He is not saying they were rights, he is saying they existed. The question is are they “rights”?
If we are talking about rights not granted by other men...I think I agree with what others about enforcement. Might makes rights. If you can take something you have the right to it. indeed thats the very reason for laws and rights. Your quote above expresses that nicely.

But practically no one ever suggests such a thing. The alternative to suffering of farmed animals is obviously not freeing them to starve in the wild, but not breeding them in the first place. That's a basic false dichotomy. — zookeeper

I was comparing the suffering experienced by farm animals to the suffering of animals in the wild. Thats not a dichotomy, its a comparison. Not breeding them in the first place is a fair point but doesnt address what to do with the ones that have been bred already.
Also, regardless of what we do with the current stock of farm animals doesnt change the fact that animals, anywhere, live harsh and short lives that end in various horrific deaths. Thats the point I was making. There is no significant ethical difference between the suffering of farm animals and the suffering of animals in general. It IS strange, as under your paradigm one should be out rescuing animals from the wild as well.

Sure, production of plants results in animals dying en masse. No one seriously thinks that's not the case. How or why would that eliminate the moral high ground? — zookeeper

Well isnt preventing suffering what grants the moral highground? Suffering isnt being prevented by not eating meat, in fact id say that it causes more suffering just by the sheer numbers of individual suffering (unless you want to claim those lives are less significant somehow, but again that is the exact same calculus a meat eater is making).

Also, you said “practically no one ever”...aren’t there organisations like PETA that rescue animals and release them back to the wild? Maybe Im assuming “rescue” to mean release to the wild, but Im sure i e heard of animals being rescued from factory farms and such.

Well it seems strange to save an animal from suffering by ensuring it will suffer. Frying pan or fire? And thats besides the fact that most animals cannot make an ethical social contract. Its protecting an animal from suffering and death by sending it off to..suffering and death. (Presumably the alternative to being a farm animal is living in the wild). That doesnt seem odd to you?
Take vegans and vegetarians. In order to grow the food they eat, animals still have to be slaughtered en masse. Those fields of fruits or veggies result in countless deaths and plenty of suffering from displacement and starvation. If you want to say rodents and insects dont count or count less, then you are making the exact same calculus a meat eater is making. The moral high ground held by vegans or vegetarians is an illusion.

No. By that definition I can’t see how drugs are “bad”. If I said drugs are bad I would also be saying medicine that has a physiological effect is bad. I dont see how anyone could reasonably say that.

I think of ethics as a social contract for the most part, so with animals their are obvious limits to what kind of social contract you can make with them. I think most ethics are beyond most animals and so its not going to be an ethical social contract.
Ive always found it strange when animal rights people talk about the suffering from farms and human consumption of meat. Do they not realise the suffering that exists in the natural world? Its a non-stop horror show of pain, suffering and death. Mothers eat their babies, predators eating prey alive, agonising poisons and neurotoxins that paralyse followed by being eaten alive, females killing mates after copulation...ever see a cat play with its prey? Its torture for fun, whenever they can. Rape, infanticide, homicide, torture...all par for the course. Horrific crimes by human standards and thats the point, by human standards. Ethics. Whatever animals got going on it aint ethics, so what kind of social contract can you make with them? Well they all seem to have a solid grasp on the food chain...
Having said that, science has shown a pretty wide spectrum of cognition in animals in the last decade or two. I think its pretty clear some animals are capable of an ethical social contract more advanced than us eating them. Although dolphins are an animal noted for it high or human like intelligence and I read rape is very common amongst dolphins so maybe ethics really are a uniquely human thing. Its hard to tell.

You cant have looked very hard. It was the first headline that came up from the BBC when I just did it.
Benkei made a good point, that the actual articles dint say what the headlines say, clickbait. I think thats true, I just think that those clickbait headlines are very damaging. Thats maybe more about the state of journalism, but I dont think that excuses it.

Well I dont have as cavalier an attitude about headlines that mislead like that as you do. I think its important not to do that, especially concerning Trump. As I said, it plays into his hands.

Im talking about a specific type of Trump critic, the ones that lie or distort what Trump says or does because its easy and no one will call them on it cuz its Trump. Not everyone who is anti-Trump does this, not even everyone who has TDS does this.
The most recent example is journalists who wrote that Trump told people to drink or inject bleach in that press conference and people did and its all Trumps fault. Thats just not true, what he actually did was make an idiotic, off the top of his head comment about a potential treatment. He displayed ignorance, but anyone who heard that and thought it was a good idea to inject or drink bleach is an idiot and its not Trumps fault.
On the other side, im sure you can think of your own examples of Fox news or Republican politicians lying and distorting for Trumps benefit. The “inject bleach” example above works on this end too. Any Fox reporter or right wing personality that repeated the “it was sarcasm” excuse (and believes it) is not thinking clearly. TDS...
Trump is the divider in chief, and people on the left play right into his hands when they compare him to Hitler or bend over backwards to interpret anything he says or does in the worst possible way. Then he has fake news to point to when he wants to distract or obscure the actual terrible things he says and does.

You don't see how evidence would support your views or argument, seriously? — praxis

No, I said I dont think an example would make it any more clear. I think it would muddy the waters in fact, as ive also already explained.

You're not arguing about Trump's character. You're arguing about the character of others in relation to TDS in some way that is unclear to me. If you have no interest in making it clearer to me that's your choice. — praxis

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt here. So you are specifically talking about this bit, just for clarities sake:

“They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
— DingoJones“

?

Dont see how an example would be any more clear. I think you want an example so you can argue about the example instead of what im actually talking about. You want to argue about Trumps character. If thats the case, just say so. It will be a short discussion.

One of the three discussions I started on this forum was about TDS. I think it's simply a method to invalidate any criticism of Trump, in the minds of his supporters. I don't recall it ever being applied to an individual. I suppose that's because if it were applied to an instance of it then an actual criticism would need to be taken into consideration. — praxis

We’ve has that discussion already. Led nowhere.

Were you aiming at a fictitious person then? — praxis

Already explained. You must have missed it. (Not that I believe this is an honest question.)

Ok, understood. Its always more clear to explain what point youre making with quotations rather than just posting the quotes, especially considering you were speaking to my analogy rather than the point the analogy was meant to illustrate. Whats salient about my analogy isnt the bullying but rather the weakness of character required to act poorly ( bullying, lies, slander) towards an easy target.
Anyway, I never claimed anything about bullying, nor did I claim Trump was being bullied. Obviously you are not going to find any reasoning for claims I didnt make.
Also, I cant help but see you seem to be taking the “weak character” comment personally. Is that what you actually want to discuss? Whether or not I think you have weak character? I wasnt aiming that at anyone in particular, i was referencing a type of person not targeting any individual as being that type of person.

Lol, well I wouldn't say youre out of your element Donny. I used pronouns rather than names so I can see how it could be read that way.

Well no one could sensibly say Trump doesn't throw out childish insults, but I was specifically talking about something else and don’t see the relevance of your comment.
You don’t need to bring up the things Trump says and does anytime someone mentions some other bad act. We get it, eeeeeveryone gets it.

I think you’ve misunderstood that statement. I meant that TDS has people relegating Trump to the person no longer worthy of respect or fairness, that they view Trump as evil and therefore a guilt free punching bag. What does it matter if you arent fair or respectful to pure evil? Its like when you call someone Hitler (which some people think is a fair comparison to Trump, which it isnt.) and then justify poor or terrible treatment of that person because you’ve equated them with ine of the best examples of evil in history.
If you are talking about me saying “the weak of character”, yes that was directed commentary for certain people. Not everyone who criticises Trump is weak of character, but of those who criticise Trump some of them do so using the above justification and those specific people are showing weak character imo. They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
So hopefully that clarifies what I meant.
Also, what am I claiming to take a stand against in your view?

What is it that you are referencing? What is “Trump Mania”, and why do you think I have a touch of it (at least)?

As long as there is new knowledge there will be new thoughts, so only by knowing all things would we start to run out of new thoughts. If its even possible to know all things, I would guess are pretty far off at this point and the foreseeable future.

Its about ethical choices sure, but not all choices are ethical unless you have some differing idea about ethics, hence asking you to define morality.
Im just curious about the original statement I responded to.

I dont follow how there being an alternative makes domething moral. How would you define morality?

Well it depends on where exactly the choice is being made I guess. I had in mind things beyond ones sphere of control, things like hunger or adversity that you get no decision about but of course you have decisions once you encounter the adversity. To me there are needs, wants, and things that matter outside the purview of morality, but your comment made me think you might have a different view, where morality can be connected to anything that matters.
So...how is what matters a moral choice?

Ya, it was the first thing I ran out of.
How is what matters a moral choice? Some things that matter aren’t even a choice at all.

Well he isnt pointing out your flawed grammar, rather your flawed logic.
It is contradictory for you to say nothing matters, then claim one thing (consciousness) matters more than another thing (eating chips).
How exactly is something not important and more important at the same time?

Ill defend him on certain things, the truth is more important to me than hating Trump. If you mean in general..ya I think Nos is the only one.

Defend Trump on what?

Im not familiar enough with the cases to talk about legal exoneration but it does seem hypocritical to treat the cases differently in this context. If you think one should or should not be dismissed, then you should think the other should or shouldn't be dismissed as well. If you think the accusation factors into job qualification for one, then you should think it for both. Whatever moral judgements made should be made for both etc etc.

I dont see why it should be treated any differently than any other criminal accusation. I recognise there are differences in crimes and unique damages from sex crimes but I do not think any of those justify special exception to legal procedure. Then again, its not the courts of law that so easily discard due process, its the court of public opinion. Thats where social pressure can result in job loss, destroyed reputation, financial ruin...things like “believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals.
Sorry, feeling a bit ranty I guess. None of that is meant towards you.

That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest.

Ah. I see, youre a moron. No, you have no thesis and made no argument. You made two references, failed to connect them and then stated a conclusion with nothing to support it. Now you’re getting pissy with me, when its you who have failed on every level. I can forgive stupid, but not aggressive stupidity. Good day to you sir.

You don’t believe in what? Who do you think is a smart aleck, me?
Im being sincere, I want to hear your argument. What is it?

Your opinion about Banno is noted. How about that argument you have yet to make? Why should I accept Panpsychism is true?

Banno is right, you aren’t making an argument. Lets hear it.

Sure, Ive also heard people say things like Trump doesnt lie, that he’s a good christian etc, or even just case by case you can tell with some people that the facts are just not as important as the teams or narrative. I was just curious if you also had a name like anti-trump hysteria (or whatever) for pro Trump side. It appears you do not. Pro-Trump hysteria I guess?
Ive been using TDS to describe it on both sides, but apparently thats a trigger word for some. To avoid confusion, im leaning towards “the trump effect. The only drawback is it ruins phrases like “look, TDS in effect”. It would be “look, the Trump effect in...effect”.

Not in particular. Shouldnt be necessary unless someone wants to claim such a thing doesn't exist. It would be a spectrum of course, with varying degrees just like with the anti-Trump crowd.

What do you call pro trump people who have a similar “derangement”, who just aren't thinking clearly on the topic?

I see lol
Something in the name perhaps.
I wouldnt classify that as TDS actually, since I would say TDS only applies to OTHERWISE rational people. In the case of Frank A, I actually will go so far as to say he suffers from a real medical condition, likely an emotional disorder. (With the caveat that I have a limited data set from which to make my judgement of course).
I actually feel regret for how I dealt with him initially. That guys got something going on.

Im not sure what you mean by that. Im going to go have a look now though :wink:

I wasn't defending anyone, I was pointing out what I consider an annoying mistake: using a term differently from how it's used and then trying to justify it with personal anecdotes. — Benkei

Thats not what I did. I used a term that certain people have a different way of using, and when it was pointed out to me I acknowledged it and explained what I meant to clarify myself. How you described it, I would call “spin”. Trying to make something sound less savoury than it actually is. Thats dishonest.
Also, after your initial one line post you followed up with direct reference to the judgement I was making. The point being, you spent more time and words on the judgement i was making than the actual use of the term. So you spent more time on something you just claimed you weren’t doing and only a single line on what you claimed you were doing. Im awfully tempted to call that dishonest as well, but Im such a swell guy I try to use the principal of charity where I can so I will chalk it up to you just being a bit confused.
Anyway, you were trying to address something that annoyed you, I was trying to address a specific phenomenon I observed in various interactions between NOS and others in response to @Wolfman. Looks to me like we’ve done that so you are welcome to the last word but Ive had enough.

Oh I understand now. You were defending others, not yourself. My mistake.

Yes, it's not interesting to hear you think people are deranged. But hey, it isn't so bad, because you mean it in a non-medical way. Meanwhile, it's not clear at all what the substantive difference is between medical derangement and non-medical derangement. I suspect the only difference is that one is established by a medical professional but in the end the judgment is the same, but we can question yours more easily when you do it. Doesn't make the judgment a light hearted thing. — Benkei

I dont think it is a lighthearted thing, its rather serious. Its part of whats causing this political divide where people are going crazy (on both sides, and no I dont mean actually, medically “crazy”.). Its part of what got Trump elected and before this Covid 19 stuff, why he was going to be re-elected.
Anyway, I have already explained what I meant by TDS, and Ive acknowledged that some people here have a very different idea about what the teem means. Im just trying to communicate, sometimes that means being open to different senses or uses of words. Its generally not helpful to...I dont know, get your hackles up.
Also, Its not like I mentioned anyone by name and I specifically said it was SOME of his critics...so ask yourself why you are operating under the assumption I was talking about you when referencing TDS.

Wow, thanks for coming out. Thats not even what Im doing in the portion you quoted. Im explaining what I meant when I used it, as is evident by the rest of the post that you apparently skipped.
Yes, I know Im not the King of Words. Thanks.