedora (not indoors, of course) and I live in my own basement.
    Should I be concerned?

    . . .

    And just to give my hobby horse a quick turn around the block:
    I see FTB has now gone to autoplay videos with mouse-over-triggered audio. Really, FTB, it would be easier to put up banner ads saying “go away”, rather than beating around the bush like this.

  22. says

    I’ve largely lost interest in commenting here, but I would like to clear something up. On the previous thread, Giliell posted – at #599 on a thread where I hadn’t commented in several days if not weeks:

    What the fuck is it with people lately constantly comparing women to cattle by equating misogyny with meat eating.
    I’m fucking sick and tired of it. There are good arguments for vegetarianism and veganism but that’s just plain insulting.

    She followed this up immediately with:

    Oh and yes, that means SC and HillaryRetting

    After a thoughtful reply from The Mellow Monkey, Esteleth then responded at #604:

    It isn’t that there is no relevance to discussions of how treatment of animals overlaps with misogyny and such – there totally is and it behooves us to remember that – it is that I’m irritated at discussions of misogyny getting derailed to discuss animal welfare.

    And now Giliell has responded (above, @ #33):

    I’m not offended by being told that women and cows are both animals. I’m offended by my concerns as a woman being brushed aside when discussing the topic in favour of “what about the cows?”. Discussions about animal rights and animal welfare are fine when they are the actual topic of a thread.

    Neither Giliell nor Esteleth saw fit to provide any links or information to illustrate what they were talking about, and I don’t read many of the comments anymore so I don’t know what hilaryrettig has posted. (Maybe someone has some links?) I’ve commented here very little of late.* I put one link, weeks ago, in the Lounge, to this post by Vegan Feminist Agitator, which I was happy to see someone bring up after the comments above. It was in response, as I recall, to a discussion about eating animals, not that derailment is possible in the Lounge in any event.

    Recently, I commented on a thread about a woman being drugged and branded by a man. The title of that post was “Like cattle.” That single comment was the sum total of my participation on that thread.** This is pretty much a case study in why people should be expected to provide links to the comments they’re referring to. (That responsibility becomes even stronger, I think, when those people aren’t around.)

    Giliell, I’ve engaged with you in the past and have no desire to do so again. I will say that these most recent comments from you and your reaction to the responses suggest that you’re more interested in advancing your personal grudges than in learning about different social justice perspectives. That’s unfortunate, but I am happy that in this case other people have been willing to have some of these conversations and that you opened the door to it. And thank you for providing the impetus for me to compile some resources on the subject of animal liberation and social justice (especially feminism), even though it wasn’t your intent.

    Sadly, I expect that you’ll continue to snipe at and misrepresent me and others in the future, whether we’re around to respond or not, and that you’re unlikely to be called out on it. I probably won’t be around for future instances, but since I happened to catch this exchange I’m able in this one case to provide information.

    *I do want to apologize to Portia for disappearing earlier, but the Lounge isn’t a space I want to be. I was enjoying the interior design discussion, and wish you the best with the redecoration. I think maybe dark brown or black (paint, not stain) for the small chest of drawers – you could bring one of the drawers into the paint store and ask them, too. If you do paint the cute drawer pulls, be careful when removing them as they can break (or just leave them on). If Portia doesn’t read this thread, I’d appreciate if someone would let her know abut this post in the Lounge.

    ** Oh, and I left a comment with some recommendations at another FT blog, on a post explicitly about this relationship.

  23. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    Huge trigger warning for predatory drugging & rape practices

    TRIGGER WARNING — POSSIBLE DRUGS AND RAPE

    I remember running across the rapes in the Bolivian Mennonite community a couple of years ago. Brought back a bad memory — when I was in high school, there were three or four dairy farmer boys who joked, constantly, about the effectiveness of certain veterinary sedatives to make their dates more compliant. They claimed they were joking. I’m not sure.

  24. says

    [Super-typhoon Bugs Bunny]

    Well it has all been a bit of a damp squib here in the storm. Hong Kong is now rather wet, but that is about it. I had hoped to go onto my roof in the middle of the storm, as lighting flashed about, and yell at the top of my lungs¹: “POURQUOI MON DIEU!? PORQUOI!?”

    Instead of sweeping through the centre of Hong Kong, it has gone and skirted us. I have sinned, why am I not getting punished? Or is YHWH’s aim as far off in Asia as it is in the USA? All a bit of a let down. And now I have no excuse to skive off work tomorrow.


    ¹ The French is just for added dramatic effect. IIRC, YHWH speaks Aramaic.

  25. Lofty says

    Theophontes:

    ¹ The French is just for added dramatic effect. IIRC, YHWH speaks Aramaic.

    I believe YHWH speaks TXT SPK.

  26. says

    Hong Kong is now rather wet, but that is about it.

    Glad to hear it missed you. I have 10 days off at the end of October, of which half wil be spent in Thailand and half either in Japan or HK, we haven’t decided yet. If we go to HK I let you know !

  27. Ichthyic says

    It isn’t that there is no relevance to discussions of how treatment of animals overlaps with misogyny and such – there totally is and it behooves us to remember that

    meh, I thought she was just trying to placate Hillary with that answer.

    the thesis only applies to a strict subset of culture, hardly universal, and hardly relevant to the topic of the OP.

    so, yeah, Hillary derailed the thread. You, SC, did not.

  28. Reginald Selkirk says

    KU professor on leave after tweet directed at NRA

    WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A University of Kansas journalism professor was placed on indefinite administrative leave Friday for a tweet he wrote about the Navy Yard shootings which said, “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.”

    David W. Guth, an associate professor of journalism, made the comment on Twitter after Monday’s shootings in Washington, D.C., in which 13 people died, including the gunman. …

  29. says

    I actually included your name because I follow the new rules.

    Yes, I’m sure that’s what the new rules were meant to encourage: bringing someone up out of the blue when they wouldn’t be expected to see your comment or respond, to misrepresent and complain about their behavior in the third person, while neither quoting their words nor providing people with a link to or information about the comment(s) in question so that they can assess whether your characterization is accurate. I hope Giliell at least said “Badge off” before posting.

    That desire is mutual.

    Good. Badge off.

  30. hillaryrettig says

    Salty –

    I don’t visit Thunderdome much but just did on a hunch, and sure enough…

    I saw your comment referencing Giliell’s complaint. What apparently set some people off was when PZ posted this post with the notation: “Misogyny and racism and stupidity, all in one place.” And I responded with this, noting specifically how random-seeming, but actually non-random, it was that the religous zealots gratuitously threatened the female activists with rape. So…misogyny and debased cruelty and speciesism and stupidity, all in one place, fueled by the same primitive religiosity that everyone on this blog supposedly deplores.

    I was trying to make a point about intersectionality and the commonality of oppression, but people complained and the moderator told me to shut down, so I did. It was my first shut-down in many years of visiting Pharyngula, so I have given this incident a lot of thought; and while I don’t think the mod behaved optimally, I also probably didn’t link my post to the OP well enough. PZ’s initial post *was* about intersectionality, even though he didn’t use that word, and so was my response.

    It’s funny how many even Atheism+ supporters don’t want to include animal concerns. But to observe that that *oppressors* tend not to distinguish between animal and human seems irrefutable: cf. Nazi’s labeling Jews as vermin, Hutu doing the same to Tutsi, slavers referring to blacks as animals, etc. It’s also pretty commonly known that people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse humans.

    If oppressors group their victims together, it seems – ethically and pragmatically – that victims should have solidarity with other victims.

    It’s the oldest trick in the book to label those whom you want to oppress as animals. And by “the book” we can specifically look at the Bible. It’s no accident that, according to patriarchal mythology, one of the first things god does is give men dominion over animals and women practically in the same breath. (And I said in my comment that I understood that Abrahamic religion wasn’t the only source of animal oppression, but that it is a major one in our culture.)

    Based on all this, I urged meat-eating atheists to consider the possible religious roots of their behavior, and whether that behavior is, in fact, in conflict with their atheist values. And some people didn’t like that. However, I think Atheism+ will absolutely encompass animal rights, and I’m looking forward to that happening.

  31. says

    You know, SC, you would be much more credible in your desire to refrain from interacting with me if you actually stopped it.
    FYI, I would say Monitor note like we all do when speaking as one. My snipe (and yes, it was a passive agressive snipe, this is Thunderdome) was done by me as a private person.

  32. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    However, I think Atheism+ will absolutely encompass animal rights, and I’m looking forward to that happening.

    I don’t think so Tim. It has no place with human rights.

  33. says

    hillaryrettig

    How does one make reasoned response to an argument which claims that religion is responsible for hominids having evolved as omnivores?

  34. hillaryrettig says

    Daz – one more time: I explicitly said (twice now; and this is the third time) that I understand religion is not the only cause of animal oppression. I said Abrahamic religions are a major enabler of animal oppression in our culture – not to mention women and (historically) blacks – but that there are other factors.

    I really hope i don’t have to say it a fourth time.

  35. Ichthyic says

    Based on all this, I urged meat-eating atheists to consider the possible religious roots of their behavior

    like i said. your conclusions are based on the history of a subsection of culture.

    does not apply elsewhere, and there is no universality to be drawn from your argument.

  36. says

    hillaryrettig

    I said Abrahamic religions are a major enabler of animal oppression in our culture

    In the very limited sense of two of them claiming the right to slaughter animals using methods which don’t even attempt to be as humane as possible, yes.

    In the general sense of meat-eating by humans, you are talking out of your arse; and, I might mention, not helping your cause one little bit in the process.

  37. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    From Wiki article on Homo erectus:

    The discovery of fire, allowed for H. erectus to cook and a revolutionary change of diet came about. Cooking exemplifies adaption to the environment. The evidence of the use of stone tools prove that H. erectus was hunting and eating meat. Making cooked meat a part of their diet was the twist that changed the lifestyle of H.erectus.

    That predates any written religion by a million years, give or take. So toss out your religious tie-in.

  38. lostintime says

    #39 (SC quoting Gilliel)

    What the fuck is it with people lately constantly comparing women to cattle by equating misogyny with meat eating.
    I’m fucking sick and tired of it. There are good arguments for vegetarianism and veganism but that’s just plain insulting.

    Animal ethics is beset by this problem in general – some people find it appalling that the treatment of animals could be compared to the treatment of people. Any comparison that’s drawn between human equality and the fight for animal protection is seen as dehumanising, even though there are strong parallels between them. The wrong message is often taken from those parallels, however. By comparing a pig to a child, that doesn’t mean that we should treat children like pigs. Quite the opposite, it means that pigs ought to be treated much better because they are child-like beings and they suffer in a similar way. The comparison with other social justice movements is supposed to motivate us to treat animals better, not human beings worse.

  39. says

    lostintime, it would be helpful to finish reading the comments before starting your own, as you miss a lot doing that. Giliell doesn’t have a problem with noting that we’re all animals, and neither does anyone else.

  40. says

    @ Lofty

    YHWH speaks TXT SPK.

    I went on to the roof just now. Nothing much more than a never-ending drizzle. Not very dramatic. So instead of screaming my soliloquy to an empty sky, I tried your theory. I sms’d: “Yoh HWH! WR RU?”

    Nothing. No rumble of thunder, no flash of lightning. Not even a return sms. Nada. Zip. (Now I know what it feels like to be a christian.)

    @ rorschach

    If we go to HK I let you know !

    Good. I shall drag you around the frenetic fleshpots of Wan Chai!

    B)

  41. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Nerd:

    I hate hate hate animal-rights-as-human-rights rhetoric. There are reasons to change our relationships to certain animals, true. But those reasons do not include humans-are-animals-therefore-prawn-rights!

    Moreover, saying we treat women worse than cows in some times/places is not an argument to treat cows better. Likewise, saying we treat women better than cows in some times/places is not an argument to treat cows better.

    And finally, and this is what truly cheeses me off, no proponent on these internet discussions says, “We should treat our cows at least as well as we treat white, straight, able-bodied men in the prime of their earning years!” No, the arguers say, “we should treat cows at least as well as we treat [some oppressed group].”

    “But what about the cows,” indeed.

  42. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Lost in time is a case in point with:

    Quite the opposite, it means that pigs ought to be treated much better because they are child-like beings and they suffer in a similar way. The comparison with other social justice movements is supposed to motivate us to treat animals better, not human beings worse.

    It implicitly endorses the status quo when it says that human beings should treat pigs like children. The argument is that pigs are like children, so treating them like children would be just.

    But,

    a) children are not treated justly, so assuming you have adequately identified the just standard for pig-treatment, you are for justice for pigs without justice for children.

    b) the harm of treating children badly is not limited to the suffering of the child. Pigs don’t grow up to launch wars.

    Either pigs are worthy of being treated like white, able-bodied, straight men who are citizens of a wealthy society in which they reside and are in the prime of their money-earning years, or pigs are not worthy of being treated like human beings.

    Full stop.

  43. says

    lostintime

    Animal ethics is beset by this problem in general – some people find it appalling that the treatment of animals could be compared to the treatment of people. Any comparison that’s drawn between human equality and the fight for animal protection is seen as dehumanising, even though there are strong parallels between them.

    Yes, and people are rightly offended. Because of that nasty human habbit to live and suffer in past, present and future, historical (and present) injustices and crimes still cause suffering in those groups. Black people in the USA still suffer from slavery, even those who live in good economic conditions. Jews still suffer the Holocaust, even those born just 20 years ago. News of a gang rape in India causes suffering in women on another continent. And every time somebody reappropriates their suffering they add to this. And I’m not inclined to see those who do as “good people”.

    The wrong message is often taken from those parallels, however. By comparing a pig to a child, that doesn’t mean that we should treat children like pigs. Quite the opposite, it means that pigs ought to be treated much better because they are child-like beings and they suffer in a similar way.

    Which is bullshit in and on itself. I’m pretty sure that no pig would be happy to come and live with us as our third child. I’m pretty sure I’d break some animal welfare laws by treating a pig like my child. Pigs are like pigs and standards for treating them should be guided by what’s good for pigs.
    Human empathy is guided by being human. It’s a shoddy system for interacting with humans and pretty useless for interacting with animals.
    CripDyke also explained some other problems with the argument.
    The comparison with other social justice movements is supposed to motivate us to treat animals better, not human beings worse.
    From a consequentialist standpoint it seems to be rather ineffective.

  44. hillaryrettig says

    OK, here goes:

    1) For the fourth time, I said religion catalyzes animal abuse, it’s not the only cause.

    2) If Pharyngulans choose to dismiss Abrahamic religions as a central catalyst and justification of modern animal abuse, rest assured that religious people don’t. Anyone who has ever advocated for animal rights has run into this argument: “God gave us the animals to use.” It’s a ubiquitous defense. Google “God gave us dominion over the animals” and you’ll see. It’s exactly the same argument many misogynists, racists, etc., have used to justify their actions. (Which was my original point!)

    3) Of course humans evolved as omnivores. Are you (plural) bringing that up to show that the religious influence on animal exploitation is negligible? If so, see #2. Of course there are many people who defend animal agriculture by saying “meat is natural,” and also many (and often the same people) who say that their religion endorses their conduct. It’s not either/or.

    It is really telling to me that the Bible doesn’t wait for Exodus or Leviticus to tell men it’s okay to oppress animals and women. They are practically the first instructions in Genesis. This tells me that these topics were of crucial concern to the early patriarchs, possibly because they were worried that men wouldn’t oppress enough to reinforce the power structure.

    4) Crip Dyke, you raise an interesting point:

    >>>And finally, and this is what truly cheeses me off, no proponent on these internet discussions says, “We should treat our cows at least as well as we treat white, straight, able-bodied men in the prime of their earning years!” No, the arguers say, “we should treat cows at least as well as we treat [some oppressed group].”

    I think what you may be seeing are vegans grappling with some very tricky issues, maybe not always in the best way. What the activists are saying, obviously, is, “Why can’t we treat animals *at least* as well as we treat the least fortunate humans?” I don’t think that’s such a terrible sentiment, and there’s nothing in it that precludes working on behalf of those humans as well (and many vegan activists, including myself, do).

    (It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing we do to animals that someone hasn’t also done to humans. That includes hunting them, putting them in zoos, etc. :-( A grim reminder, but also a reason to raise the status of animals in society.)

    Part of the problem of expression is that “nonhuman animals” is obviously a vast group comprising huge diversity, and whose members have diverse needs. It’s really hard to figure out which rights, agency, etc., to assign to which groups. (And let’s not forget that we also often have the same problem related to certain groups of humans, like children and the disabled and the dislocated.)

    Add to this many animal activists’ defensiveness while championing a sometimes unpopular cause, and you wind up with inelegant constructions like you’ve identified.

    I hope this was a useful explanation, even if you don’t agree with my premises.

    Hill

  45. consciousness razor says

    WhichWhat I’m about to say is bullshit in and on itself. I’m pretty sure that no pig would be happy to come and live with us as our third child. I’m pretty sure I’d break some animal welfare laws by treating a pig like my child. Pigs are like pigs and standards for treating them should be guided by what’s good for pigs.
    Human empathy is guided by being human. It’s a shoddy system for interacting with humans and pretty useless for interacting with animals.

    Fixed.

    What the hell is supposed to be essential to “being human” that “human empathy” is guided by it? This is just a lot of words being shuffled around uselessly.

    CripDyke also explained some other problems with the argument.

    There was actually no such explanation, just a lot of huffing and puffing. It’s also a strawman. I don’t believe non-human animals should be treated “at least as well as” any group of humans. This does not entail that we should have blanket permission to treat non-human animals worse, despite the glaring inconsistencies with our views about humans.

    I also don’t think anyone should be treated like “white, able-bodied, straight men who are citizens of a wealthy society in which they reside and are in the prime of their money-earning years.” Full fucking stop. Because they are not simply treated well; they’re treated like fucking slave-masters. The implication ought to be that no one should be a slave-master and that we should be fair, treating everyone based on respect for what is best for their own their personal welfare, based on differences in their abilities to suffer, due to differences in their situations and individual constitutions.

    The fact that we don’t need to fear pigs starting a war with us, unlike possibly children, because we mistreat them? Utterly ridiculous.

  46. lostintime says

    #64 Crip Dyke,
    Wow, that’s one of the worst posts I’ve ever seen on the internet. When you say:

    Either pigs are worthy of being treated like white, able-bodied, straight men who are citizens of a wealthy society in which they reside and are in the prime of their money-earning years, or pigs are not worthy of being treated like human beings.

    That is a quite an astonishingly stupid false dilemma. Pigs have mental states like human infants and their lives can go well or badly for them. They both hate suffering and would find it agonising to be kicked in the groin. Therefore, it’s reasonable to describe pigs as child-like beings, and there is some equivalence to be drawn between the moral status of human children and non-human animals. Perhaps there are other considerations that need to be included in the equation, but purely in terms of suffering the experience is the same. Infants are human beings, and yet they don’t get the vote and they don’t have the priviliges of ‘white, able-bodied straight men’.

  47. says

    It is really telling to me that the Bible doesn’t wait for Exodus or Leviticus to tell men it’s okay to oppress animals and women. They are practically the first instructions in Genesis. This tells me that these topics were of crucial concern to the early patriarchs, possibly because they were worried that men wouldn’t oppress enough to reinforce the power structure.

    I cannot know what was in the heads of the writers of Genesis. I do, however, see your scenario as somewhat unlikely. At a time when animal rights would have seemed preposterous, if proposed—when animals in general would have been seen as either resources to be exploited or dangers to be avoided or killed—I find it much more likely that the intent was to acknowledge a debt to God for the bounty he had bestowed on them.

    And, given that you seem to be determined to place this squarely on the Abrahamic religions, could you explain why native Americans, Maoris and so on also seem to have no problem with meat-eating.

    Please note: I’m not arguing with the contention that we should maybe try to rise above our biology, and become something other than an über-predator. Merely that your attempt to show religion as a major cause is counter-productive.

  48. consciousness razor says

    blf, you make an excellent point (better than the original at least), but we’re talking non-fictional pigs here. Get with the program.

  49. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Hillary Rettig, #68:

    No. I think you’re spot on with the problem – or at least my analysis of the problem. But your correct analysis of the problem doesn’t make it less aggravating when we see it again and again.

    If you disagree with the problematic vegans’ analysis and examples, perhaps you should think carefully about how your work might replicate them. I wouldn’t particularly know, since I didn’t read the comments that engender this discussion and I generally avoid reading reading animal rights statements in anti-misogyny discussions just because I find the risk of the horrible and insulting analysis to be far too high. If I’ve skipped over your perfectly right on in context arguments, you’re free to, after analysis, conclude that your communication strategy needs no revision. But at least you should think about how you might be repeating this pattern…and, from a consequentialist standpoint, if you believe that you are not repeating the pattern but your strategy’s implementation is causing emotional harm while failing to advance your cause.

  50. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Daz, in re: the command to exercise “dominion” over animals.

    I find it much more likely that the intent was to acknowledge a debt to God for the bounty he had bestowed on them.

    Read the talmud. The Babylonian talmud is quite clear that this is what is intended.

  51. says

    CR:

    There was actually no such explanation, just a lot of huffing and puffing. It’s also a strawman. I don’t believe non-human animals should be treated “at least as well as” any group of humans.

    I think people are forgetting that both HR and SC dropped comments about animal treatment in threads dealing with misogyny and sexism, which is why Crip Dyke made the comparison in the first place, where there’s a tendency to co-opt the experiences of women in favour of animals, which is why several of us got a whiff of what about the men cows. Just wanting the context to stay in place here.

  52. says

    Read the talmud.

    I’m still procrastinating on a semi-promise to read the Qur’an, but I’ll add the Talmud to the Ever Growing Reading List™. Thanks.

  53. says

    Daz:

    I find it much more likely that the intent was to acknowledge a debt to God for the bounty he had bestowed on them.

    I think intent is not magic covers this. Especially when all manner of different flavours of the Abrahamaic religions read the whole dominion over business literally, and find it a perfect justification to over exploit resources, indulge in mass amounts of cruelty to all animals, including the human ones, deny climate change, etc. There are two schools of thought in regard to the consequences, either Jesus is a comin’ back, so it won’t matter anyway, or God will provide, so it doesn’t matter anyway.

    There are some milder flavours of xianity which are trying to embrace green efforts, in an attempt to shore up falling memberships.

  54. consciousness razor says

    It’s not my fault you suck at reading. Or making an argument.

    A non-argument.

    Bye.

    See you later?

  55. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @ lostintime:

    either we are talking about moral worth and treatment in terms of moral respect, or we’re talking about the practicalities of what we say to animals (human and otherwise) and how we interact with them.

    If we’re talking about the latter (pigs in bassinets), clearly we wouldn’t treat pigs like children and you’re an idiot.

    If we’re talking about the former, clearly the pattern of usage [where vegans equate the moral worth of pigs to children, women, people of color, but never to able-bodied, straight, white men who are citizens of a wealthy nation in which they reside and are in the prime of their earning years] is offensive as fuck, and the pattern, by its existence and perpetuation in these conversations, is bound to cause harm. In this case, you’re a jerk.

    We do you the favor of assuming that you’ve thought about your arguments and are therefore not an idiot.

  56. says

    Caine

    On the other hand, I see very few churches banning their members from vegetarianism. I wouldn’t say religion doesn’t play a role, but it’s not, for the most part, systemic, as it is with women’s rights and LGBT rights.

  57. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Caine:

    Thanks for your 79.

    it annoys me that English-speaking (former) Christians think that they have a better line on the meaning of the books in the Tanakh than did the Jews who wrote them and wrote about them 2500 years ago, in their original language. I was countering that, but did not cover the part where – even if true, this doesn’t make it okay.

    Now I’m concerned that people might have interpreted the omission as defending some Jewish dominionism as the one true (and good) dominionism.

    As for your #77:

    yes, I”m responding to specific arguments made – quite commonly – by animal rights activists. Imagining that I’m not responding to these specific arguments would make my comments appear silly…but it really only reveals that the person so imagining is either failing to appreciate the context, or is engaging in dishonest debate.

  58. says

    Daz:

    On the other hand, I see very few churches banning their members from vegetarianism. I wouldn’t say religion doesn’t play a role, but it’s not, for the most part, systemic, as it is with women’s rights and LGBT rights.

    Yes, I agree. Especially as the whole ‘dominion over women’ carries into the NT, notably with Paul, and in later years, misogynistic attitudes shaped the current idea of xianity intensely. All that also factors into the “omg, those icky gays can’t marry!” garbage. There isn’t much fuss, on religious level, over being a carnivore or not being one, unless you want to get into the food restrictions in Orthodox Judaism.

  59. consciousness razor says

    It is really telling to me that the Bible doesn’t wait for Exodus or Leviticus to tell men it’s okay to oppress animals and women. They are practically the first instructions in Genesis.

    I’m not sure the old testament, as we have the texts now, was written in order. And even if it were, the order you find it in a text (or its presence or absence) does not say much at all about some widespread “religious” perspective on the issue. Christians (to pick them in particular, instead of talking about “the religious” in the abstract), have many beliefs which are entirely non-Biblical. Many of which I’m sure they’d find more important than anything about “dominion” over animals.

    Besides, the implication is that they also have it over and plants and literally everything else their god supposedly created for them. It show disregard for non-human animals, yes, because of their self-important concept of humanity, but at the same time, they disregard other humans (or specific other tribes) in all sorts of ways throughout the Bible. It seems more like just another example of the general callousness and ignorance of the Biblical authors, not an especially negative view toward non-human animals.

  60. consciousness razor says

    yes, I”m responding to specific arguments made – quite commonly – by animal rights activists. Imagining that I’m not responding to these specific arguments would make my comments appear silly…but it really only reveals that the person so imagining is either failing to appreciate the context, or is engaging in dishonest debate.

    I think it’s rather dishonest to make arguments you don’t believe hold water on their own, except as a rhetorical tactic against bad arguments.

  61. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Hillary Rettig

    Oh, forgot to make clear:

    What the activists are saying, obviously, is, “Why can’t we treat animals *at least* as well as we treat the least fortunate humans?” I don’t think that’s such a terrible sentiment, and there’s nothing in it that precludes working on behalf of those humans as well (and many vegan activists, including myself, do).

    Even this is clumsy and repeating the problem I’m addressing.

    “at least as well as we treat the least fortunate humans”

    a) “fortunate”? Really? I thought oppression was a matter of systematic choice and not just the dice randomly coming up all 1s for Africa in every game of Risk.

    b) “at least as well as” – meaning pigs might need to be treated better than we treat black women?

    c) unless you’re comfortable with the status quo, then saying this is saying that we should, in fact, treat pigs in a manner morally consistent with the “most fortunate” among us. It does, in fact, preclude working for the better moral treatment of oppressed peoples if the activists are not willing to say that pigs should be treated at least as well as the least oppressed. Otherwise, what lesser persons would be available for comparison? So are the activists meaning to say that pigs should be treated with the same moral value as the most valued humans? That’s the question and it leads directly to the analysis that reveals how harmful is even your formulation:
    …if an activist means that, why not say it?
    …if the activist doesn’t mean that, then the activist must logically be endorsing the morally different treatment of human beings.

    We conclude by the fact that animals are consistently compared to the moral worth of oppressed persons but not the least oppressed persons, that the activists are doing this intentionally, and therefore fit under the 2nd option of endorsing morally different treatment of human beings. To think otherwise is to think that activists doing this -admittedly difficult- analysis are merely getting it wrong through the dice coming up all 1s every single time.

    That’s not believable. While I believe that such activists would rarely explicitly endorse the concept, the repeated, relentless implicit endorsement of the concept inflicts a toll on everyone with enough brainpower to notice the implicit endorsement.

    Therefore, we say cut it the hell out.

    ==========================
    Anticipating an objection to c) above.

    Theoretically, of course, an activist could say that pigs need to be treated as having the same moral worth we currently afford women/ human children/ whomever.

    But that’s not what you said and that careful phrasing, combined with a statement saying that black women need to be treated with the same moral value as the most privileged among us is a vanishingly small percentage of the comments that draw this moral comparison. When that is how activists frame it, my concerns will have to be either revised or dropped.

    In the meantime, c) describes what is currently under discussion, and not some hypothetical perfect expression of a sentiment hidden in activists’ hearts.

  62. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor, #86:

    are you supporting me or defending me? I have not made arguments in which I don’t believe. I have protested those arguments being taken out of their context – the context being a refutation of other, bad arguments which of course I don’t make because i’m refuting them, duh.

    So what is your comment intended to mean anyway?

  63. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Speaking of animal abuse, watch this video, from Ophelia.

    As someone who is a long time dog-lover (though I lost mine this summer), I found it absolutely hysterical.

  64. consciousness razor says

    unless you’re comfortable with the status quo, then saying this is saying that we should, in fact, treat pigs in a manner morally consistent with the “most fortunate” among us. It does, in fact, preclude working for the better moral treatment of oppressed peoples if the activists are not willing to say that pigs should be treated at least as well as the least oppressed. Otherwise, what lesser persons would be available for comparison?

    They don’t need to continue to be “available for comparison.” You could consistently want non-human animals to be treated better (as well as oppressed people are treated right now), while at the same wanting oppressed to also be treated better (better than they themselves are treated right now).

    …if the activist doesn’t mean that, then the activist must logically be endorsing the morally different treatment of human beings.

    As I just said, there is no such logical necessity. One doesn’t follow the other.

  65. lostintime says

    #81, Crip Dyke

    If we’re talking about the former, clearly the pattern of usage [where vegans equate the moral worth of pigs to children, women, people of color, but never to able-bodied, straight, white men who are citizens of a wealthy nation in which they reside and are in the prime of their earning years] is offensive as fuck”

    The problem is that you’ve demonstrated right here that you don’t understand the conversation. The reason children and disabled people are used in the argument from marginal cases is exactly because they don’t have the same mental characteristics as neurotypical adults. The fact that you find it ‘offensive as fuck’ shows that you haven’t put the slighest bit of thought into the mental experience of non-human animals and what it’s like for them to be abused. You find it offensive because you don’t understand the argument. The other kinds of intersectionality have been described excellently by others in the thread but because you’re so entrenched in your privilege you can’t even be bothered to engage what they’re saying.

  66. says

    lostintime

    . Pigs have mental states like human infants and their lives can go well or badly for them.

    A.) That’s two arguments. The fact that their lives can go badly for them has nothing to do with whether they have the mental capacities of infants or not.
    B) What infant? An infant at 1 months (eating, sleeping, shitting) or 11 months (crawling, probably walking, speaking some words…)? The argument becomes nonsense here already, but it goes further, because the mental state of the human infant at that age means making connections in the brain that will be important for the rest of their lives. It means that they’re learning their mothertongue(s) already to a large extent. Pigs are nowhere like human infants in their mental states. They may be able to perform certain tasks like a typical human infant at age X months. And all of this is completely irrelevant when talking about how we should treat pigs.
    The treatment of pigs should be guided by what pigs need and what causes them suffering*, and that goes for all of lifestock and pets, not just for the super-smart kids because you can make an arbitrary comparison to infants.

    *The one argument that would make me exclude a species from being farmed ethically and slaughtered humanely would be if it were demonstrated that the animal understands the concept of death and is agonized by the understanding that they’re raised for being killed.
    But that’s the thing about empathy again: While it’s simple with “being kicked in the groin”, it doesn’t help much with other things.

  67. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    No. I understand the conversation just fine.

    Are pigs hurt when I call them pigs? No?

    Are children hurt when I call them pigs? Yes?

    So you cannot plausibly be arguing that the practical treatment of pigs and children be the same. Pigs don’t have the same mental characteristics as neurotypical adult humans, but ***they also don’t have the same mental characteristics as neurotypical 18-month old humans***.

    The comparison being made is that there is some threshold of capacity to suffer which, ***regardless of the fact that it is very different from an 18 month old child*** still exists in an 18 month old child and in a pig. The only reasons the 18 month old child appears in the picture is
    1) to make the point that inability to communicate suffering is not the same as non-existence of suffering.
    and
    2) to make the point that the moral value of the pig is equal to the moral value of the 18 month old child.

    But you could make the same point about the hypothetical privileged person I’ve mentioned above.

    Imagine,
    * you have such a privileged person
    * you use electrodes on the head to interfere with the language-forming regions of the brain so that the person is temporarily unable to form words, even entirely internally as linguistic thoughts
    * you torture the poor person.
    * you point out to your horrified witnesses that the inability of the person to communicate does not diminish the worth of the person or the depth of the suffering.

    The differences in neurotypical adult humans vs. neurotypical adult pigs are no greater than the differences between 1) the neurotypical adult pigs, and 2) neurotypical black women or neurotypical women generally or neurotypical human children, or any other human who hasn’t had a pig-brain transplant.

    So either, activists
    a) don’t understand the argument you are making in #1
    or
    b) feel that there’s a reason to consistently use only oppressed persons, which, given the communication point is irrelevant when talking about women as a class and unnecessary when talking about children as a class, means that we’re in argument #2 territory…and thus put us squarely in the regime of my analysis where the repeated use of only marginalized persons can be taken to be evidence of different moral worth being placed on different persons.

    I warn you against saying that people find things “offensive as fuck” only if they haven’t i) any understanding of the words in question, and/or ii) put any thought into the topic.

  68. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    BTW, lost in time,

    I wanted this to be a standalone comment. I used your language in #93 because I wanted to refute you as your argument stood.

    here I just want to say a big, hearty, Fuck Off for specifying “neurotypical” when saying which humans pigs aren’t like.

  69. consciousness razor says

    *The one argument that would make me exclude a species from being farmed ethically and slaughtered humanely would be if it were demonstrated that the animal understands the concept of death and is agonized by the understanding that they’re raised for being killed.

    Uh, infants don’t understand the concept of death. They wouldn’t be agonized by any such thing either. That doesn’t mean we should be satisfied if they’re “farmed ethically and slaughtered humanely.”

    Your empathy ought to extend a bit past the question of whether (and how much) they can contemplate their own suffering or capacity to suffer. It seems reasonable to me to be empathic about their actual suffering, not simply suffering which is a result of some higher-level thinking about another kind of suffering (which they will or could experience, or their possibly false beliefs about what will or could happen).

  70. lostintime says

    #92 Gilliel
    You’ve more or less conceded that pigs and infants have the same experience of suffering. Why is it so abhorrent though to abuse infants, but not animals who suffer in exactly the same way? There is no essential difference between child cruelty and cruelty to animals when it comes to the experience of that cruelty and that’s surely what matters most, and yet the moral seriousness of the issue is rarely confronted. Even the fact that the sanitising words ‘humanely’ and ‘ethically’ can be so blithely deployed shows how little we think about the importance of animal abuse, and even in those self-described ‘humane and ethical’ production systems, they are routinely abused in ways that no sane parent would ever contemplate. But that’s okay because they’re just animals.

  71. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor, #95

    Are infants a “species” now?

    Who knew?

  72. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    animals who suffer in exactly the same way?

    Again, fuck off.

  73. consciousness razor says

    @consciousness razor, #95

    Are infants a “species” now?

    Who knew?

    How is that supposed to be relevant? Do you know?

  74. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A lot of mixed arguments going on, which is typical. I personally see a difference between improving animal welfare, and giving animals rights. I agree with the former, but can’t see the latter. Too much handwaving similar to the presuppositional argument that since something was created, a creator is required, appears to be case with the rights arguments.

  75. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Jeez, consciousness razor.

    You are quoting Giliell stating

    The one argument that would make me exclude a species from being farmed…

    so that you can try to catch her in a moral inconsistency that will help your argument.

    The inconsistency? That the argument referenced would be a proof that the species understood death. Infants don’t understand death, therefore Giliell is being inconsistent.

    But, no.

    Giliell said “species”. Infants are not a species. Homo sapiens is a species. Homo sapiens understands death, therefore Giliell is against the farming of H. sapiens.

    There is no moral inconsistency and your argument is not advanced unless and until you prove that infant humans are a separate species from h. sapiens.

    Gee, maybe that little bit about whether or not infants being a species is relevant after all!

  76. lostintime says

    animals who suffer in exactly the same way

    Again, fuck off.

    You’re quite right. I should have said ‘who have a greater conscious experience and may well suffer a great deal more than humans’. How about that?

  77. consciousness razor says

    Giliell said “species”. Infants are not a species. Homo sapiens is a species. Homo sapiens understands death, therefore Giliell is against the farming of H. sapiens.

    Yes, Homo sapiens is a species. It doesn’t understand a thing, nor does it die. Individual organisms understand and die.

  78. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @lostintime

    That would certainly not have engendered a “fuck off” from me, though I have no idea where you are going with

    may well suffer a great deal more than humans

    and unless/until clarified I would disagree since too many reasonable interpretations of the phrase are obviously fallacious.

  79. Sili says

    You’ve more or less conceded that pigs and infants have the same experience of suffering. Why is it so abhorrent though to abuse infants, but not animals who suffer in exactly the same way?

    Pigs taste better and are hella easier to breed.

    Long pig births in ridiculously low numbers and takes far too long to grow.

  80. lostintime says

    #104 Crip Dyke
    I say that because adult pigs, chimpanzees or whatever are far more aware of their surroundings than a one month old infant, and so they have the added emotional distress that the infants lack. Moral individualism is about evalutating the moral status of a being based on its mental characteristics rather than just the species it belongs to. Not all humans are the same, some don’t even have a nervous system, and yet because they’re human they are considered to be of incalculable moral value, whereas pigs and other animals can be exploited in any way that’s convenient to us.

  81. says

    lostintime

    You’ve more or less conceded that pigs and infants have the same experience of suffering. Why is it so abhorrent though to abuse infants, but not animals who suffer in exactly the same way?

    Apart from “exatly the same way”, what makes you think that I don’t care about whether animals suffer? I’m very much in favour of animals being treated ethically. I’m against shitting over people by reappropriating their suffering to make a point about non-human animals.
    You still keep talking about pigs and infants and children and you haven’t answered the questions/objections to this comparison that I mentioned.

    Nerd
    Yes, that.

    Silli

    Pigs taste better and are hella easier to breed.

    Uhm, you’re talking from experience?

  82. burgundy says

    This is a minor point, but it amuses me. Daz, Crip Dyke, and Caine, re: your conversation in the late-70s/early-80s comments:

    There isn’t much fuss, on religious level, over being a carnivore or not being one, unless you want to get into the food restrictions in Orthodox Judaism.

    I had an Orthodox Jew tell me once that being vegetarian for reasons other than personal taste was actually immoral, because there’s nothing in Jewish law that forbids eating meat. So if you decide that something is unethical that isn’t religiously proscribed, you’re basically elevating your own moral sense above God’s. I’ve also heard from Orthodox Jews (although not this particular one) that yes, once the Messiah comes and the temple is restored in Jerusalem and all that, all those commandments that are currently invalid will come back into effect, so yes we will have animal sacrifices and such again. So that’s something to look forward to.

    When it comes to animal rights – I recently read the book Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s so Hard to Think Straight About Animals. It gave me a lot to think about, and made me more aware of my own inconsistencies, and also, in some ways, more comfortable with those inconsistencies. Some of my priorities are clearly speciesist – I am basically okay with certain kinds of animal experiments (although there’s a lot that I’m uncomfortable with, and I can’t necessarily articulate any kind of consistent metric for which is which.) If a child and a pig were in a burning building, it wouldn’t even cross my mind to save the pig. Hell, if I had to choose between saving the child and saving ten pigs, I’d save the child every time.

    I think that suffering has moral weight and should be minimized, and that sentience is the only necessary prerequisite for suffering. But I have this vague sense that oppression requires sapience. I think that non-human animals can be mistreated; I balk at saying they are oppressed. I lean toward the capabilities approach to rights and wellbeing, and a lot of those are just not applicable to non-human animals.

  83. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @lost in time

    First, let me say, you have drifted from the original point. I want to remind you of it:

    Certain comparisons, in the contexts in which they are found (including historical overuse of some comparisons and underuse of others) are offensive because they carry offensive implications.

    It is of course fine to have topic drift in Thunderdome. This is a great place for topic drift and letting the conversation go wherever is productive.

    However, I also wish to conspicuously note:

    You are no longer defending the originally criticized arguments themselves. You are on to defending the concept of better treatment of animals.

    I consider this an admission that the previously criticized arguments are, when considered in their full context, offensive arguments. This does not preclude there being a context in which the arguments would not be offensive and I need not and will not defend the proposition that those arguments could never ever ever be inoffensive.

    If you wish to reopen that conversation, I’m more than infuriated to do so…but also probably willing.

  84. lostintime says

    #107 Giliell

    I’m against shitting over people by reappropriating their suffering to make a point about non-human animals.

    Well I think I’ve made the point enough times now about how ‘marginal’ humans share similar characteristics with animals, and an intersectionality which doesn’t include the study of animal oppression would be impoverished. It doesn’t trivialise the experience of women or any other group of people, it helps to strenghten our understanding of way in which certain groups are exploited. The reason people are so opposed to comparing human and non-human suffering is because it’s in our interest not to do so.

  85. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @burgundy,

    thanks for a valuable contribution to the discussion.

    @lost in time
    I am now going to critique your argument, but not because I am opposed to the goal of reducing suffering. Just as I would blast an argument if someone wanted to end capital punishment because it makes the aliens mad at us and more likely to invade in their blaster-wielding flying saucers, I will blast more plausible-sounding arguments in favor of propositions I support if they nonetheless contain slightly less obvious BS.

    So, here:

    adult pigs, chimpanzees or whatever are far more aware of their surroundings than a one month old infant,

    And this can be proved how? For what operational definition of “aware”?

    Please provide citations.

    so they have the added emotional distress that the infants lack.

    I’m sorry, the sum of surrounding-awareness tells us about the level of emotional distress?

    Therefore, someone blind is less capable of suffering than a person with sight and with other senses being equivalent?

    Who is more capable of suffering with other senses equal, the blind, hearing person? or the deaf, seeing person?

    emotional distress that the infants lack

    Please provide a citation to research quantifying capacity for distress in human infants.

    Not all humans are the same, some don’t even have a nervous system,

    Name fucking one.

    yet because they’re human they are considered to be of incalculable moral value, whereas pigs and other animals can be exploited in any way that’s convenient to us

    you’re saying humans haven’t been exploited in any convenient way?

    Or were you trying to make a subtler point and just failed to express it?

    Moral individualism is about evalutating the moral status of a being based on its mental characteristics rather than just the species it belongs to

    So, you’re in favor of reevaluating the moral status of individual persons as their mental characteristics change? And does your calculus change given that it is known that racism affects IQ and other mental characteristics?

    Since this comes in the context of discussing age-distinguished beings, one assumes that you are referring to mental characteristics of the moments? In fact, distinguishing actual characteristics from perceived potential is an integral point of moral individualism, is it not?

    So you would be for giving squirrels and ground hogs IQ* tests to see if we could kill them as pests? What if a squirrel or ground hog that had been significantly above the kill line has a bad week? Do we quickly kill them while their mental characteristics are below the line? How long do we have before being ethically required to administer another IQ test?

    *Feel free to substitute whatever test more realistically measures the mental characteristics you consider determinative of moral worth

  86. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I like a clean house and stuff, but cleaning? No.

    I am so there with you, Caine.

  87. says

    Crip Dyke:

    I am so there with you, Caine.

    I have been seriously upsetting the house spiders for days.* They keep having to relocate or rebuild/repair webs.
     
    *It’s a big ass house. I haven’t even gone near downstairs yet.

  88. chigau (違う) says

    I once pointed out that the local people considered it a bit silly to buy food from 1500 kilometres away, when meat was strolling around just outside their door.
    This attitude was characterized as “sickening” by another commenter.
    I was on Baffin Island and the local people were Inuit.

  89. says

    lostintime

    Well I think I’ve made the point enough times now about how ‘marginal’ humans share similar characteristics with animals

    1. Marginal humans? WTF?
    2. No you haven’t. I asked you about your definitions of “infant” and “mental capacities” and you didn’t answer those questions.
    3. Nobody ever denied that humans share characteristics with animals. It’s a non-sequitur.

    , and an intersectionality which doesn’t include the study of animal oppression would be impoverished. It doesn’t trivialise the experience of women or any other group of people, it helps to strenghten our understanding of way in which certain groups are exploited.

    I’ve given you several examples as to why those things are not easily comparable.
    Let me try one last time and please, try to answer the objections instead of repeating yourself:
    Humans suffer from the knowledge that they are property of somebody else and could be sold and bought. This is independent of whether they are ever sold or bought or treated badly.
    Do you think that somebody’s well-treated dog suffers from its official status as property?

    The reason people are so opposed to comparing human and non-human suffering is because it’s in our interest not to do so.

    That doesn’t make much sense.
    It’s also not necessary to compare the suffering to recognize it and work against it. Decent people generally don’t make a ranking list

  90. Nick Gotts says

    Not all humans are the same, some don’t even have a nervous system and yet because they’re human they are considered to be of incalculable moral value – lostintime

    The only humans without a nervous system are zygotes, embryos, early fetuses and (if you want to count haploids) gametes. You won’t find many here considering any of these “to be of incalculable moral value”.

    Moral individualism is about evaluating the moral status of a being based on its mental characteristics rather than just the species it belongs to

    OK, let’s accept for the sake of argument your contention that adult pigs, chimpanzees, etc., have mental characteristics more like those of adult humans than human infants do. Are you implying that if you were able to save only one of a human infant and an adult pig from imminent peril (and assuming you knew neither personally), you would save the pig? Or that it would be right to save the pig? Are you saying we should intervene to prevent chimpanzees killing each other, or killing monkeys, since we would intervene (at least, most of us would) to prevent them killing human infants?

  91. says

    Nick:

    The only humans without a nervous system are zygotes, embryos, early fetuses and (if you want to count haploids) gametes. You won’t find many here considering any of these “to be of incalculable moral value”.

    Indeed. The human zygotes, embryos and early fetuses have the potential to be human beings.

  92. says

    Nick Gotts

    Are you saying we should intervene to prevent chimpanzees killing each other, or killing monkeys, since we would intervene (at least, most of us would) to prevent them killing human infants?

    That’s another part of the “animal rights” problem: It becomes very problematic once you try to apply it to non-lifestock animals.
    It should also be noted that the right of pigs not to be eaten means the extinction of pigs.

  93. lostintime says

    Gah, too many things to answer. There are people born with cephalic disorders who have very impaired central nervous systems, and the marginal was in scare quotes because I agree the word is slightly galling, but the argument from ‘marginal cases’ goes back to Porphyry and that’s the name that’s commonly used.

  94. Tethys says

    Caine

    I like a clean house and stuff, but cleaning? No

    Ugggh, I did that last weekend. Between fall shedding of 2 dogs, 4 cats, 2 long haired women, and the contributions of baby spiderlings everything I own was covered in a fine sticky coating of fuzz and yuk. I cruelly vacuumed ALL THE THINGS for three days.

    Cruelly because I did not spare the spiders. They freak out DIL to an unfortunate degree.

    —–

    I usually avoid the meat eating discussions. I always wonder if some of the staunch animals rights people have ever actually spent any time in contact with domesticated livestock? Are they aware that pigs would be delighted to eat THEM if they fell in the pig pen?

    I am against cruelty as a basic principal, and factory type animal farming, but much of the arguement against meat eating seems to anthropomorphism.

  95. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, animal rights folks still can’t make their point without presuppositions, and resort to degrading humanity. Not any way to convince rational folks you have a point, as extreme cases are just so much sophistry. Wank away, but I’ll ignore it.

  96. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Lost in time: Not all humans are the same, some don’t even have a nervous system,

    Crip Dyke: Name fucking one.

    Lost in time: There are people born with cephalic disorders who have very impaired central nervous systems,

    First, I wonder how “impaired” a nervous system has to be for lost in time to consider it no nervous system at all?

    Second: the carelessness of animal rights activists with their rhetoric which was at issue to begin with?

    Proved again.

  97. lostintime says

    #112 Crip Dyke
    I tried to answer your post point by point, but it’s better just to say that I don’t think consciousness is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. First you try to hyperskepically argue that we can’t prove that chimpanzees have a different experience from babies, which is just being argumentative for its own sake,

    adult pigs, chimpanzees or whatever are far more aware of their surroundings than a one month old infant,

    And this can be proved how? For what operational definition of “aware”?

    and then you question whether awareness has anything to do with emotional depth which is a fine question, except that it’s a bit silly in the context of a one-month old baby, compared to, what, an adult human being? Then you start talking about IQ, which I never mentioned and which is an appalling way to think about the moral status of people or animals.

    Feel free to substitute whatever test more realistically measures the mental characteristics you consider determinative of moral worth

    I would say the equal consideration of interests is still a good guideline for how we ought to treat animals, and since you mentioned IQ I think this essay clarifies the problem brilliantly.
    http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm

  98. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, animal rights person links to the sophist idjit Singer. Presupposition all the way…..

  99. says

    lostintime:

    Gah, too many things to answer.

    No. That excuse doesn’t fly here, and it does you little credit. Perhaps you don’t have time at the moment, however, this being a text based discussion, you are able to take each thing on its own and address it, as you have time.

    If you have no intention to fully discuss things *you* brought up, then you shouldn’t bring them up in the first place.

  100. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    First you try to hyperskepically argue that we can’t prove that chimpanzees have a different experience from babies, which is just being argumentative for its own sake,

    You miss my point and forget that I’m on your side, but think it’s your argumentation that sucks: **You** are the one that asserted that:

    1 certain animals have more “surroundings-awareness” than 1 month old human infants
    2 the same animals have more “emotional distress” than 1 month old human infants
    3 point 2 is causally related to point 1.

    when your argument for treating animals better depends on assertions you can’t prove, you won’t win the argument with people who – unlike me – support animal industries that inflict suffering.

    They’ll look at you like you’re batshit. It helps the cause that we both support not at all when you predicate your argument on things you can’t prove.

    That’s not argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, that’s pointing out that your argument won’t convince someone who isn’t already convinced.

    On the other hand, if you have such data proving point 1, point 2, and point 3, please provide it because that would actually be helpful in convincing certain persons. I don’t know how many, but it would be interesting to me even if I was never once able to pull the data out in a manner that changed minds.

    ======
    as for IQ, I have previously called you out for failing to define vague terms. Using IQ was deliberately provocative because you used the undefined “mental characteristics” (does this include brain/neurological characteristics? does this include tendency to depression? does this include habitual swearing? what?) which, including any mental characteristic, would certainly be inclusive of IQ.

    If you don’t want your case to be inclusive of IQ, don’t use terms inclusive of IQ. Your arguments are unintentionally offensive all over the place, and yet you only pick it up when, instead of me saying “this is offensive” I play out the natural consequences of your argument. You asserted that moral worth is based on mental characteristics – a group of characteristics unlimited by you and which, given your lack of specificity or limitation, would certainly, certainly, certainly include IQ. In fact, IQ is among the most studied mental characteristics in all of psychology. To say that mental characteristics doesn’t include IQ would be dishonest at best.

    Given that moral worth – in your argument – is based on mental characteristics, then certainly some portion of moral worth would be based on IQ.

    how much? I dont’ know. You haven’t defined your terms. But people who have had their moral worth defined by their IQ are certainly going to read your argument uncharitably. So why make that argument? As written, it is offensive even to you. So why write it that way?

    Do you get at all where I’m coming from? One can make good arguments for reducing the suffering of animals without resorting to the sloppy and offensive argument you’ve made here. So why do you use this sloppy and offensive argument? People are going to assume you have nothing better, and as someone who cares deeply about animal suffering, I find the thought that this is our best argument deeply offensive.

    =================
    So why did I make the point in the manner that I did?

    Well, you still haven’t apologized for specifying “neurotypical” when talking about which humans don’t have the mental characteristics of a pig.

    What do you think people who aren’t “neurotypical” are thinking when they read you make that qualification? Why, in your opinion, is “neurotypical” a necessary qualifier of that statement? In your opinion, what would neuro-atypical people think is your motivation for qualifying that category of humans as “neurotypical”?

    Given your avoidance of serious problems like this, it was easier to just use IQ as an exemplar characteristic hoping you would take offense than it was to say, “using a term inclusive of IQ is offensive, fuck off or apologize”. You clearly ignore the criticisms unless you, yourself, are making them.

  101. says

    Oh, I’ll say fuck IQ, up, down, and sideways. It’s usefulness is questionable, to say the very least. I spent a good portion of my life being judged because of being on the higher end of that pointless scale. It really doesn’t matter at all where one finds themselves on that scale, it has nothing to do with forming good ethics, or being able to think one’s way through a problem critically. It’s bad enough to judge people by IQ, it shouldn’t be part of an argument dealing with the ethics of animal treatment.

  102. theignored says

    Well, here’s an example of Ray Comfort caught in another lie:

    The prosecution’s star-witness (for their case against me for using deceitful editing in “Evolution vs. God”) just testified for the defense. Professor Craig Stanford (who I consider to be a friend) gracefully conceded in an interview last night that we didn’t edit out his answers.

    This is what he said: “I don’t have any knowledge of him actually doing deceitful editing in the editing room.”

    He acknowledged that there was no deceit because he knows that he didn’t give a lick of evidence for Darwinian evolution

    Ah, bullshit. Check here

    Can you tell us just where that quote is, Ray?

    Because around 3:17 minutes in and after, he says that when he gave you evidence, YOU cut him off by saying that those aren’t examples of evolution that one has SEEN happen. He notes that you set up a “straw argument”.

    It’s a “long term process” he says. You seem to want people to watch and SEE an actual new species develop?? At bout 3:50 he notes that you say that we’ve never seen a species evolve into another species, which HE says is “not correct at all”.

    He notes that you seem to want an example of one “kind” turning into another “kind” over an instant or else you won’t accept it.

    Yeah, if your strawmen view of evolution doesn’t match reality, then evolution is wrong. Same old, same old

  103. lostintime says

    #117 Nick Gotts

    Are you implying that if you were able to save only one of a human infant and an adult pig from imminent peril (and assuming you knew neither personally), you would save the pig?

    It’s me or the dog: this is a classic AR problem. I don’t believe in Rights in the technical sense, so in almost all circumstances I would save the child, unless it was anencephalic or comatose with no hope of recovery and the animal was obviously in excruciating pain. But even then, the distress of relatives would be relevant, so yes if I knew nothing about the situation I would save the child without thinking twice.

  104. says

    with two long-haired people, two monster dogs, five cats and 20 rats, I have given the fuck up in the battle against hair. Don’t want hair on yourself? Don’t visit.

    As a former owner of samoyeds, I both sympathise and agree.

  105. says

    Daz:

    As a former owner of samoyeds, I both sympathise and agree.

    Samoyeds? Oy, my sympathies. Beautiful creatures, but you can drown in that hair. I keep the house from being swallowed whole by rafts of hair, but that’s about it anymore. It’s just not possible to get it all. There are times I wish I had a spinning wheel and knew how to use it.

  106. says

    Caine

    Samoyeds? Oy, my sympathies. Beautiful creatures, but you can drown in that hair.

    On the plus side, we never had to buy cotton wool to make fake snow for christmas decorations. (And if anyone’s after a dog that’s good with kids: definitely worth consideration.)

  107. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Daz & Caine:

    My beautiful doggie was a husky. I don’t know if that’s better or worse than a Samoyed, but 5 months a year we were just drowning in fur.

  108. chigau (違う) says

    Dog hair doesn’t spin very well. It’s too smooth.

    Some friends had an Old English Sheepdog.
    One winter (because this and that) her coat got badly matted.
    Come Spring, the only solution was a buzz-cut.
    The dog was ecstatic.
    Thereafter it was SOP to have the dog mowed at least once per year.

  109. says

    Crip Dyke:

    My beautiful doggie was a husky. I don’t know if that’s better or worse than a Samoyed, but 5 months a year we were just drowning in fur.

    On the hair front, a husky has less than a samoyed. Everything has less hair than a samoyed. Our current two, are shorthairs,* but you wouldn’t know it by the amount of effing fur all over the place.

    *Sort of…Jayne is half white German shepherd and half chow, Doll is half white German Shepherd and half coyote – http://needleprovocateur.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/dogs/

  110. says

    Crip Dyke

    I don’t know if that’s better or worse than a Samoyed, but 5 months a year we were just drowning in fur.

    Prob’ly depends on local climate somewhat, but yeah, that sounds awfully familiar.

    chigau

    I can’t vouch for it personally but I remember reading somewhere that spitz-type breeds’ fur can be spun well. Summat to do with it being two-layered, I think.

  111. burgundy says

    I have two cats, one of whom has long, fine, fluffy fur. So I’m used to seeing puffs of fur accumulate if I get behind on housekeeping. But it’s been 15 months since my last haircut (more laziness than actively wanting to grow it out) and it wasn’t short to begin with. I have brown hair and wood laminate floors, so I didn’t realize until recently just how much I was shedding. It’s everywhere. Less noticeable than the cat hair, but far more voluminous.

    I think my sister-in-law told me once about this woman who will spin thread out of cat fur. I know she and my brother were saving up their long-haired cat’s fur for a while, and I think my sister-in-law tried to spin it, but it didn’t quite work.

  112. chigau (違う) says

    I have very fine, thin hair. Not very long, maybe 30cm.
    All of the dust balls in my abode contain alot of my hairs.
    And cat hair.
    But not SO hair.
    Because he doesn’t shed.
    Oh no.
    Not him.

  113. ekwhite says

    I have a Husky-German Shepherd mix. If I knew how to weave,I could make rugs from his hair.

    Caine: your two dogs are really cute. The shep-coyote mix must be wicked smart.

  114. chigau (違う) says

    ekwhite
    From what I’ve heard about Caine’s dogs, any smarts from Doll are more than balanced by Jayne.
    (hugs and cookies for Jayne)

  115. says

    ekwhite:

    Caine: your two dogs are really cute. The shep-coyote mix must be wicked smart.

    Thank you. Yes, Doll is wicked smart, beyond razor sharp, that one. Once she accepted our house and our pack (we had two dogs at the time we brought her home, we were her 14th home), and relaxed a bit, she was amazing. It took less than one day to teach her signs when out on a photo walk, never have to say a single word to her. She’s one of the ones you want to live forever.

    Jayne is…developmentally delayed. He’s around 4 or 5 months old mentally. Very enthusiastic about everything, and generally happy, just stupid. The people we adopted him from didn’t help, he was kept outside from birth, in a kennel, and that’s all he knew. He didn’t even understand steps/stairs, and it took a while to get the concept across. (We adopted him when he was 7 months old, and he already weighed a hundred pounds.)

    Chigau:

    (hugs and cookies for Jayne)

    Oh, he will love that. Such a goofball.

  116. says

    Before I go, I wanted to leave a short note for hillaryrettig:

    I remember your comments from years ago. I hope I wasn’t one of the people responding foolishly, fallaciously, fearfully…though I might have been. I think I was mainly a lurker in those discussions,* and even though I was hostile to your ideas, I paid attention (I also paid attention to the foolish, fallacious, fearful responses, and was embarrassed).

    You contributed to changing my mind, and I thank you for that.

    However, I think Atheism+ will absolutely encompass animal rights, and I’m looking forward to that happening.

    It’s funny… for a long time, I thought that I’d moved in new directions that distanced me from this blog. But of course there’s nothing to keep ideas here frozen in time. It’s a matter of choice, and people can change and grow.

    I’m optimistic, but then I’m optimistic by nature. :)

    *That might just be how I want to remember it.

  117. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @SC
    I’d be interested in what your position is on “animal rights” or reducing animal suffering, or whatever is the appropriate label.

    I’ve been arguing against bad argumentation here, but not against the conclusion that animals needlessly suffer and this needless suffering must end. Nonetheless, I’m not at a place where I would agree with, say, the mass release of lab animals – or even the mass release of fur-farm animals. These releases, whether done with or without the sanction of the orgs that own the animals, result in a ton of suffering and injury themselves. Nor am I willing to say that animals have the same moral status as people. I could be convinced, I suppose, but I’ve read a fair amount on the subject and nothing has convinced me yet. So if you have something to say on the subject I’d be interested.

  118. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Inspired by SC, but not for or to SC:

    I can imagine that I would be in a place where I no longer found myself drawn here. But this place is compelling to me not because everyone agrees with me. There’s a staggering amount of gender binarism and gender/sex confusion even in this relatively trans* friendly space. it’s hard enough to find a space that disavows manichaean gender. To get a place that consistently draws intentional, thoughtful sex/gender distinctions is more than I believe it is possible to get. Then there’s right-to-die and animal rights where I find myself sympathetic to the ethical proposition, but horrified at much of the rhetoric & argumentation. There are quite a number of ways in which my views seem to differ from Horde-mainstream.

    But it’s not a commonality on a wide range of views that draws me here. It’s a combination of commonality of a few values that I find crucial, minimum standards for my participation in a community with the fact that I can rip into things without being denigrated for it.

    I have been called out for being wrong either in methods or in conclusions, and have often had to admit error. This makes me happy. I have often had other people read what I wrote and tell me that they found it valuable, and this also makes me happy.

    But in a world where I’ve been told that I had “educational privilege” in a room where I was the only one not yet to graduate college, and who had been held back for promotion because of it, I value being able to be intelligent and rhetorically powerful in public. In fact, that same workplace told me not to do math in public, because it intimidated other women – wtf? There are so many times when preserving relationships means tolerating truly horrendous statements. The class I wrote about a week or two ago is a case in point. While I could say – and did say – some things critiquing that professor’s actions, I couldn’t just call bullshit on the bullshit. I would be told that I think too much of myself or a thousand other things that I’ve heard too many times before.

    here, when people think I’m wrong, they tell me. But they don’t tell me not to do math in public because it intimidates the other women. It seems a frighteningly low standard, but there it is: I get to be powerful here in a way that I am not allowed to be in everyday life. That feels very, very good.

    While I imagine that smart people that are not particularly knowledgeable in areas where I have knowledge might sometimes be intimidated out of engaging me when I’m whipping out my most powerful arguments and taking no shit

    a) I don’t get blamed for doing something bad just by whipping out powerful arguments, taking no shit, and generally being smart in my analysis

    and

    b) I hope that they see me concede error often enough that they become willing to do so

    and

    c) I read them when they are being smart on a topic in which they are knowledgeable, so I feel no guilt.

    That’s going to keep me coming back. It’s not about agreement or being “behind” or “beside” or “beyond” the Horde. In fact, without the disagreement there would be no use in any of us being whip-smart.

    I’m glad you’re here to teach me things, but more than anything I’m glad I have a place to rant intelligently where that isn’t a bad thing.

  119. Ingdigo Jump says

    It should also be noted that the right of pigs not to be eaten means the extinction of pigs.

    Nah there are aficionado freaks like me who like them enough to keep companion breed versions extant.

    If miniature pigs were easily available for adoption I would break my fucking lease rules to get one.

  120. Ingdigo Jump says

    I don’t want to get into the animal rights thing. I will however share the anecdote that I recently consumed a bit of media where a character argued for the morality of it’s people’s treatment of humans by comparing it to humans treating live stock. Specifically, the character said that it was symbiotic in that in exchange for a (in theory) human harvesting the superior race grants them longer better life than the wild and greater reproduction success. It was IMO an interesting framing of the concept of livestock, but also the fact that said character was white washing a fairly abusive system did make me reconsider that validity of that argument. Anyway just throwing that out there if anyone wants to bat it around

  121. says

    Crip Dyke:

    So, you’re not the anonymous author of hyperbole and a half are you?

    No, I’m not. However, I recognized every single thing she wrote about when Carlie linked to that a year or so ago.
     
    A note about SC – she was a regular here for many, many years, going way back to early Sciborg years. I think she pretty much knows the good and the bad of Pharyngula. She also has a blog, should be hyperlinked in her nym.

  122. consciousness razor says

    I’ve been arguing against bad argumentation here, but not against the conclusion that animals needlessly suffer and this needless suffering must end.

    Seriously? You argued that infants aren’t a species — as if the contrary were implied by anything I said, and as if that were somehow morally relevant. (You’ve not had a good day for spotting logical implication, by the way — maybe you should give it a rest until you understand what that means.)

    If you’re not actually against it but also think speciesism offers some kind of morally relevant perspective,* how the hell can I make any sense out of this? What should ethics be like when it concerns non-human animals?

    *To draw a comparison: if someone makes anti-feminist statements, but says they otherwise support equality for women (just not what they call “extreme” measures, which feminists want), do you believe that for even a minute?

    Or if someone makes a big deal out of race and says lots of shit supporting racism, then denies being racist (because I guess they think that means putting on a white hood and burning crosses while giving a Nazi salute), how seriously should anyone take their denial?

  123. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    For SC, hillaryrettig, lostintime and anyone elsedefending nonhuman rights:

    I almost never comment around here anymore, largely because debates like this are too draining for me, but I wanted to let you all know that your efforts are not unappreciated. People like you are the reason I made the most significant change in the last two years of my life – becoming vegan. No other single act has ever had a more positive impact on my life.

    Thank you all.

    /relurk

  124. Nick Gotts says

    Nor am I willing to say that animals have the same moral status as people. – Crip Dyke@151

    Nor me. (For information, I’m vegetarian, and have recently reduced my consumption of animal products, but I’m not vegan.) I raised some of the questions a consistent anti-speciesism has to deal with, and in my experience very seldom does, @117; in fact, I don’t believe we yet have the socio-technical systems that would make such a thing possible, since even the most conscientious vegan, in practice, participates in animal death and suffering: growing, harvesting and storing crops all involve these, as do most of the operations of an industrial society – building, mining, transport…*. If and when we do have that capacity, the question of whether we should intervene to abolish or reduce the horrendous suffering that life in the wild often causes non-human animals would arise: chimpanzees have been observed to bully weaker chimpanzees to death; pursuit hunters such as wolves and African wild dogs chase their prey to exhaustion, then frequently kill it by disemboweling; if the victim of a bird of prey is not lucky enough to be killed by the strike, it dies from being eaten alive; slow starvation, disease, chronic injury are all frequent. A consistent anti-speciesism implies that we should indeed intervene on a massive scale once we can, probably involving dismantling most existing ecological systems, to prevent this. We would also need to decide where to draw the line: do lizards, fish, cephalopods, insects*… require the same kinds of intervention as pigs and chimpanzees? If not, why not?

    *I’m not saying here that veganism is pointless: clearly vegans are less involved in animal death and suffering than otherwise comparable non-vegans; but they ought to recognize that the vegan/non-vegan distinction is not as absolute as many of them present it as being.

    **I’ve read that most insects lack nociceptors (pain receptors), and might be excluded on those grounds, but that fruit flies have them.

  125. Walton says

    I’m an ethical vegetarian. And I don’t think one needs to be committed to anti-speciesism in the strongest sense in order to conclude that ethical vegetarianism is the right course of action. I won’t get into it in any detail here, but I’ve written about my views on the subject on my personal blog.

  126. lostintime says

    Just seconding consciousness razor @ 158.
    Crip Dyke thank you for the discussion, but seriously? I don’t think you offered a coherent critique of animal ethics, and in fact you and several others were more concerned with attacking an imaginary Animal Rights position that I don’t hold. To be clear, I support animal research and any use of animals which can be said to have a non-trivial utilitarian benefit, including certain kinds of low intensity organic farming. Moral individualism is consistent with utilitarianism, and in fact it’s those who argue against this position who advocate for Rights – specifically the sanctity of human life. I think that welfare needs to be interpreted much more stringently based on the natural history and wellbeing of animals rather than commercial practice. That would put me in opposition to the AVMA and other veterinary groups who decline to take positions on forced molting, foie gras and gestation crates, and yet these experts purport to be advocates of animal welfare. Clearly there are more or less conservative views on the subject, and when it’s claimed that someone supports animals welfare, that’s not enough to divine what they actually believe. A lot of those people, as you mention, are not actually opposed to fur trading or factory farming.

    As for intersectionality which Hillary mentioned in another post, I agree with her and I think it’s essential to include non-humans in our understanding of how certain groups are oppressed, although I need to read more on the subject. I liked the book The Sexual Politics of Meat and I’m going through some of the blogs that have been linked to.

    Lastly I’m seeing my boyfriend for the first time in three months on Monday, so I haven’t been this happy in a long time, thanks for putting up with my general rattiness and occassional needless aggression.

  127. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @lost in time:

    seriously? I don’t think you offered a coherent critique of animal ethics, and in fact you and several others were more concerned with attacking an imaginary Animal Rights position that I don’t hold.

    That’s because, from the beginning, I wasn’t critiquing animal ethics – and no one else was either. When we criticize “What about the men?” we aren’t saying men are evil and must be destroyed. We are saying that there’s a particular dynamic when argument – sometimes even good, valid argument – effectively derails, whether or not that derailment is intentional, productive and valuable anti-sexist conversation.

    When people are saying you’re coming across as, “What about the cows?” they aren’t saying “Veganism is unethical as F, gonna go eat me some mammal.” They are saying – **I** am saying – that the form of certain arguments, in their context, derails conversation about justice and/or works to cement a divide between the already privileged and the already oppressed. I am saying this is true whether or not this was intended.

    You say I’m arguing against a straw position you don’t hold. What i’m arguing against is the appropriation of the experience of the oppressed in the service of beings who aren’t the oppressed being appropriated.

    To use an example paraphrased from my own (repeated) experience, when someone says, “Fuck trannies in women’s shelters: women are oppressed and we should be using all our power to end that injustice,” or “trannies rape all women’s bodies,” it is not anti-woman or anti-feminist to point out that the argument itself, though nominally serving a good end, actually hurts people. It is still not anti-woman or anti-feminist if I go on to opine that I think the arguments are counterproductive because too many people care too deeply about trans people for those arguments to be a net benefit to non-trans women [sadly, I never did opine that as it was and is rather unbelievable].

    To say that there is embedded language within the animal rights discourse that others the already marginalized is not anti-animal.

    It is not a critique of the animal rights position at all. It’s a critique of the animal rights rhetorical strategy.

    And while you can claim all you like that you don’t engage in othering and marginalizing rhetoric, you’ve already conceded you were wrong to say that animals and children suffer in “exactly the same way”.

    It takes some chutzpah to say that I am engaging a straw version of animal rights rhetoric when you’re engaging in exactly the kind of false equivalence I deplore.

    Moreover, the crux of my point is your use of “neurotypical” when describing the category of humans whose members are unlike members of the category “pig”. Moreover, you did this in the context of saying that some humans are “exactly like” pigs in – at least – their suffering.

    It’s not a stretch to say that you **publicly argue** that some humans are just like pigs and some humans are different from pigs.

    Whatever your beliefs, and I agreed with Hillary Rettig that activists are not always adept at communication of those beliefs, your public argument is an actual example of the type of public argument being criticized.

    I don’t see how you can say that no one is willing to say that some humans are just like pigs when you’ve done it in this thread.

    i don’t see how you can say that no one is willing to use the marginalized for the comparator “just like” group but unwilling to use privileged adults (“neurotypical adults” in your formulation), when you have done that in just this thread.

    I don’t see why you won’t acknowledge that if this is a pattern (and this is an assertion for which I haven’t provided citation, but since as soon as it is criticized it is replicated in this thread I think we can default to believing such a pattern of argument exists) it is a problem.

    Moreover, I don’t see why you refuse to engage explicitly with my critique of your use of neurotypical.

    Either you have an anti-ableist response that justifies excluding the neuro-atypical from the category of humans that are distinct from pigs, or you don’t.

    If you don’t, then my critique is validated and apologize and cut it the hell out.

    If you do, let’s hear it.

    I’m not challenging animal rights and therefore I don’t need to offer a critique of animal rights.

    I’m challenging reflexive and implicit oppression embedded in the speech of animal-rights activists. And I have offered a critique of it. Either come up with a counter critique or admit that your argument has included ableism and that others’ arguments can and do have the effect of being anti-woman and/or anti-feminist and/or racist in specific contexts and/or when using specific formulations.

  128. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor

    You argued that infants aren’t a species — as if the contrary were implied by anything I said,

    Giliell: The one argument that would make me exclude a species from being farmed ethically…

    Uh, infants don’t understand the concept of death…

    The only way your objection to Giliell’s statement makes sense would be if “infants” are a species. I’ll let others read it in context and judge whether or not I caught you in a sloppy mistake.

    Crip Dyke: I’ve been arguing against bad argumentation here, but not against the conclusion that animals needlessly suffer and this needless suffering must end.

    Seriously? …(You’ve not had a good day for spotting logical implication, by the way — maybe you should give it a rest until you understand what that means.)

    Whether I’ve done it well or not has no bearing on whether or not I’ve been arguing against oppression & evidence-free assertion embedded in argument.

    Feel free to assert that I’ve done a poor job. That doesn’t make the object of calling out oppression a critique of animal rights per se.

    If you can tell me how I could do a better job how, for instance, I can get across to you and lost in time the ableism of creating a category of humans not like pigs that goes out of its way to include only the neurotypical, then I would love for you to critique my argument to make it more effective.

    Clearly so far I haven’t gotten through to lost in time.

    If you’re not actually against it but also think speciesism offers some kind of morally relevant perspective,* how the hell can I make any sense out of this? What should ethics be like when it concerns non-human animals?

    The ethical takeaways should be: 1. don’t appropriate the experience of one group in service of another, even if you believe that the other group deserves your ethical advocacy; and 2) educate yourself about how your language communicates embedded assumptions so that you don’t hurt some people while trying to help others.

    If that’s controversial with you, you are far less ethical than I have always believed you to be.

    *To draw a comparison: if someone makes anti-feminist statements, but says they otherwise support equality for women (just not what they call “extreme” measures, which feminists want), do you believe that for even a minute?

    To be fair, I haven’t heard anyone say that some specific statement of mine carries an anti-animal bias.

    How would you know how I would respond to that critique if you haven’t made it? If someone said something anti-trans while saying that they are pro-trans, I critique them and judge them not on their knowledge at a specific moment in time, but how they respond to criticism and encouragement to be better. Otherwise I would have given a grand Fuck Off to the lot of you a long time ago: PZ himself uses sex and gender interchangeably, and he’s biologist fFs. I’m more initially hostile to someone spouting anti-feminist talking points, but only because the information is more easily available. I still wait to see how criticism is handled before making a judgement about whether the person can be or is my ally.

    So, here’s your opportunity. Where has my analysis been anti-animal? Is there some research showing that pigs are just like people with Asperger’s that you think I am reflexively denying because I’m anti-animal?

    Because I’ve got to tell you, no one’s actually pointed me to that research.

  129. consciousness razor says

    That’s because, from the beginning, I wasn’t critiquing animal ethics – and no one else was either.

    False. Maybe you personally didn’t intend to (although I don’t see how that’s right), but that doesn’t make it so. The least you could do is only make such false claims about yourself, not speak for everyone else.

    They are saying – **I** am saying – that the form of certain arguments, in their context, derails conversation about justice and/or works to cement a divide between the already privileged and the already oppressed. I am saying this is true whether or not this was intended.

    Then do that and don’t (poorly) “critique” the ethics in the process, if that’s what you think you’re doing. If it turns out that you really are critiquing it, because that’s necessary to your arguments, then there’s really no need to tiptoe around that fact. Just own it, so we can get this over with already.

    I’m not challenging animal rights and therefore I don’t need to offer a critique of animal rights.

    This is an interesting way to skip right over criticism, without having to admit any kind of fault in your previous comments. By “interesting,” I mean transparent and boring.

  130. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @ consciousness razor.

    Please link to comments where I critique animal rights per se, and not the argumentation therefor.

    I am happy to concede error when I am wrong.

  131. consciousness razor says

    Sorry, my previous posted before I saw #165:

    The only way your objection to Giliell’s statement makes sense would be if “infants” are a species. I’ll let others read it in context and judge whether or not I caught you in a sloppy mistake.

    Nope. For one thing, read the whole sentence:

    The one argument that would make me exclude a species from being farmed ethically and slaughtered humanely would be if it were demonstrated that the animal understands the concept of death and is agonized by the understanding that they’re raised for being killed.

    She said “the animal understands….”

    But no matter how convoluted Giliell’s statement might have been, it makes no fucking sense to talk about a species as if it understands concepts. The logic of it depends on individuals, because they are the ones with abilities like understanding; it does not depend on which exact words Giliell did or didn’t use. In fact, her statement could’ve been completely unambiguous, while still being wrong. Do you fucking get that or not?

    Where has my analysis been anti-animal?

    Assuming that the “species” of the infant is not just relevant but makes entire argument for you (or for Giliell) even while it contradicts your arguments for other species — that’s practically the definition of speciesism. And since you care about language: we’re all animals here, so I very much doubt you’re anti-animal.

  132. lostintime says

    #164 Crip Dyke
    Temple Grandin argues that some people with autism and non-human animals see, feel and think in similar ways – that’s why I used the word neurotypical, and it’s a term that’s recommended by autistic charities. If her thesis turns out to be bad science, the moral status of disabled people would still be relevant to AMC, because I’m arguing against discrimination based on ‘normal’ perception. The lack of language, for example, doesn’t effect the capacity for feeling pain, and adopting speciesist rhetoric helps to promote ableism rather than fight against it, because all forms of discrimination are interrelated. If you’re opposed to euthanasia because you believe in the sanctity of human life (but no other kind of life), then you’re promoting an ableist anti-choice ethic.

    As for derailing, I think a lot about equality, and relating mysogyny, for example, to other forms of exploitation helps to contextualise the problem. If a woman talking about her experiences thinks it’s relevant to relate that to the treatment of slaves as chattel property, that’s three axes of oppression that immediately light up connections and helps us to think about how exploitation works. If you dismiss that analogy simply because you personally don’t think it’s relevant, then you’re discounting her experiences and very likely arguing from a position of privilige. The original post mentioned branding, which is obviously relevant to mysogyny and speciesism.

  133. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Assuming that the “species” of the infant is not just relevant but makes entire argument for you (or for Giliell) even while it contradicts your arguments for other species — that’s practically the definition of speciesism. And since you care about language: we’re all animals here, so I very much doubt you’re anti-animal.

    I didn’t say that the species of the infant is relevant. I said the group of infants do not constitute a species-level grouping.

    Giliell said she was doing species level analysis based on the abilities of members of the species.

    She didn’t say she was doing age-group analysis based on the abilities of age groups. These are apples and oranges.

    And when I pointed that out, I said that:

    There is no moral inconsistency and your argument is not advanced unless and until you prove that infant humans are a separate species from h. sapiens.

    Note that here I’m talking about whether your critique of Giliell works as it stands, not whether non-human animals deserve rights or better treatment or whether humans have a duty to avoid inflicting suffering even when that suffering occurs in a non-human species.

    Further, the fact that I’m an animal no more implies that I’m not speciesist/anti-animal than the fact that I’m a woman implies that I’m not sexist/anti-woman.

    Giliell brought up species level analysis. You failed to stick to species level analysis, therefore, you did nothing to catch Giliell in an inconsistency.

    When I point this out, I’m not engaging in speciesism.

    next example please.

  134. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @lost in time, #169

    The lack of language, for example, doesn’t effect the capacity for feeling pain,

    And, as I said, you can make that point without appropriating the experience of people with disabilities.

    So we’re in agreement, and you still don’t have a good defense for consistently employing people with disabilities while consistently avoiding comparisons with the proverbial privileged person.

    adopting speciesist rhetoric helps to promote ableism rather than fight against it, because all forms of discrimination are interrelated.

    and I’m Fing begging you to provide specific examples of my speciesist rhetoric.

    If you’re opposed to euthanasia because you believe in the sanctity of human life (but no other kind of life), then you’re promoting an ableist anti-choice ethic.

    True, but then

    a) I’ve not said on this thread that I’m opposed to euthanasia for human beings but pro-killing non-human beings.

    b) though you couldn’t know it, I’m pro-euthanasia.

    c) fuck off, will you? I’m saying over and over that appropriating other people’s experience is bad news. You and CR are making me out to say I don’t know what, but a lot of stuff about being speciesist. Provide examples of things I’ve actually said so that I can get better at being an ethical human being or, once again, fuck off. At least CR cited something I actually said, though it was thoroughly misconstrued.

    Now, again, that may be my fault. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. CR could have said, “Oh, if you wanted to say that, your language here is ineffective. Have you thought about how language X might be better?” Then I would not only not be being overtly speciesist, I could root out hidden speciesism in my language. But CR hasn’t gone that far and you’re just making up crap and saying, “If you …”.

    Well I don’t. And even if I did, you don’t have any evidence.

    Please defend appropriating one group’s experience for the service of another, critique what I’m actually saying and not what you imagine someone (who knows if it’s me?) might believe, or fuck off.

    If you dismiss that analogy simply because you personally don’t think it’s relevant, then you’re discounting her experiences and very likely arguing from a position of privilige.

    But I don’t dismiss that analogy.

    I argue that those analogies are used in the middle of threads about misogyny (or ableism or racism) in ways that derail the original topic.

    In a conversation **about animals** putting the exploitation of animals in the context of other oppressions is very useful.

    In a conversation about sexism, saying, “Hey, have you thought about those cows?” Isn’t using your experience as a cow to deepen our understanding of sexism. It’s derailing a conversation about sexism.

    The original post mentioned branding, which is obviously relevant to mysogyny and speciesism.

    Not the original post in this thread. We can have a different conversation about whether a particular post or comment embodies the derailing I protest.

    Have I once said that a specific post of anyone – besides you and your use of neurotypical, and Hillary Rettig’s hypothetical and anecdotal “vegans” in this thread, not some other thread – is appropriative and derailing or problematic in ways that implicate oppression?

    No?

    Please stop making stuff up!

    I might be happy to agree with you that some post by Hillary was not a derail. I don’t know. I said at the beginning of this that I didn’t read that. I was reading Thunderdome and multiple people (at least two, possibly 3 or 4, I don’t remember right now) decried the problematic dynamic of interrupting conversations about sexism with anti-speciesist arguments. I have seen that dynamic many times, and critiqued it here.

    thus this conversation.

    At no time have I engaged some other thread. I’ve engaged this thread.

  135. Esteleth, statistically significant to p ≤ 0.001 says

    Since the conversation is still around the animal rights issue, I figure I may as well expand on what I said previously that SC was responding to.

    My general stance is as follows:
    (1) The way animals are treated by society is deplorable and there’s no excuse for it. We can and should do better.
    (2) There are clear analogies to be made between the way animals are treated and the way women are treated. These analogies are not idly made, and bear remembering.
    (3) And yet, there are differences between the way animals are treated and the way women are treated: the Venn diagram does not completely overlap. These differences are not irrelevant, and bear remembering.
    (4) It is frequently inappropriate-verging-on-offensive for animal welfare/rights to be brought up in a discussion of sexism, and for feminism to be brought up in a discussion of animal mistreatment. Not always, but frequently.
    (5) That said, many animal welfare/rights organizations use frankly sexist rhetoric and imagery (PETA is a frequent offender, but they’re not alone), and this needs to be called out.
    (6) As causes, feminism and animal-welfare/rights activism could mutually profit from alliances, but neither cause should be co-opted by or subordinated to the other. Sexism should not be used to further animal welfare/rights, and feminists should likewise not be speciesist nor co-opt imagery/rhetoric of animal suffering.
    (7) It should be allowed for feminists to focus on feminism, and for animal-welfare/rights activists to focus on animal welfare/rights. It should be incumbent upon each group to recognize the overlap and be inclusive, but they should not be prevented from having their focus or scolded for it.

    (FWIW, I could make a very similar list with “women,” “sexism,” and “feminism” replaced with “PoC,” “racism,” and “anti-racism.”)

    That’s my general stance. I have zero issue with HR bringing up animal mistreatment as a topic of conversation – my issue is the venue that she chose. While I don’t think that was her intent, it felt like a derail of the “yes, yes, that’s terrible *headpat* now let’s talk about something important” variety.

  136. Esteleth, statistically significant to p ≤ 0.001 says

    Gah. My (5) should note the ways that some feminist orgs use rhetoric about how women are treated “like animals” and other comments that is dismissive of the needs of animals.

    My bad.

  137. says

    Crip Dyke:

    In a conversation about sexism, saying, “Hey, have you thought about those cows?” Isn’t using your experience as a cow to deepen our understanding of sexism. It’s derailing a conversation about sexism.

    Yep. This was all that ever needed to be said, in regard to the original complaint. A derail is a derail, by any other name and all that. Talking about animals and ethics is fine, however, trying to find ways to co-opt a discussion in order to have that talk? Not fine. It’s pretty simple.

  138. consciousness razor says

    I said the group of infants do not constitute a species-level grouping.

    Which is (1) blindingly fucking obvious and (2) irrelevant. Insultingly so, on both counts.

    Giliell said she was doing species level analysis based on the abilities of members of the species.

    She didn’t say she was doing age-group analysis based on the abilities of age groups. These are apples and oranges.

    A “species level analysis.” Right. It’s a little puzzling that the abilities themselves (either when they’re associated with a species or an age group) have no special relevance, despite that being the claim, since what is apparently much more relevant is that there is the human species on the one hand with everything else on the other. It’s kind of odd how that works, isn’t it? Oh well, I guess there’s nothing to argue about with it, is there?

    But seriously, if this isn’t an inconsistency because you tossed the phrase “species level analysis” at me, then I don’t find that even remotely convincing (not least because so far it’s blatantly circular). If you have an actual reason why there’s no inconsistency (pertaining to the substance of the ethical claims, perhaps), rather than more of this lawyery, don’t-even-address-the-substance bullshit, I still haven’t seen it. But I won’t hold my breath.

    Further, the fact that I’m an animal no more implies that I’m not speciesist/anti-animal than the fact that I’m a woman implies that I’m not sexist/anti-woman.

    I said I doubt it, which is not to say that it was (or wasn’t) implied. (Look the fucking word up, if it’s causing you so much trouble.) I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in fact, while trying to suggest a more appropriate term.

    But if you think it’s more helpful to talk about being “pro-animal” or “anti-animal” (when the issue at hand is all about distinguishing between humans and non-human animals), then go right ahead and keep using that confusing term, since this conversation hasn’t been going anywhere for a while. And if you really do want to claim you’re pro-animal or anti-animal or even completely indifferent toward all animals, then I sincerely don’t give a fuck. It doesn’t have a fucking to do with what I meant. Is there anything else I could say about a loaded question like the one in #165?

  139. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And since you care about language: we’re all animals here, so I very much doubt you’re anti-animal.

    the fact that I’m an animal no more implies that I’m not speciesist/anti-animal than the fact that I’m a woman implies that I’m not sexist/anti-woman.

    I said I doubt it, which is not to say that it was (or wasn’t) implied.

    Although I think I have a pretty good handle on “implied”, I read wikipedia anyway, just to see if there’s a way that my usage reasonably can be construed to be wrong.

    One use is,

    a logical connective and binary truth function typically interpreted as “If p, then q”

    Your use:
    We’re all animals here, so (read: therefore) I very much doubt that you’re anti-animal

    This means that you believe the fact of my being an animal (or, perhaps, the fact that I am in a group entirely composed of animals) implies something about the chance I am to be found anti-animal.

    If a change in that chance is represented as Q, and being an animal and/or being one within a group where the entire group is animals is P, then we have:

    If P, then Q.

    There are other ways it could be reframed to also fit. In fact, the reason why “implication” has multiple definitions is that it is easy to rewrite entailment as if p, then q.

    about Giliell doing species level analysis:

    A “species level analysis.” Right. It’s a little puzzling that the abilities themselves (either when they’re associated with a species or an age group) have no special relevance, despite that being the claim, since what is apparently much more relevant is that there is the human species on the one hand with everything else on the other. It’s kind of odd how that works, isn’t it? Oh well, I guess there’s nothing to argue about with it, is there?

    Except, a) the abilities themselves do matter – they just matter as representations of common abilities in the species. The judging is done species by species. The abilities for which Giliell searches stay constant, and are quite relevant to her decision on whether or not it’s ethical to farm an animal.
    b) the person you should be pissed at is Giliell.

    I said at the beginning that I’m frustrated with bad arguments from animal rights activists, not least because I’m sympathetic to the cause. If you don’t see what Giliell is doing, then you can’t convince her of her error.

    If you do see what Giliell is doing but don’t address it, preferring to compare apples to oranges (age groups to species), you **might** be successfully satirizing Giliell’s position, but I certainly didn’t see it that way. If you are not engaging in successful satire (indirectly addressing the argument), then failing to directly address the argument leaves it entirely unaddressed.

    If someone points out that you have not addressed the argument and you jump down their throat about speciesism without providing examples, you’re failing to address the argument and making no friends in the process.

    An adequate criticism of me would be, “If you believe Giliell’s choice of the crucial criterion is far too convenient to have come about without privilege, why don’t you address it?”

    An adequate criticism of me is not that “the group of infants is not a species” is a blindingly obvious statement, especially not when you’re the one who conflated age-grouping and species-grouping in the first place.

    While I started this as a criticism of derailing and appropriation (and btw, I’ve criticized those things on other topics as well, like when I supported carlie’s disgust with annejones but called out one of her tactics), some of the argumentation that came out was also, to my mind, woefully deficient.

    If you’re comfortable with your ability to change minds, pay no attention to me. But I’ve invited you to call me out on speciesism and the best you’ve been able to do is note that

    1) Giliell’s choice of assessment-grouping combined with the crucial behavioral criterion is privilege-convenient,

    and

    2) you are insulted when I state that you have conflated age-grouping with species-grouping.

    So go ahead and call me out on speciesism. Find an example. Of me. Doing speciesism. Or call out Giliell and I’ll read along, maybe I’ll learn something. But your critique of me is misdirected and wrong.

    =============

    I am getting really, really close to done with this, so if I don’t reply to future comments, CR, it’s nothing personal. It’s because I’ve said everything I feel is reasonably productive and then a little bit more.

  140. consciousness razor says

    An adequate criticism of me is not that “the group of infants is not a species” is a blindingly obvious statement, especially not when you’re the one who conflated age-grouping and species-grouping in the first place.

    I did not fucking conflate it, you dishonest fucking shit. That was invented entirely in your fucking mind.

    This is just too bizarre. And I know you’re smarter than this, way more than enough to understand what I’ve been saying, so dishonesty it is. Which I’m not happy about.

    If you’re comfortable with your ability to change minds, pay no attention to me. But I’ve invited you to call me out on speciesism and the best you’ve been able to do is note that

    1) Giliell’s choice of assessment-grouping combined with the crucial behavioral criterion is privilege-convenient,

    I don’t even know what the fuck you think “privilege-convenient” means in this context, but that isn’t anything I’ve noted. Try reading what I actually said first, then maybe quoting it — that way you’re not having both sides of the conversation.

    You think it was a valid argument? Because if you don’t, I couldn’t say why you’ve been defending it like this. So I think that’s on you, not just Giliell. And I think that’s evidence enough.

  141. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    This is just too bizarre. And I know you’re smarter than this, way more than enough to understand what I’ve been saying, so dishonesty it is. Which I’m not happy about.

    No. It’s not dishonesty. And it may be bizarre. I’m sure you think you have communicated something else, and very clearly.

    Maybe I have a mental block, whatever. I don’t care whose fault it is, but I don’t have any reasonable way to understand how you responsded to Giliell other than conflating the two groupings.

    Explain it to me in small words. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. You know that, too.

    Try reading what I actually said first, then maybe quoting it — that way you’re not having both sides of the conversation.

    Wow. Look, maybe what I said isn’t a valid paraphrase, but when you’ve been making me responsible for the language of Giliell, a caution towards care in conversation seems a bit rich.

    What I meant by “privilege convenient” is that despite the process of analysis and the criterion chosen being superficially neutral, the results happen to clearly cut along the axis of power dividing non-human animals from human beings – exactly the axis of power and exploitation under discussion.

    Is that or is that not your critique of Giliell’s statement? I am happy to explain what I mean instead of accusing you of dishonesty when either you ask or when it is apparent to me that I’ve failed to communicate.

    Are you?

  142. lostintime says

    Crip Dyke #171

    The lack of language, for example, doesn’t effect the capacity for feeling pain,

    And, as I said, you can make that point without appropriating the experience of people with disabilities.

    I clicked on the link, and I found this awkward analogy.

    you have such a privileged person [someone who is non-disabled]
    * you use electrodes on the head to interfere with the language-forming regions of the brain so that the person is temporarily unable to form words, even entirely internally as linguistic thoughts

    There’s no need to go to such confusing lengths to make the argument, because there are adults with Aphasia, and there are infants who don’t have language. The fact that a non-disabled person would have to be tortured to make the same point marginalizes and discounts the experiences of people who actually have that condition.

    So we’re in agreement, and you still don’t have a good defense for consistently employing people with disabilities while consistently avoiding comparisons with the proverbial privileged person.

    Animal cruelty is often defended on the grounds that animals lack some characteristic that humans have, such as language, but that can be easily countered by the fact that there are many humans who don’t have those abilities. You could say, confusingly, “what about a person who’s been subjected to electroshock treatment or had part of his brain excised” – but then I would have thought that was more objectionable than mentioning that there are people who don’t have those abilities to begin with, without the invasive medical treatment. Also, that person temporarily or as a result would be impaired, so I don’t understand what the goal would be in such a convoluted example.

    and I’m Fing begging you to provide specific examples of my speciesist rhetoric.

    Your writing style can be confusing at times so it’s hard to tell. Let me give an example of what I’m talking about:

    Giliell’s choice of assessment-grouping combined with the crucial behavioral criterion is privilege-convenient

    I don’t know what that means. It’s also not clear to me if you back Giliell’s ‘species-level analysis’ or not. If you do then you’ve answered your own question.

    …Provide examples of things I’ve actually said so that I can get better at being an ethical human being or, once again, fuck off. At least CR cited something I actually said, though it was thoroughly misconstrued.

    This is an example of speciesism back at 63:

    And finally, and this is what truly cheeses me off, no proponent on these internet discussions says, “We should treat our cows at least as well as we treat white, straight, able-bodied men in the prime of their earning years!” No, the arguers say, “we should treat cows at least as well as we treat [some oppressed group].”

    Able-bodied adults are different from infants, and it would be speciesist not to take those differences into consideration. What all conscious beings have in common is an interest in not suffering, and that’s where their similar interests ought to be counted equally – but to insist that all human beings are the same and demand equal treatment is a form of speciesism

  143. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    to insist that all human beings are the same and demand equal treatment is a form of speciesism

    This is something I’m willing to entertain.

    However, please remember that these statements were in the context of finding ridiculous the idea that **practical equality** was being advocated – pig-babies in bassinets was never on the table from anyone. Therefore, “equal treatment” in this case can’t really be assessing the morality of giving every human being, allergic to peanuts or not, peanuts for lunch. If that’s what you mean by equal treatment, it’s not only speciesist, it’s completely idiotic. I know you’re not idiotic.

    Therefore we’re talking about assignment of moral worth, and equal treatment thereof, meaning assigning exactly equal moral worth to each human being, but being willing to vary in one’s assignment of moral worth for every other thinking being.

    Your argument appears to entirely discount potential – babies’ current abilities determine their moral worth without reference to their potential. I am not saying that all human beings have the same potential, but given that the potential of a child is not easily measurable, I’m willing to presume (absent evidence to the contrary) that any random child’s potential is more or less the same.

    Thus for the vast majority of children, I assign the same moral value. Likewise, for people unknown to me, I cannot assess moral worth individually. I am willing to do so, but I am unable. It seems a greater wrong to me to devalue the valuable person than to elevate the mean person. Therefore, with both children and with unknown persons – obviously even just unknown person would be the vast, vast majority of persons – I presume the same moral worth. While I don’t reject the individual analysis, in practice I typically don’t have the data and must presume high moral worth.

    Likewise, I consider the potential for pigs in considering the moral position of a baby pig. Absent evidence of a good potential-assessment for morally relevant factors in pigs, I will also presume the same moral value for all pigs. Like it or not, I do this in a species-level groupings, and sometimes in groupings wider than that if that is required given my level of knowledge. I tend to be generous with non-human animals since cross-species communication is difficult to say the least. Nonetheless, there’s enough data there for me to conclude that there are, in fact, differences in potential between pig-babies and human babies.

    moreover, I’m truly horrified at the idea of assigning moral status without reference to potential.

    For me this becomes more problematic when you are so reluctant to define which “mental characteristics” are relevant to moral value (so far all you’ve done is take IQ off the table, and that only at my prompting). Depending on the mental characteristics, the moral value of a sleeping human might be less than that of an active cockroach. Unless and until you recognize potential in the equation, and unless and until you specify the “mental characteristics” that provide moral value, your proposition is a non-starter with me.

    You might have thought that my point about retesting prairie dogs for their mental characteristics was absurd, but I feel deeply that basing current moral value on current mental characteristics, which may be quite transitory, is absurd and offensive. Nothing in what you have stated rules out valuing me less when I take cold medicine.

    ==============

    This has been a response to your assertions, and to the idea that I might do species-level analysis. I do. However, it also appears that you do, since you specify “pigs”. To what extent is this speciesist on your part? The value I place on potential justifies treating human children the same (at least, absent specific information limiting potential that would swamp the variation involved in predicting future ability), and I don’t assume that the moral worth of a dolphin is less than that of a human, given that the abilities and potentials of delphinidae are high, but not precisely measured, with the potential error including the possibility of morally relevant characteristics similar to or superior to an average person. Does that make me speciesist (or, more likely, genera-ist)? When does taking animal type – usually species or genera – make analytical sense and when does it constitute speciesism? Got a metric I can use?

    ============

    Finally, I don’t typically use the moral worth of others to judge my actions, save in those rare cases where the benefit to one is specifically in opposition to the benefit to another (I drink from a desert spring and live while killing some number X of microorganisms/ I don’t drink from a desert spring and die of thirst).

    Typically, I want to do no harm to anything of moral worth, living or non-living. I act on my duties, not on others’ values. My duties are general, but limited by my power (if I can’t affect an outcome, I have no moral responsibility for that outcome), and by those times when two or more things of moral value are in direct conflict.

    Since this avoids comparing moral worth until absolutely necessary, does it avoid any of the problems that would generally inhere to my use of species and genera level analyses?

    Or not?

  144. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @lost in time
    I wanted this to be a stand alone comment

    Able-bodied adults are different from infants,

    Why, why, why do you continue to do this? You really think that adults with disabilities are the same as infants? Just because adults with disabilities are (by definition) different from adults without disabilities, that does not mean that the simple statement “adults are different from infants” is no longer true because of the inclusion of people with disabilities.

    you bring disability into the conversation when it’s not necessary, and by your prominent use of certain words at certain times, especially when that becomes a pattern, you imply that there are good reasons to avoid stating “adults with disabilities are different from infants”.

    i invite you to name them or stop fucking doing this. It’s ableism, get it yet?

  145. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Yeah, sorry, Giliell.

    I apologize for the extent to which that has been done. I’ve tried to avoid it as rude and against the blog’s rules, but in so doing I got tagged as if your statement had been mine and some other stuff I don’t really understand with CR. I finally felt the need to respond, but I probably shouldn’t have. I probably should have just taken my lumps from their assumptions.

    Again, sorry.

  146. says

    lostintime:

    Able-bodied adults are different from infants

    Ya know what? Disabled bodied adults are different from infants, too. Stop this rancid ableism right fucking now. It’s obvious you can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag, but even someone as bad at it as you are can manage to argue without such offensive bullshit, such as “adults are different from infants.” See how that works? I suggest you get a fucking clue, and get it damn fast.

  147. Arawhon, a Strawberry Margarita says

    Just as a counter to all the “veganism and vegetarianism are good”, I can’t be one. I become incredibly ill if I don’t regularly have meat, same with one of my best friends. She gets severe anemia from an iron deficiency and the cheapest and best way for her is to have a meal of chicken hearts, I don’t know why I get so sick from not eating meat because a trip to any sort of expert to figure this out is far too expensive. I also can’t afford any of the supposed substitutes since I’m too poor. Veganism and vegetarianism are for those who can afford it, meaning mostly middle class and higher.

    This doesn’t mean I don’t think that livestock should be treated poorly like they are right now in factory farms. I would gladly buy from humanely raised farms if they were cheap enough, but sadly they aren’t. And I agree with the everyone saying that appropriating the struggles of the oppressed to draw an analogy to how animals are treated is shitty behavior.

  148. consciousness razor says

    What I meant by “privilege convenient” is that despite the process of analysis and the criterion chosen being superficially neutral, the results happen to clearly cut along the axis of power dividing non-human animals from human beings – exactly the axis of power and exploitation under discussion.

    No, I don’t think it’s so clear-cut. It’s reasonable to assume that in a lot of cases, but I’d bet many animals can think more than some people give them credit for. They’re probably not capable of deep contemplation about their own mortality, but that doesn’t matter, just their ability to suffer in general (which doesn’t require much thought at all). As I said in my first response to it, those criteria aren’t sufficient, even if you decided to gerrymander the problem into arbitrary little bits, by looking at only one species at a time and only one age group and only one other kind of group, etc. ad nauseum. We’re certainly capable of suffering in ways besides the painful thoughts we have about our own (potential) suffering, so that shouldn’t be disregarded, because it’s real suffering too.

    That’s all before you even get to the speciesism. Like I said, infant human beings are human beings. They do not meet the criteria of an “animal which understands [blah, blah, blah].” So where would we go from there? Does humanity not count as a species which understands death, because it contains counterexamples? Besides infants, even many adults don’t Really Understand™ it, yet I doubt anyone wants to claim it’s therefore okay if those people are farmed for their meat. And we’re talking about stereotypical adults here, not some weird edge case, since dealing in stereotypes is apparently okay when it’s “species level analysis.” Anyway, they wouldn’t claim that not because those happen to be humans and humans are super-duper-special but because it just doesn’t follow: they can suffer in numerous other ways, and that’s we ought to care about, no matter what species or age group or whatever-the-fuck it is. There’s not one whit of conflation or confusion here (not on my part), because I certainly have noticed the distinction which was being made, and I’ve been explaining why it isn’t relevant.

    What I think is getting confused is an animal’s ability to act morally and reciprocate to us, and our ability (some of us) to act morally toward it in the first place. (I’m reminded of your claim that pigs, unlike our abused children when they grow up, won’t launch a war with us. I’m not sure how many warlords were abused children, but I don’t even need to touch that it’s so absurd and off-topic. And there’s Nick Gott’s slippery slope: we should be world-police, constantly intervening to radically change the environment so that non-human animals won’t hurt each other….) I’ll just quote Marx, because this simplifies it about as much as it can be: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” You notice where he put the from and the to? Switching those around isn’t very useful.

    Look, maybe what I said isn’t a valid paraphrase, but when you’ve been making me responsible for the language of Giliell, a caution towards care in conversation seems a bit rich.

    I never made you responsible. I commented on what Giliell said. You jumped in to defend it. Your responses, your responsibility, not mine.

  149. consciousness razor says

    Just as a counter to all the “veganism and vegetarianism are good”, I can’t be one.

    That happens. Should implies can. If you can’t, there’s no use in saying you should.

  150. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Arawhon:

    ending needless suffering is good.

    Ending all suffering is impossible. How are we to prevent a 6-gill shark from eating a squid or salmon?

    So we’re left with how to judge what is “needful” suffering, and I’m perfectly content saying that maintaining one’s health is needful.

    As you say, factory farming isn’t “needful”. I think you and I are in the same boat, as far as I can tell.

  151. says

    Arawhon @ 185, I’m constantly in a quarrel with my doctor because I don’t eat enough meat. I have issues with nutrient metabolism and it’s all gotten tied up with my touchier-than-hell pancreas these days. So, I’ve had to compromise, and I have a bit of meat two or three times a month. So far, it’s kept the pancreas happy, and I’ll do just about anything to avoid acute pancreatitis.

  152. lostintime says

    Caine, you are right that was a careless and insensitive sentence. It should have read “adults are different from infants…” I’ll take a break, but thank you, Crip Dyke, for the discussion.

  153. A. Noyd says

    Arawhon (#185)

    I don’t know why I get so sick from not eating meat because a trip to any sort of expert to figure this out is far too expensive. I also can’t afford any of the supposed substitutes since I’m too poor.

    I like a lot of vegetarian foods, but sometimes I have trouble digesting vegetarian protein sources. I’m upper-middle class, but it’s not something I want to spend loads of money trying to figure out when there’s no guarantee of an answer and it’s easily solved by regularly eating meat.

  154. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I’m upper-middle class, but it’s not something I want to spend loads of money trying to figure out

    I’ve had a middle class programming job in the past. My first taste of beer tasted yucky. I was told to just drink a lot of beer and eventually
    1) my tastes would change
    or
    2) I would find a beer that suited my tastes.

    Spending a bunch of money on things I don’t like so that eventually I might like it and have one more thing on which I want to spend money?

    Wow. No thanks.

    Sounds very similar to your statement, save replace “don’t like” with “makes me sick” and “might like it” with “find a vegan source that doesn’t make me sick”

  155. says

    Crip Dyke @ 196, please use a nym or a comment number when replying. It simplifies trying to figure out who you’re replying to, and as a monitor, it sets a good example. Thanks.

    Sounds very similar to your statement, save replace “don’t like” with “makes me sick” and “might like it” with “find a vegan source that doesn’t make me sick”

    This sort of snobby food policing is really unpleasant. As I mentioned upthread, I’m one of those people who has medical issues which means I need to include meat in my diet. It doesn’t take a boatload of empathy to figure out that testing different things out can have bad results and cause a considerable amount of pain for some people. You might have considered asking A. Noyd for more clarification first.

  156. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Caine, #198
    Whoa, whoa, whoa, Caine!

    Maybe I expressed myself badly.

    Although my example was based on taste, I was empathizing with A Noyd, and had a similar reaction when someone told me to spend a bunch of money to maybe, someday, find something that works for me.

    Mine was beverages and preference-based, but the condescending advice was similar. I was actually trying to emphasize that the consequences for A Noyd were more severe than for me to make it clear I wasn’t trying to say the experience was equivalent, just sufficiently similar to trigger my empathy.

    Does that help? Really, I intended nothing like food policing. I was endorsing the right of resistance to people telling us that we “should” spend a bunch of money buying a bunch of stuff that they would like us to like.

    Sorry about any confusion.

  157. A. Noyd says

    @Crip Dyke
    I read your comment as supportive. :)

    I have issues with the taste of (most) beer, too. Especially ones with hops and other bitterness-creating ingredients. I did manage to find a beer I liked a few years ago, but I discovered it on a tour of various Denver breweries and it’s not sold where I live. So, fat lot of good finding it did me in the end. (Also, my tastes have changed—to be less and less tolerant of bitterness!)

  158. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @A Noyd, 200

    Glad they came across that way.

    It wasn’t until 5 minutes ago that I had a brainstorm about what made Caine respond the way she did – maybe I never said that I didn’t take the advice. Then I looked in here, and I did say, ‘Wow, no thanks.’ So, I’m still confused, but obviously I wasn’t clear enough.

    But I feel fortunate that you read me the right way.

  159. magistramarla says

    This is an actual comment from a reader in my local paper (Texas, of course) in a discussion about the ACA. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
    Dodie_Lee

    8:21 PM on September 23, 2013

    The law needs to find out who is giving out information on how to get Obamacare and haul them off to jail in chains. These people don’t need to know about such things, and telling them about it will just encourage them to go after our tax dollars that we Texas Christians would prefer to be used for the things that matter most, such as sealing up the border with Mexico to keep the illegal aliens out; protecting our right to bear arms and stand our ground; keeping trashy, undesirable people locked up in penitentiaries; ridding our state of dope, alcohol, dancing, and pornography; stopping voter fraud; returning Christian prayer to schoolhouses; and electing only Christian leaders to our government offices. There’s just not enough money to do all those things and take care of lazy, shiftless people too. All welfare, grocery stamps, free insurance, CHIP, unemployment, college financial aid, and charity needs to be cut off immediately, so that we can take care of more important things.
    Also, here’s the link in case anyone wants to go have some fun with it:
    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/School-districts-plan-to-get-Obamacare-info-to-4836546.php
    What do you think, Horde?

  160. Howard Bannister says

    @202

    This guy seems extremely hateful. But really confused, at the same time.

    …we Texas Christians… [snip]All welfare, grocery stamps, free insurance, CHIP, unemployment, college financial aid, and charity needs to be cut off immediately, so that we can take care of more important things.

    See, most Christians at least recognize that they need to pretend to care about the things Jesus said were the most important things of all. Yanno, charity, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. They’ll just lie and say they think it’s the place of private charity. (which is really code for ‘please let me starve people who don’t meet my arbitrary morality tests) This guy has dropped the pretense to have anything to do with that wild-eyed hippie Jesus.

    Maybe this isn’t confusion. Maybe this is just more honesty than most of the religious right shows.

  161. burgundy says

    @magistramarla 202:
    Poe’s Law in action. it might be tongue-in-cheek… but then again it might not. I’m not having a great morning, so I’m just going to go with the satirical option because it makes me feel better.

    Re: food policing – I feel pretty strongly about this. I’ve been vegetarian for 10 years. I will explain my reasons if asked, I will discuss animal cognition or the environmental effects of large-scale meat production or the treatment of animals in the meat industry. But on an individual, person-to-person basis, I will not, uninvited, tell people what or what not to eat. (Exceptions for things like “I know you’re vegan, so I should tell you those potato things have cheese in them.”)

    I’m very vehemently pro-choice, because I prioritize bodily autonomy. What we choose to ingest, what we put in our bodies to sustain our bodies, is an intensely personal and intimate decision. And I just don’t feel okay with the idea of meddling in someone else’s food choices. (On top of which, the ethics of food production and consumption are complicated, especially if you factor in environmental effects, treatment of agricultural workers, impacts on the economies of food-producing areas, etc. I can’t claim any sort of moral high ground in this area, just because I’ve chosen not to eat meat.)

  162. says

    It still is! Racism and sexism are pseudoscientific, they need to be addressed critically, and debunked as false.
    The only thing that’s happened is that I’m goring your sacred cow.

    What? Your first two sentences provide your answer to my question. But the third is absurd. I simply asked why the focus of Pharyngula has changed. The fact that I asked this question gives you sufficient evidence to conclude that I am a racist or a sexist or both? Really?

    The reason people are telling you to fuck off is that it’s actually pretty godsdamned motherfucking EASY to figure out how science and skepticism relate to the pseudosciences of racism and misogyny, therefore it’s a pretty safe assumption that someone professing not to get this really fucking obvious thing are racists/sexists JAQing off.

    Whiner.

  163. says

    Re sciencenotsuperstition

    My objection to their comment was more basic. Complaining to bloggers that they’re not blogging about what you want them to blog about is fucking rude.

  164. says

    Daz:

    Re sciencenotsuperstition

    My objection to their comment was more basic. Complaining to bloggers that they’re not blogging about what you want them to blog about is fucking rude.

    Yes, it is. It seems complaining is sciencenotsuperstition’s metier, given the two complaints sent to the monitors. :eyeroll:

    :goes back to cursing the godsdamned piece of shit wireless:

  165. says

    Complaining to bloggers that they’re not blogging about what you want them to blog about is fucking rude.

    Another thing that is SO bloody obvious that it’s TOTALLY worth it and justified to immediately tell someone making such an idiotic complaint to fuck the fuck off.

  166. says

    goes back to cursing the godsdamned piece of shit wireless

    I’ll swap it for this piece of crap monitor, which takes anything up to twenty minutes to turn on and actually display anything.

  167. consciousness razor says

    I’ll swap it for this piece of crap monitor, which takes anything up to twenty minutes to turn on and actually display anything.

    Understandable. It takes time for the hamsters to wake up, make some coffee, then get started with the workday.

  168. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    It takes time for the hamsters to wake up, make some coffee, then get started with the workday.

    Pffft! informs me that hamsters are, if not nocturnal, at the very least crepuscular.

    *squee for “crepuscular”*

    Daz, are you turning the monitor at the right time of day evening?

  169. says

    … which might have been vaguely funny, if you’d said they were diurnal. And which probably means I’m not thinking straight, and should be in my own bed. G’night all.

  170. says

    For SC, hillaryrettig, lostintime and anyone elsedefending nonhuman rights:

    I almost never comment around here anymore, largely because debates like this are too draining for me, but I wanted to let you all know that your efforts are not unappreciated. People like you are the reason I made the most significant change in the last two years of my life – becoming vegan. No other single act has ever had a more positive impact on my life.

    Thank you all.

    /relurk

    Thank you so much. No single act has had a more positive impact on my life, either.

    ***

    @SC
    I’d be interested in what your position is on “animal rights” or reducing animal suffering, or whatever is the appropriate label.

    Others have mentioned that I have a blog. My general advice is

    Stop typing.

    Not in general, but on this subject. Stop talking for a while, at least until you’ve made a genuine effort to engage with what some intelligent and decent people have written on the subject. (I’ve linked to a few @ #19 above, and would be happy to provide more.)

    This is consistent with the expectation that people making sexist and misogynistic arguments here read various sources before they continue.

    ***

    I think people are forgetting that both HR and SC dropped comments about animal treatment in threads dealing with misogyny and sexism, which is why Crip Dyke made the comparison in the first place, where there’s a tendency to co-opt the experiences of women in favour of animals, which is why several of us got a whiff of what about the men cows. Just wanting the context to stay in place here.

    Caine, this is garbage. My comment was in a thread about a post concerning a woman being branded, which was titled “Like cattle.” It’s a sign of how twisted our culture is that the title and theme of the post and thread weren’t seen as problematic, but my comment about the entwined systems/ideologies of oppression was viewed as offensive. Imagine the title “Like coolies” or a reference to another oppressed human group with similar responses.

    And seek out information about, for example, dairy cows, their reproduction, and their children. I’ve given references above to analyses of these connected oppressions. You don’t have to read them, but don’t pretend they’re invisible.

  171. says

    where there’s a tendency to co-opt the experiences of women in favour of animals, which is why several of us got a whiff of what about the…cows.

    Right, Caine. That’s what I’m all about, as you’ve no doubt seen. Coopting the experiences of women in favor of the dominant…cows.

    You should be embarrassed by this. Seriously.

  172. chigau (違う) says

    Caine #205

    My wireless is basically non-functional today, so I won’t be around until it decides to fucking work again.

  173. says

    Does anyone know what the fuck’s going on with the Rock Beyond Belief crew? One of them left a vomitous pile of word salad over on the Bill Nye dancing thread (mostly half-digested and regurgitated Insalata Stefanelli, by the look of it). A month or so ago I got a bunch of referrers from a pretty similar source over at patheos which made scarcely any more sense than this. It’s more anti-feminist anti-FTB backlash to be sure, but the incoherent hyperbole is stunningly disconnected from the reality of what discourse has been like here over the past few years.

  174. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    SC –

    And seek out information about, for example, dairy cows, their reproduction, and their children.

    To hell with that propaganda bullshit. Dairy calves are not “children”.

    Your illegitimate tactics make me sick.

  175. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @SC

    I appreciate that you’d like me to back off and read for a while. But I’d appreciate a critique of exactly what I’ve done wrong in this thread. Very few are on offer, and the major one appears to be that i called out consciousness razor for conflating species-grouping with age-grouping. CR’s rejoinder seems to be that CR wasn’t thinking that the comparison was being made, because CR was simply ignoring the distinction as irrelevant. Okay, but that doesn’t make oppressive pointing out what I thought to be sloppy argument.

    In the meantime, my primary critique has been that animal rights advocates I have known, when specifically attempting to argue for a different and better relationship to non-human animals, frequently casually reproduce assumptions that are oppressive and offensive as F. Sure enough, along comes lost in time to draw unnecessary distinctions between people with and without disabilities in ways that are horribly ableist. To lost in time’s credit, lost eventually bowed out of the conversation to think about that.

    I would like to have the chance to have as noble an exit as lost in time. Please, I am asking respectfully, point out something here that I’ve done that replicates oppression and/or exploitation. Then I can think about it and grow. A link to a 200+ page book isn’t going to help, because

    1) I’ve already read a good deal on the topic

    2) I don’t need to be convinced to change my eating, which is a lot of what the writing targets.

    So, I’m asking respectfully, what is/are the problem/s with specific things I’ve stated.

    or just name the things I’ve stated and provide a link to something that addresses that type of statement.

  176. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Xanthe, 228

    I don’t know anything about RBB, but I’ll look up the comment.

  177. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Xanthe, 228

    Well, it looks like PZ has been aware of it for a while now, and has responded twice. Nothing monitor-ish for me to do then. As for general trashing of arguments, seems like a number have taken Paul Loebe on. No need for me as a commenter either.

    If you’d just like to find out why RBB is going in the direction of Misogynyville, I couldn’t tell ya, and I don’t want to spend the time to find out.

    Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.

  178. says

    No need to apologise, if anything I should make apology for not being clearer that I wasn’t asking a monitor for attention, it was mainly to satisfy my curiosity if any of the Horde could speak knowledgeably by virtue of being better acquainted with RBB goings-on. I don’t remember if I ever posted on the blog when it was here at FTB, but I suspect not. The language being used over there such as ‘matriarchal deity’, ‘determined to be criminals of a thought crime’, ‘whatever kool-aid you’ve been sipping’, ‘pushing an extremist ideology’ has some of the usual ‘FfTB’ clichés.

  179. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I hadn’t even noticed that they were gone from FtB. I never had anything against them (until now, assuming that you’re correct that Paul Loebe is centrally involved in RBB), but I’m a pacifist who has nothing really to do with the military. Of course I want members of the military to be treated justly, but I’m completely ignorant of the military and its culture. I couldn’t possibly be an effective advocate on those issues. So I put my time and attention where I’m more likely to do some good. Thus I (almost) never read them. Maybe 3 or 4 times? So, y’know, I’m not in distress they’re gone.

    I am disconcerted that one of them is douchegabbing, but no more for it being done on this site than if it was any other corner of the internet.

  180. says

    Xanthe

    Does anyone know what the fuck’s going on with the Rock Beyond Belief crew? One of them left a vomitous pile of word salad over on the Bill Nye dancing thread (mostly half-digested and regurgitated Insalata Stefanelli, by the look of it

    I think they have gone pretty much down the Stefanelli route plus some added militarist authoritarianism (IIRC Loebe once told somebody he’s not going to take the opinion of any civilist (I think there was a sexist slur thrown in for good meassure)).
    And JG is still not over the fact that nobody hunted Greg Laden with torches and pitchforks and merely kicked him off the network.

  181. says

    When RBB was still here, and Justin Griffith was having his frequent childish meltdowns, he brought in Paul Loebe as a co-blogger, in the same way I brought in Chris Clarke here (this is a loophole we ought to maybe worry about — co-bloggers aren’t vetted at all by FtB, while new bloggers are now scrutinized pretty carefully.) I don’t think I ever said a word about him.

    After they left for Patheos, he unloaded a couple of hate rants at me — as I said, we’d never interacted at all before, but apparently he was accumulating points on his rage bar, silently — and now he’s gone all “Wah, FtBullies!” Like Griffith, I think he’s just a cranky man-child.

  182. lostintime says

    SC #220 –

    My comment was in a thread about a post concerning a woman being branded, which was titled “Like cattle.”

    The connection is obvious, and the point is that women are treated not even like animals, but like ‘pieces of meat’, which is the absent referent. If women had been dressed in carcasses, would that have been a strong enough connection to mention the sexual politics of meat, or would that also be ‘co-opting their experience’ to shore up other causes? It seems that discussions about intersectionality itself are in danger of being shut down – which is something that needs to be addressed.

  183. consciousness razor says

    Very few are on offer, and the major one appears to be that i called out consciousness razor for conflating species-grouping with age-grouping. CR’s rejoinder seems to be that CR wasn’t thinking that the comparison was being made, because CR was simply ignoring the distinction as irrelevant.

    Which is not a conflation, hence that is not what I did, thus it was wrong to be “called out” for doing what I didn’t do. But inaccurately describing what I was doing is nowhere near the “major” thing which you’ve gotten wrong in this thread. It’s certainly not the only thing I’ve pointed out (e.g., here and here, and embedded in later comments also addressing the “conflation”), which itself doesn’t exhaust all of the wrongness scattered around that I skipped over (my SIWOTI has limits after all). And even if there were just a “few” mistakes, they are nevertheless mistakes which you should try to address. You can fix that yourself if you’re more concerned about it than continuing a Gish gallop.

    Okay, but that doesn’t make oppressive pointing out what I thought to be sloppy argument.

    Using sloppy arguments yourself to do that may not be oppressive, but that is beside the point. Other than myself (since I could’ve missed some context), lostintime has also explained why their position was being strawmanned. Some problematic statements were indeed retracted, while others were denied outright because they were misinterpreted or because they don’t have the implications you thought they did. Yet you still don’t acknowledge that after this whole clusterfuck. You’re just stuck on hammering home the point that animal-rights people say bad, oppressive things, even after that’s been addressed.* So what is supposed to be left, which is on offer from you?

    *For the sake of clarity: some will keep saying oppressive things, and they should be countered. But that is outside the scope of this thread. Please don’t interpret it as me claiming they’ve all somehow been “addressed” preemptively.

  184. says

    To hell with that propaganda bullshit. Dairy calves are not “children”.

    There’s no such thing as a “dairy calf.” No animal, human or nonhuman is the purpose for which she or he is exploited.*

    ***

    I appreciate that you’d like me to back off and read for a while. But I’d appreciate a critique of exactly what I’ve done wrong in this thread.

    The people with whom you’re arguing are perfectly capable of addressing the specific problems with your arguments. For an idea of my general critique, substitute “feminists I have known” or “women’s rights advocates I have known” for “animal rights advocates I have known.”

    ***

    *In case you don’t want to visit that link, I’ll quote just a bit:

    …•Usually just within hours of birth, calves are taken away from their mothers. Calves can become so distressed from separation that they become sick, lose weight from not eating, and cry so much that their throats become raw.

    •Because male calves will not grow up to produce milk, they are considered of little value to the dairy farmer and are sold for meat. Millions of these calves are taken away to be raised for beef. Hundreds of thousands of other male calves born into the dairy industry are raised for veal. Many people consider veal to be cruel, but they don’t realize that veal production is a product of the dairy industry….

  185. says

    SC

    And by the way, your “Monitor” comment there declaring that any discussion of the topic should be moved here was outrageous, as was PZ’s authorizing you and others to make those decisions.

    What is “outrageous” about asking someone not to derail a thread? No one is being denied a place to speak about animal rights and/or animal welfare. You can talk about them on this thread (which would, I’d suggest, be more productive than using the space to complain about not being given the chance to talk about them elsewhere). You can talk about them on other blogs. You can talk about them on your own blog.

    All you’re being asked to do is not interrupt discussion of other matters on threads specifically devoted to those other matters.

  186. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Consciousness Razor:

    Using sloppy arguments yourself to do that may not be oppressive, but that is beside the point.

    It’s not beside the point. I’m being called oppressive to animals, speciesist to use the term.

    Getting what you’re saying wrong is not speciesist. It’s me misunderstanding you. What I want is a critique that backs up the accusation I’m being speciesist.

    Likewise, in #69 what you’re saying is that it’s a strawman to say that animal rights activists use the “at least as well as” formulation. But I’ve heard it many times. I have made no assertions that this is X% of all animal rights arguments or occurs in Y% of all animal rights conversations. So there’s no strawman. But even if there was, that would be me misunderstanding the arguments of the activists, not being speciesist.

    For the record, the major relevant hunk from #69 is this:

    I also don’t think anyone should be treated like “white, able-bodied, straight men who are citizens of a wealthy society in which they reside and are in the prime of their money-earning years.” Full fucking stop. Because they are not simply treated well; they’re treated like fucking slave-masters. The implication ought to be that no one should be a slave-master and that we should be fair, treating everyone based on respect for what is best for their own their personal welfare, based on differences in their abilities to suffer, due to differences in their situations and individual constitutions.

    So, great. You don’t think this. Let’s assume you also never accidentally/carelessly use the formulation that I find problematic. That means you are not contributing to the problem, not that the problem could not possibly exist and I must be strawmanning.

    But again, if I were strawmanning specifically to undermine an animal rights argument, that would be speciesist according to any fair definition of the term. However, there are intra-movement critiques all the time. Feminists are notorious for our disagreements. That doesn’t mean that one set of feminists is sexist because they dislike the arguments of another set of feminists, not even if, as happened repeatedly in the sex wars of the 80s and very early 90s, in the process of critiquing other feminists’ words, a feminist gets those words wrong.

    In your other example of me getting things wrong, you point out that one could want animals to be treated better than some marginalized group is **currently** treated, but not better than the same person hopes that that marginalized group is treated in the future.

    This is absolutely true. Perhaps you misunderstood my argument – either from my incompetence in making it or from other reasons – but your interpretation requires the addition of information not there in my example of rhetoric I have heard. I have heard (many times) animal rights activists say that they want X non-human animals treated “at least as well as” Y marginalized group of humans. This statement is not limited in time. There is no certainty that the standard offered is frozen in time to something like, “at least as well as Y marginalized group is treated right now.”

    That’s a reasonable inference, but it requires adding content to the animal rights argument. I’m perfectly happy to concede that this last argument with the specific time frame is not problematic in the manner about which I’m concerned. It seems you give those activists the benefit of the doubt.

    I don’t.

    I don’t for a number of reasons, not least that I have heard many – lost in time being one – practically screaming that they are anti-oppression of human beings while making the exact sorts of mistakes that ultimately led lost in time to take a break from this conversation, conceding (to lost in time’s credit) that these were mistakes that furthered oppression.

    But again, even if you were correct in your 90 that it is unreasonable of me to find fault with the formulation I critiqued, that would be me attempting to do good anti-oppression work, but not giving a reasonable amount of credit to the good intentions of the activists in question.

    Human activists.

    I fail to see how this is speciesist.

    I am not asking for information about things you think I got wrong. I’ve heard those and considered them. But you and lost in time have been saying I’m speciesist.

    I’d very much like that backed up. Even if you think I’ve made many, many logical errors, logical errors and speciesism are far from the same thing.

    If you won’t back it up with quotes and a reasonable attempt at explanation (if I don’t understand it, that’s not your fault), you should retract it. I don’t like being charged with oppression when your most frequent complaints have been around me misunderstanding what you were doing with age-groupings & species-groupings and around me not knowing the definition of imply.

    Neither comes close to speciesism. It’s more than fair that I ask you to back it up or retract it.

  187. says

    “Rat Park”: Architecture, drugs & rats … what more could one ask for?

    We generally get the impression from studies of the effects of drugs, such as heroin, that they are highly addictive. This impression is reinforced by science:

    If a monkey is provided with a lever, which he can press to self-inject heroin, he establishes a regular pattern of heroin use–a true addiction–that takes priority over the normal activities of his life…Since this behaviour is seen in several other animal species (primarily rats), I have to infer that if heroin were easily available to everyone, and if there were no social pressure of any kind to discourage heroin use, a very large number of people would become heroin addicts. (Goldstein, 1979, 342).

    But is this really the case? Instead of keeping the subject rats in appalling conditions, a similar experiment was conducted, but this time keeping the rats in ideal environments. The results indicate something completely different. It is the environment that causes these problems with drugs, not the “addictiveness” of the drugs themselves.

    … I built the most natural environment for rats that we could contrive in the laboratory. “Rat Park”, as it came to be called, was airy and spacious, with about 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. It was also scenic, (with a peaceful British Columbia forest painted on the plywood walls), comfortable (with empty tins, wood scraps, and other desiderata strewn about on the floor), and sociable (with 16-20 rats of both sexes in residence at once).

    [The drug experiments] … all of which indicated that rats living in Rat Park had little appetite for morphine… Nothing that we tried instilled a strong appetite for morphine or produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment.

    If this is the case, the “War on Drugs” can only be won through creating humane built- and social environments.


    Citation:
    The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction
    by Bruce K. Alexander

  188. says

    What is “outrageous” about asking someone not to derail a thread?

    It was not a derail. The connection was made in the title of the post and the story itself – about a woman being branded – made it clear. My comment was about the connection between the two oppressions. I provided a link to some reading suggestions above, but, really, I don’t think anyone has to do outside reading to appreciate that how a culture views other animals – in this case, as property – might have some relationship to people’s views about humans. Once again, this very obvious connection was made in the title of the post.

    Recently, in the thread accompanying a post about misogyny and micro and macroevolution, Caine expressed displeasure that some people were having a discussion (an informative one, in my view) about the aspects of the post not related to misogyny. It was silly. Giving this group of people the power to police threads in such a way as to conform to their narrow definitions of a topic was a mistake.

    Gah. I think I’ll try to go back to not commenting here.

  189. consciousness razor says

    So, great. You don’t think this.

    Yet it’s implied you do. Because you expected an animal-rights advocate to claim they should be treated as well as “white, able-bodied, straight men….”, as if their privilege is something that everyone should have rather than something that ought to be demolished.

    Let’s assume you also never accidentally/carelessly use the formulation that I find problematic. That means you are not contributing to the problem, not that the problem could not possibly exist and I must be strawmanning.

    As lostintime explained, it’s also a strawman in their case. I’m happy to grant that’s possible, but who exactly are you arguing with?

    This is absolutely true. Perhaps you misunderstood my argument – either from my incompetence in making it or from other reasons – but your interpretation requires the addition of information not there in my example of rhetoric I have heard.

    Heard when and where? What does that have to do with this thread?

    That’s a reasonable inference, but it requires adding content to the animal rights argument. I’m perfectly happy to concede that this last argument with the specific time frame is not problematic in the manner about which I’m concerned. It seems you give those activists the benefit of the doubt.

    I don’t.

    It’s just the principle of charity. You generally ought to assume the most reasonable and most ethical interpretations of people’s statements, not the least reasonable and least ethical ones. If they’ve otherwise demonstrated they’re not arguing in good faith, or not being reasonable or ethical, that’s of course a different story. Simply being an animal rights activist is not itself a demonstration of that. Hearing other animal rights activists saying similar things (and meaning something oppressive) is not a demonstration either.

    I fail to see how this is speciesist.

    I haven’t claimed that is speciesist. I’ve used that term (speciesism) all of twice in this entire thread: #158 and #168. You can see exactly what my reason was for using it.

  190. says

    SC

    It was not a derail. The connection was made in the title of the post and the story itself – about a woman being branded – made it clear. …

    So, because the phrase “genital mutilation” might well be used in an OP discussing misogyny, you would be happy for someone to insist that male circumcision be discussed? Because that’s what you did. You took a common, and apt, turn of phrase, and used it to attempt to shoehorn your own topic into the conversation.

    Recently, in the thread accompanying a post about misogyny and micro and macroevolution, Caine expressed displeasure that some people were having a discussion (an informative one, in my view) about the aspects of the post not related to misogyny. It was silly. Giving this group of people the power to police threads in such a way as to conform to their narrow definitions of a topic was a mistake.

    And you link to a comment in which Caine expresses a personal opinion. After which several of the participants thank her for pointing out their topic-drift. If that’s the best example you have of “this group of people’s” failure to live up to your exacting standards; well colour me unimpressed.

  191. lostintime says

    Crip Dyke #241. I continue to disagree with the claim that comparing human and animal interests is intrinsically wrong, although I’ve conceded that the wording and examples used were problematic. The basic point is that I think we ought to treat like interests equally, and as a corollary it’s true to say that not all human beings have the same interests. The fact that babies and animals have similar interests underscores to me the seriousness of animal suffering. If you think I’ve made a category error, or that interests aren’t all that matters, then that could be scope for further discussion at some point, but I still regard AMC as basically the most helpful way of thinking about non-human animals and their moral status.

  192. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I continue to disagree with the claim that comparing human and animal interests is intrinsically wrong, although I’ve conceded that the wording and examples used were problematic.

    Then we are in precise agreement on these points.

    Glad to hear it.

  193. says

    Chigau

    But I’d want a nice uniform.

    Mine turned up up the post this morning. Personally, I’d never considered purple velvet with spangly gold trimmings before…

  194. says

    So, because the phrase “genital mutilation” might well be used in an OP discussing misogyny, you would be happy for someone to insist that male circumcision be discussed? Because that’s what you did. You took a common, and apt, turn of phrase, and used it to attempt to shoehorn your own topic into the conversation.

    This is obtuse. The apt analogy would be if there were a discussion of a boy’s genitals being mutilated in a society that practices FGM, and someone posted about it with the title “Like a girl,” implying that it’s wrong to treat boys the way girls are naturally treated. Or a thread about a gay man being treated “Like a bitch.”

    My comment was as much about the oppression of women as it was about the oppression of cows. It concerned how these form parts of the same system and ideology. To understand an counter one, you have to understand and counter the other.

    And you link to a comment in which Caine expresses a personal opinion.

    In the context of discussing other occasions on which she’s used her authority as a monitor to tell people to take a discussion elsewhere. People reading will have no idea whether she or an other monitor is just going to express their personal annoyance or is going to stop the discussion on that thread. It leads to people not wanting to bother. It’s a problem. On that thread Chas could tell her to just fuck off, and people could continue the discussion, but that’s not always the case. It’s PZ’s decision to make, but I’m expressing my personal opinion that it was a bad one.

    After which several of the participants thank her for pointing out their topic-drift.

    And that was ridiculous. It was not topic drift. It was one of the subjects of the post, and it was an educational discussion to many people. No one was stopping anyone from talking about the misogyny. They just had something to say about the other topic.

  195. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousnesss razor, 244

    lost in time used the term speciesism in relationship to me. I didn’t just use speciesism, if you read what I wrote, I said I stood accused of being “oppressive to animals” and then applied the word speciesism to that. All you did was write things like the following, from your 158:

    Or if someone makes a big deal out of race and says lots of shit supporting racism, then denies being racist (because I guess they think that means putting on a white hood and burning crosses while giving a Nazi salute), how seriously should anyone take their denial?

    Yeah, that’s not an overt statement that you don’t believe I’m supporting the oppression of animals at all. There’s no reasonable way to infer from that that you think that comparison, in a comment directed at me, should have been taken as anything other than a hypothetical apropos of nothing.

    Grilled Cheezus, CR, what do you take me for?

    back to your 244:

    your interpretation requires the addition of information not there in my example of rhetoric I have heard.

    Heard when and where? What does that have to do with this thread?

    What does it have to do with this thread?

    This is fucking thunderdome! Are you joking?

    Some people mentioned that they felt a “what about the cows” situation had cropped up here, and I, **as appropriate to Thunderdome** related problems I myself have had with animal rights rhetoric.

    As for heard when and where – even if I told you, it would still be my word. You either believe me that this type of problematic rhetoric is sometimes used and that I have actually heard it before, or you don’t.

    Me, personally, I think “what does that have to do with this thread” since I originated the discussion by talking about it…I didn’t hear lostintime say X and then say, “gosh you sound like Y”. I brought it up. On my own. Because I wanted to.

    You’ve really got a problem with that on Thunderdome? I’m fucking done. You compare me to someone who defends the white hoods but won’t wear one, then deny you’ve accused me of oppressive behavior. You want to police what topics I can and can’t bring up on TD.

    I’m fucking done.

    I’d still like the retraction since now it seems my behavior is so far from oppressive to animals that you deny even your own actions insinuating just that, but I am not responding on this topic again. “I didn’t use speciesism” was bad enough. Topic policing on TD is as bad faith as it gets.

  196. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    SC –

    To hell with that propaganda bullshit. Dairy calves are not “children”.

    There’s no such thing as a “dairy calf.” No animal, human or nonhuman is the purpose for which she or he is exploited.*

    Fuck off SC. Fuck your bullshit nitpick about “dairy”, when you’re the dissembler who tries to get away with your propaganda that calves are “children”.

    You’re as underhanded as the anti-choicers who call fetuses “babies” and “unborn children” in their attempt to sway people’s emotional reaction. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    It matters not one bit that I call them “dairy” calves or “free-range” calves or just plain calves; what matters is that you illegitimately call them “children”.

    Stop that.

  197. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @sc

    People reading will have no idea whether she or an other monitor is just going to express their personal annoyance or is going to stop the discussion on that thread. It leads to people not wanting to bother.

    I can see your point, and it can be discussed among the monitors, but we have instituted “monitor notes” for when we are speaking as monitors, and further, I think you misunderstand monitors.

    To quote from the new commenting rules:

    Pharyngula has a strong core of regular commenters, but they are expected to obey the rules, too. Don’t hesitate to keep them in line.
    Monitors have no special powers or privileges, other than that they can send me reports of infractions directly. Hold them to higher standards, too.

    PZ is still the dictator. All we can do is try to persuade and/or send an e-mail to PZ that he checks regularly (since his other e-mail easily gets swamped and can take hours to days to get to).

    If PZ likes what you’re doing, Caine’s opinion counts for squat.
    If PZ doesn’t like what you’re doing, Caine’s opinion counts for squat.

    Again, I concede that it can **feel** like a threat to have monitors say those things, but your only threat is from PZ, and that threat is there whether a monitor says anything or not.

    We will likely further discuss – or at least I will try to further discuss – the best ways to prevent accidental intimidation.

  198. says

    SC

    The apt analogy would be if there were a discussion of a boy’s genitals being mutilated in a society that practices FGM, and someone posted about it with the title “Like a girl,” implying that it’s wrong to treat boys the way girls are naturally treated.

    It is wrong to treat people the way cattle are treated, yes? Whether or not it is wrong to treat cattle the way cattle are treated is a different topic.

    People reading will have no idea whether she or an other monitor is just going to express their personal annoyance or is going to stop the discussion on that thread.

    Yet oddly, every single time I’ve seen a monitor make a comment as a monitor, we’ve added a big, bold

    Monitor Note

    to the comment. This is not difficult to spot.

    It’s PZ’s decision to make, but I’m expressing my personal opinion that it was a bad one.

    Has anyone said you don’t have the right to do so? I’m merely expressing my personal opinion that you’re wrong.

    It was not topic drift. It was one of the subjects of the post

    I actually agree, provided the misogyny didn’t get completely forgotten. This does not mean that Caine does not have the right to express her opinion, regardless of whether you or I agree with her.

  199. Dhorvath, OM says

    It couldn’t be that monitors have a different standard to adhere to when participating here. Oh, wait, they do. Higher even. So when concern is noted, it might be nice not to be dismissed. SC is not alone in being uncomfortable with the new dynamic.

  200. says

    I’m stepping back from this for an hour or two. Being othered as a member of “that group of people” has, I admit, clouded my ability to look at this calmly. If I’ve been OTT since then in any way, I apologise.

  201. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Mine was missing the pelvic ‘Brownian’ flap. Still waiting for a uniform that I can wear to the orgy.

  202. consciousness razor says

    Yeah, that’s not an overt statement that you don’t believe I’m supporting the oppression of animals at all.

    How could you be confused about this? Let me say it as overtly as possible: I think you have said things which are speciesist. That doesn’t mean anything and everything I criticized you for is an example of speciesism. So don’t bother dredging up all of those other things and expect me to explain how they’re speciesism too, when I didn’t claim that about those specific things.

    Some people mentioned that they felt a “what about the cows” situation had cropped up here, and I, **as appropriate to Thunderdome** related problems I myself have had with animal rights rhetoric.

    But as has been noted, cows are not like Menz™, so the similarity of the situations break down immediately from the perspective you yourself are bringing to it of an intersectional privilege/oppression axis. I can almost understand how people might get that feeling. Or maybe I should say I can understand how they don’t quite mean that but something else close to it, so they might yet agree (with a little prodding) that it’s being expressed poorly and there are more appropriate ways of talking about it. It’s understandable that “what about the menz” is a popular phrase which easily springs to mind, so that is what is used, despite the situations being disanalogous. I’m certainly willing to accommodate that and move on. But the same sort of charity could be extended to animal-rights folks who might also use unfortunate language or poorly-considered arguments. Because they’re not the fucking devil, and not everything they say needs to be countered with some bit of worn-out sophistry or another.

    You want to police what topics I can and can’t bring up on TD.

    Nope. I want to understand what relevance you think it has. I haven’t said you can or can’t comment about anything, in the thunderdome or wherever. The monitors are the only thing like “police” here. I am aware of that.

  203. says

    SC:

    Recently, in the thread accompanying a post about misogyny and micro and macroevolution, Caine expressed displeasure that some people were having a discussion (an informative one, in my view) about the aspects of the post not related to misogyny. It was silly. Giving this group of people the power to police threads in such a way as to conform to their narrow definitions of a topic was a mistake.

    When did you get stupid? Yes, I expressed my displeasure, as regular member of the commentariat. When I’m acting as a monitor, there is always a Monitor Note: at the beginning. Do you mind pointing out the ‘monitor note’ in that comment, SC?

    I’m aware that you have been holding one big ass grudge against me for some time now, however, you’re letting it do all the talking for you. In case you didn’t notice, that thread continued on, just fucking fine. There wasn’t any policing. Or are you of the opinion that just because people are monitors, they aren’t allowed opinions anymore?

  204. says

    Theophontes:

    … I built the most natural environment for rats that we could contrive in the laboratory. “Rat Park”, as it came to be called, was airy and spacious, with about 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. It was also scenic, (with a peaceful British Columbia forest painted on the plywood walls), comfortable (with empty tins, wood scraps, and other desiderata strewn about on the floor), and sociable (with 16-20 rats of both sexes in residence at once).

    I could be happy in Rat Park. Especially if it came with wireless that worked. Yeah, still having major wireless issues. Couldn’t get any connection at all from midnight to 1:00 pm. Gah.

  205. says

    It is wrong to treat people the way cattle are treated, yes? Whether or not it is wrong to treat cattle the way cattle are treated is a different topic.

    You’re still not getting it. Try reading the recommendations at my link @ #19. It’s wrong to oppress and exploit and harm women and cows. The reasons it’s wrong to oppress and exploit and harm women do not include “because we’re not cows,” just like the reasons it’s wrong to oppress and exploit and harm poor white people don’t include “because we’re not black people.” To try to fight the oppression of one group by arguing their alleged differences from another oppressed group, artificially separating the two oppressions, and ignoring that many of the reasons the behavior is wrong in both cases are identical is not helpful to anyone.

    Nearly every practice of oppression and exploitation that’s systematically been used on nonhuman animals has also been used systematically on some category of humans, with very similar rhetoric and often with the explicit grouping of that category of people with nonhuman animals. This is not a coincidence.

    Really, all we’re asking is that people apply the same principles with which they approach the oppression of humans to the other animals. In the example I gave, no one here would think it was OK to object to oppressing a gay man in some way women are routinely oppressed because he’s not a woman. No one here would consider the fact that women are routinely treated in that way to be irrelevant to a discussion of his treatment. No one here would be outraged that a man was being compared to a woman. No one here would tell a woman pointing out that it’s not OK to treat women that way that she’s insulting gay men. No one here would object to the discussion of the relationship between misogyny and homophobia in that context. We’re just asking that people continue to extend this understanding, the circle of these principles, and their solidarity to include other animals who are oppressed. I know we’re not used to doing that, and our egos get in the way, but it really is necessary to fighting all of the oppressions.

    Yet oddly, every single time I’ve seen a monitor make a comment as a monitor, we’ve added a big, bold

    Monitor Note

    to the comment. This is not difficult to spot.

    1) The “Monitor Note” label is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was about people’s knowledge when they go to comment, aware that the monitor system is in place. People don’t know if Caine, for example, is going to simply disagree with them, chastise them, or tell them as a monitor that they can’t discuss a topic on that thread. If she does disagree or express her annoyance, people don’t know whether that’s a prelude to an “official” demand to stop or move the discussion. This does not make for an open or free discussion.

    2) In the comment in which Caine requested that someone responding to me to move any discussion of that topic, she didn’t include a bolded note. But it was a thread in which she’d issued several orders, in bold, with the bolded “Monitor note.” No one – especially not a new commenter – would know whether that was a personal request or an official comment. It was phrased as a polite request, but was responded to with the reasonable assumption that it was an order: “Caine @76, I hear and obey! Thanks. : P.” Anyone reading that thread would think this was a fairly heavily –and rather arbitrarily – moderated blog and assume that even a polite request from a monitor had some authority. Even those of us who understand that monitors don’t have the technical ability to delete or move their comments have a reasonable expectation, based on experience, that PZ would go along with their perspective if someone refused to follow their requests.

    But the whole system is a problem. The earlier system, in which monitors sent PZ alerts, was fine. This idea to give a group of people more authority to police the content of threads was a bad one. Even if I trusted every one of the monitors to use this authority properly and fairly, which I don’t, it changes the whole character of the blog, and for the worse.

    ***

    Fuck off SC. Fuck your bullshit nitpick about “dairy”, when you’re the dissembler who tries to get away with your propaganda that calves are “children”.

    I hope you’re not suggesting that anyone was misled to think they’re human. They’re the cow’s children. I understand that objecting to their being called “children,” which implies some connection to humans and our emotional bonds, makes it easier for you to avoid considering their suffering when calves are brutally torn from their mothers. (To avoid any confusion: By calling them the calves’ mothers, I don’t mean to fool anyone into thinking cows are human women.)

    You’re as underhanded as the anti-choicers who call fetuses “babies” and “unborn children” in their attempt to sway people’s emotional reaction.

    Which in that case is false and misleading, Baby animals are referred to as baby animals or babies all the time, though, because that’s what they are. We also in the US often call human children “kids,” which must be the result of Big Goat propaganda.

    It matters not one bit that I call them “dairy” calves or “free-range” calves or just plain calves

    It does, and I’ve explained why. It’s curious, though, that the language of the dairy industry, which identifies animals according to the specific way they’re exploited by humans, isn’t seen by you as propaganda or even as having an effect.

    Stop that.

    No.

  206. consciousness razor says

    When I’m acting as a monitor, there is always a Monitor Note: at the beginning.

    There’s no telling when someone will stop expressing themselves personally to start “acting as a monitor.” So, whether or not the monitors themselves are trustworthy,* the system itself is not something I trust to work fairly all of the time. There’s no perfect system, and I don’t mean to start another big debate about the rules and policies, but I think you get the point.

    *I’d say most generally are, but now that I’m checking I’m not sure I even recognize one of the names. “siliconopolitan” is a variation of Sili? If so, then okay.

    There wasn’t any policing. Or are you of the opinion that just because people are monitors, they aren’t allowed opinions anymore?

    I’d suggest caution when your opinions deal with stuff that’s potentially monitor-related. For example, saying “I think X is off-topic” is fine, but when you can also intervene officially as a monitor because being off-topic relates to the rules, there’s a lot of ambiguity.

    Maybe you neglected to put “monitor note” in your comment, and people should heed the warning immediately and without question. Maybe you think there’s some room for a little bit of discussion about how it may or may not relate to the topic, which is why you haven’t yet given a completely “official” warning. Maybe you’re wrong about it being off-topic, because you just don’t see the connection for whatever reason. Maybe you’re right that it is off-topic, because PZ was wrong to distort the issue (since he can be wrong too), in which case he ought to know why, so enforcing the rules as a monitor would not be the right thing to do. I mean, even evil online dictatorships like the poopyhead’s still have things like civil disobedience.

    I’m sure all of that is obvious, but just being extra-sensitive to that sort of thing can help, even when you’re only making “normal” comments. And when you do make monitor notes, you might try making them a little more informative than a sentence or two, if that’s what the situation warrants.

  207. says

    When did you get stupid? Yes, I expressed my displeasure, as regular member of the commentariat. When I’m acting as a monitor, there is always a Monitor Note: at the beginning. Do you mind pointing out the ‘monitor note’ in that comment, SC?

    See my crossposted comment @ #267.

    Sigh. OK, I’m out.

  208. says

    Crip Dyke

    Mine was missing the pelvic ‘Brownian’ flap.

    That’s what that was? I still think it looks a bit odd on the mankini though.

  209. says

    CR:

    “siliconopolitan” is a variation of Sili?

    Yes, that’s Sili. It confused everyone else, too.

    I’m sure all of that is obvious, but just being extra-sensitive to that sort of thing can help, even when you’re only making “normal” comments. And when you do make monitor notes, you might try making them a little more informative than a sentence or two, if that’s what the situation warrants.

    I agree with all that, and I will keep it at the front of my mind. I just put in a comment on a contentious thread, trying to help out a newb, but I didn’t do it as a monitor, just myself. I do try to be informative when I do a monitor note, but there’s a lot of room for improvement there, and I’ll work hard at that one.

  210. says

    Also, about the monitors – half the time, the notes we put up are about giving newbs a chance, to please use nyms a/o comment numbers when replying, and so on. That’s because these things were wanted by a lot of people, yet the ones who are the most resistant about doing something simple like using a nym a/o a comment number in replying? The long term commenters. One thing that would cut down on those types of notes would be people doing some damn simple things.

  211. The Mellow Monkey: Non-Hypothetical says

    SC, I just got caught up on this thread after having been out of town. Unfortunately I see that you’ve said you’re out now, so I’m not sure if you’ll see this message or not.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about what you’ve written here before and what you’ve posted on your blog or shared links to. I was especially thinking about this blog post of yours while I was driving across Iowa and was stuck behind a semi hauling pigs. For several miles I drove along with one particular pig pressing its face up against the holes in the trailer so that I could see its snout and occasionally its eyes. As I watched that pig I thought about anthropomorphization and what an easy trap that is to fall into. I thought about the temptation to project my own feelings and emotions onto this other animal and to assume or imagine that it felt and thought like I did and would want the things I did. How foolish such thinking would be, how egotistical of a human to think that they can make such assumptions and projections.

    And then I thought…how egotistical for us to assume that we shouldn’t be more cautious. I know that the pig I was watching feels pain, but I can’t say that pig suffers as a human being suffers. Should I take the risk that it doesn’t suffer at all? Should I really assume that if its suffering is different that then this suffering doesn’t matter? If I have enough money and enough health that I don’t need meat for survival and physical functioning, what possible justification can I give myself for making my culinary pleasure of greater importance than the lives of these animals?

    Non-human animals are not the same as human beings, but am I personally comfortable enough with those differences to say they can be killed to make me happy? No, I’m not. Thank you for helping me have that conversation with myself, SC.

  212. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    SC –

    …makes it easier for you to avoid considering their suffering when calves are brutally torn from their mothers …

    Yep. Sure thing, SC. I’ve never ever considered their suffering, and I am deliberately ignorant, and my whole life has been incomplete until you came to enlighten me.

    Okay, you’ve enlightened me. You’ve done your job. Now fuck off.

    Me, I’ve got work to do. I’ve got calves to brutally tear from their mothers so we can nourish human children with an inexpensive safe calcium-rich, protein-rich food which many of us have specially evolved to digest.

    I would personally slaughter every calf born this year if it meant just one schoolchild drank a glass of milk and was happy about it. In fact, I would personally slaughter every calf born this year if it meant just one pimply self-indulgent teenager got to eat an unnecessary slice of cheese pizza and was happy about it.

    I don’t even like humans. I think humans suck in general, but the suckiest human’s well-being is more important than livestock’s temporary “suffering”. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is at best an idiot, if they’re not downright immoral filth like PETA.

  213. Jackie Papercuts says

    Hotshoe,
    To be fair, all suffering is temporary and the meat and dairy industry do take food from the mouths of children. The food we feed to the animals we eat drives up the cost of staple foods for the poorest people in the world. They also contribute heavily to climate change, causing droughts that will surely lead to famine.
    People are also forced to work in horrendous conditions in order for us to have meat. The effect meat and dairy have on humanity is quite enough to make some people go vegan without ever even considering the welfare of the animals we farm. So, you’re going to need to get some better talking points than the ones you used if you want to be persuasive instead of just reactionary.

  214. says

    Jackie @ 276:

    Yes to everything you said. I would give up meat entirely if I could, however, as I can’t, I do try to be as responsible as I can be. I only get beef from local farmers who grass feed and treat their cattle well, and humanely slaughter on their own farm. If I want chicken, I get it from the Hutterites. It’s little enough to do.

    The damage done by corporate agribusiness is overwhelming, and it should not be ignored.

  215. The Mellow Monkey: Non-Hypothetical says

    Jackie @ 276

    The food we feed to the animals we eat drives up the cost of staple foods for the poorest people in the world. They also contribute heavily to climate change, causing droughts that will surely lead to famine.

    My partner and I were trying to work out how much land we’d need to dedicate to fulfilling all of our food needs and that really brought this home. The amount of land needed to feed animals is just absurd. We could feed ourselves a vegan diet on half an acre even with sandy soil and Wisconsin’s short growing season. To raise a cow would require acres.

    And how that translates with lives on the line is that there are human beings out there starving because plant food is inefficiently being converted into meat. Monocultures are grown for feeding animals, land is grazed into barrenness, and real people are suffering because of it. Growing sesame seeds or other calcium, protein and fat rich crops on the land dedicated to feeding cattle could help more children than what milk those cattle would have produced. Particularly since many of the poorest people in the world who suffer the most from lack of access to food are also lactose intolerant. Wise use of arable land could do far more than just make vegans feel smug.

  216. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    I only get beef from local farmers who grass feed and treat their cattle well, and humanely slaughter on their own farm. If I want chicken, I get it from the Hutterites. It’s little enough to do.

    Which is what everyone should do – or raise their own chickens and let them keep the nasty bugs out of their gardens – or hunt their meat from wild animals that convert non-arable scrubland to valuable meat …-

    Agricultural waste not edible by humans should feed livestock such as cows and pigs which in turn should nourish people. Non-wilderness range-land should feed antelope, deer, and bison which in turn should feed people (as well as wolves coyotes and puma). And when we’re done with our own bodies, we should return them to the dirt to feed the grass to feed the animals …

    The problem is with the inflexible assholes who think children should go hungry in the UP rather than their folks killing and dressing a deer for their winter meat, or who selfishly try to make parents feel guilty about giving milk to their children – because they’re such superior moral beings that they can never stand to imagine some poor little cow’s “child” suffering a few moments of separation.

    I won’t tolerate that kind of immoral bullying from any such vegan asshole.

  217. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dawkin’s fans are the stupidest bunch of mother fuckers on the planet

    Even stupider than Thunderfoot-in-mouth’s?

  218. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    Also, while I’m no fan of PETA, I’d hardly call them “immoral filth”.

    I call any organization which encourages and funds terrorists who commit arson and try to bomb researcher’s homes – while people are at home – at best immoral filth. I can think of even stronger labels which could apply to them.

  219. Jackie Papercuts says

    Caine,
    It is great that you do that. I’m not trying to persuade anyone to be vegan. I’m not. I was for a while, but the new kids nixed that. I’m just interested in an honest argument. People suggesting that vegans take food from children are being dishonest. The best I manage is to work vegetarian or vegan meals into the recipe rotation. I used to buy my eggs and meat from friends with farms, but the drive is too far and gas is too high. That does not mean I’m in denial about what my food choices really cost. I’m willing to say that I am not doing all I can to make the most moral choices. Shit, I shop at Wal-Mart sometimes too. I have clothes from Kato’s that are made in Bangladesh. Probably half the stuff I wear comes from sweat shops. (I assume that because they are cheap. They are cheap because that is all I can afford.) My tomatoes probably come from slave labor in Florida. My electricity? It comes from coal. I am not perfect. But I am not trying to make the people who criticize those choices out to be bullies. My choices are good enough for me and that is all they have to be. I don’t feel the need to defend my choices and if I did, I’d be honest.

    Hotshoe, another person choosing to be vegan is in no way being an “inflexible asshole”. You are the one telling people what they “should all do”. No way am I raising chickens in the city. Do you know how many backyard chickens are ending up in animal shelters? I really don’t want West Nile or Avian Flu. Plus the ones my neighbors keep for their personal use are noisy. Vegans are not trying to make you feel guilty. They are pointing out facts and the ethical ramifications of those facts. You are not being bullied. You are being informed. You are the one having an emotional meltdown and slinging hyperbole. Also, the cows and calves don’t mourn for a few moments. They mourn much longer than that. You really need to do your research before you go any further.

    I do think humans are superior moral beings. We can think about our effect on the world in a way no other animals can. Sure, a pig would eat me and then promptly forget about it. But I aspire to better ethics than a pig. I care about what my actions make me. How much suffering am I willing to cause for my own convenience is a question I ask myself. Everyone should. You seem terrified to do that. You’re deflecting all over the place about hungry kids and their poor parents and “vegan bullies”. You are desperate to make this about something other than your personal choice. It isn’t. You are not the savior hero of children and their parents. We are not under attack from vegans. You’re trying hard to sell something that nobody is buying. I think you need to walk away, do a little lite research and revisit this topic when you can do it honestly and with your facts straight.

  220. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    Jackie Papercuts –

    … So, you’re going to need to get some better talking points than the ones you used if you want to be persuasive instead of just reactionary.

    Thanks for the advice, sweetie, but I’m not interested.

    Unlike the bullying vegan assholes, I have no desire to control y’all or persuade y’all to eat things you don’t want or to give up things you do want. Unlike the vegan assholes, I respect your (presumably-decent) ability to make moral decisions about food without needing my “better talking points”.

    Thanks again for letting me know where I’ve failed to fulfill the role you demand of me.

  221. Jackie Papercuts says

    Hotshoe, Please cite that source. I’m unaware of any terrorist activities and for some reason, I’m not inclined to trust your word.

  222. Ingdigo Jump says

    @Jackie

    Most I know of it is from Bullshit! so …yeah. We were supposed to side with Ted Nuggent there so yeah….

    I have cut out large land animal from our diets. Now I find turkey meat far preferable to beef :/

  223. Jackie Papercuts says

    Ingdigo,

    I make a turkey pumpkin chili that I think is great.
    Going now. Off to get a walk.

  224. says

    Hotshoe, you are seriously over the line here, and being incredibly offensive. Your posts are every bit as bad as those you deplore, and you are engaging in quite a bit of bullying yourself. I suggest you walk away from this discussion as you are not able to present a valid argument, nor are you able to consider what anyone else has to say.

  225. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    Jackie

    … Also, the cows and calves don’t mourn for a few moments. They mourn much longer than that. You really need to do your research before you go any further…

    You have no clue. No, I don’t need to research. Really, no.

    I was raised on a family farm, directly across the road from a dairy operation; I’ve raised poultry, pigs, sheep, and horses myself – never for profit but to eat (well, not the horses, we don’t eat them in this country). I majored in ecology in college with a special interest in permaculture. And now I live in western scrub land where no agriculture whatsoever is possible, but raising scrub-fed livestock is – or letting the land produce deer/antelope and hunting them for meat (which I don’t personally, but which I know is the best possible use of this type of countryside).

    I don’t know everything, I don’t even know very much, but I certainly know everything that asshole SC wants to spew.

    You absolutely should quit telling me what I’m feeling, and why (in your ignorant opinion) I’m reacting the way I am. Every single thing you’ve said about me so far is wrong Maybe you’re the one who “need[s] to walk away … and revisit this topic when you can do it honestly”. Ya think maybe? Yeah, definitely, you should.

  226. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    Hotshoe, seriously, shut. the. fuck. up

    Aww, don’t I just feel all special now. Singled out for Caine’s loving attention. Until the next one comes along …

    Guess I do have something in common with SC after all.

  227. says

    Hotshoe:

    Aww, don’t I just feel all special now. Singled out for Caine’s loving attention.

    Are you getting a thrill out of being an asshole? Your posts are making me cringe with embarrassment. It’s an odd thing to be proud of, and no thoughtful person should be. You get responses like shut the fuck up because you are being an obnoxious bully who has flat out declared they have no reason to listen to anyone else.

    And no, you don’t have anything in common with SC. SC presents valid arguments which are well worth reading and thinking about, and preventing a derail in a thread is not the same as requesting a person shut up because they are a complete embarrassment.

  228. says

    @ Caine

    Yeah, still having major wireless issues.

    This will not do. Virtual rodents without the capacity to go online!

    I am slap in the middle of China’s Silicon Valley. Is there anything I can do to help? Could we amplify what little signal there is? Make a dish? Relay? Or is there no signal at all?

  229. says

    Crip Dyke (answering your question from @71 of “That isn’t how diversity works”):

    United (a union strike song in support of (I believe) the big trucker strike occurring at the time)

    (Take these) Chains
    Pain and Pleasure (both of these are really painfully obvious S+M songs before you factor in that he was wearing his leather clothes literally on stage as he performed them)

    The Hellion/Electric Eye (the song that begins every Judas Priest concert since the Screaming for Vengeance album, written as a protest of Thatcher and Reagan’s pushes for Orwellian-esque spy satellite program and if it wasn’t more obvious, during the Bush years when they reuinted, they specifically dedicated the song to how much of a fuckhead Bush and his war were… in Orange County)

    Epitaph (not really a super political song, but it’s a nice quiet musing on aging and standing against anti-elder prejudice, but important to note for…)

    Victim of Changes (it was written in the 70s so there could be pretense that the song’s main character was an old woman, but seeing as how he regularly plays it in concerts and how he performs it, it’s clear that the main character of the song is himself, feeling abandoned by shallow male lovers as he felt himself getting “older”)

    Screaming for Vengeance (no pretense, it’s a queer call for revolution against the homophobia thrown at his community. Again there is couched terms because he was still semi-closeted (but only by the barest of margins, he was an “open secret” since about the late 70s), but it’s still pretty clear).

    And Rob Halford, the front man, managed to remain a major heavy metal icon while being an out gay man, which along with Otep, are one of those things that make me feel a bit better about the genre of music that most speaks to me musically.

    I don’t know “Parental Guidance”, which I know, makes me a bad Priest fan, so I can’t make a pronouncement on it, but I’ll take your word that it’s shit. I mean, they did do “Turbo Lover” which might be one of the more inane and empty songs to be made by a band I like so I know they can suck on toast.

    And yeah, didn’t want to piss on your point, just felt that Judas Priest didn’t quite deserve the ire for puerile faux-rebellion.

    Now, Limp Bizkit on the other hand…

  230. says

    Theophontes:

    I am slap in the middle of China’s Silicon Valley. Is there anything I can do to help? Could we amplify what little signal there is? Make a dish? Relay? Or is there no signal at all?

    There’s barely a signal. I’m getting about half a bar, and I keep getting disconnected. Taking 5 minutes or more to load a page. Driving me up a wall. Gah.

  231. says

    I should have done this earlier. Some people may not be aware of the recent monster discussion about comments, and the commenting rules rewrite. This is a part of them:

    Stay on topic, unless it’s an obvious “fun” thread. If you have something off topic that you must share, the Thunderdome thread is always appropriate.

    Now, I know there’s disagreement about whether or not the treatment of animals is on topic in a thread about misogyny. Surely it’s easy enough to see that the treatment of animals could easily derail and dominate a thread, taking it completely off the original topic. Requesting that such side topics move to Thunderdome isn’t awful, and it certainly isn’t meant as any sort of insult. It’s re-directing, so the subject can be fully discussed, at length, without disrupting another discussion.

  232. says

    Jackie
    You’re right, it’s not easy. It’s not simple on an individual level, it’s not simple on a societal level.
    Contrary to what’s intuitive, cheap food actually also causes hunger because it’s only possible to produce it that cheap in large scale subsidized western countries, so currently cheap food from Europe is ruining small-scale African farmers.
    Environmentalism is also partly responsible because of the oh so brilliant idea to use food as fuel.
    And it’s not easy on an individual level because there’s a hell lot of classism and also misogyny in this.
    Because where I disagree is that “vegans”* are not out to shame or to bully. Look at Peta, where the only animal that gets no consideration at all are human women.
    They also don’t “inform” they lie. Did you know that eating chicken while pregnant causes small penises in baby-boys? Therefore pregnant women must be banned from eating chicken.
    And even when not talking about obvious misogynists like Peta the discussion has effects relating to gender, because you know as well as I that cooking and meal-planning is still mostly women’s work, so they get the pressure. I didn’t shut up my brother in law who tried to tell his mum that she must do something about her husband’s diet and make him eat less meat because it’s killing him so that other people can do the same stick with only shifting the focus on the animals.

    *This is a stupid argument in and on itself. Vegans are no more a monolithic block than other groups. The fact that there are vegan assholes doesn’t mean vegans are assholes any more than the fact that there are non-asshole vegans means there aren’t vegan assholes.

  233. lostintime says

    Jackie #286,
    I really enjoyed reading that post, thank you.. It’s admirable that more people are choosing higher welfare meat, and anyone spending extra time and money to buy Polyface-type products shows that they care about the issues. It’s certainly better than being completely indifferent. I think though that in the end not only welfare standards, but the Standard American Diet itself (i.e 190 pounds of meat per year for the average Westerner), is something we will have to find a way to adapt*. I’m absolutely thrilled whenever I read about progress in animal welfare, and this year’s been a big one – conventional battery cages and sow stalls now illegal across the entire EU. But as much as we can improve intensive farming for animals, ultimately by 2050 we’re going to have to double food production, and if all of those animals are farmed less intensively, then it’s going to use a hell of a lot of land and water. I think we’re going to have to find a way of cutting down and abolishing the worst forms of intensive farming – not an easy prospect.

    I also think that the naysayers are wrong and that the way we eat effects change on a bigger scale. Like voting, it has a cascading effect that can influence others and as it becomes more mainstream it normalises the prospect of vegetarian cuisine. The whole world doesn’t have to go vegan (which will never happen) for moral consumerism to have a significant impact. If everyone replaced let’s say four meals out of ten with a vegetarian meal, which is a change that’s not totally impossible to imagine happening, then we would need to produce 40% less meat.**

    *I fully accept that we have complicated relationships to food and I’m not policing individual choices, just thinking about the ethics of food in general.

    **Just to double reiterate, I’ve read this over many times and I’m not food policing, if it reads that way then I’m sorry. For disclosure I gave up dairy for about a year and in the end I found that diet far too difficult.

  234. Jackie Papercuts says

    Gillel, I wasn’t talking about Peta. I think I said previously that I am not a fan of Peta.

    Thanks, Lostintime.

  235. consciousness razor says

    But they’re vegans, too. It makes no sense to play “no true vegan”. I think your statement about “vegans don’t want to…” was just way too broad. Some do, some don’t.

    Which statement was too broad? I can’t find that wording anywhere, so I just don’t know what you’re referring to. And couldn’t that be reasonably interpreted as “vegans don’t [all] want to…” anyway?

  236. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    #288 Jackie Papercuts

    Hotshoe, Please cite that source. I’m unaware of any terrorist activities and for some reason, I’m not inclined to trust your word.

    Rodney Coronado

    Newkirk is well know for being a big fan of direct action.

    And apparently had no qualms giving Coronado financial support for legal fees and other uses.

    Coronado is a well known and convicted ALF terrorist.

    So there’s that.

  237. says

    @ Caine

    Do you access the internet via a router? Is the problem between your ISP and your house, or within your house?

    The approach we need to follow will be slightly different depending on the specific circumstances, but there may be some overlap.

    I have a spare WiFi stick (which can be further boosted with parabolic dish), and a spare WiFi relay. I would be happy to post if either of these can fix your problem.

    There are several other things we can try, but I would risk sounding a nosey parker to find all the incremental solutions. Obviously it is up to you to decide how much effort it is worth.

    Some straightforward suggestions to try: move your router around to see if you get a better signal. The same for your laptop. Check you have the latest firmware/drivers on modem and laptop. Check for sources of interference … like other devices, electronic equipment etc. Is router or laptop poorly located (basement, concrete walls)? If your ISP is responsible for the signal, are they aware of the problem (and can they check on site)?

    It sounds like a lot of effort, but it should actually be fairly straightforawrd to improve the situation.

  238. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @cerberus, #300:

    Thank you so much for that. That really does put them into a different context. I first discovered JP just after SfV came out. I had read 1984 and there was a lot of talk – it was, frankly, trendy – about 1984 and surveilance, but to my mind that was hyperbole, both because I was not much over 10 years old and didn’t know as much about political actions, but also because **i’d read the book**. We didn’t have screens in our homes that we weren’t allowed to turn off, y’know? So I interpreted EE as trendy rebellion rather than social commentary and, frankly, never really came back to it to a decade later as a political adult that could have given it a fairer reading.

    I didn’t remember the lyrics to SfV at all, so I just looked them up. Maybe this is the rage of a gay man (‘scuse me, I mean this **is** the rage of a gay man), but I don’t see queerness in this. I think one of the things that turned me off to these songs is that they don’t limit the victim class in any way. There are a lot of songs in metal where someone is being treated badly/tortured/killed and is going to get revenge. It makes it more political for me if the grievance is specific or at least the victim is. When the person in the straightjacket plausibly can be any teenager at all, it erases the political message by failing to differentiate between the victims and the victimizers: no, we’re all equal before some totalitarian power. Sanitarium is nearly as anonymous as SfV, but at least the song clearly identifies involuntarily institutionalized persons as the victims so that we can put the lyrics in a context that allows more specific meaning to be drawn.

    So, I’ll concede that his queer rage motivated the song, but it’s hard for me to credit it as a protest song.

    I’ll look at more later. I’ve got to get the kids up & dressed. I really appreciate you giving me something to think about with JP. I don’t know Limp Bizkit at all, but bands with no analysis just violent/scary imagery are in no short supply. It is not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence that you’ve identified one that concocts vague scenarios of frightening violence to justify an anonymous character’s heroic rage against the system/parents.

    So, I happily concede (actually, with much relief, as when I was first learning guitar some of my friends who formed a band (and were also fairly pitiful in skill at that point) wanted to play some JP…so it was among the first non-classical music I ever played) that Halford had real reasons for his rage, and it wasn’t just reflexive rage at parents having said, “No,” once. I happily concede that he invested some of his music with his personal experience and wanted his audience (or at least part of his audience) to connect with him in that way. I will no longer think of JP as worthless. As valuable to me as Operation Ivy? No. Probably not. But then, I’m not a gay man, I’m not a leather/sm queer, and I didn’t hear those songs knowledgeably during the formative years of my life, or I might be willing to excuse other less artistically daring portions of their oeuvre.

  239. says

    [Judas Priest]

    I graduated high school in 1984. And thought JP were the best thing since sliced bread.

    Just their name, let alone their music, seemed to flip a great big bird at conformity, church and state. Damn sure the message being sent was not the message being received, but nevertheless I was a fan.

  240. Howard Bannister says

    Dawkin’s fans are the stupidest bunch of mother fuckers on the planet

    Even stupider than Thunderfoot-in-mouth’s?

    The AvP tagline has never been so accurate. No matter who wins that contest, we all lose.

  241. kantalope says

    Just venting. Arrived on campus today and there were people blocking the sidewalk handing out “God vs Evolution” Argh!

    I was already in a bad mood. I usually just ignore the Jesus freaks hanging out near the entrance of the student union but when the third guy in the line tried to stick one in my face. I just told him: “I don’t need anyone to lie to me.” But I didn’t hear him offer one to the person behind me.

    Anyway – needed to gripe and such somewhere. Hope everyone else’s day is better.

  242. says

    Crip Dyke @311

    Yeah, I imagine it might have been different to have discovered them when they were in their heyday, rather than, as I did, long after they were already established and credited as metal icons.

    As far as metal songs that make queer rage more text than subtext, my go-to is more Otep, who I’ve been lucky enough to discover in her heyday.

    I dunno, at the end of the day, it’s all personal tastes with regards to music. What hits and impacts and speaks to a person at the right time in their life for one person might just rub someone else off or hit at a bad time and so on. We’re all people and shit.

  243. says

    Theophontes, I have a teeny wireless unit from verizon and a signal booster. The problem is living rural, we don’t have a lot of towers close by, and weather interference. The bad signal days will pass, but it’s something I have to put up with on a regular basis. Moving the unit around does not work – it works best right by the signal booster, both of which are in a window in my studio. It’s not the biggest problem ever, just a frustrating one.

  244. says

    About monitors and derails: PZ floated the idea of creating a new thread, that when a derail is in the works, so anyone who wants to write a short description for an OP may do so, and a monitor will forward it for consideration of a new thread with that description.

    Would that be a better approach, more acceptable than a request to move to Thunderdome?

  245. says

    Caine

    (Possibly silly question from a person in a country with much more compact geography.)

    I assume a landline connection’s not an option?

  246. says

    Daz, no it isn’t. We dumped the landline ages ago, along with dial-up. Being rural, our choices are limited, and the one option we’d jump on, cable, isn’t available to us. Cable goes to New Salem, and Glen Ullin, I think, but doesn’t diverge our direction. (I live in a ‘town’ of 79, if that helps.) We recently rid ourselves of satellite TV, and that was not an option internet-wise anyway, it’s restricted to 5mb (yes, that’s correct) a month. So…no way. We’re limited on Verizon, too, but it’s 5 gigs a month.

  247. says

    Caine, Gadzooks!

    Hence my caveat about compact geography. Barring maybe parts of Scotland, for the most part ADSL over the landline is standard, even in hamlets. Data-wise, most ISPs offer forty gig or unlimited.

  248. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My Comcast cable modem/wifi router link is officially 250 GB, but that hasn’t been enforced for months. Which I made use of. This month, to date, only 79 GB.

  249. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Just in case anyone’s going for a programming interview where they ask “gotcha” questions, the first (and only) integer whose alphabetic representation is in alphabetic order, is 40.

    cf. “forty”

  250. says

    Nerd:

    My Comcast cable modem/wifi router link is officially 250 GB

    Yeah, that’s why I said cable would be the option we would pounce on, if we actually had the option. Most people in Almont have sat dishes, so there’s no particular incentive for the cable company to spend money on coming out our way. When Mister is in Dickinson/Gladstone, he has a cable connection, and loves it.

    When it comes to wireless units, the restriction is in who has cell towers, and how many. You can get a Virgin unit, and they offer unlimited access, but you can’t get service, at least not where we are, and it’s my understanding that even in Bismarck, the service is incredibly bad.

  251. chigau (違う) says

    Now that I have had my rum, brought in the houseplants, covered the plants still in the garden, fed the cat, eaten the borderline leftovers, put away the laundry and taken some bacon out of the freezer …
    can I take all of the fucking shitty third-rate internetting hardware outside and put an axe to it?

  252. geroche says

    Caine

    The point being, they shouldn’t have gone with the declaration in the first place, as not only was it untrue, it had no place in a valid argument, and had all the earmarks of pointless discussion and a reiteration of stock slymepit chat.

    I realize it has a history I’m not aware of, but considering the retraction was forthcoming, it came across as a minor misattribution in a point that didn’t depend on such a declaration. Even though including attribution for the invention of A+ isn’t necessary, neither is it an objectionable piece of information to include. It would not be ridiculously out of place for skephtic to have correctly said “when Jen McCreight proposed A+”.

    The thrust of the point was to do with the way ‘A+’ conveys meaning. Had PZ “invented A+”, the point would reasonably be expected to resonate better with PZ than a different example he had no ties with. The retraction was for the specific offhand remark that claimed PZ was the inventor of A+. I see no reason for them to retract it so quickly if they meant anything insidious by it, feigning ignorance.

    It would be much easier to follow you if you use the singular they/their when referring to a person.

    I agree, I think I’ll follow your example and refer to them by name or they, their etc. It was jarring for me also.

  253. chigau (違う) says

    Ing
    I just want to take all the just-good-enough shit I bought because it was just-cheap-enough and and and
    have a tantrum

  254. chigau (違う) says

    Janine
    Quite right.
    I don’t know what I did.
    seriously
    I scrolled back those four or five comments and I don’t know what happened.
    —ahem
    Janine
    I just want to take all the just-good-enough shit I bought because it was just-cheap-enough and and and
    have a tantrum

  255. says

    @ Caine

    Holy Heffer! My mind boggles, and not in a happy rodent way.

    I am travelling past villages in rural China that are, to all intents and purposes, unchanged from the middle ages. And yet I still have a pretty good connection. I’ll have to think of a solution when I am back in the land of running water.

    @ Obama

    Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure! Y’all are losing the race daily.

  256. Nick Gotts says

    currently cheap food from Europe is ruining small-scale African farmers.
    Environmentalism is also partly responsible because of the oh so brilliant idea to use food as fuel. – Giliell@304

    Hmm, that needs a lot of unpacking. First, I don’t think the use of food as fuel is backed by environmentalists; all those I know are very much against it. There may have been some environmentalist backing for it in the past, but mainly, certainly in the last decade, it’s been pushed by agribusiness. Second, if cheap food from Europe is ruining small-scale African farmers (which this report tends to support), then anything that reduced the flow of cheap food from Europe – like using the food as fuel – would have the opposite effect.

  257. geroche says

    PZ

    It was necessary. It was just too, too stupid, and was a marker that we were dealing with an ignorant ass who didn’t give a damn about the facts. He clearly had not read anything from Atheism+, where he might note my absence, and instead an acknowledgement of Jen and Greta’s roles in inspiring it; he might also have noted a great many different people commenting there that don’t include me. He might have noticed that FtB doesn’t claim any authority over Atheism+; we acknowledge their existence, some of our bloggers like them to varying degrees, some do not, but we also link to and recognize, for instance, Skepchick, and that does not mean in any way that we “own” them.

    Skephtic put up a great big sign that said he was an asshole and waved it vigorously. Gone.

    I have only a basic knowledge of A+. I know you didn’t invent A+ only because I learnt so today.

    There are videos on youtube where you speak about broader types of atheism. Gnu Atheism, A+, possibly others. You make no claims over them, but like Richard Carrier it’s not beyond belief that someone going on limited information from an imperfect memory might misattribute a movement to a famous atheist they remember speaking about it. I would find a minor factual error more forgivable than an ableist slur or sexist remark, but even with a retraction and an apology it’s resulted in an automatic ban.

    A person who gives a damn about the facts corrects themselves. A person who publicly acknowledges their mistake by apologizing probably isn’t a complete asshole. Skephtic did both. It wasn’t a discussion about A+, but rather a discussion about meanings where a person wouldn’t be derailing the discussion by mentioning the fact that A+ is ‘dictionary atheism plus more’. As far as factual errors go, this one comes across as harmless, inoffensive and unlikely to be repeated. A ban still seems unnecessarily harsh to me, especially if a new rule has to be written.

  258. Esteleth, statistically significant to p ≤ 0.001 says

    The difficulty, geroche, is that this error has been repeated a very great deal, and is held up by slymepitters (et al) as “proof” of PZ’s mala fides. Comments about how PZ “invented” A+ are interpreted in that light.

  259. says

    Esteleth:

    The difficulty, geroche, is that this error has been repeated a very great deal, and is held up by slymepitters (et al) as “proof” of PZ’s mala fides. Comments about how PZ “invented” A+ are interpreted in that light.

    Yes, this. I haven’t kept track, but such comments have been written here hundreds of times, almost always by those with dishonest intent. This is PZ’s blog, and he doesn’t have to put up with such shit if he doesn’t want to do so. None of this is a huge secret, either. I’ll add that I don’t think it’s a big deal to at least have your facts straight before you engage in an argument. That’s the very least any of us can do.

  260. says

    Gilliell #304

    Contrary to what’s intuitive, cheap food actually also causes hunger because it’s only possible to produce it that cheap in large scale subsidized western countries, so currently cheap food from Europe is ruining small-scale African farmers.

    And the U.S., can’t forget the U.S. The thing is, though, that the food isn’t that cheap; it’s heavily subsidized, which most African governments a) can’t afford to to and b) are prohibited by WTO, IMF, and/or World Bank rules from doing so no anyway matter how much it might help. (In principle, the same WTO policies apply to the G8, who are also not supposed to be exporting subsidized food, but when have colonial powers ever considered themselves actually bound by their agreements with the colonized.).

    Environmentalism is also partly responsible because of the oh so brilliant idea to use food as fuel.

    Ah, no, sorry. That one’s all down to agribusiness lobbyists; the actual biofuels advocates were shouting about that idiotic idea as soon as it was floated, but the big ag interests wanted to keep their faces in that sweet money trough, and therefore their lobbyists insisted that the crap they overproduce be bought up for biofuels instead of something worthwhile being done.

    lostintime #305

    I think we’re going to have to find a way of cutting down and abolishing the worst forms of intensive farming – not an easy prospect.

    Not as hard as one might think, actually. Many of the most problematic practices are almost entirely propped up by the subsidies I mentioned replying to Gilliell. (I’m focusing on the U.S. because I know more about the particular subsidy structure here, but similar things apply in Europe) We see vast monocropped fields of wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton because agribusiness is paid large amounts by the government to do so. Directly through subsidised crop insurance, price supports, and simply buying up surpluses (see food into fuel above, as well as the problems of dumping massive quantities of cheap food into the markets of developing countries and undercutting the locals). Indirectly through subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (source of many of the additives needed to keep crops growing in those circumstances), limited regulation of externalities (aquifer degradation, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, etc.). Battery farms, in turn, subsist entirely on such subsidised grains. which they can buy in vast quantities at negligible cost and feed to the caged animals; if the price of grain was closer to its ‘natural’ level, keeping animals at that density would become prohibitively expensive. In such a regime, the price of many foodstuffs would increase significantly (notably the price of meat and many animal products, as well as the price of most types of processed food), but the price of many types of fruits, vegetables, tubers, etc. would likely stay similar. Much of the impact of the changing food prices for the public could be mitigated by moving the monies currently expended on crop subsidies and the like directly to social welfare payments (e.g. food stamps in the U.S.), thus increasing the purchasing power of the public (and especially the lower-income members thereof) to help counterbalance the increase in food prices. (This would also likely have the effect of reducing the consumption of heavily-processed, oversweetened, calorie dense, nutrient-poor ‘junk’ food, and improving the food value of what is consumed, to a likely improvement in the general health, as well as reducing the amount of meat in the general diet, as a number of people have suggested here to be a good overall plan)

    Caine #320

    I think we’re going to have to find a way of cutting down and abolishing the worst forms of intensive farming – not an easy prospect.

    Yanks hate infrastructure, pretty much. They’ll tolerate it if building and running it can be farmed out to private companies (railroads, electrification), but not anything built or run by the government with very few exceptions (the interstate highway system, the TVA), and those only over massive political opposition.
    Daz

    Hence my caveat about compact geography.

    Oh, geography has very little to do with it. It’s pretty much down to politics.

  261. geroche says

    Esteleth

    The difficulty, geroche, is that this error has been repeated a very great deal, and is held up by slymepitters (et al) as “proof” of PZ’s mala fides. Comments about how PZ “invented” A+ are interpreted in that light.

    My apologies, I was not as plain in my meaning when I said it was unlikely to be repeated. I meant in the sense of the specific individual being a repeat offender for such a remark, for which it could be argued banning was necessary. In this case it’s quite clear they retracted their remark and apologized shortly after making the error.

    I’m not saying such a comment hasn’t been made in the past, or won’t be made in the future, backing some nefarious agenda. However, of the “hundreds of times, almost always by those with dishonest intent”, the occurrence followed by an immediate retraction and apology seems the least deserving of a ban.

    I agree that it’s PZ’s blog, and he ultimately calls the shots, but I don’t think PZ purports to be above criticism. Given the context in which it was said and the manner in which it was retracted, I’m curious whether you personally believe that in this situation banning was the only appropriate course of action.

  262. says

    geroche:

    I agree that it’s PZ’s blog, and he ultimately calls the shots, but I don’t think PZ purports to be above criticism.

    No, he doesn’t. It’s perfectly fine to criticize PZ, and people often do.

    Given the context in which it was said and the manner in which it was retracted, I’m curious whether you personally believe that in this situation banning was the only appropriate course of action.

    I think there may have been room to let skephtic run on a bit. That said, personally, I had more than one reason to eye them with suspicion, and after having seen and taken part in years worth of idiots coming here and parroting the same thing, I understand PZ’s decision completely.

    It can be a bit difficult to explain, but when you have seen people behave in a certain way so many times, you get a good feel for who is not operating in good faith. Of course, there are times when that feel is wrong, but most of the time, it isn’t. If it had been up to me, I probably would have let skephtic run on for a little while. It isn’t up to me, however, and I don’t blame PZ one bit for having no patience with certain interlocutors.

  263. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Geroche, one peeve PZ has mentioned lately is the use of anonymous e-mail sites by sockpuppets and hardcore trolls. On top of the obvious Slymepit rhetoric, checking for the IP address may have lead to an anonymous e-mail generator. In which case, I fully understand PZ pulling the plug.

  264. says

    Nerd, that’s a good point – we don’t always know everything there is to know, and we don’t need to, either. All that said, I do think there are cases where it’s legitimate to question a banning.

  265. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Classical Cipher, if you would, please contact me at janphar. It is a yahoo address.

  266. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    Aauugh, a wasp just landed on my shoulder, now off somewhere else. Gad, I’m jacked on adrenaline. Soon as I calm down, I’ll try to track it so I can get it outside.

    Yeah. Those WASPs can be pesky and privileged as all get out.

    (I was raised as one)

  267. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    On top of the obvious Slymepit rhetoric

    Seriously? Look, I trawl the pit semi-regularly to see if these kind of claims have any truth. In this case, they don’t. Quit with the demonisation and, if you want some validity to your claims, go gather the evidence.

    checking for the IP address may have lead to an anonymous e-mail generator. In which case, I fully understand PZ pulling the plug.

    … or just speculate! That works too, if you’re being “scientific”. /sarc

  268. says

    cm:

    Look, I trawl the pit semi-regularly to see if these kind of claims have any truth. In this case, they don’t.

    I can’t speak to what goes on at the slymepit currently, however, the notion that PZ started A+, along with the persistent idea that FTB is PZ’s baby came from ‘pitters, and was repeated all over, and often here. It’s, uh, nice that you feel comfortable at the ‘pit, but I won’t go there, and I don’t think it’s okay to tell people to wander over to have a read, especially given PZ’s feelings about it.

  269. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    It’s, uh, nice that you feel comfortable at the ‘pit

    That, there is 100% wrong.

    Seriously, don’t do that.

  270. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    And I am now angry enough to put a Monitor Note on #353.

    Except, I’m not entitled.

  271. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    or just speculate! That works too, if you’re being “scientific”. /sarc

    In such a case I don’t exect PZ to share his “backchannel” knowledge. So, what is your real problem?????

  272. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    I don’t have a problem. We have a simple question here.

    checking for the IP address may have lead to an anonymous e-mail generator. In which case, I fully understand PZ pulling the plug.

    PZ, did you pull the plug because of skephtic using an anonymous e-mail generator? Or was it just what skephtic said?

  273. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    It’s Friday. I thought it was Thursday. I’m going to be off all week now.

    You wrote that on Wednesday. It is now Thursday.

    You calendarist oppressor.

  274. says

    Apropos of nothing much:

    “When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”
    A. A. Milne

    *wanders off, whistling innocently*

  275. says

    Aauugh, disassembling and moving a very large desk, which still weighs a fucktonne when disassembled, reassembling it, then getting it flipped upright and into place was, um, interesting.

    I am Fucked Up Spine Woman, hear me whimper! Fuck, Mister is gonna kill me.

  276. morgan ?! epitheting a metaphor says

    Caine

    I was thinking this morning about your back and how you were doing with all the pain injections. Guess I don’t have to ask. So sorry. The problem with being a formerly very strong wonder woman is convincing oneself that that is no longer the case. Urg… feel better.

  277. Hekuni Cat, MQG says

    Caine:

    I am Fucked Up Spine Woman, hear me whimper! Fuck, Mister is gonna kill me.

    I’m so sorry. *gentle hugs and lots of chocolate and love* Tell him it was my fault. :D

    Also:

    Cooking sweet potato for the rats today

    Happy, happy rats. I have A Drawer Full of Salad open in a tab on my browser today. Seeing Vasco looking so happy makes me smile and happier.

  278. thetalkingstove says

    I wonder if PZ also has a list of banned books like the Catholic church.

    Thing is, books don’t tend to stalk/bully/threaten/impersonate/photoshop/harass people. It’s pretty easy to escape the attentions of a book.

    Don’t pretend that the ‘pit is reviled just because it dissents.

  279. says

    Hekuni Cat:

    Tell him it was my fault. :D

    Hahahaha, oh, I wish that would work. He knows I always do this shit when he’s not around. Actually, I’d like a new desk, this one is, gad, at least 25 years old, and I have a better shot at getting him to agree to a new one. :D

    Happy, happy rats. I have A Drawer Full of Salad open in a tab on my browser today. Seeing Vasco looking so happy makes me smile and happier.

    They were most pleased. It’s taken them this long to eat sweet potato again, after Zoe. I know it’s been ages since I’ve updated, I’ll get to it as soon as I can.

    Morgan, thanks. Eh, my spine went south about two days after the clinic, I had to dig my cane out, I could barely walk.

  280. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Caine, one of those ironic moments, the safety training at work this month was on back safety….

  281. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Is your faith in social justice so weak that you may read a little of the slymepit and turn sexist?

    Um, no. The pit is a very tedious place. There are better things to do with one’s time.

  282. says

    Nerd:

    Caine, one of those ironic moments, the safety training at work this month was on back safety….

    Heh. Yeah, Mister gets those all the time. I did everything I’m supposed to do, lift with the legs, all that stuff, but still, he’s gonna be very upset with me.

  283. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It’s alright to mention the slymepit and talk about how bad they are, why isn’t it OK to see for yourself?

    Why should one give their fuckwitted site hits to confirm what trusted people have already told us, and keep telling us (they are being monitored)? And you aren’t trusted, based on your history here….

  284. Rob Grigjanis says

    Daz @359: Oh no! As a kid, watching Patrick Moore host the show turned me into an astronomy buff. I still have a battered old copy of his The Observer’s Book of Astronomy (1964 reprint). Pity about his politics.

  285. Nick Gotts says

    why isn’t it OK to see for yourself? – abear

    For much the same reason I don’t visit Stormfront: if I wanted to make myself vomit, drinking salt water would be healthier. I see quite enough of the lying scumbags on their visits here and to other FTB sites.

  286. says

    Nick:

    I see quite enough of the lying scumbags on their visits here

    This is the thing, right here. Over the years, Pharyngula has been infested with enough ‘pitters that we’ve all heard their shtick first hand, way more than enough times.

  287. says

    Caine

    Ouch! My sympathies.

    Rob Grigjanis

    I had that book. Sadly it got lost in a house-move years ago. I must admit, I know nothing of Patrick Moore’s politics.

  288. chigau (違う) says

    abear
    <blockquote>paste words here</blockquote>

    paste words here

    you need to close the blockquote.
    Otherwise you appear foolish.

  289. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I find it useful to look at the evidence with my own eyes rather than automatically taking some other persons view. Also, it allows me to get a fuller view of what makes those sort of people tick.

    And who the fuck cares what you think and why? I’ll let those with more time and stomach read filth. Your word doesn’t mean anything.

  290. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    abear, please try and close those blockquotes. TIA.

    Everyone else, seriously? We know what’s being said despite not wanting to read what’s actually being said? This is what passes for intellectual debate these days? Fuck me, this is beyond stupid.

    to confirm what trusted people have already told us

    Citation needed. Who? The people who’ve told you they don’t need to read the site because Stormfront?

    *pah*

    Out. Once more.

    Fucking tribalism pisses me off.

    It’s not like I even like the pit. It’s the illogic here that annoys me.

  291. thetalkingstove says

    As for you saying the pit stalks, bullies, threatens, and harasses people; have you seen that yourself or are you going by a second or third hand source and taking that by faith?

    I’ve seen the evidence from the forums, as compiled by Michael Nugent. His article on that is easily google-able.

    I’ve also seen the long list of things that Ophelia has compiled, including being threatened with acid and having her Twitter account impersonated (not parodied, impersonated).

    And I’ve seen what generally happens on Twitter to people associated with FtB, A+ or Skepchick.

    So please don’t bother trying to convince me that the slymepit simply disagrees.

    Spend the time learning to work the quote tags instead.

  292. Amphiox says

    It’s alright to mention the slymepit and talk about how bad they are, why isn’t it OK to see for yourself?

    I make a distinction between the slymepittERS and the slymepit. It is the first that is the problem, and I have seen plenty enough of their odious disgustingness right here on Pharyngula, as well as plenty of other sites. I see no reason why I shouldn’t feel free to exercise my freedom of association and stay away from such scum.

  293. chigau (違う) says

    I used to hate the egregious misuse of the word ‘tribe’ but, really, it was always a lousy, inaccurate, condescending term anyway.
    Let reality TV have it.

  294. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It’s not like I even like the pit. It’s the illogic here that annoys me.

    It’s the apologizers for having me read fuckwittery, without being being able to trust folks like Janine, that piss the hell out of me. As a scientist, I don’t have time to make an informed decision on everything and do my own job. I do have to rely on trusted folks to allow me to say, yes, that’s what science says.

  295. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Janine is entirely correct:

    The pit is a very tedious place. There are better things to do with one’s time.

    Other conclusions might need further evidence.

    *really out*

  296. says

    ABearOfLittleBrain

    You must mean that you’re a $cientologist not a scientist. A $cilon uncritically accepts the word of an authority figure whereas a scientist likes to examine the evidence. Are you sure you’re not a bot?

    Citation needed. Show me this mythical scientist who takes absolutely nothing on trust. (And I’ll show you a scientist who gets absolutely fuck all new research done.)

  297. says

    ABearOfLittleBrain

    If their trusted source is proven wrong they accept the proof.

    Which of the sources and eyewitness accounts @#380 on this very thread should I assume to have been proven wrong, or to be untrustworthy? That’s your point after all, isn’t it? That such sources aren’t to be trusted?

  298. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    whereas a scientist likes to examine the evidence. Are you sure you’re not a bot?

    Fuckwitted idjit, I’ve been a professional scientist for 40 years, unlike you, who is nothing but hot air. Chemical Abstracts alone abstracts over a million papers a year. No scientist can read that amount of material. Which is why trust is very important. I can’t investigate everything, and must rely on people who specialize in that area. Same for the shit you recommend. I don’t have to time to read bullshit. I must rely on those I trust, which excludes you, to report and summarize the data.

    I have no need to go to the slymepit and their misgyny. It has been properly reported and summarized by many trusted folks, and they agree. There is nothing to investigate.

  299. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    It seems that abear has to make up shit about people in order to be able to insult them.

    Bored now.

  300. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Have you had any “new” research lately or have your thetans been blocking you?

    Have you anything cogent to say, or is mindless inane and insipid drivel what you are reduced to? You aren’t funny, you have nothing to say, and prove it with drivel. I would say you need to fade into the bandwidth.

  301. anteprepro says

    I’ve seen the evidence from the forums, as compiled by Michael Nugent. His article on that is easily google-able.

    Indeed it is. And I found a little something entertaining to note. Small world, huh? And such small minds in it.

  302. Tony! The Immorally Inferior Queer Shoop! says

    abear @375:
    Over at Butterflies & Wheels, Ophelia has documented a good bit of the harassment and bullying she has faced. Greta Christina has/had a series of posts about the vile misogynistic crap thrown her way by that crowd. There is a wealth of evidence at either site, as well as few Pitters who comment at Heteronormative Patriarchy. And of course there was a time many of them did comment here. We have had more than enough exposure to them to inform our opinions. No more is needed. The same can be said for you.

    Btw, IIRC, the commenter who said that to you retracted that comment.
    Myself, I am still waiting to hear a Pitter apologize for their behavior. The only person who has (and I am not sure if they were a Pitter or just a ‘both sides…’ type) is oolon. My respect for oolon grew tremendously as a result. Perhaps you will do the same one day.

  303. Tony! The Immorally Inferior Queer Shoop! says

    cm@351:
    I am confused.
    Do you or do you not believe that Slymepitters have made the claim that PZ started or is involved with A+?

  304. says

    @ chigau

    ‘tribe’

    I would welcome a discussion on tribalism and neo-tribalism, but warn that it may lead to distasteful forays into post-modernism.

    @ Caine

    [3G/4G modem]

    AA –[signal 1]–> BB –[signal 2]–> CC

    ie: A{Internet Service Provider}A –[3/4G signal]–>B{router} –[wifi]–> C{Caine’s device (laptop/tablet)}C

    Notes:

    AA: In this case it would be Verizon (I presume) that acts as Internet Service Provider and transmits (and receives, but to keep it simple) a signal from one of their transmission towers.

    [signal]: A 3 or 4 G (LTE) signal is transmitted, the energy of which is dissipated rather rapidly as a inverse power rule (n^-3) of the distance from the transmitter. How the fuck it actually covers the distances it does is amazing.

    BB: Some type of modem device (unknown) recieves the signal, and rebroadcasts it as a wifi signal.

    [signal2]: Wifi signal from your modem/booster.

    CC: Caine’s device. receives the wifi signal from the modem/booster.

    Assuming the above is a reasonable reflection of the situation, we can tackle each aspect in turn. That is not to say that each improvement is doable, but every aspect improved will improve all the aspects down the line:

    AA: Motivating Verizon to boost or relay their signal may be too much for them to tackle, in spite of their receiving money to provide you with that service.

    [signal] There are several ways to tackle this. The easiest is likely to collect more of the signal. This can be done by increasing the size of your antennae or by concentrating the signal by way of a dish (which is easy enough as a DIY project).

    BB: Is it possible to upgrade the modem? Either by replacement with a more appropriate device, or attaching an antenna, or updating the firmware?

    [signal2]: Here I can definitely help you, gratis, with equipment that I no longer use; such as wireless-N router and a wifi relay. (theophontesathotmaildotcom)

    CC: Probably no point in changing the devices. If you are on laptop, I could send a USB wifi reciever, which you could add a dish to for working in the garden etc.

    [blockquotes for clarity]
    [LTE: We noted, in a prior iteration of the Thunderdome, that we owe this technology to the mathematical genius of Hedy Lemarr.]

  305. says

    Theophontes @ 400, I will have Mister read your post tomorrow night or Monday. My brain, it is fried. Or melted. Barely functional at the moment. I appreciate it all very much, thank you.

  306. Nick Gotts says

    The people who’ve told you they don’t need to read the site because Stormfront? – cm

    That’s a lie, cm: I said no such thing. I compared the Slymepit to Stormfront, but I gave the actual reason I don’t need to wallow in the slime – that I’ve read enough from the lying Slymepit scumbags on their visits here and to other FTB sites. Similarly, I’ve read enough Nazi and jihadi crap not to need to visit their websites. If you want to wallow in the slime which is apparently abear’s preferred habitat, go ahead – just don’t pretend to any kind of superiority on that account.

    Fucking tribalism pisses me off.

    Stone me, can’t you fuckwits at least come up with some original whines?

  307. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    All quotes are from abear’s comments.

    Coincidentally, I have been threatened by one of the regulars on Pharyngula as in “breaks bottle, I will cut you abear”, in a rather chilling and bloodthirsty way.

    Yeah. You’re performance on that thread had nothing to do with the reaction you got. You really did enjoy twisting that rhetorical knife into some people who were in a fragile situation, didn’t you? But, on the bright side, it did make you BraveHero of the Day at the Slymepit, right?

    I find it useful to look at the evidence with my own eyes rather than automatically taking some other persons view.

    I really don’t need to look at the Slymepit to see what it is like. You, and your ilk, Slymepitters and fellow travellers, are more than happy to come over here and drop lies, inuendos, try to open old wounds, and generally make arses of yourselves. Then you get to scurry back with your “I Got Banned at Pharyngula” badge and be the BraveHero of the Day.

  308. smhll says

    I surfed the slimepit for less than two minutes and found this unpleasant piece of humor. And I’m really sorry I even peeked. (The first thing I clicked on was really not coherent, and thus not quotable or arguable with.)

    I recommend against looking at the link, which is a “poll” about sexual fantasies about the bloggers here.

    http://slyme pit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=346

  309. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    A group of commenters took some statements from Paul W OM and twisted them around calling him a rape apologist.

    It was what he was effectively doing with an overly pedantic “Vulcan” approach to an very emotional topic. He needed to listen to emotions, not try to ignore them.

    I was only comparatively politely defending Paul and a group of bullies then started calling me names and threatening me.

    Only after you started the name calling and whining and whining.

    I wasn’t made into a “Slymepit hero”, but you guys sure gave them lots of ammunition to allow them to portray you as a mob of feces flinging baboons.

    And you were flinging your own poo. You want to be taken seriously in the future? Stick to the topic, present real evidence, and don’t try to be funny. The latter is what makes you come across as nothing but a troll.

  310. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    A group of commenters took some statements from Paul W OM and twisted them around calling him a rape apologist. Then you dogpiled him, got extra nasty and chased him off the thread, and in fact he hasn’t been back since. Apparently you forced him into a “fragile situation”.

    Paul W was telling me, and other survivors, that getting raped was not my fault but that I put myself in a situation where I would be raped. Which is rape apologetics.

    I wasn’t made into a “Slymepit hero”, but you guys sure gave them lots of ammunition to allow them to portray you as a mob of feces flinging baboons.

    Which is why the Slymepit was crowing about this long before you objected to it on the thread.

    You are a liar. Again.

  311. says

    @Azuma Hazuki, because ethics in nerdery have no place in the thread you wanted to make a huge discussion of it in.

    Byakuren isn’t entirely benevolent. You must have noticed her spell card Great Magic “Devil’s Recitation” is a retooled version of Shinki’s desperation attack, no? Shinki, the woman with six gigantic wings who rules over Makai (= “demon realm”) and whose territory has all sorts of flying eyeballs and such in it? She extended her life through black magic, and Symposium of Post Mysticism (IIRC) states as much and that she “probably can’t enter Nirvana.” And she keeps a temple full of youkai, several of whom are still just as murderous as ever; Murasa will still sink ships if she gets the chance, no one knows what Nue’s deal is…about the only remotely safe one of the lot is Kyouko, who’s essentially an anthropomorphized manifestation of, er, the tendency of things to echo in the mountains.
    Then there’s the simmering religious feud between Toyosatomimi no Miko’s Taoists and Byakuren’s Buddhism, with Mamizou brought in to complicate things…

    I don’t care about Nirvana, because I’m not a buddhist – if I were, though, Nirvana isn’t for the benevolent. It’s for the enlightened. There’s some overlap, but they’re not the same bloody thing. Hence the distinction between a bodhisattva and arhat. I don’t care if she isn’t enlightened. Her crew is explicitly not murderous – Gensokyo is what it is. What they would be outside of it is may be murderous, if it weren’t ‘dead’, sure, but that’s irrelevant. Demons aren’t particularly worse than anyone else (To be fair, Gensokyo is predominantly the home of hilariously terrible people). And you’re using Shinki to say Byakuren is evil? Shinki, who’s ‘invasion’ was an attempt to give her kids a vacation, and the 1Ps overreacted to it? If that’s your standard for ‘evil’ who isn’t? And it’s bloody Touhou; a religious feud who’s climax of horrible is a light show is not my idea of evil on any but the most petty level. If it lead to violence I guess that might be a problem, but that’s not going to happen outside of fan works.

    All notwithstanding I only said she was benevolent, not omnibenevolent, because omnibevolence is meaningless fucking tripe.

    Madoka isn’t exactly supreme, either; Kyuubey granted that particular wish because it still suits his ends. That series is basically Sailor Moon meets Faust, with all the nightmare fuel that implies.

    Kyuubey granted that wish because he didn’t have a choice. He made the contract – one wish in exchange for the creation of a soul gem. Her wish was “No more witches”, not “I want entropy solved”. She is explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, destroying his rules and he is not happy about it. If he knew it was going to solve his problems (Which it doesn’t, which is why he’s on earth collecting demon shards), he probably wouldn’t have said “Nobody can predict what will happen.” And I didn’t say she was omnipotent, because that’s meaningless tripe, same as omnibenevolent.

  312. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but if you allow your emotions to overwhelm your rational thought process and you wrongly malign an innocent person, that makes you a perpetrator and not a victim.

    Except when the “rational” person behaves irrationally, ignoring everything they are being told. Just because people pretend “Vulcun” rationality, doesn’t mean they really engage in it. PaulW was behaving irrationally, because people were dismissing his claim. No amount of restating his claim, would change it from being a form of rape apology. Anything that says the person raped is in anyway responsible for the rape is rape apology.

  313. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you have an example of where you think I’ve been dishonest show me a real example. If you can I’ll withdraw the statement.

    You calling me a scientologist upthread. Your mouth got ahead of your reasoning.

  314. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Nick Gotts:

    That’s a lie, cm: I said no such thing.

    You’re right, you didn’t–I apologise for that reading. (Although I didn’t intend that reading; I was taking issue with Nerd and using your comment–wrongly–as a reference point.)

    Tony!

    Do you or do you not believe that Slymepitters have made the claim that […]

    Yes. No. Maybe? The PTOS is up to 128k posts, now, and that’s before we even get to Twitter, so I’m damned if I’m even going to try to find out if it’s true.

    I presume it’s true, but the fact that some have done doesn’t (to me) imply that all do. Nor that if some did, anyone making the same mistake now is clearly another-one-of-Them and deserves an insta-ban. (Poopyhead tetchiness, of course, reserves all rights, and that.)

    chigau:

    hyperskepticism isn’t usually your style.

    Actually, it is. I just usually keep it on a tighter leash. :-/

    It’s an effort for me to read all the “Xs say Y” and “Xs want Z” and to have to interpolate the “some”s and “in general”s and “in a metaphorical sense”s. And, I’ve been in a bit of a shitty headspace recently and things got to me a bit. I should probably get off the internet for while.

    And sorry for “tribalism”. I shouldn’t have used that, given some people here’s more personal relation to the concept. Apologies.

    *out for a bit*

  315. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    Hate to go Vulcan on you here, but if you allow your emotions to overwhelm your rational thought process and you wrongly malign an innocent person, that makes you a perpetrator and not a victim.

    And I’m outa here.

    I should have known not to engage abear a second time. I’m just a fucking idiot who is too weak to know where I should go, right, abear? What’s next? I’m not the right kind of survivor? I’m not innocent enough for you? I joined scouts so I caused (for Paul’s definition of caused) my rapes? Good bye.

  316. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    FFS, are you that dense that you can’t detect a little friendly satire attached to my point?

    That was no satire. It wan’t funny. All it was, was pathetic lies, like a scientist always checks everything out for themselves. As I showed you, no scientist has time to check out everything, and a level of trust in more expert opinions much be used. Which makes your pathetic plea to go to the slymepit so much propaganda, and nothing realistic.

  317. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    abear, what is your present point of posting here? Maybe you need to think about that.

  318. anteprepro says

    Hate to go Vulcan on you here, but if you allow your emotions to overwhelm your rational thought process and you wrongly malign an innocent person, that makes you a perpetrator and not a victim……

    (two sentences later)

    I resent you calling me a liar just because we disagree on things but I’m going to refrain from getting into a name calling match with you.

    Anyone else smelling dissonance?

  319. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Anyone else smelling dissonance?

    Oh, I thought that was residual skunk that was killed and left in the road for a week behind a high school I pass on my way to work.

  320. Jacob Schmidt says

    A $cilon uncritically accepts the word of an authority figure whereas a scientist likes to examine the evidence.

    Holy shit, how clueless.

    Unless you’ve personally reproduced every bit of evidence you’ve ever used, you’re placing your trust in someone. Data can be faked. Results can be manufactured. Shortcuts from the reported procedure can be taken.

  321. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    FFS, are you that dense that you can’t detect a little friendly satire attached to my point?

    Your writing is so shitty, it is hard to tell the difference between you making shit up and you using satire. As for your satire being “friendly” is is hard to accept that seeing that you never been on friendly terms with anyone here.

    Also, you are either that dense, you cannot understand that the tactics that Paul W used was triggering. Either that or you do not care that they were.

    Try to me me that you are being “friendly” now.

  322. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    No one is stopping you from posting. But I doubt that anyone would bother to watch.

  323. says

    For future reference

    To link to a YouTube Video:

    <a href="URL of the YT page">Your anchor-text</a>

    Embedding, especially on long threads, tends to slow page-loads for those on low bandwidth.

  324. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Daz, in this case, I am grateful. Knowing it was yet an other Downfall parody was all I needed.

  325. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Having said that, when it is possible to test claims it is a good thing. As you mentioned, fakery and shortcuts can occur.

    First of all, peer reviewed science is definitely better quality controlled than what you have to say. Other professionals have reviewed it, which isn’t to say on a rare occasion drivel doesn’t get published. Second, one has to have both the time, inclination, and background education to thoroughly review real science. I couldn’t begin to have the knowledge to understand the mathematics of the Standard Model, what the CERN detecors where really measuring, and the statistics used to find the answer to five sigma. But I do trusts people who said they did it. Likewise for AGW, getting 95% of egotistical and argumentative scientists to agree on something is definitive.

    Did you know I have made a parody video of the Slymepit?

    Who the fuck cares? I don’t. Nothing you say or claim without evidence will be accepted.

    This thread lacks monitors except for warning PZ of bannable offenses.

  326. Ingdigo Jump says

    *mimes crumbling up a piece of paper*

    Very nice thank you was a delight to watch I will show it to all my small children

  327. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    For those with Firefox & Greasemonkey, there’s a video unbedder script at the wiki.

    Hmm…To suffer the twice-loading and readjustment of all threads, or to suffer an occasional ignored fool or embedded video????? That is the question….

  328. consciousness razor says

    Hmm…To suffer the twice-loading and readjustment of all threads, or to suffer an occasional ignored fool or embedded video????? That is the question….

    If you use killfile anyway (which is worth it all by itself), it happens at the same time. And if you block some unnecessary junk with NoScript, it’s a little bit faster. (That’s not only for ads: there’s all sorts of widgets and crap imported from other sites that I have no use for, so they can be blocked independently.)

  329. Ogvorbis: Heading down the Failure Road. Again. says

    By Fiat: Thunderdome shall run on Tardigrade Central Time

    I thought I overthrew you?

  330. says

    The killfile author Daniel Martin left a message in the monitors thread :

    Daniel Martin

    29 September 2013 at 2:14 pm (UTC -5)

    Note to anyone who remebers my old “killfile” greasemonkey script – I’ve recently begun rewriting it from scratch as a chrome extension and, once I get that working as a firefox extension. My stretch goal is to be able to also handle Disqus-style comments, though that presents its own challenges.

  331. birgerjohansson says

    At “Dispatches from the culture wars” Ed Brayton has a fun example of hate mail aimed at Mike Weinstein.
    Anti-semitism? Check.
    Poor speling? Check.
    Porr gramar? Check.
    Incoherent rant about Satan? Check.
    (I failed to include link because my memory has suffered from austerity measures)

  332. dianne says

    Um…any monitors want to go look at the Own Goal thread and see if I crossed the line? I got, shall we say, a little ruffled at Daniel.

  333. says

    Dianne, speaking personally; not only did you not cross a line, but that was a damn fine rant.

    With my monitor hat on, I see no rules being broken.

  334. chigau (違う) says

    dianne
    I see no rules broken.
    Unless you mean that crack about the Picts.
    That was a bit much.
    ;)

  335. says

    Avicenna addressed annie55’s email to PZ. I linked it in the thread, and left a comment at Avicenna’s. I Steal PZ Myers’ Mail

    In the comments at Avicenna’s, one ‘Pen’ is using that to moan about the horrors of Pharyngula, in spite of having read the comments in the thread here. Goes to show that all the headaches with the monitor system and so on will be worth the effort in the long run, I think. That said, I wouldn’t mind a little good press now and then, in lieu of the standard whining.

  336. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Why are all my FTB personal ads for “male gamers only”? I’m not a gamer, and the only websites I ever look at are FTB, failblog, and news.
     
    *grumbles*
     
    I am giving off the wrong kind of impression to the ad people. What I want to know is where I can buy a turtle-mounted laser turret.

  337. ChasCPeterson says

    a turtle-mounted laser turret.

    Who the hell told you about that??! That’s need-to-know shit.

  338. says

    @ Caine

    Mr

    Any time.

    In the interim, from my side, I have reset the router to factory defaults. It seems to be in perfect condition. The relay seems to be working, but I cannot call up its settings page as it simply relays me through to my own router. Probably no problem, I’ll leave it to you to play with the settings. Picture here.

    The USB-wifi stick is in Theaphontes’s office. I’ll go and look for it later. I should be able to post tomorrow. It will take about a week or so to get there.

    On your side: Could you send me an image or spec. of your current modem set-up. I need to see how we could boost that signal. Unless we get that fixed you will still have a bottleneck, even if you can move about more.

    You will also need to get a 12 Volt 1 Amp transformer, as Hong Kong is 250V supply. Your nearest electrical store will sort you out. They are as cheap as chips.

    [Boltzmann Brontosaurus]

    Is keeping well. I have made serious threats to tickle him if he does not return to the fold.

  339. birgerjohansson says

    Cephalopods and cats do not have laser turrets; the guns are integrated into the chassis, like the Swedish “S” tank.

  340. says

    Sitting in just another dumb high end hotel that doesn’t have wireless internet. You get to your room and can see the “Connect cable to Ethernet port” triangular cardboard thingy already.

    Which isn’t an option if your machine has no ethernet port. But behold, there is hope: My trusted Belkin Wireless Dual-Band Travel Router! Plug the ethernet cable in it, and voila, there’s glorious Wi-Fi!

    You’d think one would not need such a gadget anymore in 2013, but hey, this is Australia, our internet runs over copper, and we don’t have trains that run faster than 80kmh.

  341. says

    @ rorschach

    Yup. A universal problem with upmarket hotels everywhere. The way around that is to stay in more downmarket hotels/motels. Especially the compact one’s with prefab rooms. They always seem to have a desk and a good wifi connection.

    If you have to stay in an upmarket hotel, check that they give you free wifi or tell them you’ll go somewhere else. Amazing what they can do when you insist on something. Especially if you are in a large group.

  342. says

    check that they give you free wifi or tell them you’ll go somewhere else.

    Hm, I never thought of that! Will def give it a try.

    Btw, watching an episode of “Who do you think you are?” with Patrick Stewart about his father, highly recommended.

  343. says

    Turns out Patrick Stewart’s mother went to court in 1925 to ask the father of his brother to, as we would say today, “pay child support”. Public shaming and everything else included. One brave woman.

  344. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    It turns out the turtles I’m hosting, (Paddy O’Turtle and #2) never go further than 20 feet from my patio door. One inhabits the vinca midyards while the other prefers the leaf litter beneath a verge holly. So why not arm them with lasers is my central contention here. Remotely controlled lasers.

  345. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Because if we outlaw turtle-mounted, remotely-controlled laser turrets, only outlaws will have turtle-mounted, remotely-controlled laser turrets.

  346. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Hugs to each according to their need.

    +++++
    Wiki stuff: I suggest making Nightjar a bureaucrat. This is basically the ability to make other users into admins, if/when new admins are needed.

    Are there any objections? Questions? Comments?

    +++++
    Naturally this will require the inflation of my title, to General Secretary of the People’s Wiki of Pharyngula.

  347. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Hello theophontes. BTW, you mustn’t speak directly to the Boltzmann Brontosaurus. There is ever the danger that it might hear you, and then we’d have a schism! of Boltzmann Protestantosaurusism!

    You should direct your prayers c/o me, and as your unelected intermediary I will forward them to the sauropod in the sky.

  348. says

    @ SGBM

    By the Powers Invested in Me, I hereby declare you to be General Secretary of the People’s Wiki of Pharyngula. With golden oak leaves!

    Napoleon: “Give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war” , “All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them.”

  349. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Where’s A.R and his cannon? I’m going to need a 21 lolcat salute.

  350. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Now mounted on a turtle.

    Of course. And why wouldn’t it be.

    That means perfect weather

    China has a HAARP?

  351. opposablethumbs says

    Hugs to each according to their need.

    And from each according to their ability? :-)

  352. says

    @ chigau

    As luck would have it, the cyberpistols got boxxed up in the same package as the uniforms.

    @ Nick Gotts

    I may have been wrong on one point. He has been contaminating there for longer than I was aware.
    ( Unfortunately I do not have much time to keep abreast of all FTB.)

  353. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @sgbm, 475:

    Hmm.

    Don’t be hasty.

  354. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Caine, FdM: Lucky! I’ll spend the afternoon watching students do immunoblotting. Which is only slightly less interesting than doing immunoblotting.
     
    Or maybe I’ll pit them against eachother in battles to the death.
     
    No. Probably just ought to do the immunoblotting.

  355. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Also, I think “eachother” is perfectly cromulent as a single word, Grammar Girl be damned.

  356. David Marjanović says

    The best photo of the week is this. It shows Berlusco”li”ni’s reaction to having lost his power game: he tried to blow up the Italian government, and failed.

    And now I’ll ruin your day: 5 Seemingly Harmless Groups That Wield Terrifying Power, 5 Ridiculous Martial Arts Myths You Won’t Believe Are Real.

    Perhaps I can restore your day by mentioning that testosterone can promote prosocial behavior in the absence of competition, or by linking to this open-access paper on remarkably angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Fucking Triassic, a full hundred million years older than all undoubted angiosperm remains.

    Also – hi, sgbm! :-)

    Any chance of getting that cyberpistol?

    Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good cyberpistol by your side, says the one who shot first.

  357. says

    Now shredding old phone books. I’ve been using shredded junk mail/paid bills and all that sort of thing as rat litter. I don’t expect phone book shreddings will last long, but it’s way cheaper than rat litter and doesn’t necessitate a trip into town.