That argument might make sense if this were like any other wedding where they're essentially relying on the honor system that uninvited guests don't show up, but this wasn't the case. This is a wedding that was held at a secret location that was difficult to get to and guarded by staff checking names.
The wedding staff doesn't give up being entitled to assume people are trustworthy just because they have guards there. By your reasoning, if a store has no security, you shouldn't shoplift, but if the store has security, it is okay to bypass the security and shoplift. In fact, stores actually factor a certain amount of shoplifting into their budget, and that still doesn't entitle you to shoplift.
You're also deciding that the security counts or doesn't count depending on which is most convenient for you. You shouldn't be saying both 1) the security is meant to stop people like you, so there's no trust and it's okay to crash the wedding, and 2) the security is meant to stop fans of Lady Gaga, not people like you, so you are not the kind of people they're concerned about.
Jiro
2d ago
It would just be disingenuous for someone to caution you that your successful theft is contributing to an erosion of trust.
But that's why you're contradicting yourself by saying that the security is meant to stop fans of Lady Gaga, not people like you. If the security isn't aimed at people like you, then you can't invoke the security to say that they already don't trust people like you.
If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me.
If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you. What makes me suspicious of you is that by playing this hypothetical game you are reacting as though you want to cause suffering. It doesn't matter whether the suffering is real.
That doesn't generalize to society "wanting to torture rats" because "society" is only "torturing rats" as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else. If it's an instrumental goal, whether the suffering is real actually matters.
(Likewise, I'd look askance at anyone committing bestiality, not because it harms the animal, which isn't a person, but because of what it says about the person doing it. First of all, humans who are attracted to animals are generally messed up anyway, and second, anyone having sex with an animal probably has false beliefs about the animal's consent, which is delusional.)
Jiro
2d ago
I don't like how animals are treated, even on non-factory farms, and I don't like the idea of killing a conscious being for what basically amounts to taste pleasure.
How can you consistently believe this, yet not want to minmax animal suffering? Surely if you are vegan because of animal suffering, it follows that you want to reduce animal suffering as much as possible. And "utilitarian suffering min-maxing" is how you figure out what course of action reduces it as much as possible.
Jiro
1d ago
Listen, I did not intentionally trap those Sims in their living room. The placement of the stove was an innocent mistake. That fire could have happened anywhere! A terrible tragedy.
There would be some level of getting emotionally attached to how the Sims "suffer" that I would indeed consider suspicious. I presume you are not at this level, though of course I have no proof.
True. So let me modify the question a bit.
He may not want to personally reduce suffering as much as possible. But not only does he not do it himself, he also seems to think that people who do do so are misguided. Why would he think that it's misguided to reduce suffering as much as possible?
(In fact, let's rephrase that again: Given that someone wants to reduce animal suffering, why does he think it's misguided to do so efficiently?)
Jiro
1d ago
I don't see how that's relevant. Is someone who wants to stop the suffering of non-cute animals counting it too much?
Sure, when someone says that insect suffering counts at 15% of human suffering, he's counting it too much, but that doesn't generalize. In the more general case "tries to stop animal suffering efficiently", how exactly is he counting it too much?
Jiro
1d ago
What about the atoms in your body that have gone through the food chain and been later used in someone else's body? Who gets them?``
Jiro
18hr ago
His arguments about drugs also include pornography, which he lumps in with drugs as causing only harm. If you don't count "people like to use it" as being good, you would oppose not only drugs and pornography but also video games, comic books, vacations, and Shakespeare (except that he probably has arbitrary categories of non-harm that would allow vacations and Shakespeare).
"50 Stalins" uses Stalin as metonymy. It isn't about actual Stalin, and the fact that people behave in a certain way in relation to Stalin (and have to to stay alive) doesn't make that what "50 Stalins" is about.
More options
Context Copy link