Monday, October 29, 2007
A potentially interesting discussion
There are two people who are working on their Master's degrees in conflict resolution that will be holding an on-line discussion between pro-AR folks and anti-AR folks as part of some research they are doing. This is not a debate, but rather a discussion on why each side thinks the way the do. Perhaps we can all learn something of value from this. If you would be interested in participating, go to this thread at the AR.net discussion forum and post letting them know. Please also let them know if you are pro or anti AR. Details about the time will be forthcoming in that thread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Mary Martin IRONS her sheets? While watching 'Ellen'?
LOL!! O - C - D.
http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2007/10/write-a-nice-le.html
Came across some more hilarity today:
Using "vicious" to describe a non-human animal is a label of ignorance. I've handled a number if "vicious" dog cases, and any dog behaviorists I've ever spoken to does not use the word "vicious." It's nonsense. A dog may be dangerous, but there's no malice involved.
Only humans are capable of viciousness.
Really? I guess this person never read the story of the Davis couple visiting Moe the chimp for his 39th birthday. Nor has he apparently heard of or seen "Grizzly Man."
Yeah, those two chimps who, without provocation, attacked the elderly Mr. Davis - chewing off his fingers, feet, and nose, mauling his face, and ripping off his testicles - weren't being vicious. They were just being friendly. Davis just doesn't understand that tearing one's balls off is a sign of affection.
And grizzlies who come eat people while they're sleeping are really just being bears and we should accept that. There's no malice when they do that.
But eating a piece of cheese? Now that's sadistic murder. Right?
Query: Why are all vegan radicals divorced from reality and intelligence?
Yeah, I saw that. But what is really interesting is that now in order to comment, you apparently have to register. What set this off? Someone, who is in fact an AR, and not an anti, had the audacity to challenge Dan-Dan the ego man. The funny thing is, her comments, though somewhat scathing, are not at all offensive in my view. Apparently choosing to challenge and call out one of Mary's loyal disciples is a no-no. Seems the heat is getting to someone.
What set this off? Someone, who is in fact an AR, and not an anti, had the audacity to challenge Dan-Dan the ego man. The funny thing is, her comments, though somewhat scathing, are not at all offensive in my view. Apparently choosing to challenge and call out one of Mary's loyal disciples is a no-no. Seems the heat is getting to someone.
I know, it's funny watching her melt down into Control Freakville. Naturally she doesn't write pissy posts about behavior in comments when people like Dan or Ellie unleash very nasty comments (eg, "you're a monster"), but when someone decides to broach the topic that infighting among a VERY SMALL GROUP of people is counterproductive, apparently this is cause to go ballistic about "civility."
Martin is the person who goes to crash a small child's birthday party, camera in hand, and gets in the face of the handler of miniature horses (whom she, revealingly, calls "ponies"). She's also the person who gets in the face of some old lady running a B&B over not serving vegan food and not having frigging dogsitters available at the drop of a hat. She's also the most lovely civil being who drives her 9 year old goddaughter to tears with her judgmentalism about horse riding.
In sum, she is among the least civil and most socially immature people I have ever encountered, specifically because she likes to delude herself that she is civil, kind, non-violent, and non-hypocritical -- when she's exactly the opposite. And she uses those pronouncements as rationalizations to try and snuff out any sort of critical analysis of her ideas and behavior, even though she claims that she's all about critical awareness of ideas and behavior.
But what can one expect from some unemployed woman with a sugar daddy who spends her time ironing sheets? :)
Of course, she's not alone in this behavior. I find that even the slightest challenge to any of these people usually trips in them instant rage and control behaviors - from calling you every horrible thing they can think of (repeatedly) to outright eliminating your comments or otherwise attempting to give only themselves and their yes-men a mike.
Sure is a funny way for a "bulletproof" ideology to hold its own. You'd think if something was "bullletproof" it could handle any and all comers, and certainly any minor attacks upon it.
"And grizzlies who come eat people while they're sleeping are really just being bears and we should accept that. There's no malice when they do that."
Actually, that is true. Grizzlies are top-line predators that take large prey. Tim Treadwell and his girlfriend were camped out in bear-dense territory in autumn, a heavy feeding time for bears about to enter hibernation. The bears that attacked and ate Treadwell were simply following their natural hunting instincts, and there was no "malice" ( a human emotion ) involved in it. Mr. Treadwell's death, and that of his girlfriend, were caused by nothing more than his own stupidity. He was camping in a wild, remote area that was known to be extremely dangerous, despite multiple warnings from park rangers. I don't think we should fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing, or attributing human emotions and characteristics to animals. Doing so is not particularly accurate or rational, and many ARAs do it frequently in their "arguments".
Having said that, I think the author of that blog perhaps seems to have too much of a fixation on the word "vicious". "A vicious animal" is used in everyday conversation synonymously with "a dangerous animal". I think she's to o fixated on semantics here.
I don't think we should fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing, or attributing human emotions and characteristics to animals. Doing so is not particularly accurate or rational, and many ARAs do it frequently in their "arguments".
You're right. It's just semantics, because does it really matter if the animal is being "vicious" while it's eating you alive or ripping off your nuts and eating your fingers? Bottom line is animals can be just as violent as any human can be.
Do you ever get the feeling that animals are their substitute for the divine? It's kind of creepy the way non-human animals can do no wrong in their eyes (like God) and that humans are always the ones who are doing wrong - especially those who aren't part of the ARA believer crowd. Just like religious nuts and their mentality.
Why can't people just chill and take the middle way? I guess they wouldn't feel special, then, and no one would pay them any attention.
Post a Comment