PETA Attacks Nintendo Over Mario Wearing Raccoon Suit

[Marla_Singer]

I'll just let the pictures speak what I think.

So you consider turtles can die because they aren't as cute as raccoons?

Don't you realize how fascistic is actually such a conception of life and death?



Poor little turtle...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, I haven't played Mario since SM3 in which he more turned into a weird half-racoon than actually donned their skin.

On the other side, he stomps turtles on a regular basis... it seems almost like FUN for him!

 

[aelf]

Up to you.

You said "some people hold that position" to the act being justifiable by the plant 'not being capable' of experiencing suffering. Do you think that people who do not hold this particular position have a similar argument for where they place their "lines", but their arguments are usually less substantial (more arbitrary) than the animal/not-animal "line?"

The argument where 'Animals do not have Y, therefore they are an acceptable source of clothing material' is somehow less sound than the argument where 'plants/et al "do not experience pain," therefore they are an acceptable source of clothing material?'

Um, I'm not sure why you insist on considering only the form of the argument. The content (and the context) matters, surely. It strikes me as absurd to claim that just because I used a certain form of argument, I'm forced to accept all other arguments with the same form regardless of the content (or context).

 

[Lillefix]

Since I don't really want to be regarded as a fascist , I might clarify that that is not my opinion. However I suspect(although let's face it, it's all prejudice from my side, but I would say qualified prejudice) some of the people who are attracted to Peta think that way.

 

[Rashiminos]

Um, I'm not sure why you insist on considering only the form of the argument. The content (and the context) matters, surely. It strikes me as absurd to claim that just because I used a certain form of argument, I'm forced to accept all other arguments with the same form regardless of the content (or context).

I was not suggesting that at all. When I asked about limitations, I was asking about the types of content and context where such an argument would be appropriate from your perspective. I stated the form because I thought it might be appropriate to show how an insufficiently complex version of the argument might lead to some erroneous conclusions for certain content/contexts/etc. In fact, I assumed previously you would not accept such universality of the form of the argument.

What I want to know is, what makes this particular version of the argument, and perhaps versions with the "right" content, or the "right" context, not absurd?

 

[aelf]

What I want to know is, what makes this particular version of the argument, and perhaps versions with the "right" content, or the "right" context, not absurd?

Uh, isn't that what I've been doing by defending it? Maybe you should address the substance of this particular argument instead of trying to be obscure. Are you reading philosophy on your own or something?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well, plants entirely lack a nervous system- they can have reactions to predation, like growing thicker cuticle or more spines or releasing toxins or other chemicals to harm their predators, but they lack a centralized processing area to give them the ability to suffer in the sense that animals can suffer. You can mutilate a plant pretty badly before it starts dying, because they are much more resilient to damage than animals.

A plant has no apparatus for any kind of experience, ergo it isn't worthy of direct ethical consideration, though it might be INDIRECTLY i.e., chopping down this forest will destroy habitat, therefore don't do it.

How do we know they can't feel pain by other means? Sure, they don't have a nervous system in the animal sense, but who's to say they couldn't have some other kind of nervous system, unknown to us?

We can tell animals feel pain pretty easily - I'm reminded whenever I accidentally step on my dog's paw.

A plant, not so much, due to their lack of sounds.

1840: This is why I dislike rabid abolitionism. It tries to pass itself off as the more noble lifestyle.

...we are comparing the right of every human being to be free to what one eats or doesn't eat being a determinant of one's moral worth?

Really?

What an excellent moral precept. I will be sure to use it next time I go on a vigilantist killing spree.

Are people trying to murder you?

No?

Then your comparison is rather poor.

I was only being semi-serious, anyway, as justification for eating meat. The bacteria won't hesitate to eat you, so you shouldn't hesitate to eat anything else!

 

[Rashiminos]

Uh, isn't that what I've been doing by defending it?

Only where you differentiated between inflicting a bad outcome on something without a capacity to feel suffering versus inflicting a bad outcome with a neutralized capacity to feel pain. You have not defended your reasoning for suggesting that "deciding to use the perception of pain to determine beings who may acceptably be used for there bodily component versus those beings that would not be acceptably used" is less arbitrary than the more conventional approach to this matter.

Maybe you should address the substance of this particular argument

I would need the substance you think I have yet to address first. Arbitrarily deciding what it means to feel pain so that one may demonize someone else to make oneself feel better and/or superior (The word smug comes to mind) is not something I would classify as affable behavior, and PETA's displays are full of it.

instead of trying to be obscure. Are you reading philosophy on your own or something?

You might also want to keep that in check.

 

[Mad Man]

The irony is that I was originally going to wait until after the holidays to buy Super Mario Land 3D, but after reading this thread I rushed out to buy it. Maybe Nintendo was in cahoots with PETA for a publicity stunt and better yet maybe Tanicius was in on it.

 

[aelf]

Only where you differentiated between inflicting a bad outcome on something without a capacity to feel suffering versus inflicting a bad outcome with a neutralized capacity to feel pain. You have not defended your reasoning for suggesting that "deciding to use the perception of pain to determine beings who may acceptably be used for there bodily component versus those beings that would not be acceptably used" is less arbitrary than the more conventional approach to this matter.

It's not that strange if you're familiar with utilitarian ethics. But I suppose you aren't. I'm not going to explain it here, since I suspect that would be a major undertaking, given the circumstances. I suggest reading about Peter Singer's views on animal rights for a particularly relevant version.

I would need the substance to be addressed first. Arbitrarily deciding what it means to feel pain so that one may demonize someone else to make oneself feel better and/or superior (The word smug comes to mind) is not something I would classify as affable behavior, and PETA's displays are full of it.

I don't know what is arbitrary about the feeling of pain.

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't know what is arbitrary about the feeling of pain.

The arbitrary part is choosing to use pain/suffering as the basis for deciding whether or not to use a form of life for it's body composition. Pain is not the only consideration to be made (although I'm not trying to say it's not a good consideration to make).

 

[aelf]

The arbitrary part is choosing to use pain/suffering as the basis for deciding whether or not to use a form of life for it's body composition.

Eh? I did say the argument holds for non-vegetarians as well. You can kill as painlessly as possible rather than remove the capacity for animals to feel pain.

Pain is not the only consideration to be made.

I agree, but that notion alone hardly sinks a utilitarian defense of animal rights.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I hear amputees go on to rich, rewarding lives on occasion.

While that is true, it misses the main gist of the point, which is that plants are able to withstand being partially eaten, having their limbs chopped off, being trampled, and so on much better than animals, and will survive and recover much more easily. At any rate, the whole thing's tangential.

I hear you but I think we can safely ignore Mario wearing a raccoon suit & still sleep with ourselves at night.

Oh, of course!

How do we know they can't feel pain by other means? Sure, they don't have a nervous system in the animal sense, but who's to say they couldn't have some other kind of nervous system, unknown to us?

We can tell animals feel pain pretty easily - I'm reminded whenever I accidentally step on my dog's paw.

A plant, not so much, due to their lack of sounds.

Well, let's consider what pain is for. It is an evolved response to cause animals to stop behaviours that are deleterious to themselves, and to inform them of when they are being damaged. Animals can react rapidly to these stimuli. However, plants react several orders of magnitude more slowly. As such, having a pain response to damage makes no sense for a plant, as they cannot use such information to improve its survivability. Instead, a plant that is damaged goes immediately into damage control mode- in order to minimize the effects of future predation by herbivores. Given the immense energetic costs of any sort of high-speed communication system, whether nervous or otherwise, and the lack of benefits to having one, I can be very confident that lettuce lacks the capacity to feel pain.

 

[Rashiminos]

Eh? I did say the argument holds for non-vegetarians as well. You can kill as painlessly as possible rather than remove the capacity for animals to feel pain.

I don't think I was disputing that this argument didn't hold, but rather that it was not less arbitrary. Oh well.

Upon perusal of "All Animals Are Equal"...
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm

...I'm no more persuaded of the reduction of arbitrariness.

The goal post was moved in the faith that only humans and (now) animals suffer. Time to double-down. /sarcasm

 

[Tani Coyote]

The irony is that I was originally going to wait until after the holidays to buy Super Mario Land 3D, but after reading this thread I rushed out to buy it. Maybe Nintendo was in cahoots with PETA for a publicity stunt and better yet maybe Tanicius was in on it.

My Sonicphilic self is just a facade for our grand conspiracy to sell ever more videogames!

Well, let's consider what pain is for. It is an evolved response to cause animals to stop behaviours that are deleterious to themselves, and to inform them of when they are being damaged. Animals can react rapidly to these stimuli. However, plants react several orders of magnitude more slowly. As such, having a pain response to damage makes no sense for a plant, as they cannot use such information to improve its survivability. Instead, a plant that is damaged goes immediately into damage control mode- in order to minimize the effects of future predation by herbivores. Given the immense energetic costs of any sort of high-speed communication system, whether nervous or otherwise, and the lack of benefits to having one, I can be very confident that lettuce lacks the capacity to feel pain.

I... well... uhhh...

I admit defeat. You sir, have pretty much indisputably won this one.

Of course... even if something can't feel pain, does that really make it less disturbing to eat it alive?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well, I don't have issues with eating other things that are living or were once alive, mostly for pragmatic reasons. I don't eat a ton of meat, but that's more economical than moral, to be honest.

 

[plarq]

PETA is a hate organization.

 

[Commodore]

Secondly, since PETA exists to campaign for animal rights, I don't see why they should campaign about video games in which you kill people. That's just not their area.

But in a strictly biological sense humans are animals, so PETA should be about protecting humans as well. If they don't advocate for the protection of human rights then they are hypocrits.

 

[classical_hero]

On the other side, he stomps turtles on a regular basis... it seems almost like FUN for him!

At least after the death of a turtle, the meat becomes soup, so it is not all wasted.

 

[Lillefix]

At least after the death of a turtle, the meat becomes soup, so it is not all wasted.

And you already have a bowl for the soup.