There is also the issue of clarity, I am not sure if Richard has a moderate position that sounds like a very extreme position due to the framing or if he genuinely shares this extreme position.
I do think that animals, the larger ones at least, can suffer. But I don’t much care.
Does this mean a more moderate take of “I don’t care enough to take any actions, because I don’t believe that I am personally causing much suffering to animals” or a very radical take of “I would rather take $10 than substantially improve the well-being of all animals”?
What seems radical depends on where one stands. We each of us stand on our own beliefs, and the further away one looks, the more the beliefs over there differ from one’s own. Look sufficiently far and everything you see in the distance will seem extreme and radical. Hence the fallacy that truth lies between extremes, instead of recognising the tautology that one’s own beliefs always lie between those that are extremely different.
Let me put my attitudes in practical terms: I don’t kick dogs, but I have destroyed a wasp’s nest in my garage, and I don’t donate to animal charities. (I don’t donate to many other charities either, but there have been a few.) Let those who think saving the shrimps is worthwhile do so, but I do not travel on that path
Let me put my attitudes in practical terms: I don’t kick dogs, but I have destroyed a wasp’s nest in my garage, and I don’t donate to animal charities. (I don’t donate to many other charities either, but there have been a few.) Let those who think saving the shrimps is worthwhile do so, but I do not travel on that path
This is what I expected. Your take when put in these terms seems pretty moderate. Whereas, when I read your original comment, this take (which presumably stayed the same) seemed very extreme.
In other words, my personal beliefs haven’t changed a single bit and yet my perception of your beliefs changed a lot. I can only imagine that your original comment has been so strongly disagree-voted because of the framing.
Agreed!
There is also the issue of clarity, I am not sure if Richard has a moderate position that sounds like a very extreme position due to the framing or if he genuinely shares this extreme position.
Does this mean a more moderate take of “I don’t care enough to take any actions, because I don’t believe that I am personally causing much suffering to animals” or a very radical take of “I would rather take $10 than substantially improve the well-being of all animals”?
What seems radical depends on where one stands. We each of us stand on our own beliefs, and the further away one looks, the more the beliefs over there differ from one’s own. Look sufficiently far and everything you see in the distance will seem extreme and radical. Hence the fallacy that truth lies between extremes, instead of recognising the tautology that one’s own beliefs always lie between those that are extremely different.
Let me put my attitudes in practical terms: I don’t kick dogs, but I have destroyed a wasp’s nest in my garage, and I don’t donate to animal charities. (I don’t donate to many other charities either, but there have been a few.) Let those who think saving the shrimps is worthwhile do so, but I do not travel on that path
This is what I expected. Your take when put in these terms seems pretty moderate. Whereas, when I read your original comment, this take (which presumably stayed the same) seemed very extreme.
In other words, my personal beliefs haven’t changed a single bit and yet my perception of your beliefs changed a lot. I can only imagine that your original comment has been so strongly disagree-voted because of the framing.