FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#51

Post by tobltobs » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 7:57 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

trhway wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

value of those 2 piglets is pretty much 0 dollars - especially given the piles of dead and dying piglets and pigs lying around on that farm. Many of the crimes with significant value of property stolen/damaged/etc. doesn't get any real attention from local, state police nor FBI just because of sheer volume of the crimes and limited LE resources. The LE resource were prioritized to this case because of political reaso…

> value of those 2 piglets is pretty much 0 dollars It’s like a hundred or $200 [1]. The same amount as a package of mine that was recently signed for and pilfered. The NYPD assigner a detective and co-ordinated with our City Council. (Note: they initially ignored the case. I had to call my City Councilman’s office to prod them.) I’m not saying it’s not politically motivated. But one needs more proof than an activist…

> It’s like a hundred or $200 [1].

The article you link to says:

> I have seen decent pigs go anywhere from $50 to $100 on Craigslist.

I am not sure if a half dead piglet counts as a "decent" pig.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#52

Post by placebo » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 12:17 PM UTC

white-flame wrote: post #50

placebo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you both agree that a clear line doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying "obviously wrong"? Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it, but that's not something we can argue about in an HN thread... You are right tha…

> Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) But that's not the situation here. You're saying that there is some scale at which something is "obviously wrong" implying a convergent consensus of observance. Tying it to sorites, it would be like you claiming that there's a fuzzin…

> You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you

No, I'm saying something even more extreme. I'm saying that ultimately, morality does not depend on any point of view (mine or anyone else's) in much the same way that what is ultimately true doesn't depend on any point of view. Immorality is simply ignorance doing its thing. I'm in no way free of ignorance, but I am actively trying to reduce it.

> I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity.

Yes, there is an incredible and fascinating variety in humanity. Situations, points of view, emotions, agendas - all can be extremely complex and nuanced and very dependent on conditioning or "starting conditions". Yet, I think you'll find that compassion is something that is understood in any culture (as is fear), and the ability to empathize with someone else's situation (be it in another culture or another species) is not as far fetched as you make it seem.

You've obviously given some thought to your claims (which these days is refreshing), and as someone who always wants to get to the truth of things, I'll gladly give up everything I believe in if it is incorrect, but then again my understanding wasn't acquired overnight, so if you're also as keen to dig deeper and see what comes up I'll be happy to correspond further.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#53

Post by megous » Tue, Oct 10, 2017, 5:15 AM UTC

zzalpha wrote: post #47

megous wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals certainly don't care about your inner mental processes. They can only experience consequences of your actions. So your first sentence seems quite meaningless.

TBH, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. The parent's statement was simple: they don't care about the "barbarism" of eating meat. I think it's taken as a given that they therefore don't much care about what animals experience as the consequence of their actions. So I'm not sure how your comment is relevant or what you meant to achieve by making it. Could you clarify?

I didn't understand the point of the first part of the comment:

> I don't morally justify it, no matter how barbaric it is.

It wouldn't matter either way even if he tried to morally justify it. Like with people eating foie gras. They justify it by saying that it's their right to eat what they want.

Meanwhile poor geese can't care less, doesn't have any concept of morality, just suffers either way, because the result is the same. People just like eating their ill livers. And it doesn't matter if they justify it or not.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#54

Post by white-flame » Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 10:15 PM UTC

placebo wrote: post #52

white-flame wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) But that's not the situation here. You're saying that there is some scale at which something is "obviously wrong" implying a convergent consensus of observance. Tying it to sorites, it would be like you claiming that there's a fuzzin…

> You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you No, I'm saying something even more extreme. I'm saying that ultimately, morality does not depend on any point of view (mine or anyone else's) in much the same way that what is ultimately true doesn't depend on any point…

I don't know if you'll read this as it's been a while, but you're just repeating what I said.

Your morals are axiomatic, and as ground truth they can't be supported by anything other than their supposed self-apparentness.

Your second half simply restates my "sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained", as that's all we're talking about here: How various harm "feels" when you see them carried out. This empathizing you base things on is hugely selective even within you. You aren't empathizing with the plight of plants or insects, for instance. If you empathized with everything equally, then you'd be crippled by any amount of perceived harm, which is pervasive. Everybody is empathetic & compassionate, but to different situations. This has a ton to do with culture and normality.

People constantly misconstrue their sensitivities with morals.