PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[douglas]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Nature's law is singular and simple; survival of the fittest.

It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by douglas

It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".

I was going to point this out. There are many ways to survive, mind is one of them. Nurturing can also be a viable strategy as can cooperation. Nature is more than just red in tooth and claw, though it certainly is.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by douglas

It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".

So the only law of nature is tautological. Is that a problem?

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Boci

So the only law of nature is tautological. Is that a problem?

It's rather in keeping with the perversity of the universe, I find.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

I was going to point this out. There are many ways to survive, mind is one of them. Nurturing can also be a viable strategy as can cooperation. Nature is more than just red in tooth and claw, though it certainly is.

Who said it wasn't exactly?

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

Who said it wasn't exactly?

One could certainly conclude that Kelb_Panthera was arguing from a worldview that assumed such.

[Aedilred]

Originally Posted by Kelb Panthera et al

Words

Well, yes, the law of nature, survival of the fittest, is tautological, because, as noted, it boils down to "do whatever you have to to survive."

This in turn can be divided into two parts - acquisitive and defensive. You acquire what you need to to survive, and you defend your acquisitions and your person against those who would threaten them.

I take an unsympathetic, Hobbesian view of the state of nature - which is basically a more detailed version of the "do what you have to to survive" model. Hobbes's theory is predicated on the idea that humans will be horrid to each other and the state has to eliminate the state of nature in order for society to work.

Locke's state of nature is similar, but he takes a progressive approach, and identifies the acquisitive part of the "law of nature" more clearly than Hobbes did. Locke's society is built around the principles of the laws of the state of nature and applying them in a relevant fashion to the social construct, rather than rejecting the state of nature as something to be avoided at all costs. It's an attempt to make civilisation work in accordance with human nature, rather than in opposition to it.

Of course, you could argue that it's "made up". But so is everything. So is the entirety of the human experience. Not just civilisation and language and rational thought: everything we perceive is filtered by our brain and we're presented with our own personal, largely fictionalised version of it. So unless we're going to take a Dadaist view of philosophy and politics and life, I just don't think it's a helpful road to travel. In fact, the idea of what is real, what is perceived, how these things originate, etc. is central to the Cartesian and empiricist schools of thought and forms the basis for much of the political philosophy that follows.

You are of course free to disagree, but the philosophy supporting it is rather more complex than seems to be being credited. I really would recommend reading more deeply, because I don't think you disagree with the early modern philosophers as sharply as you seem to think.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

It's rather in keeping with the perversity of the universe, I find.

Redundancy results in a perverse universe? To elaborate, there are two uses for tautology.

Use 1. X is X and that is a fact of life.

Use 2. X is X, therefor I am right.

Use 1 is redudant, use 2 is fallacious. So logically, only the second use makes the world a worse place, and Kelb seemed, to me at least, to be using the first form, not the second.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I never said I disagree with the overall principle being espoused; the idea that a government's purpose should be to protect its people with no mind toward its own profit. It's a laudable and foward thinking view that I heartily agree with. I just think that if there is a division between nature and civilization, which I have to admit I'm not sure any such line does or should exist, then rights are part of civilization, not nature.

However, there's an argument to be made that the creation of civilization is a natural extension of the social instinct present in a number of animals, not just humans. If that's assumed to be the case then it makes no sense to give animals the same rights as people since rights, as something that is part and parcel of civilization, are a uniquely human evolution. Giving animals rights would be no different than giving them our hair or thumbs.

Don't mistake my meaning. I don't think any animal, human or otherwise, should be treated with needless cruelty, but showing another living creature compassion isn't, and IMO shouldn't be, the same as extending rights to it.

On the tautology of "survival of the fittest": so it's a tautological statement. So what? While there are many ways to achieve the fittness to survive, failure to achieve such in some way results in death and, if a species as a whole fails to achieve such fitness, extinction. Humans achieve such fitness largely by relying on social constructs, though some do so in the more classical fashion of beating what you need to survive out of the rest of nature.

[Herpestidae]

Only on the GITP forums can we start a philosophical discussion in a thread about PETA being idiots.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Boci

Redundancy results in a perverse universe? To elaborate, there are two uses for tautology.

Use 1. X is X and that is a fact of life.

Use 2. X is X, therefor I am right.

Use 1 is redudant, use 2 is fallacious. So logically, only the second use makes the world a worse place, and Kelb seemed, to me at least, to be using the first form, not the second.

More that humanity's antics are evidence of it.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

More that humanity's antics are evidence of it.

Your vagueness and large scope are not helping you get your point across, and you seem to be moving away from the original parameters of my question. Kelb made a tautological statement. They have acknowledged that it is tautological. So, what is the problem?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Herpestidae

Only on the GITP forums can we start a philosophical discussion in a thread about PETA being idiots.

Ain't it great!

And better still, it can be a civil discussion instead of a flame-war. This place is awesome.

[Emperor Ing]

I wonder what PETA's position is on the Mystery Dungeon series.

[TheCountAlucard]

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

[Grue Bait]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ing

I wonder what PETA's position is on the Mystery Dungeon series.

Well, I imagine that they prefer it to the regular games, but still think it's bad. Scummy humans becoming glorious 'mons, or something think that.

[Lord Raziere]

no, they'd hate the Dungeon series for giving pokemon civilization and money.

cause well look…. they live in a town. they have shopkeepers, bank, item storage, criminals…..the first has ruins of human buildings as places where some pokemon hang out, the second has a guild.

not to mention things like grimer, koffing, that trash bag pokemon in black and white….I bet you they don't such pollution themed pokemon. or magnemite, voltorb, any steel or whatever…..

[Emperor Ing]

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

In our defense (defense of the people not talking about their other hypocrisies) we are too focused talking about their present behavior and judging what they are presently doing on its merits. The merits, we can unanimously agree upon, are really really bad.
Besides, I already mentioned that PETA has an unreasonably high euthanasia rate for stray animals they take in. I think it was roughly 95% in 2011.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that they aren't actually interested in animal rights, they're interested in control. They want to influence our behavior as consumers and decide how our society should function.

[Tebryn]

I think it's safe to say that Extremism in it's myriad forms generally becomes less productive the stronger their rhetoric becomes. And while I am against universal rules, this one seems to be more or less universal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by TheCountAlucard

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

I was unaware of this particular hypocrisy, just as I'm beginning to get the impression that I've missed a few more of their real zingers.

Like I said before, I've mostly ignored them from when I first heard of them. They've always struck me as a bunch of wing-nuts that weren't worth giving much attention to. Some of what's been mentioned on this thread finally pushed me across the line from sneering apathy to genuine hatred though, and I'm not generally a hateful or otherwise strongly emotional person.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Boci

Your vagueness and large scope are not helping you get your point across, and you seem to be moving away from the original parameters of my question. Kelb made a tautological statement. They have acknowledged that it is tautological. So, what is the problem?

The statement itself falls underneath humanity's antics as a specific example of a general class of general silliness that nonetheless serves a purpose thus reminding me of the perversity of the universe.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

The statement itself falls underneath humanity's antics as a specific example of a general class of general silliness that nonetheless serves a purpose thus reminding me of the perversity of the universe.

So what you're really saying is, that you're intentionally being obtuse when you could have more easily summed it up with "People are silly, another example of this screwed up universe."?

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

So what you're really saying is, that you're intentionally being obtuse when you could have more easily summed it up with "People are silly, another example of this screwed up universe."?

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that.

Mostly though I just like the word perversity and still am not quite sure what's wrong here.

...Am I misremembering the definition of perversity? I suppose I should double check.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that.

Mostly though I just like the word perversity and still am not quite sure what's wrong here.

...Am I misremembering the definition of perversity? I suppose I should double check.

I think you've wrapped yourself up a bit. Boci asked what the problem was that the Law of Nature that being "Survival of the Fittest" being tautological. You then stated that it was in keeping with the perverse nature of the universe. Which doesn't answer the original question. What is wrong with the law of nature being tautological?

I fail, at least on your premise that the universe is at all perverse. If anything, the Universe isn't even uncaring. The Universe simply is. And we're a part of it. If the Universe cares for our existence, if it even has the ability to care which I doubt, it has shown it in a manner that is utterly indistinguishable to it not caring at all.

[Coidzor]

Well, there really wasn't much premise there.

Especially since I've realized that perversity wasn't the word I was thinking of at the time but I can't remember what I was going for either. x.x

Sorry about that.

[SDF]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Ultimately all rights, natural or otherwise, are just political ideology. They're not and never have been something inherent to nature.

I didn't really want to make another post about this topic, but I'll finally say that you can't prove and dismiss where rights do or don't come from. It's philosophy and metaphysics, not ideology. They are extremely and importantly different in this context. I'm picking up a lot of logical jumps and reductionist arguments about Locke, and more broadly the issue of human rights themselves. I think its dangerous to reduce rights simply to a man made construct by dismissing the alternatives outright.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by SDF

I didn't really want to make another post about this topic, but I'll finally say that you can't prove and dismiss where rights do or don't come from. It's philosophy and metaphysics, not ideology. They are extremely and importantly different in this context. I'm picking up a lot of logical jumps and reductionist arguments about Locke, and more broadly the issue of human rights themselves. I think its dangerous to reduce rights simply to a man made construct by dismissing the alternatives outright.

Of course I can't prove where rights don't come from. You can't prove a negative. I've yet to see a compelling argument about where they -do- come from that doesn't rely almost entirely on moral philosophy. Moral philosophy being a social construct, if rights come from moral obligation, they come from a social construct and therefore must be a creation of man.

I've also never seen a compelling argument for where to draw the line between nature and civiliation at all. Looked at in a certain light, one could very well argue that civilization is, itself, something that developed as part of human evolution and is therefore natural, which would make any and all parts of society part of -human- nature. In that case, rights are only natural for humans.

That said, I have been misusing the term "ideology," under the mistaken belief that it was synonymous with philosophy. I looked it up after you asserted there was a difference and discovered my error. Now that I know the proper definition, I realize that "ideology" is definitely not what I meant. I'm sorry for the miscommunication on my part.

I should've said that rights are a philosophical idea and not any result of a natural law if you draw a distinction between civilization and nature. As such, I've made a correction to my previous post, to accurately reflect my meaning.

[Ravens_cry]

Depends on what sense you are using it in.
I have heard it used in that sense in at least informal contexts.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Ravens_cry

Depends on what sense you are using it in.
I have heard it used in that sense in at least informal contexts.

That's the problem that caught me. The word is used that way informally, but a discussion of this nature is no place for informal or vague usages. The subject matter is just too heavy.

[dehro]

I'd like to post a thoughtful contribution to this thread...but I've been listening to the awesome intro music to the parody game ever since I clicked on the link.
am I the only one who is looking around for a hat and a whip to grab, in order to chase down some ancient artifact?