Shut the fuck up, Ricky Gervais.

[Miller]

@camille

Miller, I think you’re wrong. Posting about the science and emotional response doesn’t equal judgmental, dehumanizing, and/or condescending.

Yeah, right it doesn’t. Try reading some posts by Chief Pedant or any of the other “race realists” on this board, and try and say that again with a straight face.

We’re talking about people with variations in emotion and affect. Do you dispute the science behind that? I never meant it as “they’re just broken by nature, poor things, and can’t help what they do” - that’s what you’re reading into it.

I dispute your application of the science to this issue. And I dispute you can make the arguments your making without also arguing that the people you’re talking about are fundamentally defective in some way.

It’s the same as saying some people are heterosexual and some are homosexual and there is a spectrum of sexuality between the extremes of both. Is it judgmental if I say “I’m straight but am sometimes attracted to women” if there are other people who fall somewhere else on the spectrum, and can only relate to sex with one gender? How is that dehumanizing? How is that feeling superior to people who are only attracted to one gender?

The difference there is that sexuality is a neutral trait. Empathy is generally not considered a neutral trait, and describing someone as lacking empathy is rightly considered a personal criticism.

I can’t relate to homophobes (and heterophobes!), even if they do not discriminate or harm anyone and just express it as an emotional response. I don’t relate to it, and tend to avoid relationships with them, but I don’t think they are inferior or broken for that emotional response. It’s how they are wired. And they do most likely have more of a propensity to discriminate against people they can’t relate to sexually, but it’s not an imperative that they do so.

Are you arguing that there’s a genetic propensity to homophobia? Because that’s a rather extraordinary claim. Also pretty far outside the remit of this thread, but I think it is of a piece with how you’re approaching the “science” on this particular issue.

The reason I brought it up at all was because of the simplistic logical fallacy of saying meat eaters were hypocrites so they couldn’t express an opinion about the subject. Do you really disagree that it’s a complex issue?

Yes, I really disagree that it’s a complex issue. If you’re living in a first world country, and you eat meat, or wear leather, or hunt, then you’re deriving pleasure from the death of animals. There is no moral distinction to be made between the three acts, and attempting to paint the third past-time as worse than the other two, simply because it’s the one that doesn’t personally appeal to you, makes you a hypocrite and an asshole.

Yes, I disapprove of trophy hunters, and I am turned off by people who enjoy killing - and? Expressing a non-threatening opinion in a thread about that is being a prick? I guess anyone who posted in this thread is a prick too then, right? Or is it only the posters you disagree with?

No, expressing a non-threatening opinion doesn’t make you a prick. It’s the nature of that opinion that makes you a prick. Saying, “I like chocolate ice cream,” doesn’t make anyone a prick. Saying, “I don’t like Jews,” does. In this case, passing judgement on people because they enjoy a hobby that you do not, makes you a prick. Dressing it up in pseudoscience about empathy, and how, “they’re just wired that way,” makes you a bigger prick, not a smaller one.

You’re entitled to not like my posting style or my opinions, or whatever it is that rubs you the wrong way, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Condescending is a subjective description of a posting style; if you like the person or agree with them you’re less likely to read their posts that way. I get that. But don’t call me dishonest (why would I lie about my opinion?) or mis-characterize what I posted. And since it’s the Pit you’re allowed to insult me for any reason, but in this case I think it’s a gross overreaction and distorted, and I reserve the right to respond. I’m not breaking any rules, so please don’t try to infer I should opt to not post an opinion you don’t like, especially since you’re a mod as well as a (contentious) poster.

Where did I call you dishonest? I called you condescending, and a prick, and I’ve implied in this post that you’re somewhat less than bright, but I’m pretty sure I never said you were a liar.

Speaking of implying things, please try to learn the difference between “imply” and “infer.” I imply things with my words. I infer things from your words. And saying that I implied you shouldn’t post is a bit of a stretch. On the contrary, I was fairly explicit in saying that we’d all be better off with you not opening your big yap on this subject again.

I am, of course, not going to prevent you from responding, because you’re not breaking any rules by being dumb and wrong in the Pit. But that doesn’t mean I can’t tell you, as a poster, to shut the fuck up about it already.

[FXMastermind]

@Tibby or Not Tibby

I’ve got a plan…a good plan.

Buddy, we all got a plan.

Everyone has a plan, until mother nature starts punching you in the face.

And then you die.

[FXMastermind]

@Miller

I am, of course, not going to prevent you from responding, because you’re not breaking any rules by being dumb and wrong in the Pit.

If you stopped everyone who was dumb and wrong, nobody would be allowed to post.

[camille]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

For those playing the home game, camille is probably trying to paraphrase this:

Not sure what your point is, but you posted that after my post about hypocrisy. I originally replied to FXMastermind’s post about it being “funny”, but the point has been echoed since the thread began, in which the OP said:

If you eat meat, shut the fuck up! You have no right to complain about this.

How does your subsequent post prove I am “dishonest”?

Here was my first post about it (to FXMastermind):

Not really. Empathy is mostly an emotional and physiological response. To consider this reaction by meat eaters hypocritical doesn’t quite work. For example. dogs can be very empathic, and have displayed distress when another animal - even another species - is being harmed or killed. Dogs eat meat. Are dogs hypocrites?

Humans and other animals exhibit varying levels of empathy (both inter and intra species); we are hard wired for it, and it is also influenced by culture/environment. Consider it as a spectrum from high empathic to low empathic (sociopathy). I would guess most humans fall in the middle of the spectrum, so it is not surprising to see this type of “hypocritical” reaction, nor is it surprising that this is a contentious subject.

Here is the second post about it:

You’re really missing the point. An emotional, physiological response is independent of intelligence. As I said earlier, empathy isn’t always rational.

Granted, we can try to temper our actions when the response is triggered - like not sending death threats on twitter when we feel bad about seeing a dead giraffe - but the feeling itself doesn’t require a “defense”. It’s how we are wired.

Some people are so empathic towards animals they do not eat meat or utilize any animal product. Some will eat the already killed and sanitized version of meat products, but would have a hard time if they have to do their own killing. Some people don’t care much about the issue, even though they wouldn’t seek out killing animals for fun. Some people enjoy killing animals, but draw the line at killing some animals. Some go further, and have no qualms about hurting any animal, including other humans. And you find similar variations of empathy levels in non human species.

I don’t think that should be the contentious part of this debate. The biggest danger to animal welfare and conservation is habitat encroachment. If we banned hunting, how would we fund animals preserves and the cost of supporting endangered species? It’s a complex issue.

But I still consider people with low empathy levels - to the point where they enjoy killing - creepy and off putting. They are too far away from me on the empathy spectrum for me to relate to them, and studies have shown that they are more likely to harm other people (even in non criminal or non lethal situations), so I avoid personal relationships with them. I don’t seek them out to vilify, or dox them, or threaten them, but if they glorify their behavior in public, they are fair game for criticism.

No, you’re missing the point, and re-framing my posts to suit your (emotional) agenda of insulting me rather than discussing it.

The point is, many people are conflicted about the idea of killing animals - whether by their own hand or the hand of others - even if they eat meat themselves. I’m not trying to argue about the strict definition of hypocrisy. As I said in my earlier post, calling it hypocrisy is “not quite right”, meaning it doesn’t address the science behind it or the conlicted actions that result. It’s dismissive name calling, in order to hand wave away the dilemma, rather than addressing the dilemma itself.

We (general we) have had this debate many times on this board, and it typically devolves into this type of name calling. I was trying to move past that, so we could consider possible solutions to the dilemma (cognitive empathy), and maybe even some pragmatic ideas about hunting and animal welfare we can all agree on.

But I acknowledge that this is the Pit, so it’s your right to reduce it all to flinging feces at people who don’t rationalize and/or ignore their conflicted feelings and actions exactly as you do. Carry on.

Are you really still insisting I have some kind of dishonest, nefarious agenda by posting in this thread? What* is* your problem? You don’t like me? I get it. I said I’d leave you alone if you did the same, are you incapable of that?

Sorry to everyone else for posting all this again.

[Tibby]

@FXMastermind

Buddy, we all got a plan.
Everyone has a plan, until mother nature starts punching you in the face.
And then you die.

Homie, if dat bitch start punchin’ me in the face…I’m gonna get all whoop-ass on her sorry ass!

And, normally I would regret and refrain from the statement I’m going to following with, but, since I’m now going to bed and don’t plan to read the replies any time soon:

*Is it just me, or does anyone else believe Miller and Camille are going to end up at Motel 6 tonight with a kilo of weed and a donkey? *

…No offence meant toward anyone. It’s all about the funny. In the immortal words of Rodney King," can’t we all just get along?"

[Miller]

And cut in on Left Hand’s action?

[Tibby]

@Miller

And cut in on Left Hand’s action?

Ah, you’re proposing a little 3 on 1 action, eh? Well…ok, count me in. Don’t wait for me, I’ve gotta stop and get the liter of Jack.

[Pedro]

@Miller

Yes, I really disagree that it’s a complex issue. If you’re living in a first world country, and you eat meat, or wear leather, or hunt, then you’re deriving pleasure from the death of animals. There is no moral distinction to be made between the three acts, and attempting to paint the third past-time as worse than the other two, simply because it’s the one that doesn’t personally appeal to you, makes you a hypocrite and an asshole.

I use a giraffe bone to scratch my back. Can you do a moral coin toss for me too?

[camille]

@Miller

Yeah, right it doesn’t. Try reading some posts by Chief Pedant or any of the other “race realists” on this board, and try and say that again with a straight face.

I dispute your application of the science to this issue. And I dispute you can make the arguments your making without also arguing that the people you’re talking about are fundamentally defective in some way.

The difference there is that sexuality is a neutral trait. Empathy is generally not considered a neutral trait, and describing someone as lacking empathy is rightly considered a personal criticism.

Are you arguing that there’s a genetic propensity to homophobia? Because that’s a rather extraordinary claim. Also pretty far outside the remit of this thread, but I think it is of a piece with how you’re approaching the “science” on this particular issue.

Yes, I really disagree that it’s a complex issue. If you’re living in a first world country, and you eat meat, or wear leather, or hunt, then you’re deriving pleasure from the death of animals. There is no moral distinction to be made between the three acts, and attempting to paint the third past-time as worse than the other two, simply because it’s the one that doesn’t personally appeal to you, makes you a hypocrite and an asshole.

No, expressing a non-threatening opinion doesn’t make you a prick. It’s the nature of that opinion that makes you a prick. Saying, “I like chocolate ice cream,” doesn’t make anyone a prick. Saying, “I don’t like Jews,” does. In this case, passing judgement on people because they enjoy a hobby that you do not, makes you a prick. Dressing it up in pseudoscience about empathy, and how, “they’re just wired that way,” makes you a bigger prick, not a smaller one.

Where did I call you dishonest? I called you condescending, and a prick, and I’ve implied in this post that you’re somewhat less than bright, but I’m pretty sure I never said you were a liar.

Speaking of implying things, please try to learn the difference between “imply” and “infer.” I imply things with my words. I infer things from your words. And saying that I implied you shouldn’t post is a bit of a stretch. On the contrary, I was fairly explicit in saying that we’d all be better off with you not opening your big yap on this subject again.

I am, of course, not going to prevent you from responding, because you’re not breaking any rules by being dumb and wrong in the Pit. But that doesn’t mean I can’t tell you, as a poster, to shut the fuck up about it already.

Sorry, you’re just wrong.

Genetic variation linked to individual empathy, stress levels

Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans

The genetics of empathy and its disorders

There are others. You want to debate the specifics of the science, and what extent is nature v nurture that is another story, but it isn’t some kind of pseudoscience.

Homophobia can be genetic in the sense that a negative emotional response to an opposite sexuality is often related to the extremes on the spectrum (nature). Of course it can also be a nurture issue in the sense of religious or repressed sexuality situations.

Empathy levels are a neutral trait for the most part; it only becomes a problem when empathy is low enough to facilitate sociopathy that is violent or criminal. In some cases it can be a positive; many successful people have lower levels and it allows them to make difficult decisions and do things that are unpleasant but “need to be done”. Even too high a level can be counterproductive; it impairs rational decisions in some cases, and causes personal distress to the individual. Overly sensitive people aren’t the ideal. Since nurture is also an aspect, there is always the opportunity the develop an a more productive empathic response.

But of course since this is the Dope, using infer instead of imply invalidates my whole argument and you win! Go you!

If you want to now imply I’m a bigot or a racist or antisemitic (lol) for bringing it up, knock yourself out, pit me if you want, but don’t forget to include everyone else who expressed the same opinion, and the scientists who published the findings, and every other professional who is familiar with this.

[Tibby]

Who are these party poopers?

[andros]

@Miller

Empathy is generally not considered a neutral trait, and describing someone as lacking empathy is rightly considered a personal criticism.

In all honesty, I did not–and do not–perceive it as a biased term. But in my line of work (mental health) it’s often used as a neutral descriptive. I get that colloquial language differs though. At least, I totally take your word for it.

Maybe it’s just the holiday talking, but it actually sounds like an interesting GD discussion.

[Miller]

@camille

Sorry, you’re just wrong.

I didn’t say the science was wrong, I said your application of the science was wrong. Unless there’s something in one of those cites that says, “People who hunt have less empathy than people who don’t,” you haven’t proven anything.

Homophobia can be genetic in the sense that a negative emotional response to an opposite sexuality is often related to the extremes on the spectrum (nature).

Which would imply a genetic basis for homosexuality. Which, as far as I’m aware, is also something that’s not been proven.

Empathy levels are a neutral trait for the most part; it only becomes a problem when empathy is low enough to facilitate sociopathy that is violent or criminal. In some cases it can be a positive; many successful people have lower levels and it allows them to make difficult decisions and do things that are unpleasant but “need to be done”. Even too high a level can be counterproductive; it impairs rational decisions in some cases, and causes personal distress to the individual. Overly sensitive people aren’t the ideal. Since nurture is also an aspect, there is always the opportunity the develop an a more productive empathic response.

Right. And how about those black people? They sure can dance, amirite?

But of course since this is the Dope, using infer instead of imply invalidates my whole argument and you win! Go you!

No, confusing imply and infer doesn’t invalidate your argument. It’s the lazy logic, unfounded assumptions, and insulting generalizations that invalidate your argument. The “imply/infer” thing was, at best, an example of your propensity for using terminology you don’t really understand in defense of an argument you clearly haven’t thought through.

If you want to now imply I’m a bigot or a racist or antisemitic (lol) for bringing it up, knock yourself out, pit me if you want, but don’t forget to include everyone else who expressed the same opinion, and the scientists who published the findings, and every other professional who is familiar with this.

FTR, when I compared you to Chief Pedant, or when I made the crack about dancing in this post, I was not trying to imply that you’re a racist. This wasn’t something that I thought I would need to make explicit, but that’s entirely my bad: I forgot who my audience was.

[camille]

@Miller

I didn’t say the science was wrong, I said your application of the science was wrong. Unless there’s something in one of those cites that says, “People who hunt have less empathy than people who don’t,” you haven’t proven anything.

Please cite where I said that please. Did you read the fucking thread or are you just trying to defend your similarly overreactionary friend? I brought it up in reference to the emotional reaction people get when they see animals killed, and the people on the extreme end who enjoy killing. No generalizations about all hunters. I mentioned this in my other reply to you so please stop making this mistake about what I posted.

Which would imply a genetic basis for homosexuality. Which, as far as I’m aware, is also something that’s not been proven.

The most likely theory is it’s either genetic or congenital (influences in the uterus) or a combination of both. It’s not a choice, so what other options are there? Do you deny there is a spectrum of sexuality?

No, confusing imply and infer doesn’t invalidate your argument. It’s the lazy logic, unfounded assumptions, and insulting generalizations that invalidate your argument. The “imply/infer” thing was, at best, an example of your propensity for using terminology you don’t really understand in defense of an argument you clearly haven’t thought through.

It was a joke. Just like you telling me what I know or don’t know about science terminology.

Why is it so difficult for you to take someone in good faith or give the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification before attacking? I’m not a troll, I’ve been here for a while, I don’t think I’ve ever expressed a really controversial opinion. Andros is right, it could be such an interesting debate.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Miller

Empathy is generally not considered a neutral trait, and describing someone as lacking empathy is rightly considered a personal criticism.

I also disagree with this. It seems to be the basis of your offense, which I’m finding baffling.

People can say that someone has less empathy about X than they do without being insulting or condescending.

Also, having more empathy doesn’t make one more moral. Just using a sort of silly example from fiction that might be illustrative: On Star Trek: The Next Generation, Data has no empathy and Deanna Troi has a lot, maybe too much. That doesn’t make her more moral towards other people than he is. He knows what the rules are and follows them. She knows what the rules are, but follows her emotions.

ETA: Data is generally seen as more moral than Deanna.

[boytyperanma]

@Acsenray

This is not a reasonable position. You don’t have to put anything on the internet yourself to open yourself up to having your life destroyed by strangers for no good reason.

You can have a picture taken, give it to your friends, who then share it.

You can have a picture taken, and not give it to your friends, and a hacker can steal it and share it.

You might not assent to taking a picture at all. Someone else might take it and then use it to destroy your life on Twitter.

Basically what’s happening is that people are losing a right to have a private, personal life. And this is a huge fucking deal.

Something needs to be done to prevent internet witch hunts against people who are not breaking the law. Or even if they’re breaking small laws.

I don’t think people should be subject to the dangerous rage of the world for minor infractions, such as cutting someone off in traffic, parking in a handicapped space, or committing a fashion faux pas, or even minor evasions of tax law.

That’s not to mention doing things that are perfectly legal, but somehow enrage thousands of people on the internet, who are willing to ruin your life by getting you fired or doxxing you or worse.

So, I don’t like sport hunting. I think the woman in the picture is an asshole. But she has the right to do what she did and she has the right not to be shamed before the world. Gervais is totally in the wrong here.

If Gervais went out searching for pictures to mock on the internet or if this woman actually wanted to maintain a private life I’d see your point. That’s not what happened. The picture was widely distributed before Gervais said anything about it, which is probably the only reason he came across it in the first place. There’s really been no evidence Francis was some private person that was randomly targeted, she manages a website, a blog and a twitter account that broadcasts her activities.

Gervais isn’t a fan of big game hunters and chose a big game hunter that has made herself a public figure to comment on. He didn’t even provide her name at the start of this did he? He didn’t encourage people to send her threats or ruin her life. People who committed crimes against her should be prosecuted. If Ricky did something like post a picture of her with a bulls-eye over her or said Francis should be harmed for her activities he’d certainly be wrong to do so.

They idea that public figures shouldn’t comment on things they feel strongly about because idiot’s on the internet might start a witch hunt is rather problematic.

Should Bernie Sanders stop mentioning the Koch brothers because people might find out who they are and send them death threats?

There are certainly issues with people using the internet to carry out witch hunts against otherwise private individuals, I honestly don’t know how that should be managed. This isn’t one of those instances.

[boytyperanma]

@Pedro

But really boytyperanma, what I really want to know is, how do you get those fucking beer stains off the center console!? Fuck, drives me absolutely bonkers. What’s up with that? How do people put up with this shit?!

Take it to a professional detailer. After that I’d recommend not having open beer cans in your SUV. If your going to ram Rhino’s and such with your car you might want to keep your drinks in a sippy cup or something so they don’t spill.

I hope you lose your license to a DUI before you hurt someone.
I don’t know what the penalty for purposely ramming an endangered species with an SUV is, I’d hope it was life imprisonment.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@camille

NI said I’d leave you alone if you did the same, are you incapable of that?

Ain’t about me, camille:

@camille

Did you read the fucking thread or are you just trying to defend your similarly overreactionary friend?

@camille

So what justifies my being attacked in this thread? And why just me, and not the others who feel the same way? Where is the dishonesty and the backpedaling and the goal shifting I was accused of?

You know when I say you’re dishonest and passive-aggressive? Check it.

Andros is right, it could be such an interesting debate.

It continues to be an interesting debate, with people who aren’t you. Again, I cordially invite you to knock it off, and to stop talking about me either directly or through these passive-aggressive little swipes. But if you must continue talking about me, I’d prefer you do it forthrightly.

[Pedro]

@boytyperanma

Take it to a professional detailer. After that I’d recommend not having open beer cans in your SUV. If your going to ram Rhino’s and such with your car you might want to keep your drinks in a sippy cup or something so they don’t spill.

Will do.

I hope you lose your license to a DUI before you hurt someone.
I don’t know what the penalty for purposely ramming an endangered species with an SUV is, I’d hope it was life imprisonment.

Hey, come on sis, no need to get all ethically judgemental and whatnot. You never stepped on an ant in your life?

[Pedro]

Do people really get this upset about a rhino? Life imprisonment? :rolleyes:

It’s just a dumb grass-eating cow with the stupid horn on its head (haha, I use it to pick my teeth, I have plenty of stamina down there). What other purpose does it serve? It’s not like it is a human, you know. There’s only 7 billion of those. All precious. Including sanctimonious pricks like Miller.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Pedro, is the point you’re making that the ethical consequences of killing one animal of en endangered species are greater than the ethical consequences of killing one animal of a common species?

Because if so, then yeah, I might agree.

However–and please correct me if I’m wrong–giraffes aren’t an endangered species (looks like there are around 80,000). And I don’t think that it’s a continuum, where for example it’s worse to kill an animal that there’s 80,000 of than it is to kill one of a population in the millions. The additional harm that comes from killing an endangered species comes from the worry about approaching the tipping point beyond which the animal might go extinct.

And there’s a different concern, one that the attention whores at PETA brought up with their Eat the Whales campaign: killing a single giraffe is going to result in a lot more meat than killing a single goat or even cow. You feed more people for the same death.

It becomes pretty difficult to quantify the harm/benefit done by killing these different animals. However, I don’t think that bringing in comparisons to endangered species is relevant.