Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Animal Ethics] Modern Warrior: Damien Mander at TEDxSydney

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:28 AM

A wonderful discussion recently posted May 15th, 2013.



Feel free to discuss.
  • 0

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg


#2 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,922 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:58 AM

this old chestnut again? let me start it off with this:
kevin bacon made out of bacon
Posted Image
  • 3

#3 sarcastro

sarcastro

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 03

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:46 PM

Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid.

I think we can just lock it up right here.
  • 1

#4 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,486 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:02 PM

Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid.


...?
  • 0

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#5 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:20 PM

Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid.

I think we can just lock it up right here.


LOL.

I didn't know 'opinions' could be invalid.

And besides, validity relates to an arguments form- of which I presented none.

Anyways, it is just a topic for discussion. What interested me is the individual relating the message. Not all animal activists are skinny, pacifist weaklings.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 23 May 2013 - 01:23 PM.

  • 1

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg


#6 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:27 PM

this old chestnut again? let me start it off with this:
kevin bacon made out of bacon


I +1'd this because well, it's Kevin Bacon'd.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 23 May 2013 - 01:27 PM.

  • 0

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg


#7 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 01:36 PM

Calling that video 'wonderful' is an appeal to emotion, therefore your opinion is invalid.

I think we can just lock it up right here.


oh sorry boss, didn't know you were in charge of things around here.

thread should remain unlocked. wonderful video.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#8 Offensive Threat

Offensive Threat

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,863 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 03

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:22 PM

He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard.

I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest.
  • 0

Posted Image


#9 canucks#01fan

canucks#01fan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 23 May 2013 - 05:52 PM

He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard.

I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest.

not open to new ideas? Although humans have had the biggest impact on the earth and are by far the most intelligent life form, saying another life form is less valuable is ignorant.

Edited by canucks#01fan, 23 May 2013 - 05:53 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for avatar

#10 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,343 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:02 PM

...?


Silly Goose is notorius for never replying to actual arguments and only talking about literary fallacies.
  • 0

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#11 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:53 PM

He lost me when he started equating human life with animal life as equal individuals. No animal is equal to a human. No animal is worth a human life. Humans stand apart in that regard.

I believe in conservation. I believe in preservation. I believe in it because it is in our best self interest.


I'm not sure he was equating the two. Rather, I think he was trying to emphasize the fact that many animals and humans share many similarities, some of which are morally relevant. For example, the capacity for suffering. And if we take those similarities seriously then it is logically inconsistent to apply similar considerations to one but not the other. For instance, if vivisection on humans is strongly ruled out because of the agony it causes no matter the knowledge gained from it, then it is logically inconsistent to not at least strongly consider the agony animals endure through vivisection, and whether this is really justifiable. This doesn't necessarily equate the two either because you could still place more weight on human interests based on reasons which only apply in the case of humans, but you simply can't discount the interests animals have either. Well, I guess you could but then that type of thinking is exactly what the speaker in the video is critiquing.



Silly Goose is notorius for never replying to actual arguments and only talking about literary fallacies.


Hmmm not sure I agree with this. And I think you mean either formal or informal fallacies. And I'm not necessarily creating this thread to argue- just wanted to share that recent video. If you want to have an argumentative discussion then by all means go for it. Anything adressed to me I will try to respond to.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 23 May 2013 - 06:59 PM.

  • 0

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg


#12 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,774 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:54 PM

I'm not sure he was equating the two. Rather, I think he was trying to emphasize the fact that many animals and humans share many similarities, some of which are morally relevant. For example, the capacity for suffering. And if we take those similarities seriously then it is logically inconsistent to apply similar considerations to one but not the other. For instance, if vivisection on humans is strongly ruled out because of the agony it causes no matter the knowledge gained from it, then it is logically inconsistent to not at least strongly consider the agony animals endure through vivisection, and whether this is really justifiable. This doesn't necessarily equate the two either because you could still place more weight on human interests based on reasons which only apply in the case of humans, but you simply can't discount the interests animals have either. Well, I guess you could but then that type of thinking is exactly what the speaker in the video is critiquing.





Hmmm not sure I agree with this. And I think you mean either formal or informal fallacies. And I'm not necessarily creating this thread to argue- just wanted to share that recent video. If you want to have an argumentative discussion then by all means go for it. Anything adressed to me I will try to respond to.


oh ho ho, hee hee hoo ha ha.


It was a very good video that did bring up several interesting discussion topics. Thank you for posting it. That bold part though is such an incredibly vague argument that lumps so many things together into one thing in the name of logistics it kind of ruins any actual discussion.(or at least the hope for one given your history on the subject) While it is true that inflicting pain unnecessarily is wrong when you get into the morality and ethical parts of these discussion (two human animal made concepts btw) you enter into a zone where the bull**** has rockets on it it flies so fast.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#13 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:32 PM

oh ho ho, hee hee hoo ha ha.


It was a very good video that did bring up several interesting discussion topics. Thank you for posting it. That bold part though is such an incredibly vague argument that lumps so many things together into one thing in the name of logistics it kind of ruins any actual discussion.(or at least the hope for one given your history on the subject) While it is true that inflicting pain unnecessarily is wrong when you get into the morality and ethical parts of these discussion (two human animal made concepts btw) you enter into a zone where the bull**** has rockets on it it flies so fast.


I apologize if it seems unclear. The intended meaning is that if suffering is a morally relevant characteristic that we take into consideration, and both some humans and some animals can suffer, then we ought to take the suffering of both into account, ethically speaking. Without good reason, it is irrational not to.

However, this seems to assume some form of Moral Objectivism. Perhaps you disagree with this position though.

If there are more specific things you take issue with, feel free to say so.
  • 0

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg


#14 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,774 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 24 May 2013 - 07:47 AM

I apologize if it seems unclear. The intended meaning is that if suffering is a morally relevant characteristic that we take into consideration, and both some humans and some animals can suffer, then we ought to take the suffering of both into account, ethically speaking. Without good reason, it is irrational not to.

However, this seems to assume some form of Moral Objectivism. Perhaps you disagree with this position though.

If there are more specific things you take issue with, feel free to say so.


I'm not sure how you gathered that anything was unclear.

It is perfectly clear and very simple but leaves out important factors like how morality and ethics are man made concepts and how while you point out one similarity all the glaring differences between humans and animals. Suffering is a bad thing though. You would be hard pressed to find anybody make an argument in favor of suffering. Still though to make the argument that we all suffer which means we have to consider animals on the same level as humans is foolish and overly simplistic. We have to consider animals as something we share the planet with. We have to consider them as a food source and a resource which we need to take care of. (or at least we should.)

What we also have to consider is the advancements and lives saved because of our use of animals. Outside of being a food source of course. Do you know how many lives have been saved because of animal testing? Bio-medical research has saved and improved millions of lives. Penicillin alone has had such a huge impact let alone advancements in parkinson's, asthma, TB. The lease goes on. So given that don't we also have a moral obligation to the people and animals that bio medical research will help and save? A lot of people who blather on about morals and ethics in regards to animals would say absolutely not. What do you think?

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 24 May 2013 - 07:48 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#15 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,681 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:49 AM

Silly Goose is notorius for never replying to actual arguments and only talking about literary fallacies.


I wasn't aware we had to do that at canucks.com. He was just posting a video, and he thought it was a video worth sharing. Keep in mind that dude was an ex special force. For him to open up to animals like that is extremely rare because his profession in the past.... was killing.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#16 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

It is perfectly clear and very simple but leaves out important factors like how morality and ethics are man made concepts and how while you point out one similarity all the glaring differences between humans and animals.


Moral concepts are perhaps unique to humans because we are rational creatures-yes (but this begs the question whether if other intelligent life in the universe exists could understand the same concepts e.g aliens in the film District 9). But what does this fact, that we can understand moral concepts like justice, goodness, right, wrong, fairness etc mean in relation to how we ought to treat animals?

And there are many differences between animals and humans (one difference pointed out above). But it can't be denied that there are many similarities as well (no doubt evolution supports this fact & see video around 8:00 mark). The moral question is which of these are morally relevant, and how do we take these into consideration when it comes to how we ought to treat one another? I'll leave that an open question for now.

Suffering is a bad thing though. You would be hard pressed to find anybody make an argument in favor of suffering. Still though to make the argument that we all suffer which means we have to consider animals on the same level as humans is foolish and overly simplistic. We have to consider animals as something we share the planet with. We have to consider them as a food source and a resource which we need to take care of. (or at least we should.)


I'm not sure the video was equating animals with humans. I think he was only stressing the point that if we take suffering seriously, we ought to take the suffering of animals seriously. Basically, if we make animals suffer, what is our justification for that, and is that justification reasonable?

What we also have to consider is the advancements and lives saved because of our use of animals. Outside of being a food source of course. Do you know how many lives have been saved because of animal testing? Bio-medical research has saved and improved millions of lives. Penicillin alone has had such a huge impact let alone advancements in parkinson's, asthma, TB. The lease goes on. So given that don't we also have a moral obligation to the people and animals that bio medical research will help and save? A lot of people who blather on about morals and ethics in regards to animals would say absolutely not. What do you think?


Bio-medical ethics and the use of animal testing is a very complicated issue. The video pointed out that if we think certain kinds of testing is seriously wrong to do on humans on the basis of the significant harm it causes, why then, if we consider humans and animals similar when it comes to the abiility to suffer, subject them to it? That's the moral question that has to be justifiably answered. And yes, certain beneficial treatments have come out of animal testing, but the same can also be said of past experiments done on humans that yielded beneficial research, yet these experiments by todays standards would not be permissable.

In any event, I think this article sums up the issue well. I understand that things don't change quickly. Replacement is what should be worked towards, in my view.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 24 May 2013 - 12:06 PM.

  • 0

0au3Jj.gifhuntersmalll.jpg






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Discussion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.