Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About envirodude

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram


  • Biography
    married, two boys
  • Location
    Northern BC
  • Occupation
    public health
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    What makes the desert beautiful, said the little prince, is that somewhere it hides a well.
  1. That was my big idea. My small idea was just to get a decent gender-neutral third person pronouns in English.
  2. How do you square these two? Yes to leather but no to fur... They're both for clothing, neither is essential, and good alternatives exist for both. They seem equivalent to me.
  3. I got ISTP. The fiercest of all the types, you have an aggressive mentality and hypercompetitiveness that sometimes strikes fear into the hearts of the more passive types. Sometimes they just perceive you as a jerk. You are blunt and straightforward, and place a high value on skill. People are either good at things or they’re not, and you take great pride in your ability to master a specific craft, as you feel it is much more a product of your discipline and dedication than any raw talent. Redid it, and got INTP Owl. Some of the word choices changed.
  4. I eat meat, and I'm against bullfighting. I'm also a bit of a hypocrite. Bullfighting is necessarily cruel. Eating meat can be cruel, but is not necessarily so. Naturally raised and painlessly killed meat is available, it just costs a bit more than factory-produced meat. I'd be quite happy to give up meat altogether - cleaner - but I have to live with other people, so I choose not to.
  5. You seem an honourable person. However, one who doesn't establish a pecking order in his caring for others is not being completely honest with himself! Of course you will care more about your friends and family than people you don't know. And (perhaps) more about your fellow countrymen than those of other nations - I try not to do this, but I probably fail. To suggest that the mosquito's life is as valued as the monkey's or the moron's is nonsense. I work in water supply - should I hold vigils for every microorganism I murder with chemical weapons - chlorine, ozone, etc? I choose not to. I agree with you that there is a danger in such gradients - but that is where laws come in. The laws in my country specify that must care for all human life to at least a minimum standard as provided by human rights legislation. I'm not permitted to use humans as sex slaves or as food for animals. Not that I was considering it anyway...
  6. The crux of our disagreement is whether we really care about animal suffering, or if it is merely a proxy for the true goal, reducing human suffering. I maintain that we (ought to) really care about animal suffering. Others disagree. For greater clarity, I am ok with killing animals and eating them. That doesn't mean I don't care about their lives. The degree that I care about their lives is on a gradient - I really care about monkeys' and dolphins' lives; I don't care much for the lives of invertebrates, etc. Regarding the need to communicate our true goals to posterity, I agree, but we should be careful that our "communication" not unduly fetter posterity's discretion to disagree, and set their own goals. A sensitive matter of balance, and one that depends on the particular details of each jurisdiction - how "amendable" the laws and ethics of a community are. I don't see it as an attack on my person. I see it as an attack on my dog. :) If you must know, it was a joke. Take a chill pill.
  7. Dogs are not attempted humans. They're simply dogs. They matter. Rivers aren't attempted humans. They matter, too. They matter whether they have owners or not. They matter in and of themselves, hence, inherently. Some societies formalise this through the legal assignment of rights, some don't. You say every non-human right flows from human rights. I'm not sure how literally you mean that. Do you include the right to make laws and establish societal norms as part of human rights? Non-human rights certainly do not exist if humans don't exist. But humans as members of an ultrasocial species, have decided to get together and form societies, including social norms and morals and laws and ethics. No law or ethic is fixed - all are flexible and subject to dispute and evolution. We make our own ethics. Future generations may judge our norms as unethical - just as we do those in the past. Some societies assign rights to dogs and dolphins and rivers and rejects. Others don't. As long as that assignment is active, those rights are real. There is no requirement that there be any reciprocal responsibility of the right-holder. Why should there be? Touché. Have a good one.
  8. Seems we've gotten nowhere. Well, I think we agreed that society 200 years ago was unethical. But no, you may not think ethics apply to collectives like society or nations? Ethics is a tool. A guide to good behaviour. Sometimes to make it work you have to bend it a little. I have no trouble applying ethics to animals, vegetables, and minerals. The shoe doesn't always fit perfectly, but it works. I'm not clear on what you think ethics is - not morality, clearly, no it's "a set of interpersonal values." Clear as mud.
  9. Animals act as actors in human society simply by participating in our lives. The family dog is surely part of the family, no? There are clear expectations placed on him regarding good actions and bad actions. As there are expectations placed on the family and other members of society regarding our treatment of him. Does he exhibit human-like sociology? Sure, more than many humans (present company excepted).
  10. Wait, what authority did I appeal to? To you? But that's not really helpful, is it. Could we start over? I agree not to act like a dick if you agree not to be a twat, ok? Now, I assert that your first premise, that "Ethics comprises a set of interpersonal values." is false. You surely disagree. I cite the following definitions (don't worry, they're not from any authority): ethics describes a generally accepted set of moral principles morals describes the goodness or badness or right or wrong of actions values describes individual or personal standards of what is valuable or important. In particular, I object to your use of the word interpersonal , because it forecloses the possibility of actors other than persons. If we were having this enlightened discussion two hundred years ago, would it be ok to define ethics as a set of intercitizen values? Inter-white-cis-male-citizen values? I can work with the 3 definitions above. They don't preclude animals as moral actors, imo.
  11. Then I guess by definition there's nothing more to say. Animals are not persons, I agree, so by your limitation definition, ethics do not involve non-human animals. Thanks for clearing that up. You should really publish this, because a lot of people are wasting their lives working in the non-field of animal ethics when they clearly don't understand what you think ethics is. You could call it a service to humanity or a house of cards.
  12. You are defining "ethics" in a very specific way. A thing can evolve to apply to a larger set than its original. Hence, civil rights, abolition, environmentalism, etc. It is human nature to generalise via analogy. As a specific example, laws evolved to facilitate group living, yet we have now apply laws to things like corporations and animals. There is nothing unethical about assigning intrinsic value to animals just as we do to different races of humans and differently abled humans. You may choose not to, but that decision cannot be made universally. ...... added to this post 2 minutes later: You have simplified a complex OP down to a strawman. The OP mentions only value, not killing.
  13. I believe this is certainly a possibility. Work has definitely shifted me towards J behaviours and away from P. I call myself INTx because I usually test in the middle and flip flop depending on the test, and also depending on whether I'm in a high performance git'er'dun phase or a quiet contemplative creative phase. I tested INTP in high school.