This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Do we have a compelling moral obligation to make our dogs a little fat from their favorite treats?
A dog’s sense of smell and taste are a thousand times greater than our own, and thus so is their enjoyment.
Dogs live in sensory deprived conditions relative to their exposure to scents and tastes in the wild.
When left to their own devices, dogs and their owners routinely choose tasty treats. Men with infinite resources in history usually became fat, and exercise for the sake of health improvement is an historic anomaly among the upper classes.
It follows that the happiness increase that a dog receives from perfect cardiovascular health probably does not exceed the happiness increase received from tasty treats, given how much we can assume they value these treats. The extremes of both end are deleterious to canine fulfillment, but we can probably say that a dog is most happy if made a little fat from treats.
Humans have only recently begun to value perfect health, and in all previous eras were quite happy with drinking (or smoking) and lounging if they could get away with it. The wealthiest kings with the smartest advisors loved their liquors and candies. The ancient Chinese figure of contentment and joy was Budai, a happy Buddhist figure with a large figure. The Romans considered mead the drink of the gods, the Muslim conception of Heaven entails rivers running with sweet wine, and the Christians conceive of a heavenly banquet in the afterlife.
There’s something telling about us, that we think canine felicity lies in austerity. Maybe we are imbuing dogs with our own notions of social competition. We know that we would be more attractive if we looked like Chris Pratt (not in Super Mario Bros), and we know that this entails attractive social rewards like a hotter partner and superiority over peers. Yet we struggle with this, choosing other enjoyments instead. In our shame, we make our dogs ascetic warrior monks: only the driest of foods, only water, exercise once a day at the least. Is this for our dog, or is it for us? Do you look at other dog owners with a sense of superiority that their genetically unfit fat pug is no match for our slim athletic German Shepherd?
There is one alluring argument for not giving our dogs tasty treats, and this is that they live longer. But this is an illusion. Food-motivated beasts don’t care about total sum days of mortal life. They care about chasing potential foods and eating tasty foods. They care about smelling a lot of good smells, especially of things that taste good. Their food motivation is so intense that it’s the only way to motivate them in training absent painful punishment. No rational being should consider three extra years of limited joy superior to one year of great joy. No human values “mere days alive” in hospital beds and prisons or in states of depression, and humans generally consider times of low pleasure to be write-offs. But this is how we apparently see the life our canine friends!
fatter dogs are probably less aggressive too, so fewer worries about biting strangers or other dogs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link