Animal Rights Community Online Forum Index Animal Rights Community Online
 Our mission is to Preserve, Promote and Advance respect for animals by discussing animal rights strategy and philosophy as well as encouraging the removal of animal usage from our diets and consumption. This by encouraging a strict vegetarian diet and a vegan lifestyle. 
 Users GalleryGallery CalendarCalendar  Live chatroomVegan Chat ARCO's Blogs summary pageBlogs FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 RegisterRegister   Log inLog in 
The time now is Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:40 am
All times are UTC + 1		 View posts since last visit
View unanswered posts
Calendar
 Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk
Non-sentient Animals
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicMark the topic unreadView next topic
Page 3 of 11 [157 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Author Message
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
EcoTribalVegan wrote:
How is ethical infatuation at all an appropriate term? Trying to adhere to scientific/observation evidence makes us fanatical or something to that effect? Give me a break! I mean seeing as this term is newly created maybe I'm using the definition incorrectly, but that is what is seemed to imply in context


Ethical Infatuation is supposed to mean that your ideology blinds you in such a way that you tend to accept only that scientific evidence that fits you ideology. Or, it means that you are more inclined to believe that information which suits your own ethical ideas.

For example, regarding my social sciences example, you, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, cannot believe that human minds were design by evolution to solve particular problems during the Pleistocene and that they're are developed thru the action of genes. They don't want to believe it because, in their minds, this justifies discriminatory behavior. They are ethically infatuated.
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:41 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
EcoTribalVegan
Banned

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 354
Location: Hamilton
Veganomante wrote:
EcoTribalVegan wrote:
How is ethical infatuation at all an appropriate term? Trying to adhere to scientific/observation evidence makes us fanatical or something to that effect? Give me a break! I mean seeing as this term is newly created maybe I'm using the definition incorrectly, but that is what is seemed to imply in context


Ethical Infatuation is supposed to mean that your ideology blinds you in such a way that you tend to accept only that scientific evidence that fits you ideology. Or, it means that you are more inclined to believe that information which suits your own ethical ideas.

For example, regarding my social sciences example, you, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, cannot believe that human minds were design by evolution to solve particular problems during the Pleistocene and that they're are developed thru the action of genes. They don't want to believe it because, in their minds, this justifies discriminatory behavior. They are ethically infatuated.


Precisely my point! You're trying to paint people who use scientific/observational evidence to support a theory (in this case animal cognition) as some sort of ignorant fundamentalist. I take a strong objection to that since it contradicts every observational theory ever created! Clearly YOU take a strong objection to scientific procedure. You made that clear. So why you think you're in a position to essentially libel people is beyond me anyway...

As for your example, I'm a little confused. I think spelling and grammar is an issue in this case however. Where did I say I was a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist? I fully believe in evolution. Who was talking about discriminatory behaviour?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:23 am
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
EcoTribalVegan wrote:
Precisely my point! You're trying to paint people who use scientific/observational evidence to support a theory (in this case animal cognition) as some sort of ignorant fundamentalist. I take a strong objection to that since it contradicts every observational theory ever created! Clearly YOU take a strong objection to scientific procedure. You made that clear. So why you think you're in a position to essentially libel people is beyond me anyway...


With all due respect, I think you're getting a little ethically infatuated yourself.

If you could just read carefully what I'm writing, prejudices aside, you would see that I have never used any term that signifies anything remotely similar to "ignorant fundamentalist" nor have I ever implied to state such a thing anywhere. It would be absurd, for I don't believe that --you're just attributing that to me, some sort of straw man.

Furthermore, I'm not talking about people's attempts to justify a theory [sic]. All I'm saying is that people tend to believe more strongly evidence that supports their ideologies. Whether they grow out of it or can overcome it was beyond my point. They DO have a strong tendency to prefer evidence that isn't --somehow, to their eyes-- immoral. And generally they aren't aware of it.

And you have just done exactly that, in my opinion. You cannot even consider my thought because it would mean that I think people are ignorant fundamentalists (again, I don't see how ANYONE could read that in my words) and saying that, oh dear, would be immoral. You just go from "people believe more easily evidence that suits their ethical preference" to "this means they're ignorant fundamentalists" to "you cannot say that, that would be immoral" and therefore "Veganomante is wrong". Further, you think I libel people. Ethical infatuation indeed.

My point has nothing to do with using evidence. It just meant to state a fact about people's minds. If you don't recall, I'm a human too, so I too get infatuated. I'm pretty sure you thought I was excluding myself. I was not. You are just jumping in and out from ethics to description about the world. You need to separate the two.

All I'm doing is being careful about what I read because people tend to do what I said. I prefer my scientific evidence in scientific journals, not books on ETHICS, particularly controversial ethics. That is not to say scientists are free from bias, but at least they are not trying to advance an ethical perspective on their articles about, say, cognition. A book about ethics is.

I made clear what? Maybe my English-language skills are failing me again, but some fellows here can testify I'm the most scientifically-oriented vegan ever created by natural selection.


EcoTribalVegan wrote:
As for your example, I'm a little confused. I think spelling and grammar is an issue in this case however. Where did I say I was a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist? I fully believe in evolution. Who was talking about discriminatory behaviour?


Could someone clarify to me if I'm dead wrong when I believe that English allows for the second-person singular/plural pronoun to function as an impersonal pronoun, akin to using "one"? As in "For example, regarding my social sciences example, ONE, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, cannot believe that human minds...". Maybe Geoff has some 200-year-old English Grammar Book he can dig up for this language-loving youngling.

I feel a little ad hominem-ated Happy

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:39 am
Last edited by Veganomante on Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Geoff
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru


Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1089
Location: Brisbane Australia
Veganomante wrote:

Could someone clarify to me if I'm dead wrong when I believe that English allows for the second singular pronoun to function as an impersonal pronoun, akin to using "one"? As in "For example, regarding my social sciences example, ONE, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, cannot believe that human minds...".


I think that '"For example, regarding my social sciences example, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, ONE cannot believe that human minds..." would work better. Smile
_________________
'If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non humans for the same purpose?' – Peter Singer

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:00 am
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
 Thanks. I knew you wouldn't disappoint Cool
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:11 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
panthera
Animal Guardian Angel


Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 3468
Location: Chicago, IL
 Nevertheless, you can indeed use the second person to signify a non-specific third person. You do run the risk, as you've seen, of confusing people, especially if you use "you" as a general signifier in the same passage (or even sentence!) as you're using "you" to signify your listener, specifically.

(Where's the solemn, scholarly emoticon?)
_________________
Animals are not property.
ARCO's Abolitionists

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:18 pm
  View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
jhussain
Animal Friend
Animal Friend


Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Chicago, USA
Veganomante wrote:
All I'm doing is being careful about what I read because people tend to do what I said. I prefer my scientific evidence in scientific journals, not books on ETHICS, particularly controversial ethics. That is not to say scientists are free from bias, but at least they are not trying to advance an ethical perspective on their articles about, say, cognition. A book about ethics is.

I made clear what? Maybe my English-language skills are failing me again, but some fellows here can testify I'm the most scientifically-oriented vegan ever created by natural selection.


Veganomante, your point is well taken. We are all biased in favor of our prior ethical commitments, and this bias often blinds us to arguments and facts that question our commitments. A similar point was made by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who recognized the conservative bias of 'normal science' when considering new evidence.

For those vegans/AR activists who are eager to engage the scientific literature, Rosemary Rodd's "Biology, Ethics, and Animals" (1992) and David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously" (1996) provide a pleasant balance of ethical argument and scientific evidence. As was mentioned, scientific evidence in ethics books can be suspect, but these are the most scientifically informed animal proponents I've read thus far.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:56 pm
Last edited by jhussain on Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
EcoTribalVegan
Banned

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 354
Location: Hamilton
Veganomante wrote:
With all due respect, I think you're getting a little ethically infatuated yourself.


Wrong. I am fully aware "my" ideas are just the collective of what I perceive to be the most logical set ideas (based on observational evidence) that predated them!

Quote:
If you could just read carefully what I'm writing, prejudices aside, you would see that I have never used any term that signifies anything remotely similar to "ignorant fundamentalist" nor have I ever implied to state such a thing anywhere. It would be absurd, for I don't believe that --you're just attributing that to me, some sort of straw man.


Veganomante wrote:
Ethical Infatuation is supposed to mean that your ideology blinds you in such a way that you tend to accept only that scientific evidence that fits you ideology.


Your ideology BLINDS you (i.e. ignorance) that you just take evidence to suit your ideology (fundamentalist). Maybe I missed something? All prejudices aside... Confused

Veganomante wrote:
Furthermore, I'm not talking about people's attempts to justify a theory [sic]. All I'm saying is that people tend to believe more strongly evidence that supports their ideologies. Whether they grow out of it or can overcome it was beyond my point. They DO have a strong tendency to prefer evidence that isn't --somehow, to their eyes-- immoral. And generally they aren't aware of it.


This is EXACTLY what you're talking about based on the quote I reposted from you earlier! I became vegan based on evidence. Not the other way around. Any study I can use to help promote veganism it would be STUPID not to use it!

Veganomante wrote:
And you have just done exactly that, in my opinion. You cannot even consider my thought because it would mean that I think people are ignorant fundamentalists (again, I don't see how ANYONE could read that in my words) and saying that, oh dear, would be immoral. You just go from "people believe more easily evidence that suits their ethical preference" to "this means they're ignorant fundamentalists" to "you cannot say that, that would be immoral" and therefore "Veganomante is wrong". Further, you think I libel people. Ethical infatuation indeed.


Wrong and wrong. I can fully consider your thought (taking into the totality and context of everything you say!). I just happen to disagree with it since the evidence points to the contrary!

And who said ANYTHING about morality? Morality plays no bearing as to why I think you're wrong. Laughing

When it was obvious you were referring to my post, using defammatory statements, you better have the facts to back it up. Seeing as you're a scientific procedure skeptic, I would assume it would be impossible for you to produce ANY facts!

Veganomante wrote:
My point has nothing to do with using evidence. It just meant to state a fact about people's minds. If you don't recall, I'm a human too, so I too get infatuated. I'm pretty sure you thought I was excluding myself. I was not. You are just jumping in and out from ethics to description about the world. You need to separate the two.


Clearly your point has nothing to do with evidence! At least we fully agree on SOMETHING! Yet then you go on to contradict yourself by claiming what you say is a fact. Seeing as you seem to be some sort of pseudo-nihilist, apparently anything goes in an argument. My contention is that LOGICAL people use logic to MAKE their decisions. Not that LOGICAL people make a decision then just find a hodgepodge of information to support it! If your case was true I NEVER would have become vegan!

Veganomante wrote:
All I'm doing is being careful about what I read because people tend to do what I said. I prefer my scientific evidence in scientific journals, not books on ETHICS, particularly controversial ethics. That is not to say scientists are free from bias, but at least they are not trying to advance an ethical perspective on their articles about, say, cognition. A book about ethics is.


Well I guess we agree on another thing. I, too ,agree we should scrutinize essentially everything.

EcoTribalVegan wrote:
As for your example, I'm a little confused. I think spelling and grammar is an issue in this case however. Where did I say I was a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist? I fully believe in evolution. Who was talking about discriminatory behaviour?


Veganomante wrote:
Could someone clarify to me if I'm dead wrong when I believe that English allows for the second-person singular/plural pronoun to function as an impersonal pronoun, akin to using "one"? As in "For example, regarding my social sciences example, ONE, as a sociologist, anthropologist or psychologist, cannot believe that human minds...". Maybe Geoff has some 200-year-old English Grammar Book he can dig up for this language-loving youngling.

I feel a little ad hominem-ated Happy


Well your feeling of ad hominem-ation is mutual. Only because you made it at least seem like you were referring to me when you first brought up your term, "ethical infatuation".

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:51 pm
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
 Given that jhussain, the original poster, plus panthera understood what I mean in my original post, I take that as an indication that it is readily comprehensible there and don't feel the need to explain myself any further.

EcoTribalVegan, could you please refer me to the comment you thought defamatory? I never intended to have such an attitude against you and I was never referring to you directly. I tend to use "you" as an impersonal pronoun, akin to ONE (I seem to take for granted that it is easily understood by context when one or the other function of 'you' is at work. For example, it would be a bit of a stretch to think I think you're an anthropologist, when you've never said that anywhere on this forum) . But I'd like to know where you thought I was attacking you so I won't make that mistake again with another poster. You know how easy it is to misread people's intentions over the Internet. Plus, my mission is to moderate discussions (as well as participate on them) so I try not to volitionally attack people. But, after all, I am human so I do make mistakes. Thanks
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:18 am
Last edited by Veganomante on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:32 am; edited 5 times in total
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
jhussain wrote:
Veganomante, your point is well taken. We are all biased in favor of our prior ethical commitments, and this bias often blinds us to arguments and facts that question our commitments. A similar point was made by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who recognized the conservative bias of 'normal science' when considering new evidence.

For those vegans/AR activists who are eager to engage the scientific literature, Rosemary Rodd's "Biology, Ethics, and Animals" (1992) and David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously" (1996) provide a pleasant balance of ethical argument and scientific evidence. As was mentioned, scientific evidence in ethics books can be suspect, but these are the most scientifically informed animal proponents I've ever read.


Thanks! I'll put those books on my to-read list.
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:49 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
EcoTribalVegan
Banned

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 354
Location: Hamilton
Veganomante wrote:
Given that jhussain, the original poster, plus panthera understood what I mean in my original post, I take that as an indication that it is readily comprehensible there and don't feel the need to explain myself any further.


Simply because they agree with you (I'm pretty sure I've had heated arguments with panthera before), it doesn't surprise me really.

Quote:
EcoTribalVegan, could you please refer me to the comment you thought defamatory? I never intended to have such an attitude against you and I was never referring to you directly. I tend to use "you" as an impersonal pronoun, akin to ONE (I seem to take for granted that it is easily understood by context when one or the other function of 'you' is at work. For example, it would be a bit of a stretch to think I think you're an anthropologist, when you've never said that anywhere on this forum) . But I'd like to know where you thought I was attacking you so I won't make that mistake again with another poster. You know how easy it is to misread people's intentions over the Internet. Plus, my mission is to moderate discussions (as well as participate on them) so I try not to volitionally attack people. But, after all, I am human so I do make mistakes. Thanks


I thought I made it quite clear what statement I had contention with. 'Ethical infatuation' is the term you used.

It appeared you were referring to me since your post in which you used the term came directly after mine and seemed to be addressing actions I did (i.e. mentioning studies which I often do).

Yes, yes. We have got past the "you" and "one" thing. It kind of makes sense although as panthera said it did seem to be directed at me when you said, "you, as a ..."

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:53 pm
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
 OK, bye
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:24 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Veganomante
Animal Activist
Animal Activist


Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 423
Location: Chile
jhussain wrote:
Veganomante, your point is well taken. We are all biased in favor of our prior ethical commitments, and this bias often blinds us to arguments and facts that question our commitments. A similar point was made by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who recognized the conservative bias of 'normal science' when considering new evidence.


Hi, jhussain:

Just a follow up on this.

I agree with Kuhn that normal science has a conservative bias, but I think that is slightly different from ethical infatuation (by the way, ethical infatuation has always been called ideological bias, but my term has more flavor Happy ). For example, if I were to find a scientific article which claimed to disprove evolution, I'd be very, very skeptical. However, I don't need to be THAT skeptical with a regular article describing new evolutionary insights. Just because the amount of evidence in favor of the latter is impressive, while the former has no evidence prior to it (plus often being associated with religious propaganda). Of course, this both doesn't prove the article wrong nor does it say anything about scientists being less ideologically biased in general. You can pretty much have to use your reasoning abilities to deduce when it is appropriate to be less or more skeptical (for example, as I said earlier, scientific evidence on books about ethics is suspicious, with reason). But then again, you cannot escape being human so you can never escape being biased (this only applies to 'normal' human beings, not to those who are logical thinking machines --at least MY prefrontal cortex cannot override the rest of the non-logical parts of my mammalian and reptilian brain).

Even if ONE has analysed evidence in a neutral manner ONE may still be caught up on selective recall, which is the effect were ONE remembers read or heard discourses selectively to reinforce their expectations, as proposed by schemata theory and scripts, and which is not at odds with macropropositional hypothesis, mental models and other often working hypotheses on the field of psycholinguistics.

And here are some researches on ideological bias you might find interesting.

[url=http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring06/borgidae/psy5202/readings/lord,%20ross%20&%20lepper%20(1979).pdf/]Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence[/url] by Lord, Ross and Lepper (1979). A good and concise introduction to the topic, with empirical findings.


Quote:
People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a bias manner. They are apt to accept "confirming" evidence at face value while subjecting "disconfirming" evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather and increase in polarization. To test this assumptions and predictions, subjects supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to two purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty. As predicted, both proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated those results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs to be the more convincing and probative ones, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as the various results and procedures were presented. The net effect of such evaluations and opinion shifts was the postulated increase in attitude polarization


Citizen's Perceptions of Ideological Bias in Research on Public Policy Controversy by McCoun and Paletz (2009). A research performed 30 years after the previous one, with a lot of new information and different twists.

Quote:
How do ordinary citizens react to new policy-relevant findings that they learn about from media mentions or word of mouth? We conducted an experiment embedded in a random digital dial (RDD) telephone survey of 1,050 California adults. Respondents heard descriptions of a hypothetical on one of four politicized topics or a politically neutral topic (nutrition) and were asked to describe their reactions to the study's main findings. As in prior research, citizens were more skeptical when the findings contradicted their prior beliefs about the topic. But, we also found effects of partisanship and ideology even after controlling for specific issue attitudes. Citizens, especially those holding conservative beliefs, tended to attribute studies with liberal findings to the liberalism of the researcher, but citizens were less likely to attribute conservative findings to the conservatism of the researcher.


Schema Theory (drawn from D'Andrade, 1995). A little bit on schemata.

Quote:
Schemas clearly affect our recall of events. Russ Bernard, Peter Killworth, David Kronenfeld, and Lee Sailer did a series of studies on informant accuracy in which they convincingly showed that about half of what informants tell us is wrong. This caused a firestorm of argument and replication, including one study by Linton Freeman, Kim Romney, and Sue Freeman (1987), which suggested that the inaccuracies are not random, but rather systematic and predictable, and come from the schemas we develop based on experience and social networks.

The Freeman, Romney, and Freeman study used attendance data for participation in an informal seminar of the Irvine Mathematical Social Science Program during the spring quarter of 1985. The seminar met in a large lounge in which participants sat in a circular pattern, with everyone visible to everyone else. Attendance was recorded for nine consecutive sessions. The ninth and final session was used as the memory target session. All participants were interviewed five days after the final session and asked if they had been at the ninth meeting, and if so, who else had attended. All those who had attended (17 persons) remembered attending. With regard to who else attended, their error rate was 52% (exactly in line with the Bernard et al studies). On average, respondents forgot about 6 of the 16 other people that were there, and recalled the presence of 1.5 persons who, in fact, were not there.


I'm sorry you can only preview the following two articles, I couldn't find better (free) ones.

Memory for information about nuclear power: A test of the selective recall hypothesis by Furnham and Procter (1989). About selective recall.

Quote:
To test the selective recall hypothesis, nearly 60 subjects read a report of approximately 500 words presenting both pro- and anti-attitudes to nuclear technology. Two hours prior to this they completed the Nuclear Attitudes Questionnaire. Subjects were given free and cued recall tests approximately five minutes after reading the report. The results partially supported the selective recall hypothesis, paticularly with respect to the free recall of anti-nuclear information. Results are discussed in terms of the recent work on selective memory effects.


Memory for information about sex differences by Furnham and Singh.

Quote:
To test the selective recall hypothesis, male and female adolescents listened to a tape recording of 30 findings about sex differences. Fifteen of the findings were pro-female and 15 were anti-female. After being given free recall and then cued recall tests, the subjects completed the British version of the attitudes towards women scale. Multiple regression analysis supported the prediction that males, and those with more negative attitudes to wards women, recalled less pro- and more anti-female items, and vice versa. The importance of selective recall to studies of social cognition is discussed.


I guess that's it. Regards
_________________
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:03 pm
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
panthera
Animal Guardian Angel


Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 3468
Location: Chicago, IL
 kinda like omnivores regarding "humane farming" and hunters regarding population control. Razz
_________________
Animals are not property.
ARCO's Abolitionists

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:15 pm
  View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
EcoTribalVegan
Banned

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 354
Location: Hamilton
 I'm saying that as vegans (since many of us were NOT lifelong vegans) we clearly overcame this bias. We are all essentially capable of overcoming this bias. Which is why I think it's inappropriate to generalise vegans in particular (but mostly I still take offence to it on a personal level) in such a way...

But you said it best.

Okay, bye.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:29 am
  View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 11 [157 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 9, 10, 11 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicMark the topic unreadView next topic
 Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk
:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Copyright © 2005, 2009 ARCO
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
A community of Animal Rights Activists. Offering support for a strict vegetarian or other plant based diet and a vegan lifestyle.

[ Time: 0.6741s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0072s) ][ Debug on ]