Human Rights for Great Apes? removed thread

2 views

Skip to first unread message

pinnochio mojo

unread,

Apr 2, 2007, 4:16:20 PM4/2/07

to notveganporn

Human Rights for Great Apes?
Posted by Chanterelle @ 2007-03-29 09:44:23 EST
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6505691.stm

"Apes and humans have common ancestors but should they have the same
rights? An international movement to give them "personhood" is
gathering pace.

What would Aristotle make of it? More than 2,000 years after the Greek
philosopher declared Mother Nature had made all animals for the sake
of man, there are moves to put the relationship on a more equal
footing.

Judges in Austria are considering whether a British woman, Paula
Stibbe, should become legal guardian of a chimpanzee called Hiasl
which was abducted from its family tribe in West Africa 25 years ago.

The animal sanctuary where he has lived is about to close and to stop
him being sold to a zoo, Ms Stibbe hopes that she can persuade the
court he deserves the same protection as a child."
Witty Repartee - Add Yours
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-29 11:05:47 EST

I truly do respect Aristotle however I disagree with his views that we
are the center of the world. It is my belief that we are just another
part of the living organism that we call "Earth." Ever since we
started with our so-called technological advances we have steadily
become a rampant virus within that organism.

Sorry for the tangent! Yes, they should have human rights; as every
animal should.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-29 11:12:31 EST

''Sorry for the tangent! Yes, they should have human rights; as every
animal should.''

Even insects?? Sorry, I am just curious how far people would take it.
I am not disagreeing, just gauging what your view is...

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 12:09:02 EST

''Sorry for the tangent! Yes, they should have human rights; as every
animal should.''

Even insects?? Sorry, I am just curious how far people would take it.
I am not disagreeing, just gauging what your view is...

Of course most AR types on this board would say "even insects, of
course".

But what is more important is how these views look to non-vegan/non-AR
people. Many of these people would give serious thought to, and some
would come down in favour of, human-like rights for great apes. But
most would be unwilling, at this point, anyway, to take it further
than that, or even to entertain the thought. So "all animals should
have rights just as humans do" is not only not a contribution to the
debate on apes, which must, after all be conducted in the wider world;
it may even be counterproductive.

Come on, let's hear from the true believers why granting rights only
to great apes is wrong, and that they shouldn't have any until fish
get them as well...

Perhaps we need a new word -- "familyism".

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by foon @ 2007-03-29 12:55:14 EST

Of course most AR types on this board would say "even insects, of
course".

This is unlikely. There's a difference between "rights" and "human
rights". I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone here who
believes chickens should have the vote.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-29 12:55:28 EST

"Come on, let's hear from the true believers why granting rights only
to great apes is wrong, and that they shouldn't have any until fish
get them as well..."

TRUE BELIEVERS? I'm sorry, but you must be mistaken. You don't think
people who think as I do believe in human rights for apes? I wouldn't
make such an statement if I were you. You are basically calling at
least 5.89% of the world population out that their beliefs are untrue.
I am follow Zen Buddhism. One belief of the majority of Buddhists is
that every being to include insects have a "soul."

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 13:03:37 EST

There's a difference between "rights" and "human rights". I think
you'll have a hard time finding anyone here who believes chickens
should have the vote.

I would have a hard time finding anyone who believes chimps should
have the vote, too. Sorry for borrowing language from the article and
thus causing confusion.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by JuxtaposedPink @ 2007-03-29 13:07:04 EST

Use of the term soul is incorrect, I believe. All animals do however,
have their own life. It is a ridiculous idea for all animals to have
"human" rights, being they are not "human". They are living creatures,
and they deserve the respect of having their lives spared from being
forced into human amusement.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-29 13:20:44 EST

My main problem with this sort of thing is that I think westerners, or
people living in very urban enviroments, have lost touch with what it
takes to stay alive. I do agree that hunting is a natural part of life
for any animal, including humans....but I believe the vital componant
should be respect. its respect we have lost due to
civilisation...respect for our food...and that includes a loss of
respect for animals. go to any hunting community, tribe,
whatever...the respect they have for the animals is immense..and they
also have wisdom; they understand the animals and see them as equals.
this can be compatible with hunting...i think people have forgotten
this. we're not in a realistic enviroment...we're not interacting with
nature any more. I see alot of veganism as a reaction to modern
attitudes to food, and intensive agriculture. that does not devalue
it..far from it. veganism in that respect is increbidly
important...its just a shame we have to enter a tangle of all-or-
nothings and concepts and so on.

its not realistic that all killing can stop. but maybe it is realistic
to seriously reduce how destructive we are being..and to regain
respect for animals and what it takes for us to stay alive. I'm not
sure what I think about great apes being given the same rights as
us...i can see pros and cons.

[Reply]
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-29 13:26:01 EST

I couldn't have said it any better dawalrus...

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 14:09:08 EST

well, Dwalrus as long as there are hunters there will be factory
farms...you might want to not forget to plug that into your liberal
equation regarding hunting as well.

Keep in mind most hunters aren't 'grizzy adams' and live in highly
social communities if not within but a few kilometers of urban sprawl.
While there may be an arguable .0001 percent of the hunting that is
excusable it's still unfair to factor that into the equation as
acceptable when you realize that in the end...it all leads to factory
farming. It's painfully obvious that You don't really understand the
creation and the reason that laws are made. You don't not have a law
because there are a few 'cons' in and equation. The 'pros' against
hunting are that it turns into factory farming which HUGLY out weighs
the suffering the animals see when not killed by humans for so called
'humane reasons'

The REASON that people should always raise a stink regarding hunting
is because hunting re-introduces mankind to the taste of meat which
will ALWAYS extrapolate into factory farming of some kind. It's a
vicious cycle that ALWAYS starts with the hunter and hunting.

Hunters fucking suck (especially the bum that lives here) because they
love to magnify the importance of killing for humane reasons.

Well, those "humane reasons" are the birthing place for factory farms
my friend and to me that is what needs to be appreciated. Consider and
promote the hunters ideas first and, in the long run, animals will
lose. In life everything suffers...but if I have to choose between
animals 'suffering' in the wild vs. animals really suffering inside a
factory farm (by the billions upon billions and in squalor). I'll
fight for the animals inside the factory farms first and that fight
begins at one of the main roots and causes for this, which is the
hunter. It boils down to getting priorities sorted.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by PonderingWillow @ 2007-03-29 14:26:37 EST

Does anyone remember the 1980's film Short Circuit?

I think at the end of the second movie the robot becomes an US
citizen.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 14:26:45 EST

"ALWAYS"? It has happened exactly once.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 15:10:37 EST

No, not really as new generations emerge ideas are re-enforced, so in
effect it actually happens over and over. It's simply culture and
tradition being passed along and resurrecting itself onto the next
guy.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-29 15:19:52 EST

thats an interesting way of looking at it...and maybe you have a
point...but I'm not so sure its all that simplistic.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-29 15:20:03 EST

Yes, really. Factory farming came around sometime during the
"technological age." There has only been one of this sort that we know
of. That is, if this world is really real and we are not some grand
experiment and this world is run by mice.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 16:29:01 EST

I said factory farming of some kind and i'm talking about the people
that run those operations and not any one historical event. In 200
years a business man, somewhere will own and operate a factory farm.

People don't happen 'once' they're born all the time. Factory farms
and the ideas that help enable them to evolve don't happen 'once'
either. An idea can't manifest over and over from generation to
generation with out some help.

My feeling is, If you don't really understand the CAUSE of a
problem...it won't go away, no chance.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-29 16:30:44 EST

its important to remember that domestication of animals does not
automatically equal factory farming. i'd say its money and a sick
culture that has more to do with that. places like the med still have
a pretty healthy attitude when it comes to sourcing animal foods

[Reply]
Life, Liberty, etc
Posted by Valkyrei @ 2007-03-29 16:39:23 EST

I'm a proponent of equal natural rights across species, those being
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (except when that
interferes in another's life and liberty, as applies amongst humans.)

Honestly, rights are conjured, but there is no argument that can prove
Homo Sapiens as the lone species worthy of these rights, and so, I
advocate their extension to everyone so that my children will play
nicely with each other.

[Reply]
Re: Life, Liberty, etc
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-29 16:44:40 EST

''I advocate their extension to everyone ''

how would this work?? and would you include insects??

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 17:07:20 EST

[[its important to remember that domestication of animals does not
automatically equal factory farming. i'd say its money and a sick
culture]]

No, but hunting does, because it gives people the taste of flesh form
a "righteous" source, a "good" place, it's a "positive" experience,
it's "natural", the "indians" ate that way..blah blah blah.. and then
from there, it all goes down hill.
Human nature 101 or as you said, 'sick culture'.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 17:38:33 EST

People don't happen 'once' they're born all the time.Factory farms and
the ideas that help enable them to evolve don't happen 'once' either.
An idea can't manifest over and over from generation to generation
with out some help.

Your point is still rather obscure, 5785. Humans used to eat meat only
that was hunted. Later they domesticated animals, and this eventually
led to factory farming. Do you think that this pattern is somehow
repeating itself?

[Reply]
Posted by SealHunter @ 2007-03-29 18:25:06 EST

"....as long as there are hunters there will be factory farms...you
might want to not forget to plug that into your liberal equation
regarding hunting as well."

That is a load of crap. Wild game is usually a bit to intense for most
people and I'd like to see how many hunters approve of factory farming
and think animals raised that way are fit to eat.

I know lots of people who wouldn't eat a Grouse, but throw a franken-
chicken in front of them and they'll dig in. The point of hunting in
my view and many others is to obtain meat that has not been
interferred with. The animals get to be big and healthy because they
are big and healthy. Not because they were sheltered from Nature and
pumped full of meds.

Prove your assumption.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 18:32:59 EST

seal hunter, fuck you, I'm talking.

Flutterby,
No but the cultures that that promote, cultivate, enable, sympathize
and nurture hunting are the ones to begin the first steps at
desensitizing one from seeing how wrong factory farming is.
Brainwashing a person to do the wrong thing cannot simply be done by
telling them to go in and chop up animals...you need to message it
into the culture. death needs to somehow seem ok..and that's what
hunting does. its the first step..its the baby step but it's a
critical step. and of course 'the idea' is obscure. if it was easy to
'see' the problem would probably not be as abysmally huge as it
obviously is. Hunting is the 'gateway' into factory farming. It's the
first step into learning how to deal with animals by killing them and
therefore a very critical lesson to acknowledge and be concerned
about.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 18:38:02 EST

Hunting is the 'gateway' into factory farming. It's the first step
into learning how to deal with animals by killing them and therefore a
very critical lesson to acknowledge and be concerned about.

This is simply untrue, but I find the subject increasingly boring.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by SealHunter @ 2007-03-29 19:01:58 EST

You're talking alright... Talking shit! But please continue digging
that hole for yourself, we can still see the top of your head and
unfortunately hear you.

I'd like to ask a question or two if I may...

How many people here had their first experience with meat from the
wild and not from a farm?

How many urbanite (since the majority of the population is) omnivores
do you know who had their first meat from something other than a
domesticated animal?

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 19:12:47 EST

actually relieved to be boring you, especially after seeing what's on
your 'likes' and 'dislikes' list.

www.vegpub.com/users/flutterby/

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 19:18:50 EST

before i play Q and A with you..answer my question. what do you do for
a living?. over a 1000 posts from a hunter on a vegan forum???... I
think we deserve a little background at this point and I think it's a
fair question.

[Reply]
boring
Posted by Wes @ 2007-03-29 19:46:42 EST

<< This is simply untrue, but I find the subject increasingly
boring.>>

Arguing with dragonfly always is. Same old, same old, same old.

[Reply]
Wes
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-03-29 19:50:32 EST

Do you really think 5785 is dragonfly?

[Reply]
Re: Wes
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-03-29 19:54:36 EST

maybe you'll never know bored girl....

[Reply]
Re: Wes
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-03-29 20:07:54 EST

yes, maybe you'll never know...

[Reply]
Re: Life, Liberty, etc
Posted by Valkyrei @ 2007-03-29 20:43:26 EST

''I advocate their extension to everyone ''

how would this work?? and would you include insects??

I'm not envisioning this being governmentally implemented, it's more
of my philosophy of the perfect society, in which there wouldn't be a
government and everyone would be friends and would look out for
everyone else as if we were all one family (as I feel we are.) Insects
are included.

[Reply]
Re: Wes
Posted by Wes @ 2007-03-29 21:04:48 EST

<< Do you really think 5785 is dragonfly? >>

Yup.

[Reply]
The Great Ape Project
Posted by DarkObsessions @ 2007-03-29 21:12:23 EST

This is from Good Natured by Frans de Waal:

Depending on what a society can afford, then, the moral pyramid may
swell to giant size, in principle embracing all of humanity, but
always retaining its fundamental shape. Life forms other than our own
may be included. Recent studies of animal behavior, mine included,
provide ample reason to reconsider the way animals are used for
science, entertainment, food, education, and other purposes. We need
to re-evaluate traditional attitudes developed over a long history
without realistic alternatives, and without awareness of the
sensibilities and cognitive abilities of animals. This process is well
under way at zoos and research institutions, and in society at large.
Because I feel close to the animals with whom I work, I welcome this
development. I certainly do not subscribe to the position that we have
a God-given right to do with other animals whatever pleases us. If
apes, elephants, dolphins, dogs, and the rest indeed possess the
intelligence and incipient morality we have talked about, how could we
ever subscribe to Descartes' view of them as machines unable to suffer
and therefore unworthy of compassion?
At the same time, I must express discomfort with attempts to phrase
these issues in terms of rights. Emphasis on autonomy rather than on
connection has given rise to a discourse that is cold, dogmatic, and
leaning toward an absolutism that fails to do justice to the gray
areas of which human morality is composed. The ultimate result is a
call for the abolition of all use of all animals under all
circumstances, from hunting to meat consumption, from keeping them in
zoos to having them work on the farm. In the process, we sometimes
ignore our first obligation, which is to fellow human beings.
A particularly radical proposal is that of Paola Cavalieri and Peter
Singer. Together with a number of prominent scientists, in a volume
entitled The Great Ape Project, they advocate a "community of equals"
consisting of apes and humans. They see no good reason why animals as
close and similar to us as the great apes should fall into a different
moral category. Why not elevate them to the same legal status as their
bipedal relatives?
The logical flaw in this proposal is its blatant anthropocentrism. How
can one make similarity to a particular species the touchstone of
moral inclusion without ranking that species above the rest? If rights
increase in proportion to the number of humanlike characteristics
possessed by a species, it is hard to escape the conclusion that
humans themselves deserve the most rights of all.
A second problem is that rights are normally accompanied by
responsibilities, which cannot possibly apply to apes. The authors
reply that since mentally retarded people are exempt from this
linkage, why not apes?
To my mind, Cavalieri and Singer's plea reflects profound
condescension. Have we really reached the point at which respect for
apes is most effectively advocated by depicting them as retarded
people in furry suits? And while we are at it, why should we not then
classify a baboon as a mentally challenged ape? It seems endless: once
apes are granted equal status on such questionable grounds, there is
no way to keep out cockroackes. My own feeling is that we must take
the inherent beauty and dignity of animals as out starting point.
No matter how well intentioned the concerns of animal rights
advocates, they are often presented in a manner infuriating to anyone
concerned about both people and animals. Human morality as we know it
would unravel very rapidly indeed if it failed to place human life at
its core. Again, there is no judgment here about the objective value
of our lives compared to the lives of other creatures. Personally, I
do not feel superior to a butterfly, let alone to a cat or a whale.
But who can deny our species the right to construct its moral universe
from a human perspective?
It will be up to society to decide whether it will continue to support
certain kinds of research on certain kinds of animals. It is already
common practice in biomedical research that if a particular experiment
on monkeys is considered no more effective than on rats, the monkey
study will never be conducted. Similarly, if an experiment on
chimpanzees is judged no more effective than one on monkeys, the first
study will simply not take place.
Unfortunately for the animals, they are not the only ones hanging in
the balance. Human lives are also at stake. Anyone who enters a
hospital or picks up a prescription at the pharmacy makes use of
animal testing. Few people consider it trivial to fight diseases such
as AIDS, that affect millions. If a vaccine could be developed without
using animals, of course that would be preferable. But there are no
signs that this stage will be reached anytime soon. Choices must be
made, and these get more difficult the more complex the life forms
serving as guinea pigs.
How much do we care and what can we afford? There are excellent
reasons to insist on respect and concern for animals that serve the
human cause. Apes do warrant special consideration. We should either
phase out experiments on certain species altogether, or if humanity
cannot forgo the benefits derived from them, we must at least enrich
and enhance their lives in captivity and reduce their suffering.
Phrasing the issue, as I do here, in terms of our responsibility to
other life forms leaves the moral pyramid intact, and may lead to less
radical conclusions than phrasing it in terms of rights. All the same,
it is no easier to resolve the dilemmas facing us.

[Reply]
Re: The Great Ape Project
Posted by DarkObsessions @ 2007-03-29 21:36:48 EST

Correction:

"My own feeling is that we must take the inherent beauty and dignity
of animals as our starting point."

[Reply]
Complete Rubbish
Posted by DarkObsessions @ 2007-03-29 22:31:52 EST

"Professor" Steve Jones: "Rights and responsibilities go together and
I've yet to see a chimp imprisoned for stealing a banana because they
don't have a moral sense of what's right and wrong. To give them
rights is to give them something without asking for anything in
return."

1. "Rights and responsibilities go together..."

No, not necessarily.

2. "...I've yet to see a chimp imprisoned for stealing a banana..."

No, not only are they imprisoned but tortured and killed for doing
absolutely nothing to humans and playing with their family and
friends.

3. "...they don't have a moral sense of what's right and what's
wrong..."

OMG, they indisputedly have a moral sense of right and wrong; in fact,
that's what Good Natured is mostly about.

4. "To give them rights is to give them something without asking for
anything in return."

I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.

[Reply]
Re: The Great Ape Project
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-03-29 22:37:38 EST

Wes i take it that you must possess the critical thinking skills of a
small child. Clearly 5785 and myself have distinctly different posting
styles and have different ways to make a point. i like to sling sh!te
around and then make a point as i see fit, as some warped ritualistic
climatic interlude, mostly to entertain and give the impression that i
cannot be forced to lose my cool. OTOH 5785 likes to be very direct
and get down to business as witnessed by his not so subtle attack upon
our mixed up sealhunter/wildlife murdering friend.

But of course i can see why you would be more than eager to pigeonhole
him, he is a direct threat to the blatant stupidity, the almost
requisite irresponsible namby-pamby behavior and the cheeky arrogance
of most of the other posters here.

[Reply]
Re: The Great Ape Project
Posted by Wes @ 2007-03-30 04:18:16 EST

<< Wes i take it that you must possess the critical thinking skills of
a small child.>>

At least.

<< Clearly 5785 and myself have distinctly different posting styles >>

Not to me.

<< he is a direct threat >>

How so? He's gunna jump thru my screen and kill me? (How do you know
5785 is a he?)

<<most of the other posters here.>>

Really? Only most? I thought you were fed up with all of us.

It really doesn't matter to me if you're 5785 'in fact' or not. You're
similar enough that you might as well be the same as far as I'm
concerned.

How's it going on your new blog? groups.google.com/group/notveganporn

[Reply]
Dragonfly's blog
Posted by dawalrus @ 2007-03-30 09:27:06 EST

''For vegans and compassionate vegetarians who believe in strong
Animal Rights. It is our intention to expose and end cruelty to
animals and to seek an end to unthinkable modern factory farming
practices.''

Most people on here, if not all, would like to see an end to the
unthinkable modern factory farming practices. Why start a new blog for
that???

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by seitanist @ 2007-03-30 12:50:34 EST

One belief of the majority of Buddhists is that every being to include
insects have a "soul."

Tekno, I'm buddhist, and I disagree with your interpretation of the
dharma. I always thought the concept of "anatta" was that NOBODY has a
soul.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by seitanist @ 2007-03-30 12:56:45 EST

How many people here had their first experience with meat from the
wild and not from a farm?

How many urbanite (since the majority of the population is) omnivores
do you know who had their first meat from something other than a
domesticated animal?

SH, you're right, most urban people are VERY detached from their food
source.

My father hunts, and that's what we ate when I was a child. My older
brother hunts also. If done correctly (I mean, one shot, and the
animal is gone) I think hunting is actually the most humane way of
getting meat because at least the animals live free and suffer very
little.

However, eating meat is not necessary for our survival, so, it's
pointless violence. As a child, watching my father bring home deer,
etc. that he hunted, I vowed to stop eating meat. Of course, I didn't
figure out how to make that work until I was 12, and became a
vegetarian then.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-30 13:38:40 EST

"Tekno, I'm buddhist, and I disagree with your interpretation of the
dharma. I always thought the concept of "anatta" was that NOBODY has a
soul."

Seitanist, I was trying to relate rebirth to everyone; thus is why I
put it in quotes. Don't forget that "anatta" has been a controversial
topic for both us Buddhists and non-Buddhists for quite a while now.
Please don't take this as me saying you are wrong in your belief,
because you are not.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by seitanist @ 2007-03-30 14:50:58 EST

It's cool that we disagree in our interpretation. (I wasn't aware of
any controversy on the topic, though.) I just want to make sure to
clarify things so that others that aren't familiar don't go around
touting that all Buddhists think that all living beings have a soul,
etc.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by woubit @ 2007-03-30 14:53:08 EST

I just want to make sure to clarify things so that others that aren't
familiar don't go around touting that all Buddhists think that all
living beings have a soul, etc.

Indeed. That would be skandhalous.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by seitanist @ 2007-03-30 15:40:18 EST

woubit,
that's very punny.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by TeknoShaman @ 2007-03-30 15:48:20 EST

I could have said they all have a "Buddha nature," but how many people
would relate to that as well as you and I would? I don't necessarily
disagree with your interpretation, I haven't fully came to a
conclusion myself. I was just trying to term in universally.

[Reply]
Re:
Posted by Sardonicus @ 2007-03-31 20:23:50 EST

I bumped into a primatologist a few days ago and she was very cool. We
chatted briefly about Ben Franklin and Carl Sagan. Later in the day,
Jane Goodall and Carl Sagan came up, but that's another story.

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-01 17:05:38 EST

<<<Most people on here, if not all, would like to see an end to the
unthinkable modern factory farming practices. Why start a new blog for
that???>>>

The reasons i should think would be obvious to almost everyone. But
the main reasons are:
1) to get rid of the superficial trolls, such as you see here.
2) to get rid of the impossible, pushy and derelict pseudo-trolls,
such as you see here.
3) veganporn is much more vegan-friendly than veggieboards, i am just
carrying this idea one step further.
4) maybe real down to earth discussions and informational exchanges
can take place without getting ritualistically sidetracked.
5) i believe that the very idea of freedom of speech is under heavy
attack, and conversing/playing nice with mouthy and offtopic trolls is
to be strongly discouraged.
6) too many big name vegan boards are moderator heavy, and don't
really allow vegans a real voice or provide for peace of mind.

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by frank language @ 2007-04-01 17:11:19 EST

dragonfly writes:

But the main reasons are:
1) to get rid of the superficial trolls, such as you see here.

Are you saying only the sincere, honest trolls should remain?

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by SealHunter @ 2007-04-01 17:40:35 EST

) i believe that the very idea of freedom of speech is under heavy
attack, and conversing/playing nice with mouthy and offtopic trolls is
to be strongly discouraged

Absolutely. When freedom of speech is under attack the best way to
fight it is to force anyone you disagree with into silence. That'll
learn 'em!

Will your response be something like....

SHUT YOUR adj. adj. adj. adj. MOUTH! YOU adv. verb, adj. adj. adj.
adj. adj. adj. adj. noun. CAN'T YOU SEE I'M FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, YOU adv. adv. verb adj. adj. adj. adj. adj. noun. I WANT A
WORLD WITHOUT CENSORSHIP, YOU adj. adj. noun. AND THAT WILL NEVER BE
ACHIEVED IF I ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION. I NEVER EVER SAID
YOU WERE AN adj. adj. adj. adj. noun. SO JUST SHUT UP SO I CAN EXPLAIN
HOW IMPORTANT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS.

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-01 17:43:41 EST

That's a contradiction in terms. There can be nothing honest or
sincere about a garden variety troll, or the more specialized trolls
such as you see here.

Definitions abound for what a troll may be and what s/he does,
including:

[trolls are] characterized by attention-seeking and disruptive
behavior in anonymous, delocalized places of socializing.

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and
often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make
argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more
often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what
was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost
exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with
the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under
attack by a troll is the forum or group's recognized and agreed upon
power structure. To this extent, a troll does not necessarily have to
make malicious or incorrect comments. For example, a person with
political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people
with political point of view B, may be considered a troll, even if no
lies or attacks are made.

An Internet troll is an individual (or a team of people) who construct
an online identity and use it on message boards and discussion groups
for specific abuse purposes. Note that when trolls operate in teams
they are more difficult to recognize. On the Internet you cannot know
who is sending a message unless you actually see who is typing on the
keyboard. In particular trolls like to use multiple online identities
and do not hesitate to "talk" to themself to support their points.

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous
message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing
discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming
rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into
flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling
and a flame war.

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the
Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset
people.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for
their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are
hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human
but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no
sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the
suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see
it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to
flourish.
Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or
otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to
feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be
made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are
bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

But most of all trolls are intellectually dishonest.

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by SealHunter @ 2007-04-01 17:46:05 EST

If that's not the best description of you ever posted. Can someone
show me a better one?

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-01 17:48:36 EST

I take it that you don't think that you are abusing the right to post
here by posting basically abusive, inane, specious and irrelevant
commentary here. This is how you express your "right" to freedom of
speech, by abusing that right and by abusing others on an online forum
dedicated to veganism and AR. Interesting.

[Reply]
Re: new vegan google group
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-01 17:50:25 EST

If that's not the best description of you ever posted.

It is uncanny.

[Reply]
CannibalPorn.com
Posted by CB Anyone @ 2007-04-02 02:19:44 EST

Jason many of us wonder why people who are openly hostile to vegan
values are treated like gold by you. You can't be naive enough to
think that by allowing them to persist that they will be converted.
There are easier prospects out there. You know this. All this
accomplishes is the creation of irritated vegans who will be more
shrill than ever. And an ever-dwinding VP userbase. Who wants to hang
out at a "vegan" site where their every value or word is picked it?

The other theory kicking around is that you want to spice things up.
And by having villains, it creates vegan unity. Take a look around
this place. Of those who are left, there's not a lot of unity.

The last theory is that you're nuts.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by woubit @ 2007-04-02 04:20:32 EST

The last theory is that you're nuts.

Whereas you, of course, are a model of sanity. Shame we can't admire
this paragon. After all, you could be anyone.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 08:34:55 EST

Jason many of us wonder why people who are openly hostile to vegan
values are treated like gold by you.

Jason does not treat anyone like gold, CB clown; his practice of non-
censorship extends to everyone. If you are interested in a forum with
no differing viewpoints, I suggest you try dragonfly's. Since
dragonfly subscribes to the bizarre notion that censorship=freedom of
speech, you will not have to be troubled by contributions from non-
vegans.

Dragonfly is so interested in censorship on this board, but the funny
thing is that it is only the lack thereof that allows him to post. If
a poll of the members were taken, it would most likely turn out to be
he that was the most popular target for exclusion. Also, it is he who
most frequently makes comments that a moderator would object to. Mind
you, this is mainly because Swollen Glands/Ava does not post very
frequently.

[Reply]
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posted by Chanterelle @ 2007-04-02 09:31:24 EST

So, back on topic and including recent additions, should trolls be
given human rights?

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by Wes @ 2007-04-02 09:53:44 EST

<< Mind you, this is mainly because Swollen Glands/Ava does not post
very frequently.>>

Some of us would disagree with that. As obnoxious as SG might be, she
sometimes makes some interesting points.
Well..... I guess maybe I'd call it a toss-up.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 10:10:37 EST

As obnoxious as SG might be, she sometimes makes some interesting
points.

At any rate, she is so OTT that she is often entertaining.

Perhaps I was wrong.

[Reply]
Re: The beatings will continue until morale improv
Posted by JuxtaposedPink @ 2007-04-02 11:09:56 EST

This is terrible. I remember it was this kind of talk that scared me
away in the first place. There is a difference between debating and
bashing, something which I believe my fellow VPers needs to learn.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your idea does not mean you
should tell them they need to go rub they face in a pile of shit.

[Reply]
Re: The beatings will continue until morale improv
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 12:16:21 EST

Just because someone doesn't agree with your idea does not mean you
should tell them they need to go rub they face in a pile of shit.

This is very true, and that is why dragonfly is such a thorn in
people's side.

[Reply]
war is peace and ignorance is strength...
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-02 13:01:12 EST

I've only explained my reasoning for starting my google group in
response to a "rhetorical" question here by dawalrus. The rest of you
it seems have taken the opportunity to shamelessly and vindictively
slam me. Thanks CBAnyone for having the guts to speak the truth here,
many here can't or won't or are afraid to.

And to the rest of you, you seem to be making things up as you go
along. This board is rife with anti-vegan/anti-AR/omni/pseudo-trolls,
something you seem fond of refusing to acknowledge.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-02 13:04:18 EST

<<<his practice of non-censorship extends to everyone>>>

Not to me. i now have restricted access to VeganPorn.

<<<Since dragonfly subscribes to the bizarre notion that
censorship=freedom of speech>>>

Example please flutterby. You are making this up and you know it.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 14:43:15 EST

Example please flutterby.

Well, here is an example:

5) i believe that the very idea of freedom of speech is under heavy
attack, and conversing/playing nice with mouthy and offtopic trolls is
to be strongly discouraged.
6) too many big name vegan boards are moderator heavy, and don't
really allow vegans a real voice or provide for peace of mind.

In (5), you seem to be saying that people you call "trolls" and those
who engage in discussions with them should shut up.

Yet in (6) you express your opposition to moderators, which makes
sense because this is the only reason you are allowed to post on Vegan
Porn.

[Reply]
Re: CannibalPorn.com
Posted by anonymous5785 @ 2007-04-02 14:45:45 EST

Fluterby, people aren't going to go off and start their own discussion
board just because an explosion in troll population displeases them.
If a website is popular (and this one kind of is) many, may chose to
stay and fight in the hopes of setting things straight and or making
sure the information/hunting propaganda is somewhat challenged before
it spreads with your consent and approval. (thanks to Jason..i think
we're almost 2 years fighting one guy..which is about as
intellectually efficient as 6 miles a gallon) I'm not really saying
anything all that complicated here. However you're pretty dense but go
ahead, keep on telling people to go and start their own forums, sure
it's pathetic but, that's what makes it all so fitting.

Swollen Glands is smarter in 5 minutes of typing than both you and Wes
could be (trying your hardest) in 4 years. The fact that you shit on
someone that barely posts, to many, is proof enough of your
'vindictive' 'petty' nature. And it's even worse when you consider the
positive impact that one person has had on so many human and non-human
lives. That one person being Swollen Glands , of course. (is it Ava
now..?)

basically, flutterby, sorry to say, word on the street is,
youfukinsuck.

[Reply]
5785
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 14:47:50 EST

Whatever.

[Reply]
Re: 5785
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-02 15:03:56 EST

flutterby you were supposed to provide examples where i call for
direct censorship of others viewpoints or that i equate censorship
with freedom of speech. What happenned?? Obviously you did not provide
any examples because you cannot provide any examples. This can only be
because you are a liar or are making things up. I agree with 5785 that
yours and others behavior here is at best "petty" and "vindictive."

[Reply]
Re: 5785
Posted by flutterby @ 2007-04-02 15:35:34 EST

dragonfly, I gave an example about 3 messages above. Perhaps it wasn't
the best one, but it was available and I wasn't about to go searching.
I have done more for you than most forum members would.

[Reply]
Re: 5785
Posted by dragonfly @ 2007-04-02 15:48:12 EST

Seven times never wrong flutterby. Maybe you shouldn't make grand,
bizarre and totally innaccurate pronouncements and/or make it a habit
to distort the meaning of others posts and viewpoints, if you can't
back these statements up.

In any event, let's recap this disasterous and twisted exchange up to
now.

flutterby : Since dragonfly subscribes to the bizarre notion that
censorship=freedom of speech

dragonfly : Example please flutterby. You are making this up and you
know it.

flutterby : Well, here is an example:

dragonfly : But you don't provide any examples. You only make some
vague, irrelevant and worthless references to other statements of mine
concerning trolls and troll-like behavior here on these boards. You
don't tie in the notion of free speech in any event. You have not
shown that i "subscribe" to the notion of censorship or that
censorship=free speech. And you have yet to show that i somehow have
either made the grand misstatement that censorship=free speech or that
i believe that censorship= free speech and that censorship in a
necessary vehicle for free speech on internet message boards, an in
particular here at VP.

[Reply]
Re: 5785
Posted by SealHunter @ 2007-04-02 15:51:20 EST

In particular trolls like to use multiple online identities and do not
hesitate to "talk" to themself to support their points.