''It's frowned upon.''

[Shoqiyqa]

I've told this story before on The escapist but one time I held a door open for an elderly man with a walker and in return he said "I don't need your help ******"

At that point I might just have slammed the door in his face ... and I'm white.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

The funny thing is that the mink fur industry is probably the most animal friendly of all the bio industries.

Not to the native species around here, it's not. Escaped American mink are a serious menace, and the correct response is get the hell away from the thing and hope someone runs over it.

 

[Plurralbles]

I'm sorry but why would the complain? I mean, shit, it's going to be taken to the curb anyway... without my doing it.

Whatever guy.

Anyway, um... meh. Can't remember any specific things.

 

[Casual Shinji]

the correct response is get the hell away from the thing and hope someone runs over it.

Yeah, but not untill after it's skinned, though, right?

I mean, that escaped fur is costing somebody money.

 

[Jamash]

Good afternoon members of the escapist. I hope you're having a fine day.



I was out with my band-mates and we threw a piece of rubbish into someone else's bin. The owner of the house came outside and nagged our ear off about doing so, Better than littering I said. So my question is:

Have you ever tried to do something with good intention, but other people found it to be quite frowned upon or wrong?

Maybe a difficult question to answer, but I know what (some/most) of you are like. So here's to getting a barrage of interesting posts.

[small]Hopefully.[/small]

I have had the exact same thing happen to me, I just put an empty can in someones bin which was sitting out for the next day pick up. He saw me do it came out and started shouting at me.
I was also with a group of friends maybe that has something to do with it, worried you are "up to something"

People putting their litter in my wheely bin used to piss me off immensely, because where I used to live the Bin-men could refuse to empty your bins if there was a single piece of rubbish that wasn't in a black bin bag, which would mean that my bin wouldn't be emptied for another 2 weeks and I couldn't put any more rubbish in it, just because someone else didn't consider the rules that everyone in the city has to abide by.

It is petty, but when the Council imposes such penalties to encourage people to recycle, and when the Bin-men will use any excuse to empty less bins (in the case of a drinks can, they can cite Health & Safety regulations and recycling rules), then having your bin collection sabotaged by other people is a valid reason to be pissed off.

 

[clipse15]

I've told this story before on The escapist but one time I held a door open for an elderly man with a walker and in return he said "I don't need your help ******"

At that point I might just have slammed the door in his face ... and I'm white.

Ya it was my first time being called a ****** out of hatred and i was in a state of shock and let the dude slide.

 

[F-I-D-O]

One could always point out to the tree huggers the cost of everything they are using at the moment in animal lives. Farms disembowel thousands if not millions of cute little bunnies each year during harvest. Not to say how much death is involved in the roads they drive on, the rubber for their bike tires, the poster board they protest with, etc etc. Not even counting the amount of infrastructure required to ***** on the internet about inhumanity.

You think that maybe keeping millions of animals in crowded captivity for their whole lives, with all the boredom and suffering that entails, for frivolous reasons (such as producing food that provides nutrients which we can get elsewhere) is a different issue than running over wildlife in a regrettable instant?

Oh, so paving a road, which cuts through a forest, which cuts through a migration path, which puts millions more of animals in the path of cars is different then the same amount being killed for food? Oops, I killed one rabbit paving a road. Good thing I'm not responsible for any more deaths. If you kill for food, then you are simply participating in a natural processes. Animal A is stronger than Animal B. Animal A eats B, gaining nutrients to survive. It's a food chain. Humans are at the top of the food chain. To retain the natural dominance, we kill animals that challenge us, and we exploit the position (at the top) no more than a lion exploiting a herd of prey. It's natural. It always will be, because humans are part of nature. Because we have higher thinking patterns does not make us less natural. Buildings are natural, because humans built them using traits that were developed through evolution (which can coexist with religion, but that's another argument). The buildings are our nests. A bird's nest doesn't grow on trees, but is it natural? Yes, because it was built in a natural processes. The two examples you provided are not different, because they are both examples of humans exercising the rights given to the creature at the top of the food chain. Lions hunt in a pack to trap a herd for food=humans trap chickens in a large group for food. Humans run over wildlife=shark eating a minnow along with a seal. They aren't different, just on different scales. How is a farmer that trap animals different than a lion that provides for other members of the pride? Your two examples are the same because they are both natural.
EDIT: No, I'm not saying that farm animals can't be treated better, just that it's the food chain on a larger scale.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Christ, I can't believe this slipped my mind...

My father was a mink farmer. Imagine how going to school was like for me with all those treehuggers...and their leather shoes.

Oh dear god, don't you just love the hypocrits?

The funny thing is that the mink fur industry is probably the most animal friendly of all the bio industries; their fur needs to look like a milion bucks so you can't treat them badly...Eventough you'd want to, those little fuckers can bite a wolverine.

One could always point out to the tree huggers the cost of everything they are using at the moment in animal lives. Farms disembowel thousands if not millions of cute little bunnies each year during harvest. Not to say how much death is involved in the roads they drive on, the rubber for their bike tires, the poster board they protest with, etc etc. Not even counting the amount of infrastructure required to ***** on the internet about inhumanity.

You think that maybe keeping millions of animals in crowded captivity for their whole lives, with all the boredom and suffering that entails, for frivolous reasons (such as producing food that provides nutrients which we can get elsewhere) is a different issue than running over wildlife in a regrettable instant?

And let's not forget that hypocrisy doesn't null arguments. Someone may not practice what they preach. That may be a personal failing, but that doesn't mean that what they preach isn't correct. You have to address arguments, not attack the people making them. Ad hominem attacks are intellectually dishonest.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

Hypocrisy is important because it weakens your message. Debate fallacy or not, it is infinitely easier to make condemning comments from the sidelines than to keep to your own message. Also, in your message, Bill is technically speaking from experience, smells horrid, and is probably coughing, which adds to the message. Like a rape victim saying rape is bad. A yuppie complaining about the plight of animals while he wears equally disgustingly produced leather is just sounding like a douchebag. Bit of a difference there but don't let me get in the way of your moral high ground.

Also, I don't really care about chickens. So no... Besides, I take it you never read about the fact that fat content from animals is how we evolved our brains in the first place? That higher mental functions came from the higher energy found in animal fat? I am all for free range but inevitably, I have bigger problems.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First of all the word "natural" is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. Second, "nature" and "natural" have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as "all-natural" wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection. Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives).

Generic forms of an appeal to nature are:
"X is Y because it is natural." (Y being a desirable property)
"X is Z because it is unnatural." (Z being an undesirable property)
Or simply when a desirable or undesirable property is implied:
"X is natural."
"X is unnatural."

This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies. The labels often have the phrase "all-natural" to assert that the product is safe. The idea that natural herbs and plants are always safe ignores the many toxic plants found in nature (hemlock, nightshade, belladonna, poisonous mushrooms, to name a few) and any possible side effects the herbs might have. Cocaine, for instance, is an "all-natural" medicine derived from the coca plant, and which was prescribed for many years for everything from chest colds to depression, yet it is highly addictive and can wreak havoc on the body's organs. Whether a product is "all-natural" or not is irrelevant in determining its safety or effectiveness.

The presence of this fallacy is manifest in the logic behind certain objections to evolution, specifically objections to evolution's morality. Those who object for this reason assume that if behaviors such as polygamy, infanticide and violence are shown to be natural, that would make them acceptable. This misunderstanding has fueled some animosity towards evolutionary biologists, for example sociobiology was criticized from this angle in the latter half of the twentieth century. (See also sociobiological theories of rape.) Others, while not believing 'natural' to be 'right' themselves, assume that those advancing evolutionary theories do. This objection should not be confused with the closely related criticism that biologists in these fields are suggesting genetic determinism. This fallacy is often present in arguments for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs such as peyote.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Hypocrisy is important because it weakens your message. Debate fallacy or not, it is infinitely easier to make condemning comments from the sidelines than to keep to your own message. Also, in your message, Bill is technically speaking from experience, smells horrid, and is probably coughing, which adds to the message. Like a rape victim saying rape is bad. A yuppie complaining about the plight of animals while he wears equally disgustingly produced leather is just sounding like a douchebag. Bit of a difference there but don't let me get in the way of your moral high ground.

Also, I don't really care about chickens. So no... Besides, I take it you never read about the fact that fat content from animals is how we evolved our brains in the first place? That higher mental functions came from the higher energy found in animal fat? I am all for free range but inevitably, I have bigger problems.

Hypocrisy doesn't weaken any message. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the message. It's not smart to be a hypocrite, because then unscrupulous people with competing messages may exploit that hypocrisy, but it has nothing to do with the validity of the message. Take a critical thinking or propaganda studies class, or something.

If you don't care about chickens, well, you could either take that for granted, or examine why that is. But saying "I don't care" by itself, is not an argument. It's a conclusion that you've come to, unexplained. An argument ideally provides a listener with a roadmap to your conclusion.

Also, man, you might want to bone up a bit more on evolutionary theory. The consumption of fat content shouldn't cause genetic mutations. You should be greatly concerned if it did.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Hypocrisy is important because it weakens your message. Debate fallacy or not, it is infinitely easier to make condemning comments from the sidelines than to keep to your own message. Also, in your message, Bill is technically speaking from experience, smells horrid, and is probably coughing, which adds to the message. Like a rape victim saying rape is bad. A yuppie complaining about the plight of animals while he wears equally disgustingly produced leather is just sounding like a douchebag. Bit of a difference there but don't let me get in the way of your moral high ground.

Also, I don't really care about chickens. So no... Besides, I take it you never read about the fact that fat content from animals is how we evolved our brains in the first place? That higher mental functions came from the higher energy found in animal fat? I am all for free range but inevitably, I have bigger problems.

Hypocrisy doesn't weaken any message. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the message. It's not smart to be a hypocrite, because then unscrupulous people with competing messages may exploit that hypocrisy, but it has nothing to do with the validity of the message. Take a critical thinking or propaganda studies class, or something.

If you don't care about chickens, well, you could either live with that, or examine why that is. But saying "I don't care" by itself, is not an argument. It's a conclusion that you've come to. An argument ideally provides a listener with a roadmap to your conclusion.

Actually if your message has value, you adhere to it. Critical thinking works both ways. You were comparing a drug addiction to a dude with leather shoes. Bob is saying it is bad and probably wants to quit but has to deal with physical dependency. The guy with shoes just likes the look of leather on his feet.

Kind of a big difference there as perception is a big part of a person's reality. As for the message itself, sure, wisdom from the mouths of fools is still wisdom but one has to ask why is the chef slim...

So thank you, I have taken classes, I just accept the idea that presentation can be as important as the message. I am surprised that propaganda classes didn't teach you that. How do you think propaganda works? It is based on a human's instinctive need to understand something at a glance. So if you want to convey a message, you have to present a message. Just because you have the "truth" behind you doesn't exempt you from that rule. Thinking things through would prove that.

That said, here is the roadmap to my conclusion. Chickens and the suffering thereof does not bother me. Why? Because I am hungry and they don't matter to me in the grand scheme of things. My survival and the survival of my family is more important than them. I am a predator and they are prey. How I catch said prey does not matter. If it can be done more efficiently, that is my concern. If free range is more efficient, let it be. I find many things about our society inefficient and foolish, however, as you said, the hypocrisy of the system doesn't stop meat from being something I prefer so I will still eat meat just as the fools in leather shoes you're defending will continue to preach something they don't even comprehend.

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

 

[technoted]

Threating the guy who bullied my little sister, it stopped him yet I went about doing it wrong and made bad choices... In my world the choices were tear him a new hole to shit out of or crush him emotionally and threaten to ruin his life if he doesn't stop his shit...

 

[Camembert]

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

Oh please, what bullshit is this? What, because some people have compassion enough to try and make some difference, and to retain some integrity by refusing to do something that they are against, they should be chided for not trying hard enough? Yeah, that's really great.

Edit: Sorry, I should probably stay out of it - ThrobbingEgo is doing a perfectly decent job of debating you into the ground on his own.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Are they ever around meat eaters? Maybe you just keep better company. I know of preachy vegans though. I WILL argue with them if they start preaching. But otherwise they can not eat meat all they want if thats what they prefer.

Well I'm a meat eater. In fact, it's more often the other way around - I used to be a vegetarian and would constantly have morons asking deliberately irritating questions and making fun of me for not eating meat. On the other hand, no vegan has ever tried persuading me to stop eating animal products, unless I have already expressed interest.

I just get really sick of people making fun of vegans all the time. It's admirable, it takes restraint. If you have the willpower (I do not) to give up all animal products because of your ethics then that is a great thing.

Being a vegan for ethics sake seems silly to me honestly. I don't make fun of them though, cept for one snide remark. I dont exactly know the difference between vegan and vegetarian, mostly just assume vegan is even more "hardcore" I guess. But well, a shot at the ethicy ones...difference between plants and animals...plants cant scream. (Both used to be alive before you ate it)

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

 

[Camembert]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way. The free range/organic market must be encouraged as much as possible, it's true.

 

[not_the_dm]

my cousin asked me to kiss her once
the single most awkward kiss of my entire life

This has happened to me too. She was a little tipsy.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

Oh please, what bullshit is this? What, because some people have compassion enough to try and make some difference, and to retain some integrity by refusing to do something that they are against, they should be chided for not trying hard enough? Yeah, that's really great.

What difference are you making exactly? The chicken isn't destined for grad school, dude. He is going to die either as a pet, prey, or random worm food as ignoble as any roadkill. Hell, what integrity for that matter? You're sitting at a computer who's infrastructure has caused and continues to cause suffering equal to or greater than whatever I eat tonight. You're probably driving the same car as the rest of us. If not, then you're probably still using rubber tires, which all leads back to the same oil nonsense as everybody else. What about that suffering, considering that is actually doing massive damage to an entire ecosystem? No... Your great endeavor is bitching about dinner. Let me just bask in your awe here. >_>

You have a cause and that's cute. The problem is when you think it gives you any kind of moral high ground. By all means, I'm sure the chick you save from the factory will write a great dissertation in thanks to all you've done for it. In the meantime, I'm going to consider my options for lunch.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

That kind of stuff is why I tend to feel smarter than most people. Sitting in english reading shakespear, it mentioned primate. I assumed everyone knew what that was. After no one answered, I did in a "duh tone" and found out the rest of the class did not know.

I love those superior moments. I read Shakespeare for pleasure when I was at school (still do actually) so I found the language a lot easier than most of my classmates. Try learning the meanings of really obscure words (tonsorial was a favourite of mine) and then if they come up you can feel that warm, knowledgeable glow.

Ugh...reading it aloud in class. The slow speaking and saying everything wrong. I made sure to always get one of the characters (everytime) so atleast someone would read it with some accuracy. (Not saying I said it all correctly, but better than them, and was praised for my feeling when reading)

I do that but always add a scottish accent. It makes me feel in character regardless of gender or setting.

 

[Camembert]

What difference are you making exactly? The chicken isn't destined for grad school, dude. He is going to die either as a pet, prey, or random worm food as ignoble as any roadkill. Hell, what integrity for that matter? You're sitting at a computer who's infrastructure has caused and continues to cause suffering equal to or greater than whatever I eat tonight. You're probably driving the same car as the rest of us. If not, then you're probably still using rubber tires, which all leads back to the same oil nonsense as everybody else. What about that suffering, considering that is actually doing massive damage to an entire ecosystem? No... Your great endeavor is bitching about dinner. Let me just bask in your awe here. >_>

You have a cause and that's cute. The problem is when you think it gives you any kind of moral high ground. By all means, I'm sure the chick you save from the factory will write a great dissertation in thanks to all you've done for it. In the meantime, I'm going to consider my options for lunch.

I eat meat. I have no moral high ground.

Also, I don't drive. I catch the bus or cycle everywhere : |

Edit: Look, this sort of thing isn't of massive concern to me. My beliefs are relatively mild, but they are beliefs all the same. My stance is that of the 'live and let live' variety, and I do admire vegans and vegetarians for their willpower. And please, the 'moral highground' accusation is very boring indeed, not to mention unnecessary. You are engaged in a debate, where you and another human are exchanging opinions, arguments, ideas, whatever. Why try and undermine them with that useless insult?