Is offending a group of people always bad?

Miss_Leah wrote: My belief is that cultural practices should be preserved if at all possible, but cruelty to others (be they human or animal) shouldn't be encouraged. Some feelings may be rattled by questioning tradition, but we must learn and grow as a species.

I agree :woohoo:
The extents of acceptable creation of suffering should be defined by the benefit for the recipient of the suffing, not the person causing it.

OB1Shinobi wrote: but.. we're not the first ones to bring up the issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mH-L6UCCAE

I regrettably have not spent as much time watching Star Trek as I'd like, but I reckon you just need appropriate boundaries to define distinct systems to orientate values and interactions based on those values.

Being not to interfere with its development, it seems to infer the continuation of the system supporting that development - and so if something interfered with that then it would seem the Prime Directive was no longer relevant and not binding.

Consider a petri dish, the plastic container serves a purpose yes, but you could use any identical plastic container. The growth medium though, becomes unique once its started.

They just need a way to move people without them understanding how it happened... and so I would not include virus or microbial events if they emerged within that planet, or wars, as I'd view the system to be the planetary ecosystem.

What is the difference between boiling a dog and mistreating pigs ? I googled mistreating pigs and it came up with 40.800 results, i am not a vegan or even a vegetarian btw I just think we should be very weary of telling people how to treat animals or even their other habits and traditions if we cannot even control that in our own enviroment :silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA_Tl1kvlQU

The original post questions identity. When we de identify and focus on the practice, we exercise our freedom to reason.

When generalisation is abused to dehumanise a whole ethnicity, then the opinionated are guilty. Prudent discrimination of a locale, based from famine origins of the world wars; is needed to gain consensus of everyone based on justice rather than an argument ad populum fallacy.

In conclusion, offend the practice instead of the people.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

What does offending a practice mean? Also, what's so bad about offending people anyway? If we really don't care in the least for a person's or a group's feelings, while I do not endorse intentionally hurting them if we can help it, why ought we avoid doing so still? And it goes both ways, too. Aren't our (or rather The Sun's) cries about those evil dog-eaters not really whining about how offended they are by people daring to be different than themselves?
Just like I wouldn't give a rat's arse (pardon my French - and yes, do feel free to take offense to that expression as well ) about those defending a practice by appeals to cultural context, so wouldn't I give a frak (aha, this totally obscures the real word on my mind) about some conservative tabloid's editor staff's outrage at not holding the only kind of mindset on the planet.
Enter great late John Cleese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukisoucFIk4

Gisteron wrote: What does offending a practice mean? Also, what's so bad about offending people anyway? If we really don't care in the least for a person's or a group's feelings, while I do not endorse intentionally hurting them if we can help it, why ought we avoid doing so still? And it goes both ways, too. Aren't our (or rather The Sun's) cries about those evil dog-eaters not really whining about how offended they are by people daring to be different than themselves?
Just like I wouldn't give a rat's arse (pardon my French - and yes, do feel free to take offense to that expression as well ) about those defending a practice by appeals to cultural context, so wouldn't I give a frak (aha, this totally obscures the real word on my mind) about some conservative tabloid's editor staff's outrage at not holding the only kind of mindset on the planet.

Substitute "the practice" in the phrase offending "the people" and you have the meaning.

Offending people places the offender in the wrong of injustice who must compensate the victim to restore the balance of justice. Now, the burden to reason your own pre-opinion is warranted, "what is right about offending people?" And if you're unable to reason your pre-opinion, logically you must concede to develop a better understanding.

What these people do is no crime against nature. Killing for food is a normal activity. Celebrating a feast seems fair game. Yet some of the other things people do with their dogs ('pets' they pretend to love but in reality psychologically abuse, even -in-breed in twisted ways for their own sick pleasure, creating disease-ridden beasts), are crimes against nature.

TheDude wrote: This raises some questions. What are our priorities as a species and as a society? What cultural practices are worth preserving and which ones deserve to be destroyed? Is offending a group of people always a bad thing?

Let me start off by stating, this is a very good thread with good arguments being offered and discussed. And, I love how it seems that the people participating are asking more questions and looking more into the how’s and why’s of the topic.

There have been several good points raised and explored.

What cultural practices are worth preserving… Honestly, who are we to decide?

Is offending a group of people always a bad thing… purposefully being cruel is not the standard of our core beliefs. But allowing someone to defend something because doing something about it may offend is a cop out in my opinion. It is said that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

_{https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/}

“In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.” Should the sanctity of the human person be altered to include all life forms?

How about our Knights?
Would dogs be the helpless, the forsaken… the despairing?
Are the perpetrators the wicked?

By what standard do we judge, and answer these questions? And what action should we take if any?

These are the thoughts I role around in my head while thinking of answers to the original post.

Entropist wrote: Offending people places the offender in the wrong of injustice who must compensate the victim to restore the balance of justice.

Not without more premises. You must presume that there is a capital-J "Justice", some sort of two sides of it one can be placed, that any action absent a judge or a standard to compare against actually would place one on either of those sides and that any kind of balance has to be restored and that it can be restored by some sort of compensation.
In short, you are welcome to declare that offending people is wrong, but my question as to why it is cannot be answered by what amounts to "because that's just how it is."

Now, the burden to reason your own pre-opinion is warranted, "what is right about offending people?"

I neither said nor implied that there is anything right about doing it. In fact, you just quoted me saying how I do not actually endorse it. Nor did I say or imply that right and wrong (whatever they even are...) are either disjoint or a true dichotomy. So since I did not claim that offending anything was right, I have no burden to substantiate it. I also don't get to claim that it is only because the other side fails to point to a reason why we should avoid it.

And if you're unable to reason your pre-opinion, logically you must concede to develop a better understanding.

Well, I would at that point concede that I might be better off with a better understanding, and while my curiosity would lead me to try and acquire one, I am by no means obliged to pursue it, so no, I wouldn't have to concede to developing it.



On another note, just for purposes of illustration - and I hope he can forgive me - Wescli's post is much of the kind of thing I mean. Here is this arbitrary thing we declared defines our tribe, it's our tradition, our thing-we-do. It is what our faceless collective face believes, the code of our community's personal honour. So what? We shouldn't bend ourselves to fit an arbitrary mold, regardless of how we feel about it. No position is intellectually or morally superior for being supported by a doctrine nor inferior if it isn't. Indeed, its value is not impacted by the reference either way. No reference to some stone tablet constitutes a point either. In my opinion, opinions should be independent, thoughts free, if you will. Only a reasonable position is... well, reasonable. I thing we shouldn't defend an opposition against dog consumption on grounds of "life is sacred" any more than we should defend the practice on grounds of "cultural identity". Both are lazy and neither is deep.

i tried to find further information on this festival

i was mostly interested in "do they skin and boil the dogs while they are still alive?"

i couldnt find anything other than the Sun article, and a couple "johnny-come-lately's" who ran the article afterwards

there is also some info on wikipedia but -- well its wikipedia

what i did find though, is that some PETA activists have infiltrated some parts of the fur trade industry in china, where they farm "raccoon-dogs" for their pelts.

the activists have submitted footage to the web of these creatures being skinned while still alive

and i think that most of us (though certainly not all) believe or concede that it is not immoral to eat meat or wear leather

which means that we can justify the death of animals for our usage, at least under certain conditions

but most of us also find something reprehensible in the act of skinning something alive

so if we want to ask the question "by what standard do we judge?"

maybe it would help us to sort out the answer to that question, if we could clearly articulate 1: whether or not we really do find one particular form of suffering to be reprehensible, (the skinning alive) and the other (shooting with a bow and arrow for instance, in order to be eaten) to be justifiable

and if so, 2: why? what are the differences in the situations where one is more or less tolerable than the other? what EXACTLY is it about the one that makes it intolerable?
and why EXACTLY is the other acceptable? (for those who consider that it is acceptable)