Socialism and also ethics discussion thread

[Dan]

Still don't get why the Venn diagram of virtue signalling and things Ikki doesn't like is a perfect circle, either.

Militant Vegan
> Virtue Signaller because cities are things

Libertarian
> Not Virtue Signaller despite being born in a state hospital, educated in a state school and travelling to work on public transport.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think I spoke anything about cities or even animal rights here... Read through my posts, I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with Hendrix regarding his views on animals, I did use his argument illustratively, when trying to answer a question regards 'what is better', with Ikki. I was pointing out he was not contradicting himself. What I will add is that I don't think cities have anything to do with animals directly, maybe consequentially, like many things that have unintended consequences, good and bad.

There is no maybe about it.

You asked me for an example of how we could possibly improve earlier, be better, that was the point of my previous posts. I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with Hendrix regarding his views on animals, I was using his argument illustratively. I was pointing out he was not contradicting himself, he was being idealist but also pragmatic (which do not contradict). Your response is not an argument, it is "you are wrong!" because I disagree and dont tell me what is better. And my responses were not inconsistent or indeterminable, you don't even know what my thoughts on the subject regarding animals are...

I have consistently talked about society trying to become better, and sometimes (when talking 'rights' earlier in the thread) what will make it better or if we are even heading in the right direction. I have not stated if anybody is better. No my aim is to try have a discussion. Your aim is not to have the discussion. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on how society can improve. I've disagreed with Hendrix before, I've disagreed with a number of posters. What we have managed to do is put our argument and points across with a discussion, whether we convinced each other of the arguments we made or not.

Read the posts again. I didn't ask what was better. I asked better compared to what and who considers what better? This is a very obvious question to illustrate that from the viewpoint of an animal this is indeterminable and that from another point of view it can be argued as better to have your species alive, even if eaten, than wiped off the face of existence because humans want to implement and extend civilisations.

His argument is clearly contradictory. He tried to intimate that I am not compassionate to animals (only WRT utility for humans) because I eat them. Yet his viewpoint and his existence is fundamentally intertwined with the killing of animals for our utility (civilisation). It's not something he disavows or works against because he clearly sees civilisation as a worthwhile thing.

What you do is 3 classic misdirects and logical fallacies....(1) Special pleading (changing the goal posts); (2) black or white (when you think that only 2 possibilities exist) and (3) beg the question (circular logic).

What I have personally asked in this thread, is should we continue living in the same way as we have in the past, or is there a better way particularly as our technology and understanding advances? Rather than just keep things as they are... it is called progress and I'm definitely for progress, particularly progress of thought. What I am not in favour of is no thought and disregarding of arguments because it does not fit a persons view point, and/or it makes people have to change the way they think and do things.

It's pretty self-explanatory. His argument folds on itself and doesn't make sense, that's why it is not a good argument. If you want to make a better argument, go ahead. The rest of this post is just nonsense.

 

[Ikki]

Still don't get why the Venn diagram of virtue signalling and things Ikki doesn't like is a perfect circle, either.

Militant Vegan
> Virtue Signaller because cities are things

Libertarian
> Not Virtue Signaller despite being born in a state hospital, educated in a state school and travelling to work on public transport.

He's virtue signalling because he feels he is compassionate towards animals because he doesn't eat them. Yet he appears oblivious to the fact that the life he leads kills more animals than he'll ever eat. It's not something he objects to, or hasn't been after bringing it up several times. Even if you think that it is impractical at this point for him to live differently, it doesn't detract from the the statements he made earlier. I'd have no problem with him believing anything he wants to personally believe, but that he suggests it's some objective (or highly desired) standard for compassion and judges others is kind of ridiculous. At least acknowledge your own culpability.

FTR a libertarian can virtue signal - it's not a politically charged word, although a highly used tactic on the left. If I said the state was bad yet at the same time voted for those people who kept extending the state, that would be something. Since I'm forced to vote for a state apparatus or go to jail, that's another thing altogether. Your second statement suggests no one can actually criticise the state.

 

[GIMH]

He's virtue signalling because he feels he is compassionate towards animals because he doesn't eat them. Yet he appears oblivious to the fact that the life he leads kills more animals than he'll ever eat. It's not something he objects to, or hasn't been after bringing it up several times. Even if you think that it is impractical at this point for him to live differently, it doesn't detract from the the statements he made earlier. I'd have no problem with him believing anything he wants to personally believe, but that he suggests it's some objective (or highly desired) standard for compassion and judges others is kind of ridiculous. At least acknowledge your own culpability.

FTR a libertarian can virtue signal - it's not a politically charged word, although a highly used tactic on the left. If I said the state was bad yet at the same time voted for those people who kept extending the state, that would be something. Since I'm forced to vote for a state apparatus or go to jail, that's another thing altogether. Your second statement suggests no one can actually criticise the state.

Yeah, that last sentence, I really fully agree. Not to single Dan out, but I hate this logic ‘if you claim to be libertarian but use [generic public service] you’re a hypocrite’

Like, the state either completely monopolises such services or might as well do, such is the cost of going private in a heavily nationalised industry. And libertarians still have a portion of their wages involuntarily taken in the form of taxes too. We still pay council tax, VAT, sugar tax,duty on fuel, alcohol, tobacco, whatever.

If you don’t want me to use it, don’t make me pay for it.

 

[hendrix]

It's really ****ing simple arithmetic Ikki. 10+5>10+0.

I have never denied that living involves the death of other animals, in fact I have brought this up many times in this and other threads. That's part of why I don't believe in rights. Growing vegetables and crops involves killing a few field mice, often some birds, certainly earth worms and insects. If you can understand a basic desire to reduce harm and suffering where necessary, you can understand my perspective.

If you think I'm virtue signalling by posting my opinion on a ****ing internet forum then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're stupidity signalling.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, that last sentence, I really fully agree. Not to single Dan out, but I hate this logic ‘if you claim to be libertarian but use [generic public service] you’re a hypocrite’

Like, the state either completely monopolises such services or might as well do, such is the cost of going private in a heavily nationalised industry. And libertarians still have a portion of their wages involuntarily taken in the form of taxes too. We still pay council tax, VAT, sugar tax,duty on fuel, alcohol, tobacco, whatever.

If you don’t want me to use it, don’t make me pay for it.

To be fair to Dan I don't think he really disagrees with this. The point he was making is that he doesn't all of a sudden start disagreeing with it when applied to vegans rather than libertarians.

 

[Dan]

To be fair to Dan I don't think he really disagrees with this. The point he was making is that he doesn't all of a sudden start disagreeing with it when applied to vegans rather than libertarians.

Yep. This. Criticise the state all you like, guys -- you're not virtue signallers, and neither is hendrix. That's my point!

Becomes a ridiculous purity pissing contest -- if you haven't sufficiently challenged a fundamental underlying fact of your own existence that no one person could ever possibly change on their own, you're just a virtue signaller trying to look cool in front of your virtue signalling mates. Completely ignores that human agency has bounds, and that the structure part of the structure-agency debate actually exists.

It's an insanely over-used term that has been shorn from its original meaning, and is now a catch-all term thrown at anybody vaguely left-ish who holds a belief for reasons of morality. It's an awful example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and basically deems anybody calling for incremental change as irrelevant.

 

[Ikki]

It is not about purity tests, just a consistent definition. If he wants to say I'm not compassionate, I'll just level the same towards him using his own logic. If you own a pet but eat animals, does that mean you're not compassionate and only care for the utility of companionship? It's just inconsistent nonsense. The only really definable feature and belief is that none of us think animals have human rights. So arguing whether you're killing it one way or another seems incongruent with reality - especially when, as hendrix has done, he is trying to define these standards of behaviour from the point of view of the animal.

Moreover, what you eat is a personal choice; politics and governance is often not. I can't choose not to pay tax, so how am I being inconsistent when I want to at least get my money's worth? If someone steals something from you, you have the moral backing to retrieve some if not all of it. If there was a country that followed my libertarian ideals, I'd be there yesterday.

It's really ****ing simple arithmetic Ikki. 10+5>10+0.

I have never denied that living involves the death of other animals, in fact I have brought this up many times in this and other threads. That's part of why I don't believe in rights. Growing vegetables and crops involves killing a few field mice, often some birds, certainly earth worms and insects. If you can understand a basic desire to reduce harm and suffering where necessary, you can understand my perspective.

If you think I'm virtue signalling by posting my opinion on a ****ing internet forum then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're stupidity signalling.

You have to resort to mathematical nonsense because you can't reason out your own definition and trying to whittle people's actions - with respect to animals - down to numbers is misleading with regard to the scale of view people use to live their lives.

You think you are reducing harm, I don't think you are because whatever you think you are offsetting can be undone by every other decision in your life. Are you more compassionate than someone who has a dog shelter and yet eats steak? How about someone who funds animal havens yet likes pork chops? You want to play the morality game yet you have no consistent morality or definition of it with respect to animals. If you are allowed to reason out your life because you're too used to living in a city, then I'll do the same with respect to eating meat. It's pretty simple.

 

[Spark]

I still think virtue signalling is an irredemably awful, incredibly trollish and shameless bait when used to describe other posters making arguments on this forum.

 

[Ikki]

It's definitionally correct. He appeals to morality and considers himself compassionate because of his own definition of that - which as we have discussed isn't even consistent. Intimating or saying "I'm compassionate because I don't eat animals" is virtue signalling when you're trying to criticise someone else's choices whose root value is the same as yours: animals do not have human rights and can be killed for human utility. Animals can be wiped out without anyone ever eating them. So it's a meaningless concept if saving animal lives is your ultimate aim. Ironically, farming animals increases their population. If they weren't farmed to be eaten, those animals that you're trying to save wouldn't exist in the first place. This is aside from the actual fact that you're not saving any animals, you're just not eating the ones that are already dead.

And if your definition of compassion is not eating them but using them any other way you choose then it is a laughable position. I have more respect for the nutters at PETA.

It's like the people who will virtue signal about gay rights based on human rights yet at the same time want to use affirmative action against white people. Those same people will argue that at least they're doing something to address the problem of gay rights. Well, if human rights are important then it should not negatively affect anybody else. It's just that simple. It's just a meaningless distinction based on your own arbitrary rationale that makes you feel good.

 

[Spark]

Intimating or saying "I'm compassionate because I don't eat animals" is virtue signalling when you're trying to criticise someone else's choices whose root value is the same as yours

No, it's what he thinks. Claiming that it's not really, truly what he believes and he's just saying it to get social credence, which is what virtue signalling actually means, is toxic to a civilised debate.

You can claim it's inconsistent or wrong or what have you, but that's not what virtue signalling means.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-signalling

The other problem with the term is that it assumes your opponents are disingenuous. This is of course very common but it is probably the single worst thing about political debate.

It comes from an underlying assumption that the world is straightforward and your views are obviously correct. To many people it’s obvious that letting Syrian refugees in to Britain is a bad idea, because if even a few of them are terrorists we’re endangering our own people's lives. The people who ignore this are most likely trying to show off how much they care and what good people they are – hence virtue signalling.

To many people it’s obvious that welfare cuts are cruel and unnecessary, and indeed hold back the recovery by taking money out of the economy. If you support those cuts you’re putting ideology ahead of real people, and that makes you a heartless scumbag.

But it’s possible to disagree honestly and sincerely about complicated questions with lots of different moving parts. In a world as complex as we libertarians say it is, it would be astonishing if the truth was obvious about almost any contentious policy issue. Disagreeing with me and being a bit right-on does not mean you are disingenuous. Voting Labour while not spending your life doing volunteer work doesn’t either, nor does being a libertarian but not signing up to join an anarcho-capitalist seastead.

...

Accusing others of virtue signalling encourages you to not interrogate your own beliefs. If you think people only disagree with you because they’re trying to show off how nice they are to their mates, why would you even consider that what’s obvious to you might actually be wrong? As well as being rude and stupid, virtue signalling gives people another mental shortcut to dogmatism.

Finally, saying virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!

Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.

At best, virtue signalling is a pretentious way of saying 'showing off'. At worst, it is mental armour against self-doubt. People should stop saying it.

 

[Uppercut]

No, it's what he thinks. Claiming that it's not really, truly what he believes and he's just saying it to get social credence, which is what virtue signalling actually means, is toxic to a civilised debate.

You can claim it's inconsistent or wrong or what have you, but that's not what virtue signalling means.

Yeah it's a total dick move.

Also kinda funny that Ikki thinks hendrix desperately wanted to communicate his virtuousness to our community of cricket nerds, and thought the best way to do so was by elaborating extensively on his unorthodox beliefs about animal rights while arguing with a libertarian in a troll thread. Though tbf that's far from being Ikki's most ridiculous belief.

 

[Spark]

Yeah it's a total dick move.

Also kinda funny that Ikki thinks hendrix desperately wanted to communicate his virtuousness to our community of cricket nerds, and thought the best way to do so was by elaborating extensively on his unorthodox beliefs about animal rights while arguing with a libertarian in a troll thread. Though tbf that's far from being Ikki's most ridiculous belief.

The bewildering thing is that I mostly side with Ikki on the merits in this particular debate. I just think the phrase "virtue signalling" is a slightly dressed up version of "you're just saying that to make friends!", which is impossible to sustain on a cricket forum.

 

[Ikki]

No, it's what he thinks. Claiming that it's not really, truly what he believes and he's just saying it to get social credence, which is what virtue signalling actually means, is toxic to a civilised debate.

You can claim it's inconsistent or wrong or what have you, but that's not what virtue signalling means.

So? You can virtue signal unknowingly - in fact, I'd say the grand majority are like that. They want to hold the 'right' opinion to have the moral high ground. That's not a problem until, in reality, there is no moral high ground and it is just a position that makes you feel like you're doing good as opposed to actually doing good.

Yeah it's a total dick move.

Also kinda funny that Ikki thinks hendrix desperately wanted to communicate his virtuousness to our community of cricket nerds, and thought the best way to do so was by elaborating extensively on his unorthodox beliefs about animal rights while arguing with a libertarian in a troll thread. Though tbf that's far from being Ikki's most ridiculous belief.

Of all the people to pull me on dick moves you doing it is deliciously ironic.

To the bolded: I know, I used to think you were logical. Can't win 'em all.

 

[Spark]

So? You can virtue signal unknowingly - in fact, I'd say the grand majority are like that. They want to hold the 'right' opinion to have the moral high ground. That's not a problem until, in reality, there is no moral high ground and it is just a position that makes you feel like you're doing good as opposed to actually doing good.



I know, I used to think you were logical. Can't win 'em all.

Not under any reasonable definition of the word "signalling", which is a conscious act.

And in any case, it's a ****ing awful thing to do on a forum to relentlessly accuse everyone who disagrees with you of insincerity, and that only your opinions are honestly held. I said it should be infractable, and I stand by that.

 

[Ikki]

Not under any reasonable definition of the word "signalling", which is a conscious act.

Not at all. You can signal people subconsciously and that is a very reasonable definition. The point of bringing it to light is to show the difference to people - be they the person holding the opinions or others following along.

And in any case, it's a ****ing awful thing to do on a forum to relentlessly accuse everyone who disagrees with you of insincerity, and that only your opinions are honestly held. I said it should be infractable, and I stand by that.

Go through my posting history to find me calling people virtue signallers on here. How many do you think you'll find, a couple? I do not use it to relentlessly accuse everyone, that's just grade-A nonsense and I expect more from a moderator on here TBF.

I can respect your position that it is not helpful to the debate and I am mindful of that, which is why I only use it when it is actually occurring and disrupting an honest discussion.

 

[Teja.]

It's definitionally correct. He appeals to morality and considers himself compassionate because of his own definition of that - which as we have discussed isn't even consistent. Intimating or saying "I'm compassionate because I don't eat animals" is virtue signalling when you're trying to criticise someone else's choices whose root value is the same as yours: animals do not have human rights and can be killed for human utility. Animals can be wiped out without anyone even eating them. So it's a meaningless concept if saving animal lives is your ultimate aim. Ironically, farming animals increases their population. If they weren't farmed to be eaten, those animals that you're trying to save wouldn't exist in the first place. And if your definition of compassion is not eating them but using them any other way you choose then it is a laughable position. I have more respect for the nutters at PETA.

Ikki,

I think the gap in this debate is occurring because of a fundamental disagreement of principle. Your rights framework/morality on this issue has two sharp categories - 1. Humans, who have certain inalienable rights 2. Non-humans who have no rights so everyone who believes in humane treatment for them while still benefiting from modern society is an idiot because when your life is responsible for non-human death, then how can you lecture anyone on treatment of non-humans etc.

This is an extremely pragmatic and humanity-centred perspective on life wherein you are morally evaluating a being on only one criteria - whether it's human or non-human and if it's non-human, all bets are off. An alternative perspective would be to look at animal death through another lens wherein you care to look at animal death from a more specific, individual, case-by-case lens - avoidable/unavoidable suffering, population sustainability of a species, level of intelligence/social skills of the species etc.

Most vegans and other people who aim for harm reduction don't share your fundamental principles regarding the only relevant moral criteria to judge a being is whether it is human or non-human and have a more nuanced, different POV.

I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong, I just think it's a fundamental difference between how you and they see the world. It certainly isn't just them 'not facing reality'.

 

[Uppercut]

Of all the people to pull me on dick moves you doing it is deliciously ironic.

To the bolded: I know, I used to think you were logical. Can't win 'em all.

Hey, we're all allowed the occasional jab.

It's just a bit like if you made a lot of posts about your libertarianism, and I said you don't really believe it and were only saying those things to impress Cribb. Ridiculous, no? And besides, how do you respond to an argument like that? The resulting discussion isn't going to be interesting at all.

It's really obvious that hendrix is being sincere. But even if you don't think so, you should just ignore him.

 

[Ikki]

Hey, we're all allowed the occasional jab.

It's just a bit like if you made a lot of posts about your libertarianism, and I said you don't really believe it and were only saying those things to impress Cribb. Ridiculous, no?

It's really obvious that hendrix is being sincere. But even if you don't think so, you should just ignore him.

You're using strawmen to argue. When did I argue hendrix wasn't sincere? What I made was a distinction about holding an opinion based on a moral high ground that in reality exists as opposed to just in your mind. That's the only reason virtue signalling has a pejorative meaning. You can virtue signal about things that actually have virtue, I don't mind that at all.

But signalling that your position has more virtue than mine on something that is so wide and open to interpretation like this is just a nonstarter. The reason I continue with this discussion is not for hendrix's sake - IMO he simply holds positions in this thread that are wildly inconsistent whether he knows it or not (such as the rights discussion) - but for the sake of a mental exercise for myself and anyone else reading along.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki,

I think the gap in this debate is occurring because of a fundamental disagreement of principle. Your rights framework/morality on this issue has two sharp categories - 1. Humans, who have certain inalienable rights 2. Non-humans who have no rights so everyone who believes in humane treatment for them while still benefiting from modern society is an idiot because when your life is responsible for non-human death, then how can you lecture anyone on treatment of non-humans etc.

The gap is occurring because hendrix ultimately holds the same principle as me, he just implements it differently based on his own arbitrary distinction of what is compassionate. I don't really mind the arbitrariness, I'm just pointing out the moral high ground he thinks he is on doesn't really exist and the distinction he thinks makes a difference in the world doesn't really change much if anything.

This is an extremely pragmatic and humanity-centred perspective on life wherein you are morally evaluating a being on only one criteria - whether it's human or non-human and if it's non-human, all bets are off. An alternative perspective would be to look at animal death through another lens wherein you care to look at animal death from a more specific, individual, case-by-case lens - avoidable/unavoidable suffering, population sustainability of a species, level of intelligence/social skills of the species etc.

Most vegans and other people who aim for harm reduction don't share your fundamental principles regarding the only relevant moral criteria to judge a being is whether it is human or non-human and have a more nuanced, different POV.

I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong, I just think it's a fundamental difference between how you and they see the world. It certainly isn't just them 'not facing reality'.

I don't mind having this debate. But so far we have not found common ground or consistent rationale about what is unavoidable suffering. If eating them is not ok but doing everything else is, it's obvious that this is not just a difference in point of view but of cognitive dissonance. At best we can say we see compassion towards animals differently. But he doesn't get to add up his wonky math to give him the moral highground, it just seems nonsensical.

1+1=2, I have more compassion than you - Look at this post for instance, from a few pages back. Not only can he not frame my position properly but even his own doesn't make sense. You will appreciate why I am arguing what I am arguing here.

Ikki's worldview is that anything not providing utility to humans is of no moral consequence. Animals are merely present to provide homeostasis to the world and/or sustenance for humans. It is a belief that he shares with many religious people: God put animals on earth for us to eat. However, most people - even religious people - also don't like the idea of animals becoming extinct because of human encroachment, so I don't think many people take as extreme of a human-centric approach as he does.

Most people don't agree with animal abuse because they feel compassion for the animal. This is not the case for Ikki. The only problem he seems to have with animal abuse is that it might be indicative of psychopathic behaviour that would preclude human abuse. The irony is that lack of compassion for animal suffering is itself one of the first indications of psychopathic personalities.