EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 7:43 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
[
Quote:
quote="Cobie"]Put up or shut up may sound offensive to you but it is no more than putting succinctly that unless you can prove your allegations, stop writing about them as if they were proven true.


And then go to a police officer and tell him about the philosophical woes of our society? Cuz cops will prove it? You are looking at the legality while some of us are looking at the morality. Laws are not always moral. Who made up laws?

Quote:
Do you have evidence that feeding ducks or geese by tube is cruel?


In order to feed ducks this way, we must contain them in cages and then dole out feeding. We must strip them of their freedom to feed when they see fit. We see them as liver. They would fly out of their cages if they could. They would not opt to be force fed by tubes and they would not like to be then killed after their organs were harvested. What was your question again? Do I have evidence that feeding is cruel?

Quote:
Note that that is the core question, not whether humans should eat pate foie. If it is cruel, animals should not be subjected to it. Period. And it should not be difficult to legislate against it if so.


But we are saying that it s cruel. And it is also difficult to legislate against cruelty.

Quote:
Human beings are tube fed in many a hospital; not only are their esophagi far less elastic than birds', humans have strong gag reflexes as well. But is it painful? No. Does it hurt having a tube in? No. Is it therefore likely a bird's much more accommodating esophagus could not accommodate a tube inserted only at the top? I think I can make a guess...


But humans are not kept in cages against their will during this process. In fact, they willfully allow for it because they know, or at least hope, this process will heal them. While they undergo such treatment, they even have visitors. The intent is obviously quite different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2015 1:03 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Posts: 257
You are the one who keeps bringing in humans and what they would think or feel. When I then point out that humans too, may be tube fed, it instantly becomes different - don't shift the goal posts. Is it cruel to tube feed a bird? This is completely outside whether one should produce foie gras, or cage birds, or eat animals. I am still waiting for an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 4:38 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
You are the one who keeps bringing in humans and what they would think or feel. When I then point out that humans too, may be tube fed, it instantly becomes different - don't shift the goal posts. Is it cruel to tube feed a bird? This is completely outside whether one should produce foie gras, or cage birds, or eat animals. I am still waiting for an answer.


No Cobie. It was in fact, you, who introduced humans and what they would think or feel. I was talking about geese. You said:

"When I then point out that humans too, may be tube fed, it instantly becomes different ....."

AND

"Human beings are tube fed in many a hospital; not only are their esophagi far less elastic than birds', humans have strong gag reflexes as well. But is it painful? No. Does it hurt having a tube in? No. Is it therefore likely a bird's much more accommodating esophagus could not accommodate a tube inserted only at the top?"

How can you say I am the one who keeps bringing in humans and what they would think or feel when it was you who introduced the human element? I am only responding. I am talking about geese!

You go on to say:
Quote:
" .... and small farms look after their animals because each one of them is live money. As is the case for big farms."


How would you like me to respond? Should I call 911? Because the "big" farms as well as the small, are harming animals for no other reason than ..... ? Making a living, taste buds, economy, etc?

Quote:
"Slaves, last time I looked, were/are human beings, and therefore, slavery was/is a human right issue, and can never be an animal rights one, let alone be an argument about how we treat animals."


Okay Cobie. So if we have a mule or camel that is worked from the moment they have legs, and until they die, they have not been enslaved? Did they have a natural life, ever? Can't you see they have been enslaved even if they are of another species and have not been able to write anti-abuse laws for themselves?

Quote:
"Can it be shown it is cruel?"


When you rely on the present system to vindicate your actions, are you not hiding behind what is legal and lawful? You have stated that "If you can show proof of animal cruelty, then to go to the authorities is a moral and ethical obligation." But this is not much different from your advice that one should call the police who are eating fois gras or having a break at McDonalds.

Quote:
You have not advanced any arguments except that birds do not normally get their food through a tube. Sure, but is it cruel to feed them that way? If you can show proof of animal cruelty, then to go to the authorities is a moral and ethical obligation. You know perfectly well what I meant, ......"


Yeah, I know what you meant and mean ..... call 911? Or shall we now go to the "authorities"? I am attempting to engage you on moral grounds and as such, I am questioning legal grounds. You, on the other hand, are reliant on the laws. This is quote disappointing because, as we have seen historically, legality does not equate to morality.

Quote:
I am sure - but since you cannot win the argument


Am I trying to "win" the argument? No. I am simply trying to be a rational voice amongst an economy and system which sees an advantage and profit of treating live animals as nothing more than objects. This is not a battle of egos.

Quote:
since only your opinion makes feeding birds "cruel", you try to weasel out of it.


Instead of "weasling out of it", I am actually holding you to task. The word "weasling" has no punch.

Quote:
Why do you think even Californian authorities have overturned the ban?


Because of economics and because animals have become like furniture in our economic agreement. And because people and politicians desire a voice.

Quote:
Do you really think they would have done so if large scale cruelty to animals were involved?


Large scale cruelty to animals ARE involved Cobie. They are involved in the name of profit. Animals, who can experience pain and fear, are caught up in this economy.

Quote:
You started it, the onus is on you to show I, foie gras producers, and Californian authorities are wrong. I do not have to show I am right, really ..


I started it in regards to geese. You started it in regards to humans.

You would have to show that you were "right" (aka 'legal') to have whipped your boy (or raped your girl) in other times. Why do you put so much emphasis on the legality of exploitation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 10:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Posts: 257
If you think the issue is moral, there is no discussion. I have no moral problem with using animals for food, as long as the animals' welfare is not compromised. This does not mean that no animal will ever suffer any stress or even some pain - these are, after all, part of life, for animals (wild and domestic, for wild animals probably more so)and humans (even for our children). A life without any stress whatsoever is bad for animals since they lose their natural need for vigilance and awareness, BTW. So I will not buy "cage" eggs, since they do affect welfare of the animals significantly. But I do not mind "barn" eggs even though the animals may be stressed because of having to actually cope with social environments; a "natural" stress if within limits. I don't mind meat since in Australia beef is grassfed and at best finished in feedlots for a limited time only, and killed quickly. I don't mind milk, since bull calves are raised for meat; and bees produce plenty of honey to let me have some, to mention just a few food items. OTOH, I am well aware that producing vegatarian food also kills animals in its production. I ride a horse that has been gelded, but lives out in a large paddock with companions; my cats are all desexed and live indoors, a price they have to pay for being otherwise looked after well, and acknowledging (on my part) that the birds in my garden are entitled to a life, too. In this context, having foie gras occasionally is just a treat, and I can do that because I think there is no cruelty in tube-feeding a bird, since birds show no evidence of pain when fed. So if you think it is cruel, by all means oppose it. But unless you actually have proof it is cruel, I see no reason why production of it ought to be forbidden, or people lectured to because they eat it, or any other animal product.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:53 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
If you think the issue is moral, there is no discussion.


Are we finally here? Are we finally able to put away notions of calling in the "authorities" when we see needless animal suffering and cruelty at the hands of humans? That took some doing. And yes, it is a moral question. And yes, morality gets mixed in with legality just as slavery has. I know you don't like to link the two, but it is clear that what is immoral is often legal, both currently and historically.

Quote:
I have no moral problem with using animals for food, as long as the animals' welfare is not compromised.


Neither do I .... and I have already said so. But it seems we are arguing about what constitutes "welfare". Your idea of welfare seems to be much more encompassing of current conditions around housing, transport, quality of life, etc, than mine. I have a much stricter view of what should be legal, according to morality, largely because I can see that the entire industry is based on the commodification of animals in a capitalistic system whereby animals are seen as money-makers and objects in what has become a massive industry.

Quote:
This does not mean that no animal will ever suffer any stress or even some pain - these are, after all, part of life, for animals (wild and domestic, for wild animals probably more so)and humans (even for our children).


I do not argue that life should be devoid of struggle or pain. How could I when it is a fact? Yet I disagree that wild animals suffer more than farmed animals just as I would disagree that wild children were not better off being wild than they were when instituted. ie: aboriginals of both North America and Australia/New Zealand. I would much prefer to be a gazelle whose life was ended by a lioness than a sow confined to a gestation crate for 2 1/2 years. And getting back to geese, I would much prefer to be a goose leisurely stuffing myself along a lakeshore with grass and seeds before a long flight, than a goose confined to a cage for years on end and stuffed by a tube at someone else's whim.

Quote:
A life without any stress whatsoever is bad for animals since they lose their natural need for vigilance and awareness, BTW.


Cobie, how can a pig who is stressed by its confinement days on end, with no means of escape, have a need for vigilance? How can a goose be vigilant when it is locked up in a cage against its natural inclination to feed when and where it wants to? When I am imprisoned, the only thing I need to be vigilant about is when the next harm will come, which has nothing to do with the natural order of survival in the wild, which does indeed require vigilance and awareness.

Quote:
So I will not buy "cage" eggs, since they do affect welfare of the animals significantly. But I do not mind "barn" eggs even though the animals may be stressed because of having to actually cope with social environments; a "natural" stress if within limits.


I eat eggs too, but only when I happen to be in the country and can buy from the farmers whose chickens I can actually see. Unfortunately, the chicken/egg industry is huge and largely unquestioned, especially by the consumer.

Quote:
But I do not mind "barn" eggs even though the animals may be stressed because of having to actually cope with social environments; a "natural" stress if within limits.


Animals are naturally sociable. Not sure what you mean here? They are stressed when they are crammed in together, just as humans are.

Quote:
I don't mind meat


You're not going to like the analogy, but you probably wouldn't have minded slaves if they were not whipped and only used to enhance the plantation's economic well being. Meat is part of our present day economy. What would happen if it wasn't? Or if was a fraction? Would we all die just as the slave-holders of the American South thought they would if they were no longer able to have slaves? (They couldn't imagine a world without slaves.)

Quote:
since in Australia beef is grassfed and at best finished in feedlots for a limited time only, and killed quickly.


So you don't mind eating meat in Australia. What happens when you go to other regions of the world? Do you then become vegetarian?

Quote:
I don't mind milk, since bull calves are raised for meat; and bees produce plenty of honey to let me have some, to mention just a few food items.


Beef and honey ..... I DO mind milk products because bull calves are often slaughtered early and without much quality of life. This also hurts the mothers whose instinct is to mother. Some dairy farmers have decided to muzzle the infants, so that they are unable to get the milk nurturance from their mothers. It is heart breaking to watch the young follow their mothers around looking for food and nurturance.

Quote:
OTOH, I am well aware that producing vegatarian food also kills animals in its production.


Yeah Cobie. I am also aware of it. Large, industrial farms are similar to large industrial fisheries that take out huge amounts of species in order to get the prized catch. The entire system is destructive. It is a system that we are all caught up in and which we have caught up not only animals, but also the entire environment. But look how we treat each other. The way we treat each other is the way we treat animals and is the way we treat the environment. They are not separate.

Quote:
I ride a horse that has been gelded, but lives out in a large paddock with companions; my cats are all desexed and live indoors, a price they have to pay for being otherwise looked after well, and acknowledging (on my part) that the birds in my garden are entitled to a life, too.


Very responsible of you. Thank you for keeping your cats indoors. Mine go out, but they are 'belled' because I am concerned about the bird population.

Quote:
In this context, having foie gras occasionally is just a treat, and I can do that because I think there is no cruelty in tube-feeding a bird, since birds show no evidence of pain when fed.


Geese show no evidence of pain when fed? Really? How do you even know that? What do you know about their quality of life? How about the fact that they are caged until fed? Or the fact that they have no movement and don't see the light of day? Most of them cannot even exercise themselves. They can't move around as they normally would. Do you contest that fact?

Quote:
So if you think it is cruel, by all means oppose it. But unless you actually have proof it is cruel, I see no reason why production of it ought to be forbidden, or people lectured to because they eat it, or any other animal product
[/quote]

Ask the slave for proof that the way he is being treated is cruel. Did it do him any good? If you can't see it, how can you see it now? It is, actually, a shift of paradigm. You want some kind of "proof" that a goose would rather be free than be caged? Really?

If you would simply come clean, you would admit that animals have become caught up in the economic system that we have created.

I leave you with this Cobie ...

http://www.sousa-labourdette.com/

Eat fois gras if you wish, but understand that confinement is cruelty. When geese enjoy a quality of life when they are completely free, .... we then have a delicacy in tune with nature. Will you adjust your definition according to the care shown in the video? Or will you continue to defend the industry that makes easy money? If you defend both small and large scale operations, you agree to unnecessary cruelty. And you are not the only one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Simple explanation:

If Animal Friendly does not approve that action is cruel. End of story.

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to conform to her moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own.

(facts do not matter in this belief system or the stresses of merely being a chicken, for example, outside of a solid enclosure would be known and considered)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:37 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:33 am
Posts: 1179
Location: Glastonbury, England.
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to conform to her moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own.



I conform to her moral decision.

_________________
'Where mercy, love and pity dwell, there God is dwelling too'

http://holy-lance.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
knightofalbion wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to conform to her moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own.



I conform to her moral decision.


Good for you. Now she only need a few billion more to conform to her will.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
knightofalbion wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to conform to her moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own.



Quote:
I conform to her moral decision.


Don't be tricked by the word "conform". None of us are conforming, nor can we possible ask the entire world to agree or conform to a discussion which is meant to be a moral discussion. We are hopefully having some kind of intelligent conversation. Wayne used the word 'conform", but we are not doing that. I do agree that this is a moral conversation over a legal one though.

Quote:
Good for you. Now she only need a few billion more to conform to her will.


I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously. Nor do I need to conform to the present day situation. As I said, go ahead and eat fois gras or whatever else your taste buds demand. I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.

What do you think Cobie? Do you agree with Wayne that my position is a way to make the rest of the world conform to my moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own?

What did you think of the video? Did you watch it? Do you think it is plausible as a way to enrich people's lives in the capitalist system we function under as well as a way to honor animals and their welfare in the best possible way we can? I'm sure that if we all did it this way, the price would go up. Is it okay that prices would go up for a delicacy, kind of like the price of champagne? Neither fois gras nor champagne are necessary, but both are included in the GDP of every country. How can we do it humanely?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Don't be tricked by the word "conform". None of us are conforming, nor can we possible ask the entire world to agree or conform to a discussion which is meant to be a moral discussion. We are hopefully having some kind of intelligent conversation. Wayne used the word 'conform", but we are not doing that. I do agree that this is a moral conversation over a legal one though.


The conform is correct, as you have stated you believe the treatment is "cruel" and thus you would attempt to convince others as well. Is that not the "agitation" of which you spoke? The act of convincing people to conform to your beliefs? There are many ways to get people to conform and laws are but one. Conversion of beliefs is another. That is why religions proselytize.

Quote:
I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously.


It is if you want the animals to be treated differently.

Quote:
I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.


That influence is a type of conforming, just as people conform to new religious beliefs or new beliefs over what is pretty in fashion based upon the beliefs of others.

Quote:
How can we do it humanely?


Does it matter? Since you said you were not seeking for anyone to conform to anything .... :-k :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:14 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Don't be tricked by the word "conform". None of us are conforming, nor can we possible ask the entire world to agree or conform to a discussion which is meant to be a moral discussion. We are hopefully having some kind of intelligent conversation. Wayne used the word 'conform", but we are not doing that. I do agree that this is a moral conversation over a legal one though.

Quote:
The conform is correct, as you have stated you believe the treatment is "cruel" and thus you would attempt to convince others as well. Is that not the "agitation" of which you spoke? The act of convincing people to conform to your beliefs? There are many ways to get people to conform and laws are but one. Conversion of beliefs is another. That is why religions proselytize.


And if we happen to be conformists, we will agree to religion, regardless of it's particular name or who is proselytizing. If we are conformists we will agree to the laws, regardless of morality, in whatever decade or age, even if they are immoral. If we don't use our intelligence, we will agree. If we are not conformists, or in other words, if we are thinking beyond both law and religion, there is no amount of proselytizing or "but everyone is doing it" that could possibly sway us, because we are using our intelligence.

I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously.

Quote:
It is if you want the animals to be treated differently.


I DO want animals to be treated differently but I would hate for anyone to "conform" because to do so would NOT be acting intelligently. If people would act intelligently, instead of conforming, we just might be able to create a more just society in every direction. If people would stop conforming, there would be a total revolution which would have no need of violence. As is, too many have conformed with the present day situation where animals are horribly abused in confinement situations, and then transported as if they are mere objects rather than living beings, with no food or water. Why has this been allowed? Because these cruel practices have become "normalized" and conformed to.

I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.

Quote:
That influence is a type of conforming, just as people conform to new religious beliefs or new beliefs over what is pretty in fashion based upon the beliefs of others.


Influence can sometimes bring about agreement/conforming, but if we are aware of our propensity to be influenced, we will not conform. When the awareness of how we are influenced is there, we might be more able to act intelligently and therefore conform less. But conditioning is a much deeper form of influence. And we have all been conditioned to accept even very brutal aspects of our particular cultures both presently and historically. If we can see how our ancestors accepted the influences of their cultures, we might also be able to see how we accept ours.

Again, I ask if we must use animals towards the GDP of our country's economy, how can we do it humanely?

Quote:
Does it matter? Since you said you were not seeking for anyone to conform to anything .... :-k :mrgreen:


Does it matter how we treat animals? Does it matter that we treat animals humanely? I am definitely attempting to ask that people STOP conforming, and one needs only intelligence for that, which we all innately possess.

Merriam Webster's definition of conformity:

[b]"behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."

(Most people "conform" to our present day treatment of animals. They don't ask questions. They conform.)

"the fact or state of agreeing with or obeying something"

(Obedience is devoid of intelligence. We can objectively see how our ancestors f##k up, but it is less obvious how we are f##k up.)

I'd say it's high time we had a little disobedience. It' time to move on, progress, evolve, think outside the box. Enough of this conformity!

We internalize many norms. We are unaware of alternative modes of behavior and we may realize that to violate norms may result in our incurring punishment while conformity produces rewards. As members of a society we continuously undergo socialization. Many of these norms we internalized and so we accept them without any thought or question.

It usually does not occur to us that alternative standards exist. Norms constitute guideposts. They represent the social tools that enable us to relate ourselves to others and to meet our daily needs, especially the need to belong. Our conformity may be product of our realization that to do otherwise is to incur punishment while conformity produces rewards. The rule breaker is met with hostility and ostracism.

We love to "belong", and to take a stand against the "norm" is to risk above said hostility and ostracism. Fear is another factor in obedience.

Conformity is a natural human instinct because we all want to belong. It's quite normal and I do not have an issue with it. I see it, I am aware of it, I count on it. And this awareness is key.

I wonder ... who was the very first person to say that slavery should be questioned, even though the laws and the general consensus was in agreement with those archaic practices? Who dared to NOT belong and to go against the grain? Unfortunately it created a horrible war. We don't need that. We just need intelligence and the ability to stand apart from, and alone from, the general consensus. In doing so, we might question this idea of "conformity'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Don't be tricked by the word "conform". None of us are conforming, nor can we possible ask the entire world to agree or conform to a discussion which is meant to be a moral discussion. We are hopefully having some kind of intelligent conversation. Wayne used the word 'conform", but we are not doing that. I do agree that this is a moral conversation over a legal one though.


It may not be possible to get the whole world to conform, but that does not mean you are not trying to do so by presenting your case in the discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
The conform is correct, as you have stated you believe the treatment is "cruel" and thus you would attempt to convince others as well. Is that not the "agitation" of which you spoke? The act of convincing people to conform to your beliefs? There are many ways to get people to conform and laws are but one. Conversion of beliefs is another. That is why religions proselytize.


And if we happen to be conformists, we will agree to religion, regardless of it's particular name or who is proselytizing. If we are conformists we will agree to the laws, regardless of morality, in whatever decade or age, even if they are immoral. If we don't use our intelligence, we will agree. If we are not conformists, or in other words, if we are thinking beyond both law and religion, there is no amount of proselytizing or "but everyone is doing it" that could possibly sway us, because we are using our intelligence.


You have now changed the meaning of the word and taken it to the absolute, which is a logical fallacy called False Dichotomy. You now say we must either conform to everything or nothing.

Quote:
I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously.


However, you state it, you WANT as many people to conform to your will as possible because that is the only way to achieve the change you seek.

Quote:
Quote:
It is if you want the animals to be treated differently.


I DO want animals to be treated differently but I would hate for anyone to "conform" because to do so would NOT be acting intelligently.


Not many people would say that agreeing with their views "would NOT be acting intelligently" if they actually were interested in chamge.

Quote:
If people would act intelligently, instead of conforming, we just might be able to create a more just society in every direction. If people would stop conforming, there would be a total revolution which would have no need of violence.


It seems you are not using the correct definition of the term or you do not understand what you are saying. If people stopped conforming in all cases as you seem to be indicating there would be no civilization or society.

Quote:
As is, too many have conformed with the present day situation where animals are horribly abused in confinement situations, and then transported as if they are mere objects rather than living beings, with no food or water. Why has this been allowed? Because these cruel practices have become "normalized" and conformed to.


Clearly you are confused.

Conform:

: to be similar to or the same as something

: to obey or agree with something

: to do what other people do : to behave in a way that is accepted by most people

Quote:
I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.


But we do have to get the crowd to agree with us IF we are seeking a change.

Quote:
Quote:
That influence is a type of conforming, just as people conform to new religious beliefs or new beliefs over what is pretty in fashion based upon the beliefs of others.


Influence can sometimes bring about agreement/conforming, but if we are aware of our propensity to be influenced, we will not conform. When the awareness of how we are influenced is there, we might be more able to act intelligently and therefore conform less. But conditioning is a much deeper form of influence. And we have all been conditioned to accept even very brutal aspects of our particular cultures both presently and historically. If we can see how our ancestors accepted the influences of their cultures, we might also be able to see how we accept ours.


You are making no sense what so ever with this.

Quote:
Again, I ask if we must use animals towards the GDP of our country's economy, how can we do it humanely?


It depends on whose definition of "humanely" one uses. We cannot use yours as that would be conforming and if we all have a different definition we cannot meet them all.

Quote:
Quote:
Does it matter? Since you said you were not seeking for anyone to conform to anything .... :-k :mrgreen:


Does it matter how we treat animals? Does it matter that we treat animals humanely? I am definitely attempting to ask that people STOP conforming, and one needs only intelligence for that, which we all innately possess.


You are asking them to stop conforming with the status quo and conform to a new stanard.

Quote:
Merriam Webster's definition of conformity:


Not "conform" why pick a different term?

Quote:
"behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."

(Most people "conform" to our present day treatment of animals. They don't ask questions. They conform.)


You ignore all of the other definitions available? You use a different term and pick a specific portion of the definition to claim I am incorrect in the usage? The personal addition to the definition is not accurate or correct either. There is no indication that conforming means blind or unthinking action.



Quote:
"the fact or state of agreeing with or obeying something"

(Obedience is devoid of intelligence. We can objectively see how our ancestors f##k up, but it is less obvious how we are f##k up.)


And what of the other portion of the definition you so quickly ignored? You do not wish people to AGREE with your views?

Quote:
I'd say it's high time we had a little disobedience. It' time to move on, progress, evolve, think outside the box. Enough of this conformity!


Anarchy is such a wonderful thing. If you change the definition often enough you can convince yourself of your position, but you have just indicated your desire to argue no matter what.

Quote:
We internalize many norms. We are unaware of alternative modes of behavior and we may realize that to violate norms may result in our incurring punishment while conformity produces rewards. As members of a society we continuously undergo socialization. Many of these norms we internalized and so we accept them without any thought or question.


I am glad that you seem to believe you are the only one thinking, but that thought is inaccurate.

Quote:
It usually does not occur to us that alternative standards exist. Norms constitute guideposts. They represent the social tools that enable us to relate ourselves to others and to meet our daily needs, especially the need to belong. Our conformity may be product of our realization that to do otherwise is to incur punishment while conformity produces rewards. The rule breaker is met with hostility and ostracism.


You are correct, I do not think that we should ever agree with your views.

Quote:
We love to "belong", and to take a stand against the "norm" is to risk above said hostility and ostracism. Fear is another factor in obedience.

Conformity is a natural human instinct because we all want to belong. It's quite normal and I do not have an issue with it. I see it, I am aware of it, I count on it. And this awareness is key.


Try using the definition in my use correctly in the future please.

Quote:
I wonder ... who was the very first person to say that slavery should be questioned, even though the laws and the general consensus was in agreement with those archaic practices? Who dared to NOT belong and to go against the grain? Unfortunately it created a horrible war. We don't need that. We just need intelligence and the ability to stand apart from, and alone from, the general consensus. In doing so, we might question this idea of "conformity'.


If none had agreed with that first person or conformed to their position, it would not have mattered. That means this long rant has been for naught.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:34 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
You are very short on understanding Wayne, probably deliberately obtuse.

I will not spend the time explaining to you how people who are concerned about environmental, animal and human degradation and exploitation, are nothing more than a bunch of conformists.

Have a lovely day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:33 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
You are very short on understanding Wayne, probably deliberately obtuse.

I will not spend the time explaining to you how people who are concerned about environmental, animal and human degradation and exploitation, are nothing more than a bunch of conformists.

Have a lovely day.


Right, because those people who are concerned about those issues WANT people to agree with them and dislike the less than ethical changing of definitions to make them seem like anarchists.

Since this is the meaning given my use in context.

Conform:

: to agree with something

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:51 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
You are very short on understanding Wayne, probably deliberately obtuse.

I will not spend the time explaining to you how people who are concerned about environmental, animal and human degradation and exploitation, are nothing more than a bunch of conformists.

Have a lovely day.


Right, because those people who are concerned about those issues WANT people to agree with them ....
and dislike the less than ethical changing of definitions to make them seem like anarchists. Since this is the meaning given my use in context.

Anarchy is but a word ..... Regardless of who brought it up.

Conform:

: to agree with something


"behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."

Most people "conform" to our present day treatment of animals. They don't ask questions. They simply conform.

You ignore all of the other definitions available?

What? Are there other definitions available? Denotations and connotations? Even so, most people conform.

You use a different term and pick a specific portion of the definition to claim I am incorrect in the usage? The personal addition to the definition is not accurate or correct either. There is no indication that conforming means blind or unthinking action.

But it's really easy when everyone else is doing it. We agreed to slavery. We conformed then. We conform now. Or do we? You might check your dictionary, and while you do so, remember that the word is not the actual thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group