No, but I also not claiming that animal right's people should abstain from modern medicine because they have ethical issues with animal experimentation.
Many people build their lifestyle and identity around the idea that animals and humans are fundamentally different, and threatening that really upsets them.
I wonder how many anti-animal-rights people would be willing to forgo medical advances that were the result of human experimentation yet still be against the idea of it making a comeback.
The line between hypocrite and pragmatist pretty much comes down to if you are talking about 'us' or 'them'.
Well, the WBC's sense is less about morality and more about profit.... being assholes, having your rights violating, and sueing is actually pretty lucrative.
I can not speak for what various activists might be thinking.... personally I think groups like PETA really are about attention and ego building (not to mention it is a bit of a hook up club)... but moving on to some of the more 'thinking ahead' groups that run into that inconstancy. Some are trying to take a long term view, so it is less about saving individual animals and more about trying to effect change. Some of the 'attacking labs' stuff started that way, it tried to increase the cost/risk of such work such that it would not be considered worth funding or that non-animal (or simply less harmful animal) testing would become more attractive, but I feel that the groups that took such tactics were not consistent enough to actually have that effect. Part of the problem there is very few people, while they might think otherwise, just are not macro level thinkers.
On another end though, the idea of mercy killing is always a tricky one, for instance no-kill shelters can be pretty controversial since the resources to keep animals with any real quality of life get pretty significant, so many feel that it is more merciful to put a significant percentage down rather then keep them in tiny cages for years or decades at a time. A similar issue is what to do with injured animals that are suffering... short life with a long painful death, or a quick injection?
Accepting responsibility for other people's actions? Since when does any group 'take responsibility' for more radical versions of itself? And what responsibility do you suggest they take? Pointing out that they do not behave like nor belief the same as radicals never works, nor does simply doing your own constructive activism. I do not recall, for instance, the EFF ever feeling it needed to 'take responsibility' for Anonymous for instance.
On the flip side, I wonder how many people would be unwilling to go to the doctor if they had to watch a live vivisection, or watch time lapse videos of the slow painful death of the creatures that were part of the research for whatever particular ailment they have.
Given that the US has been passing various 'you must know' anti-abortion laws, might as well require people to sit through videos displaying the animal cost of what they are benefiting from. Then extend it to cosmetic displays in stores.
This is a very old debate, and it was pretty much hashed through when doctors and patients were trying to decide what to do with Nazi research on human subjects (or the human testing that goes on in India today). Most people are pragmatic enough to take advantage of research that has been done while still being against how it was done or seeking to find better ways to do it in the future. Though I guess we could just go back to human testing.. we have lots of poor people around the world.
Something to keep in mind, in most animal rights circles, PETA and the like are a joke. They are not taken seriously nor are they considered even remotely helpful to their cause. Most of them are much more likely to be affiliated with ASPCA or local no-kill shelters, but they are a lot less news-worthy so PETA tends to get the headlines and attention.... PETA is the Westburo Baptist Church of the animal right's world.
As for the belief/morality.. while it varies, it usually stems from the perception that many animals are thinking, feeling, social creatures.. not as intelligent or self aware as humans but possessing the same basic capabilities in diminished capacity.. thus they apply the same moral standards that society normally receives for diminished humans like babies or the mentally handicapped. Thus treatment that we would generally not accept for such people are also morally reprehensible to them for animals. Naturally there is a lot of variance there though.
Unfortunately like the abortion debate much of it hinges on beliefs on dividing lines that, while there are plenty of facts, what those facts actually matter is grounded in personal belief.
Meh, I call confirmation bais. With that kind of attitude, I would not be surprised if you had encountered sane activists and they just kept their mouth shut around you because they are accustomed to people ranting about how stupid they are.
Most of the ones I have encountered are deeply involved in both the activism element and things like shelters. Yeah there are ones like you describe, but they are not taken seriously within activism either.
In many ways they parrell the anti-abortion movement... most are simply against it and work to try to change policy, and a smaller number are asshats about their activism.
A while back someone tried that for academic conference submissions and it actually really helped. They had had problems with presenters being mostly while males, disproportionate even to their field. Removing the names resulted in presentations given by a cross section much closer to the actual community.
I am not sure it really needs to be that complicated. Simply being aware that it is part of one's thought process is often enough to reduce it by a significant margin. Sadly people do not like to think they have bais and many fight the implication. In a way we might actually benefit from de-stigmatizing having bais and focus more on how much the person lets it influence their decision making process.
As for the club affiliation, a common piece of resume advice people are still given today is to remove black/ethnic clubs and activities from their resume, and esp remove anything with an activism feel to it (unless it activism likely to resonate with the HR staff), and apparently people report that this results in more callbacks, though I am not aware of any controlled studies seeing if it is the case or not.
It is generally not that complicated... when women complain about how they are being treated, listen and adjust. Unfortunately the typical response in the industry is to tell them to stop complaining.
It means examining bais. Changing a name on a resume to change gender or ethnicity often results in interpretations of the resume, with european male names often being rated as seeming more competent even when the exact same resume with another type of name on it is read as less capable.
So the problem is, people think they are hiring the 'best' people in an unbiased way, but statistically they are not. Addressing that in your hiring process leads to better people because there is a significant talent pool out there who are consistently rated lower then their actual abilities reflect.
*nod* and there is a lot of room there for a superior experience. Amazon's search has gotten worse and worse. Sometimes just finding something can be enough of headache to send me elsewhere.
Truffles, like Shark Fin, is popular because it is popular. It is 'rich guy stuff', so rich people eat it because they can and middle class people buy it because it is a 'taste of luxury'. Even when people can distinguish truffle from other mushrooms, it still pretty much comes down to 'I can detect the socially right one'
I actually kinda wonder if this would have gotten nearly as much press if not for the Boston bombing. As you point out, chemical plants do blow up now and then, and usually it does not get much national attention.
Heh, which is why I tend to be amused at the people who think that just because they can print gun parts now that they will start mixing their own smokeless powder at home and be free of federal gun laws.... since gunpowder plants, with all their training and safety equipment, still blow up more frequently then people realize.
'Masses' is a fairly relative concept, as is 'affordable'. Compared to the targeting of the IBM compatible computers it could be argued that the Apple ][ line was more a computer for mass consumers, even if at its price point it was out of the range of many people. It is kinda like today out the Canon 5Dmk3 is a FF camera for the 'masses' in that it is intended (or at least marketed to) 'prosumers' as opposed to professionals and companies. Its price point is still higher then most people can plunk down for a camera, but it is still aimed at the mass market.
Now, it could be argued there were other 'for the masses' computers also being sold at the time, but that is why it is "A" computer for the masses, not "The" computer for the masses.
I think people tend to forget how computers were seen and marketed at the time, and how little attention there was on anyone other then hobbyists and professionals. The Apple ][ and other computers like it really were a new push to get usable computers into the homes of a much larger audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is confirmation bais is really easy to sell on people, so they honestly believe they did test it out and it worked.
No, but I also not claiming that animal right's people should abstain from modern medicine because they have ethical issues with animal experimentation.
Many people build their lifestyle and identity around the idea that animals and humans are fundamentally different, and threatening that really upsets them.
I wonder how many anti-animal-rights people would be willing to forgo medical advances that were the result of human experimentation yet still be against the idea of it making a comeback.
The line between hypocrite and pragmatist pretty much comes down to if you are talking about 'us' or 'them'.
Since when do facts and reality get in the way of chest beating 'look, I hate the same people you do!' threads?
Hating on animal rights activists is what the cool kids are doing.
Well, the WBC's sense is less about morality and more about profit.... being assholes, having your rights violating, and sueing is actually pretty lucrative.
I can not speak for what various activists might be thinking.... personally I think groups like PETA really are about attention and ego building (not to mention it is a bit of a hook up club)... but moving on to some of the more 'thinking ahead' groups that run into that inconstancy. Some are trying to take a long term view, so it is less about saving individual animals and more about trying to effect change. Some of the 'attacking labs' stuff started that way, it tried to increase the cost/risk of such work such that it would not be considered worth funding or that non-animal (or simply less harmful animal) testing would become more attractive, but I feel that the groups that took such tactics were not consistent enough to actually have that effect. Part of the problem there is very few people, while they might think otherwise, just are not macro level thinkers.
On another end though, the idea of mercy killing is always a tricky one, for instance no-kill shelters can be pretty controversial since the resources to keep animals with any real quality of life get pretty significant, so many feel that it is more merciful to put a significant percentage down rather then keep them in tiny cages for years or decades at a time. A similar issue is what to do with injured animals that are suffering... short life with a long painful death, or a quick injection?
Accepting responsibility for other people's actions? Since when does any group 'take responsibility' for more radical versions of itself? And what responsibility do you suggest they take? Pointing out that they do not behave like nor belief the same as radicals never works, nor does simply doing your own constructive activism. I do not recall, for instance, the EFF ever feeling it needed to 'take responsibility' for Anonymous for instance.
On the flip side, I wonder how many people would be unwilling to go to the doctor if they had to watch a live vivisection, or watch time lapse videos of the slow painful death of the creatures that were part of the research for whatever particular ailment they have.
Given that the US has been passing various 'you must know' anti-abortion laws, might as well require people to sit through videos displaying the animal cost of what they are benefiting from. Then extend it to cosmetic displays in stores.
This is a very old debate, and it was pretty much hashed through when doctors and patients were trying to decide what to do with Nazi research on human subjects (or the human testing that goes on in India today). Most people are pragmatic enough to take advantage of research that has been done while still being against how it was done or seeking to find better ways to do it in the future. Though I guess we could just go back to human testing.. we have lots of poor people around the world.
Something to keep in mind, in most animal rights circles, PETA and the like are a joke. They are not taken seriously nor are they considered even remotely helpful to their cause. Most of them are much more likely to be affiliated with ASPCA or local no-kill shelters, but they are a lot less news-worthy so PETA tends to get the headlines and attention.... PETA is the Westburo Baptist Church of the animal right's world.
As for the belief/morality.. while it varies, it usually stems from the perception that many animals are thinking, feeling, social creatures.. not as intelligent or self aware as humans but possessing the same basic capabilities in diminished capacity.. thus they apply the same moral standards that society normally receives for diminished humans like babies or the mentally handicapped. Thus treatment that we would generally not accept for such people are also morally reprehensible to them for animals. Naturally there is a lot of variance there though.
Unfortunately like the abortion debate much of it hinges on beliefs on dividing lines that, while there are plenty of facts, what those facts actually matter is grounded in personal belief.
Meh, I call confirmation bais. With that kind of attitude, I would not be surprised if you had encountered sane activists and they just kept their mouth shut around you because they are accustomed to people ranting about how stupid they are.
Most of the ones I have encountered are deeply involved in both the activism element and things like shelters. Yeah there are ones like you describe, but they are not taken seriously within activism either.
In many ways they parrell the anti-abortion movement... most are simply against it and work to try to change policy, and a smaller number are asshats about their activism.
Eh, depending on one's ethics, that can be said for either side. Both have good intentions that are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive with the other.
Or even worse... since it is a question related to implementation, they can sick the copyright lawyers on you...
A while back someone tried that for academic conference submissions and it actually really helped. They had had problems with presenters being mostly while males, disproportionate even to their field. Removing the names resulted in presentations given by a cross section much closer to the actual community.
I am not sure it really needs to be that complicated. Simply being aware that it is part of one's thought process is often enough to reduce it by a significant margin. Sadly people do not like to think they have bais and many fight the implication. In a way we might actually benefit from de-stigmatizing having bais and focus more on how much the person lets it influence their decision making process.
As for the club affiliation, a common piece of resume advice people are still given today is to remove black/ethnic clubs and activities from their resume, and esp remove anything with an activism feel to it (unless it activism likely to resonate with the HR staff), and apparently people report that this results in more callbacks, though I am not aware of any controlled studies seeing if it is the case or not.
It is generally not that complicated... when women complain about how they are being treated, listen and adjust. Unfortunately the typical response in the industry is to tell them to stop complaining.
It means examining bais. Changing a name on a resume to change gender or ethnicity often results in interpretations of the resume, with european male names often being rated as seeming more competent even when the exact same resume with another type of name on it is read as less capable.
So the problem is, people think they are hiring the 'best' people in an unbiased way, but statistically they are not. Addressing that in your hiring process leads to better people because there is a significant talent pool out there who are consistently rated lower then their actual abilities reflect.
*nod* and there is a lot of room there for a superior experience. Amazon's search has gotten worse and worse. Sometimes just finding something can be enough of headache to send me elsewhere.
I thought this novelty peaked years ago.
Truffles, like Shark Fin, is popular because it is popular. It is 'rich guy stuff', so rich people eat it because they can and middle class people buy it because it is a 'taste of luxury'. Even when people can distinguish truffle from other mushrooms, it still pretty much comes down to 'I can detect the socially right one'
People tend to rationalize expensive and trendy things. Chances are in a blind taste test the same people would lament how low brow it tastes.
I actually kinda wonder if this would have gotten nearly as much press if not for the Boston bombing. As you point out, chemical plants do blow up now and then, and usually it does not get much national attention.
Heh, which is why I tend to be amused at the people who think that just because they can print gun parts now that they will start mixing their own smokeless powder at home and be free of federal gun laws.... since gunpowder plants, with all their training and safety equipment, still blow up more frequently then people realize.
Since, at the moment, we do not even know what 'this' was in any real detail, hard to say what if anything could have been done.
That is a good point.
'Masses' is a fairly relative concept, as is 'affordable'. Compared to the targeting of the IBM compatible computers it could be argued that the Apple ][ line was more a computer for mass consumers, even if at its price point it was out of the range of many people. It is kinda like today out the Canon 5Dmk3 is a FF camera for the 'masses' in that it is intended (or at least marketed to) 'prosumers' as opposed to professionals and companies. Its price point is still higher then most people can plunk down for a camera, but it is still aimed at the mass market.
Now, it could be argued there were other 'for the masses' computers also being sold at the time, but that is why it is "A" computer for the masses, not "The" computer for the masses.
I think people tend to forget how computers were seen and marketed at the time, and how little attention there was on anyone other then hobbyists and professionals. The Apple ][ and other computers like it really were a new push to get usable computers into the homes of a much larger audience.
Apple's market share around that time was about 10%, which is not shabby at all, but was no where near 50%.