It has everything to do with rape in terms of rape being an absolutely valid counter example to use. Its not even debatable. That you cant see this just speaks volumes of your very small and limited intellectual ability.

Ill make it clearer and use another example seeing that one went wooooosh.

Person A is jerking off at home to pornhub.

Person B is at home torturing an animal.

One of those activities involves an entity other that than the person suffering severe pain and distress, the other does not. So thinking about them exactly the same way is retarluciom. A new word I came up with to mean really ****ing stupid.

Wanting to censor person A's behaviour is absolutely distinct as an issue from that of person B.

If you think otherwise, you are basically alone in the world of moral reasoning.

Step 1: Make Jman a mod again;
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

What China did that Western countries didn't is learn from their mistakes and make corrections to improve things.

I will 100% say I'd rather not be paying for the mistakes made by previous generations in regards to environmental issues. I'm tired of capital saying they can't possible deliver the future without destroying just a little bit of the environment. It's bull****. We're already seeing what 40 years of ignoring environmental issues is causing and by most accounts it is going to get worse before it gets better.

If thinking animal torture should be illegal makes you an environmental nazi, then most of the population of western developed nations are environmental nazis.

Its probably an issue that comes close to near consensus amongst individuals.

There is this one Italian guy, the pro animal torture guy.

Meanwhile.

Despite the best efforts of animal torture opposing freaks:

Holocene extinction

No one is suggesting that you need to know the answer down to the dollar. But let's be honest, you have absolutely no idea what the cost of environ regs is, or how to figure out the answer to the question, which makes your strident opinion about the cost versus the benefits pretty meaningless.

That's OK. It's a really complicated question. Just admit you are completely guessing, even as to the order of magnitude, because it's pretty obvious.

In china, it wasn't "capital" talking. It was the government. Again, you know this, so why do you lie on purpose?

You don't seem to follow what i wrote, because it's even more complicated than that. Why? because i repeatedly mentioned that it's only a specific portion of the regulations/ or a portion of the model used in the cost-benefit analysis, that i am criticizing.

Namely, all value attributed intrinsicly to animals/plants.

For example i am not commenting at all pollution-reduction regulations unless wild animals/plants welfare is used in consideration to benefits.

There are many decent, however imperfect, estimates of cost-benefit for american and other civilized countries environmental regulations. Unfortunately most of them deal with "standard", reasonable regulation (At least in their approach), which are those that limit freedom in order to improve human health or life quality more in general.

In those cases it's a matter of going into details of how much you are evaluating the improvement etc etc. But the logic behind those regulations is solid, and i don't contest it. I have a feeling that when those regulations are written by the left there is an explicit willingness to underplay the costs and overplay the benefits but that's another topic.

What i am strongly criticizing is inserting wild animal/plan welfare into the cost-benefit analysis, or simply banning some behaviour because of the "damages" it inflict on wild animals/plants.

In those, specific cases, i don't need any estimate. Any cost of regulation (And there are always costs) is a direct human-welfare reduction based upon non-human intrinsic value, and it is an objective moral crime to do so.

Objective that is, if you are a humanist.

Yes the tens-hundred billions is a wild guess. But not so wild if you think in world GDP numbers. I am guessing small numbers, compared to gdp, still very large in an absolute way.

Even if it was "only" a few billions, those are billions of human welfare destroyed only because somebody decided other living beings have rights. And that is literally putting other living species on par with humans, which is for me abhorrent in such a profound way that it's hard for me to put it into words exactly.

Yes a vast portion of the population have totalitarian leanings. For so many people, when they dislike something they would like to use violence to ban other people from doing what they dislike.

Also a vast portion of the population fails at logic, you among them. Being against a ban of a behaviour is not at all being in favour of that behaviour.

Only in a totalitarian worldview not being in favour of banning something is being in favour of that something.

In a liberal worldview every behaviour is tolerated no matter how "bad" it might look for someone (of for many), unless extremely stringent conditions arise and the exceptional ban is warranted.

And those conditions are related to other human beings being directly and measurably damaged by such behaviour, among other things.

You, as your fellow radical leftists, want a world where everthing is banned except what the government explicitly let you do.

And this OAK is why i consider you and your ideas a direct and present danger to civilization and human welfare.

Again, you are finding a difference in A and B because of some arbitrary special intrinsic value you attribute to "entities suffering pain".

You also didn't answer (no wonder why) about animals being genetically modified, or drugged, not to feel pain.

But then again, let's follow your model, so that maybe not you (i have lost all hopes on you) but ohter readers can see why there is no difference between the examples you gave, if you allow for arbitrary intrinsic values to be added to the evaluation of those situations.

So you are , out of the blue, or out of some naturalistic worldview, adding an intrisic value element to "entities suffering pain", that in you mind changes the picture.

That's religious, in the sense that it is not objective at all that "non human entities suffering pain" should be given any special consideration. It's just your decision, following from your value scale.

Now we have the religious nut. He has a different value scale from you, and from me. Much closer to yours to be fair, as i don't put arbitrary intrisic value in anything that is not human beings.

So in his arbitrary, religious worldview, insulting god is terrible. There is a very big intrisic value in god, and insulting him is very very bad.

Jerking off , especially while looking at people doing sinful things, is insulting god, in his value scale.

And so he goes on and asks for votes and if enough people agree with him, his value scale prevails and jerking off is as bad , or worse, than torturing animals. Because that's his value scale, and you can't comment on it at all once you open the door to arbitrarly add intrisic value to things that are not human beings.

You can only hope you live in a country where enough people share YOUR value scale, and not enough people share HIS value scale, otherwise any behaviour they want to limit, they can, using the exactly same reasoning you used to ban the behaviours YOU wanted to ban.

And no, animals suffering is not different from insulting god. It's EXACTLY IDENTICAL. It's deciding something that is not a human being has intrisic value, and banning behaviour that affects that intrisic value in a negative way.

Now is this a recipe for an open society, where people with wildly different value scales can co-habit peacefully? HELL NO.

And this is not even hypothetical. There are countries right now where "god insulting behaviour" has the death penalty attached to it.

When you start superimposing your value scale to behaviour control, that's when you destroy any hope of an open society.

That's also when you make racists right. Because if you create a model for a country where people, if they are a majority, can invent intrisic value about anything and use it as a reason to ban behaviour, then people are right to say that they only want immigrants to come in if they share they identical value scale (which can almost never be true, so they ban all immigration).

Otherwise the risk of other value scales becoming dominant is too big.

But your naive (or evil, i hope it's naive) radical leftist approach only sees poor animals suffering and "wants to do something" to fix it. No matter the consequences. No matter you are paving the road to majority value scale oppression.

And this should have nothing to do with how bad you think animal torture is. Exactly as how bad a religious nut consider jerking off to be, it shouldn't ever matter.

Amazing how bad you are at thinking through your own ideas for obvious basic errors.

You realise that your position is just as arbitrary?

Obviously not.

The rest of your post is totally superfluous gobble de ****. Mere word pie.

In moral philosophy does someone or something suffer as a result of given action has been the chosen arbitrary line for most of if not all of our civilisation. Laws relating to animal welfare have been around for centuries based on that principle. Somehow society has become more liberal not less. Your whole hypothesis is utter bunk.

Also, stop being a total idiot and calling me leftist for being against animal torture, as you already conceded, do try and remember one post back if you can, being against animal torture is not a leftist position.

Is against animal torture, therefore is a radical leftist who wants to ban everything is one of your more amusing positions

You do realise the only reason I engage with you is for the comedy right? You are ridiculous and absurd and deeply funny.

You're always going to be known as the pro animal torture guy round these parts. Hilarious.

Its going to give me a ready brek glow for days that I have managed to find a poster willing to go so far in the paint to defend animal torture. Amazing.

I realize why you engage with me and no, it's not comedy, because you are unable to write in a funny way.

You engage with me to virtual signal to your fellow radical leftists.

I have been called "pro rape" here too by your friends-in-arms-against-capitalism because i objected to the methods of metoo. And nazi-sympathizer because i asked why only nazis where banned and not also communists.

"i would be called" whatever you want of course, but everytime you do so in such a distortion of truth you keep confirming how dangerous as a group you are. It's like a religious sect.

Because it's not "just as arbitrary". A humanist position is necessary for an open society.

Unless all citizen share the value scale that all human beings have intrisic value, society can't exist without huge permanent conflict between members.

So only in the evil, dark world of perfect cultural relativism being humanist is the same as believing god is insulted by jerking off or that all living beings have the same intrinsic value as human life.

You are a radical leftists because of what you wrote on capitalism, and because of how you organize your thoughts and because of the power you are glad to concede to the state, not for the specific position against animal torture that we are discussing now.

Which btw, is still different than being in favour of banning animal torture by any mean in all circumstances and calling torture any pain inflicted on an animal, which is what you do.

You cover your ass with talks about a guy who torture animals with cigarette buds.

But the endgame of the leftist animal right movement, as explicitly declared by them (and you never even mentioned it as being wrong, so i assume you agree with it), is abolition of zoos, abolition of egg/milk/meat production in intensive production setting, and for a part of them a legal mandate against animal product consumption.

Would you declare as extremely dangerous for society someone who asks for laws that make egg milk and meat illegal? or that doesn't want to explictly say that he will forever fight for the right to eat egg milks and meat for everybody?

And remember, it all follows logically from animal torture laws.

Animal torture laws to make sense imply intrisic animal life value. Then it's only a matter of time people like you extend it to its logical consequences. Which is no more animals for human consumption (either as a good or as a service).

And this is not a slippery slope hypotheses. It already happened in the same way for smoking bans.

We start with reasonable regulation that strikes a balance because of externalities. So we ban smoking in closed packed public spaces because of second hand smoking damages.

This is somewhat ok (although it makes perfect sense only in places owned by the public and where anyone could need to go, but whatever).

Then magically, how comes smoking is now banned in many beaches and many public parks? because it becomes a religious issue. "smoking is bad so banning smoking is good", the tautology of totalitarism.

But the people, through the boiled frog procedure, are already ok with some smoking ban so enlarging it is so easy. And we are now blatantly well over the externality fixing, with regards to smoking bans.

But on the totalitarian right and left, who cares? what you want to accomplish is getting more and more behaviour under state control.

You totalitarians even managed to ban vaping at 0 nicotine in many places because reasons.

And yet we are still here discussing that it's hyperbolic to fear that animal torture laws degenerate into much more massive behaviour control for everything related to animals.

Yes I am really virtue signalling by being against animal torture, just like everyone else, most crap virtue signal ever.

Its not me writing in the funny way btw.

Keep them coming.

Also comedy gold, is that because I corrected some of your near infinite mis conceptions on Marx and then nature of capatalism, whilst claiming almost no actual positive positions in terms of what I believed, you with full confidence assume that anyone who has a critical understanding of Marx (of whom I am a massive critic btw, just a theoretically correct one) must also accept in full and total the Animal Rights manifesto. Evinced by being against animal torture (just like everyone else).

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH.

You are so painfully dumb.

We are way past the point where it makes sense to talk with you. I am going to look how to put posters in ignore in this forum.

Edit: done. That was satisfying.

Wow. It's not just animals, huh. You oppose taking preservation of any form of biodiversity into account in a cost benefit analysis. As an aside, is it possible that preserving biodiversity has long term benefits for humans that you are ignoring?


I know. As I said, despite strong views on the costs and benefits, you have no idea of the costs. But at least you clarified that you don't care what the cost is, so long as it is >$1.

No i don't oppose taking preservation into account for cost benefit analysis. I oppose doing it in an intrinsic value way. Let's model in a credible way the potential human value of that preservation, exclusively from that point of view, with a decent discount factor, and i'll be ok.

But as i said preservation in that case doesn't make sense on all land of course. Not for the "future research point of view". So it doesn't require regulations that apply for most land.

You can keep pockets of local biomes unexploited in perpetuity on the public purse (buying it at market value prices) and that's it.

There are no objective benefits in giving intrinsic value to plants/animals.

If there is measurable human value , you can take that into account. But keeping alive plant X or animal Y by itself has no value, so no benefit.

Unless you superimpose non-human being value to the analysis , which is what i am criticizing right from the first post in this thread i made.

That's why whatever the cost it, imposing it is morally wrong. + all the consequences i mentioned about how things become worse and worse when you open up that value superimposition.

Just be a mod for like a week, ban the ACists and animal torture clowns, and retire again. EZ game.

Oh **** you, explain to me the difference between the Government in China and capitol in the West when it comes to environmental regulations.

This is just plain wrong. That you can't see this is a huge tell.

Cant treat animals as having any agency, thus making any legislation about them not about human preference ala religious laws etc, but about protection of agency, because its slippery slope to smoking bans.

Luciom is not just wrong he is vile.