Is offending a group of people always bad?

Random Hindu: "Cows are sacred"

Random starving guy: "Cows are food"

Random little girl: "Cows are my pets"

Random ecologists: "Too many cows harm the environment"

Who is offending whom?

Wescli Wardest wrote: “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?

It always did for me, as I viewed them as separate sentences. :woohoo:
Well not the sanctity bit per se, that just seems a practical and useful tool if kept within constraints. The interesting word there for me is 'oppose'. I 'disagree' and 'avoid' for sure, but to oppose something seems to compete or resist something AFAIK.

I disagree with and would avoid creating a severe pain and stress response in a creature prior to its slaughter to make its meat taste better...... because as far as I can tell, what it boils down to (no pun intended) is an elevated view of oneself above other things perceived to be lesser, and using them as a resource without consideration for their own experience of living (or dying).

In fact, it seems rather deranged to me, but I can step outside of my worldview to consider how it might be perceived as normal, and in this case pleasure (taste). It's just from where I view things to get pleasure from suffering is quite literally the definition of sadistic, and I don't mean some fetish kink but the psychopathic kind.

So it's sorta like two topics, on one hand a). is suffering in this way acceptable to you, and on the other b). does finding something unacceptable mean it is wrong, and now perhaps c). would we oppose it if it were in the doctrinally 'wrong'!?

Even from what I can imagine of supportive views on the OP, I still find this counter-productive in the areas which matter most (IMO) to all involved. So I don't think wrong is the right word, or that right is the right word either, but rather I find it stupid and egotistical from as many viewpoints as I care to consider it from.
:S
Unless there is health benefits from eating meat like this of course!! Then it becomes less stupid, and if enough reasons exist then it become smart!! But as it stands, from my best efforts to assess its impact on the body, mind and soul of all involved, I view it as a net negative outcome, for all involved, and all for a minor improvement in the transient eating experience of the end user.

So I'm glad its in the doctrine as a value, as its something I find unacceptable for various reasons but the doctrine is for Jedi. No-one is saying everyone must be a Jedi.

Then do I take offense, no, I feel sad for all involved. To take offense would require some externalization of ones self identity, such as; if they were pretending to be Jedi while beating and skinning animals whilst alive, yea I'd take offense at that.

Now I have to go away and consider what the word 'oppose' means..... does or should it relate to oppression, de oppresso liber. Hmmmm

Gisteron wrote: 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."

The circular fallacy demonstrated by "presuming why offending people cannot be answered" is clearly begging a complex question. The reason is because false presumption is attempted as its own conclusion as means to capitalise unwarrantedly the status quo, "because that's just how it is" when the reasons are unfounded and unsupported. Therefore, there's good reason for you to concede the fallacy.

Gisteron wrote: 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.

Whether you said or implied any right about offending people, asking what right there is in offending people demonstrates to yourself that there's unfounded reason, and to fallaciously assume there's any right in offending people is unsupported. So the burden for you to attempt to reason how offending people could somehow be right is an exercise of justice and fairness.

Also to presume, that the offender is placed in the wrong of the injustice; fails to reason why we should avoid it, is actually wishful thinking fallacy to appeal to consequences by status quo bias. The fallacy is undermined by the psychological desire for something to be true without actually have reason.

Gisteron wrote: 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.

Again, the circular fallacy, of having reasons to better understand the moral wrong of offending people; but presuming there's no need to pursue, or no need to concede a corrupted understanding; begs the complex question. A corrupted understanding of moral wrongness is good reason to concede and fix the problem of your understanding because only injustice is spread by bringing corrupted morals wherever you go and allowing everyone else to suffer the prejudice for it.

Gisteron wrote: 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.

Opinions are unjustified, which is why freedom is given to the opportunity to reason rather than allow everyone to suffer the prejudice of an unsupported opinion. Just like the analogy, keep your two cents because your opinion is worth little. Or more so, false knowledge corrupts.

OB1Shinobi wrote: 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)

The answer here is definitely the level and need for suffering. Back in the famine of world wars, consuming for nutrition was to avoid resorting to canabalism or genocide. There are less sufferable methods of slaughter that decreases the level of torture and suffering.

Entropist wrote: The answer here is definitely the level and need for suffering. Back in the famine of world wars, consuming for nutrition was to avoid resorting to canabalism or genocide. There are less sufferable methods of slaughter that decreases the level of torture and suffering.

i appreciate you answering, and i agree about the difference having to do with suffering

id like to pint out that eating meat was one of the events of our evolutionary history which "made us human"

http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

"Meat, Cooked Foods Needed for Early Human Brain

Vegetarian, vegan and raw diets can be healthy — likely far healthier than the typical American diet. But to continue to call these diets "natural" for humans, in terms of evolution, is a bit of a stretch, according to two recent, independent studies.

Eating meat and cooking food made us human, the studies suggest, enabling the brains of our prehuman ancestors to grow dramatically over a period of a few million years."

Adder wrote: It's just from where I view things to get pleasure from suffering is quite literally the definition of sadistic, and I don't mean some fetish kink but the psychopathic kind.

Agreed.

I keep thinking, if I were there how would I stop this? My emotional side would end up in a Chinese prison I think. The rational part of my decision making cannot see a way to induce or even influence change for an entire culture in a way that result in quick response. I would do something to aid the ones in distress but what? And saying that there is nothing I can do because it is on the other side of the world is unacceptable…

As to those offended… They should be offended! And making the disturbing images go away because you are offend is as bad as doing nothing once you have witnessed a crime in action. That is the cowards path, to turn a blind eye and pretend it isn’t there just because it bothers you. :sick:

I may not be able to save an animal from here, or stop the ones selling them to those that would torcher them; but, I can at least write a letter to an official expressing concern and pressing to have something done about it. That may not be much, but I figure it is better than turning a blind eye or pretending that because it is a part of another culture it’s okay. :pinch:

Wescli Wardest wrote: I may not be able to save an animal from here, or stop the ones selling them to those that would torcher them; but, I can at least write a letter to an official expressing concern and pressing to have something done about it. That may not be much, but I figure it is better than turning a blind eye or pretending that because it is a part of another culture it’s okay. :pinch:

who would be the one to write to?
im asking because i dont really know, and i would also write

I may not be able to save an animal from here, or stop the ones selling them to those that would torcher them; but, I can at least write a letter to an official expressing concern and pressing to have something done about it. That may not be much, but I figure it is better than turning a blind eye or pretending that because it is a part of another culture it’s okay.

So, its less about doing good, than it is about making yourself feel good?

Khaos wrote:

I may not be able to save an animal from here, or stop the ones selling them to those that would torcher them; but, I can at least write a letter to an official expressing concern and pressing to have something done about it. That may not be much, but I figure it is better than turning a blind eye or pretending that because it is a part of another culture it’s okay.

So, its less about doing good, than it is about making yourself feel good?

I'm not really sure how you came to that from what was written... but okay.
It is about doing what I can even though I am not in a position to directly affect change.

Do I feel good about it? Not really. And being able to do more wouldn't make me feel any better either. The fact of the matter is that it has happened, it is happening and will go on till it is changed or stopped. No part of this makes me "feel good."

It would seem that you are attempting to belittle efforts made to incite change... if so, does attempting to belittle the efforts of others make you feel good?

Entropist wrote: The circular fallacy...

There is no such thing as a circular fallacy. Circles are circular. Circular arguments are fallacious. Circular fallacies are not a thing.

... demonstrated by "presuming why offending people cannot be answered"...

What is the presumption, who made it, and why should anyone care?

... is clearly begging a complex question.

And that question is...?

The reason...

Reason behind/for...?

... is because false presumption is attempted...

What's the presumption?

... as its own conclusion as means to capitalise unwarrantedly the status quo [sic],...

Who is capitalizing on what again? And how do unspecified false presumptions help with that? Do you even English?

"because that's just how it is" [sic] when the reasons are unfounded and unsupported. Therefore, there's good reason for you to concede the fallacy.

Well, since that citation is a summary of your argument and I was pointing it out, it seems to me that I did concede that there is some sort of fallacy going on. Now, would you kindly address it, please?

Whether you said or implied any right about offending people, asking what right there is in offending people demonstrates to yourself that there's unfounded reason,...

If there is reason, it is by definition not unfounded. And no, only because I did not share your presumption that there is anything wrong in offense does not mean that I hold my own saying that there is anything right about it. As a matter of fact I don't, and you keep quoting myself saying that.

... and to fallaciously assume there's any right in offending people is unsupported.

And I didn't. No amount of bad grammar can change that either.

So the burden for you to attempt to reason how offending people could somehow be right is an exercise of justice and fairness. [sic]

No. Your insisting I claimed something does not place a burden on me. Me actually claiming the thing would.

Also to presume, that the offender is placed in the wrong of the injustice;...

Yes, something I assume (and I can only assume since there seems a severe language barrier here, so this may all just come down to misunderstandings) you actually did, yet failed to establish...

... fails to reason why we should avoid it,...

Subject?

... is actually wishful thinking fallacy to appeal to consequences by status quo bias.

Wishful thinking is intellectually poor thinking but it is not either a formal or informal fallacy. Just like the previous clause, this one has no subject so I don't know what you are referring to, but the thing about fractal wrongness is that it is apparent on every resolution, so I can carry on tearing apart the parts that do make some remote kind of sense, and I shall. Speaking of that, I don't know what status quo bias is nor what it has to do with anything either of us said at any time. None of us appealed to consequences either, as far as I know.

The fallacy is undermined by the psychological desire for something to be true without actually have [sic] reason.

I don't know what to undermine a fallacy means, but I'm pretty sure being one doesn't quite do that. What you describe sounds a bit like wishful thinking, but since nobody actually engaged in it, while I thank you for the eloquent elaboration and recognize its value, I do still feel to see its current relevance.

Again, the circular fallacy, of having reasons to better understand the moral wrong of offending people;...

I actually challenged you to show that there is any wrong in that, because you asserted it; maybe I was being somewhat unclear with that.

... but presuming there's no need to pursue, or no need to concede a corrupted understanding; [sic] begs the complex question.

And what question would that be? Also, unlike you, my clauses are complete. So I see your presumption of intellectual prowess and raise you an out-of-context.

A corrupted understanding of moral wrongness is good reason to concede and fix the problem of your understanding...

Well, you are the one asserting it (and I'm not), so I share not your folly but turn it back onto you. However, no, having bad reasons is not on its own sufficient to try and change them. You are of course elaborating on further premises, but they are false as I shall soon say. Also, since I'm not the one having trouble saying what I mean and you are not the one having an easy time understanding either the matter at hand or understanding matters of reasoned argument or understanding much of what you are reading, maybe, just maybe thou dost protest too much.

... because only injustice is spread by bringing corrupted morals wherever you go...

Having bad reason does not mean having bad conclusions. Having bad conclusions does not mean spreading them everywhere over any duration. Moreover, that there is any such thing as "corrupted morals" is yet to be demonstrated and so far you did nothing to try.

... and allowing everyone else to suffer the prejudice for it.

I don't know what suffering prejudices means nor why bad morals would make anyone do it. Why are you introducing ever more premises that are either meaningless, not evidently true, evidently false or all of the above?

Opinions are unjustified,...

No. Opinions are never their own justification (hence my challenge), but that doesn't make them all unjustified or poorly justified to the same extent, irrespective of whether the justification attempt had been prestented. That's why the open-minded among us consider contrary opinions in the hopes of finding some that are more reasonable than their own.

... which is why freedom is given to the opportunity to reason rather than allow everyone to suffer the prejudice of an unsupported opinion.

An unsupported opinion does not mean prejudice. Maturity and validity are generally distinct qualities. I could go into political philosophy and explain why we allow open discourse (not something we necessarily have to, by the way) but I feel like instead pointing out that you are defending it by appealing to consequences and that's just too deliciously ironic for me to overlook at this point.

Just like the analogy,...

What analogy?

... keep your two cents because your opinion is worth little.

Are you telling me to basically shut my face, good sir? And that's right after your rant about the freedom and opportunity to reason? Do you even self-awareness?

Or more so, false knowledge corrupts.

And finishing off with another bold claim I predict we won't see much of an argument for. Good job.

Well, this was fun. Looking forward to see more. :evil: