PatrickC

For a man that has often asked for evidence, I'm frankly surprised STer.. As for forceful intervention, that is a personal decision, given the evidence before ones eyes, having bore in mind all the possible consequences thereafter. This isn't a decision I would hand to a third party necessarily, particularly one that has consistently proved itself to be at odds with it's 'presupposed' ends.. I have enjoyed your contrarian perspective at times STer, but really.

LovePrevails, you have mischaracterised my position and then made some rather absurd claims thereafter (as above).

STer, this is most unlike you, you've just repeated yourself.

I've said this a few times on this topic over the years. Humans need to learn how to apply this to themselves firstly and not least with the little people (children). Applying one sided moral theories with creatures that cannot reciprocate, is a distraction at best and in outright detriment of the real lives of many humans at worst.. Learning compassion for others will bring compassion for animals. Avoiding this fact will be to our detriment ultimately. This recent video with Stefan discussing the reasons for environmentalism, goes a long way (indirectly) in deconstructing this rather unhealthy attitude we have with ourselves.

STer, to take something so far out of context, I am surprised frankly. For one thing it is yet to be confirmed who did what to whom, despite the rhetoric. Second, if all it takes for a man who has otherwise been killing innocents for some 6 years with bullets, bombs and depleted uranium to get upset when someone breaks a Geneva convention. A convention that the US has repeatedly been breaking itself (extraordinary rendition). Come now STer, this man and his ilk have little interest in humanity let alone the lives of children. (edit) But thirdly, since when are you and me responsible for what happens within the wider world, including the bad parenting of our neighbours.. Should we use force against them?

Giving this a bump for my good friend Phil.. Feel free to hit me up Phil, if numbers are down of course.

Yea, I'm attempting to filter out the parts I have little or no control over (for now).. Of course this doesn't mean that maybe we can reach a world whereby we can involve animals at their lower IQ of course. I just don't wish to be distracted by it for now.. Given the current situation, I am more interested in how we treat our fellow humans (little people), children and adults even,. Which often seems to be at odds with each other.

This topic is really about reciprocity primarily, which animals are not capable of like human to human... Having said that, being cruel to animals certainly opens up a chasm lack of self knowledge, that is certainly worth exploring.

AI.. what's been your experience of how animals have been treated throughout your life?

Well, we are a community that wants to spread great ideas.. and well, it would hardly be the first time we got ignored. I think it's a great idea for those that feel up to the challenge.

I think it's definitely worth a try, for those that have the time. Thanks for sharing Justin.

Thanks Kevin and STer. This had been something I was struggling with myself.

Yes, I see this treatment a lot with young boys.. It must be very mystifying for them, when they already know they are boys. Horrible way to shame him about something he can hardly change.

Yes, that is possibly true Kevin, which is why I easily forgive it in men under 25, given the backdrop of an education system that actively encourages this ideology.

Well AI, I'm not so sure, attempting to placate these ideologues (feminists) could well be more trouble than it's worth in the long run. I've had my fair share of interaction with them over the years, much of which has just been plain awful, with a few exceptions I grant you. I'm reminded by a quote I heard recently. "For men, feminism offers a retreat from the harsh judgment of other men. That's what feminism calls "freedom." It does not, however, offer men freedom from the harsh judgment of women."

Check out the reference to aesthetically preferred actions (APA) in the book. Cussing falls under this definition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

The anti masculine male feminist is perhaps the most irksome man to ever meet. It's the weakest strategy to engage with women. But I have to say, given the caliber of woman that might be attracted to this, that it's fairly low rent. I can tolerate it much more in men under 25. But with men in their 30's and older, really chaps, wake up!

Yes, feminism hasn't helped men understand their skills and qualities. Largely it has cursed men with any ability at all. Which is why they often struggle with connecting with them.

I would disagree A_I... Most men do not know how to deal with women at all. They are mostly stuck with the problem of pleasing them rather than improving themselves I think.

Well it's not surprising that most men struggle with the idea of relying on other men. Primarily the prevailing culture doesn't like it when we get together as men. About the only place it occurs now, is within sports. Men's clubs and mutual associations have been basically outlawed as sexist. Of course men can still meet up and get together, but the institutions that encouraged this male bonding have been largely eradicated from mainstream life. The reason I started exploring this area was because I recognised a tendency in me to enjoy hanging with my male friends a lot more. Amongst male company you will always be challenged and argued with. Nicely I might add. But a male environment tends to be one in which you have to prove yourself in areas like mastery and maturity. Men like to help other men become better at being men, even if they are unaware of it these days. No where is this more important than within the tribe, because your mastery and maturity benefits everyone. Of course, this all sounds like women have nothing to offer, which simply isn't true. Women benefit from our mastery and of course the closest and most intimate relationship we are going to have is with a woman.

I had some further thoughts on this concept of the tribe, because I think tribalism can be easily confused with nationalism. Or worse still an archaic form of survivalism that actively seeks to attack those from outside the tribe. These are my initial thoughts on this topic, so feel free to point out any errors in my thinking. It's a work in progress let's say. For me I see the tribe as your friends, family and business associates. They are people we have come to trust, love and respect and likewise they return the same reciprocity. Traditionally men would seek out other men that would aid them. This was of course mutual, but enormously beneficial for the whole tribe, in terms of providing food, shelter and protection from harm. Fast forward to the future, where survivalism is far less necessary, thanks to the wonders of technology. What can we as men bring to the table. Well these days I think it has more to do with 'thriving' than 'surviving'. Men will always be more willing to take the risks, but those risks will be tempered or exacerbated dependent on the group of men that we surround ourselves with. Are these men that you can trust to not harm your family, career or marriage. But conversely, will these men help those parts to your life thrive (mutually) and become more fulfilling. This is what I'm beginning to understand as masculinity. Again, I hope that makes sense.

No, because the choice is not (UPB) enforceable, despite the consequences.

You've touched on the area that UPB refers to as aesthetically preferable actions (APA) I believe. This situation would be considered as morally neutral. However, these actions can come with consequences. A doctor that actively refuses to help a dying patient will be seen as a poor doctor and is likely to lose custom as a result of his inaction. However, a doctor that fights to save a patients life to no avail, will be considered as having done the best he could. Either decision potentially ends up with a dead person, but the choice to intervene or not will be judged by the wider world independently. Perhaps I'm confusing the point with my analogy, but UPB is concerned with the enforceable part of a moral theory. In this case it is clearly not a UPB violation.