User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 01:39   #51
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyfe
I really resent elitism, and the whole 'you have no right to an opinion argumentation'. Especially as the people using it generally come of as utter madmen to me.

Anyways, I assume you have no opinion whatsoever on a certain famous genocide commited during WWII? Or more relavant, the various medical trials the germans commited on gypsies, jews and other deviants? No qualms about them doing it again? It won't affect you directly, you know...

None of us live in a vacuum. People having opinions on issues that doesn't affect them directly is what's keeping democrazy here "working" (as opposed to the shambles that is democrazy in Russia or what's happended in Africa f.x.).
It's not elitism. I said that:

1. It's not his business - that is, he shouldn't tell us what we should or should not do. He's more than welcome to say that he doesn't like it, and he wouldn't want to do it, or have it done in the name of finding him a cure. But going round saying that it shouldn't be done at all, just because he doesn't like it (which is exactly what he said, when you remember that he said he doesn't believe in objective right and wrong) is, some might say, shoving his nose in other people's concerns. I've acknowledged that he has an interest in it, as far as it offends his beliefs that bunnies have rights. But I would compare that to wanting someone's heart transplant to be cancalled so that your surgeon buddy gets the morning off work and can drive round that DVD he borrowed last night so you can watch it this afternoon. It's really insignificant when you compare it to the interests of people wanting cures.

2. That he doesn't all that much about what goes on in these labs anyway, which I deduce from his statements about 'torture', and I notice that he hasn't attempted to deny it. You forget that I am in the midst of a battle between the scientists and the AR nuts here at Oxford. I know people who work in the labs, one of my good friends was until very recently involved in pain research (on humans, I might add, I did volunteer to take part, but we never managed to arrange a mutually convenient time), there are loads of the people involved in the actual research around here who can say what it's like, and the AR people haven't got a clue. If you're ill-informed, then by all means have your ill-informed opinion. But don't expect me to sit by and watch you tell people what they should do, when you're basing those instructions on that opinion.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 01:46   #52
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
As far as the question of whether or not we should allow it goes, I think the consensus among people in society is that too many people would feel uncomfortable with it for us to allow it. I derive that in the same way we arrive at 'thou shalt not commit murder'. I don't believe it is objectively wrong, because I don't believe in objective morals, but it's 'wrong' in society because one hell of a lot of people don't like it.
My main problem with this line of argument is it seems to be awfully directionless in terms of morality (I appreciate this is kind of the point).

If public feeling floats towards allowing murder, or experimentation on babies or chattel slavery or whatever else, how do you personally react? Shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well"? What if they were the other way and it was towards completely banning animal testing of any kind (which is obviously far more likely)? Where would you resist social convention?

I suppose my point is that morality in this sense is more interesting when viewed as a motivator for your own personal actions. This is why (while I agree with your viewpoint) I cannot accept the "it's none of your business" argument. If I heard that adult humans were being tortured against their will somewhere (even for a cure for cancer), and it was something I could realistically stop then of course I would do my utmost to do so (or at least, I hope I would). But the same argument could be applied - why is the suffering of an adult human my business anymore than a bunny rabbit? If ASG (and his ilk) are correct and these creatures are "suffering" (or whatever criteria you choose to use) then their actions are completely understandable and it's everyone business.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 01:50   #53
Qdeathstar
edited for readability
 
Qdeathstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: for something...
Posts: 1,207
Qdeathstar is infamous around these partsQdeathstar is infamous around these partsQdeathstar is infamous around these partsQdeathstar is infamous around these partsQdeathstar is infamous around these parts
Re: Animal Rights

The problem with this thread is that you are going to find that almost no one (except those doing it for spite) will argue against your position on Animal Rights, or animal cruelty.

The only measure of disagreement is the degree of rights animals should have.

My position.

Animals are animals, not humans, there is a difference, and as a point of fact are a lesser being than humans.

We have the ability, means, and intelect to control them and use them to further our own existance as the dominant species on earth, and it would only make since that ofcourse we use a vital resource.

Man would NOT have become the dominant species without exploiting the resources animals provide.

Therefore, in my opinion, killing an animal as humainly as possible (consider time, economics, and other variables) for food, is not animal creulty. IE: While netting fish does cause collateral dammage, the economic cost of NOT netting is enourmous, therefore netting is not animal creulty provided it is done with care.

Also, Therefore, using animals for manual labor (such as horses, muels, and the like) is not animal cruelty, given that they are well cared for.

Lastly, killing animals when they are a THREAT to humans or other animals is acceptable, and not animal cruelity, provided that the threat is proven and not just an idle suspicion IE: China's killing thousands of dogs because of the possibility they MAY have rabies is animal cruelty, whereas shooting a few seaguls because they are causing car wrecks is not. (<-- In my town :-/)

However, if one of those three creteria are not met then that IS animal cruelty and I am against that.
__________________
www.gta-four.net
www.ytmnd.com XD
www.GTA-Four.net Owner/Admin


Are you sh*tting me? You mean my negrep is SOO LOW my opinion is worthless?
Qdeathstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 02:52   #54
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
If I had a personal interest in the case I should have no say, it's like victims of crime deciding the punishment of criminals.
No, it certainly is not. Punishment should be just and ideally purposeful in terms rehbilitatian, etc, because that's what society wants for the people who have 'strayed'. I personally would like the victims to have a say, but society wouldn't like that and tbh it would probably be a bad thing, so lucky for the criminals, I don't make the rules.

I think the people who should have the most say are those involved, because obviously the decision affects them most of all. Are you telling me that if the animals could speak and reason with us, and assert their rights, they shouldn't be allowed to say that they don't want to be tested on, because thoy are involved?
Quote:
I have already stated I do not believe in objective right and wrong.
Yes, you have. But you also stated that you believed animals had rights, which was actually what I was contradicting there, if you have a look.
Quote:
So?
So, rights don't exist in the absence of people dishing them out. I am giving you reasons for my belief that your statement regarding animal rights has no basis if you accept the notion that morality is subjective.
Quote:
I see people suffering with diseases that could be cured better and faster if we tested of the mentally defective.
Which is exactly my point. If testing on animals could end a human's suffering, but the testing isn't allowed because of the animal's right to be free of suffering, what happened to the human's right to not suffer? Do you see why I say I don't believe in rights? This water becomes even more murky when the two parties involved are both human, but the potential 'testee' is unable to function 'normally' in society, e.g. they're mentally disabled, a baby, in a coma, whatever. Normally we can just dismiss those murky waters because society has drawn an arbitrary line for us to tell us that it's 'not allowed'.
Quote:
What?
See above. They both have the right to not suffer, allegedly. So how do you decide whose rights are worth more? If you have the choice of do X and A suffers, and don't do X and Y suffers, why is Y's suffering more acceptable just because it involves you standing around doing nothing instead of doing something?
Quote:
I've not been a victim of torture either but I still have a opinion on it.
And you're welcome to that opinion, and most people in the world agree with you. On that grounds, I support your implied statement that torture should be banned by society.

On the other hand, I think football is crap. But I never watch it. I'm entitled to thinks it's crap, and that's my *opinion*, but I wouldn't say that I think no one should be allowed to play it or show it in pubs.
Quote:
Oh how well you know me.
Well, am I right?
Quote:

Funnily enough I don't and I don't imagine you do either unless it's a spare time activity.
Well, now you mention it...
I do inflict pain on others and have them do likewise to me, on a pretty regular basis. It makes you realise that there's a difference between discomfort, pain and suffering. Tho it's not all that applicable to animals.

But then, I'm not the one going round saying testing should be banned on the grounds that it causes pain, am I?
Quote:
that is such an irrelevant point I don't see where you're going with this.
See my post to thingy who accused me of elitism.
Quote:
Did you even read my first post? I honestly doubt you did. All this is a funadamentalist reaction to the title. I have already said I eat meat. I have said that I don't care enough to not eat meat nor to stop animal testing. this argument is about the
Please finish the sentence next time you post, I'm sure I'd have something interesting to say in response (even if you don't intend to read it). I'm going to answer the rest of this this at the end of my post.
Quote:
people willing to inflict pain on other creatures, what heros!
Heroes willing to face the wrath of the AR nuts to help those in need of medicine.
Quote:
that is the core of my argument. Removing emotion (which is clearly something you are incapable of doing in scenario so you're argument becomes more or less invalid) I don't theoreticaly see people as an 'better' (another 'loaded word, sorry') then animas so which one suffers I don't realy care. You could apply some utilitarianism to this and say whatever causes the least suffering overall, but then we would have human testing.
My post was, in all ways that matter, utterly devoid of emotion. Seeing people as better isn't clouding the issue with emotion. In the absence of objective morals, we can do what we like, because we're smarter, cos we're capable of higher reasoning, because we've got opposable thumbs, pick a reason. You're the one being emotional, by suggesting that we can't do exactly what we want, because of the poor animals rights. Admittedly, I don't remove emotion from my post entirely, you will detect a little apathy towards this issue of whether you ever grasp what I'm talking about. I've said the same things to so many people before, everytime I say it, I care a little less about whether my words are understood. You will notice a little pride. I still care enough about being right so bother to elucidate my points for you in this step-by-step manner. You will notice cynicism. But you won't see me tainting my own view on the issues with my own emotion. Emotion is a huge factor in deciding society's laws. You can't just ignore it. You have to examine, objectively, its influence.
Quote:
I really don't understand why you've even brought up testing (except to have a good old rant) when it's a side issue at best and has absolutly nothing to do with my original point nor the vast majority of points I've made after it. In fact there is only one post in which I've mentioned it (briefly) and that was in response to someone elses comments.

Quite frankly I find your entire response to be emotional drivel, completely condescending and patronising and I I shall no longer be conversing with you on this (or any other) matter because this is not a one-off this is acommon theme in your posting.
I brought up testing because you mentioned it in your first post. You're accusing me of not reading your first post; it sounds more like you don't know what it contains. You mentioned it, I think it's important, so I wrote about it. You didn't say 'don't talk about it, it's a side issue', did you? I also addressed the issue of rights. You just responded with 'so?'

It's not emotional drivel. Your post was though. You merely stated your beliefs, including the idea that hurting animals is no different from hurting humans, and appealed to us on an emotional level to agree with you because you had offered us the choice of telling you that you were right, or condoning something you could be sure we would find abhorrent.

Sorry, if my post was patronising. It wasn't fair of me to assume that you would need me to explain things to you in simple terms. Now that I know I do, however, you have nothing to complain about. You cannot deny, having read this post, that you did not understand my first?

If you don't want to read my stuff, fine. That's your business, you don't need to tell me, just put me on ignore. I'll still post tho, on the off-chance that someone reading your stuff might appreciate my take on the matter.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 03:08   #55
meglamaniac
Born Sinful
 
meglamaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.meglamaniac has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

I don't really agree with testing on intelligent animals (by which I mean primates and others of similar intelligence levels) as it does basically amount to torture. I'm not really sure how much that can be applied to a mouse though. Sure it can feel pain, but it isn't really self-aware enough to know what it's being put through.

So far as animal rights in general goes, I have two issues really:
- As a country we give more to animal charities than to childrens charities. This is ****ing retarded and we need to sort our priorities out. The pretty bunny wabbits can wait.
- Extremists. Seriously, **** you. By any decent interpretation of the law you're terrorists. Animal testing does not give you the right to firebomb the houses and cars of people who do so, and to attack families is disgusting. That case where they exhumed some poor family's grandmother (over guninea pigs no less*, hardly the most sentient lifeform on the planet) and hid the body as a method of extortion shows just what a bunch of nutjobs most of these advocates are.


Basically, we come first. If you're serious about "animal rights" in the same way you mean "human rights" then the only logical thing to do is go become a fruitarian, which is equally as retarded as the whole concept really. Yes, mistreatment for the sake of it is bad. But please get a sense of proportion.





*Disclaimer:
I have kept guineapigs as pets. However I don't have a problem with people doing testing with them so long as some sort of sense of morality is maintained (ie. don't cause the little buggers undue suffering etc).
But seriously, they're really ****ing stupid. Sweet, but dumb. They have no self-awareness in a meaningful conciousness sense, and no real memory to speak of either. Mine would happily run into a flowerpot and get themselves hopelessly stuck, then do exactly the same thing 5 minutes later having just been rescued; they don't ever learn anything.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.

Last edited by meglamaniac; 5 Aug 2006 at 03:14.
meglamaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 03:47   #56
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I suppose my point is that morality in this sense is more interesting when viewed as a motivator for your own personal actions. This is why (while I agree with your viewpoint) I cannot accept the "it's none of your business" argument. If I heard that adult humans were being tortured against their will somewhere (even for a cure for cancer), and it was something I could realistically stop then of course I would do my utmost to do so (or at least, I hope I would). But the same argument could be applied - why is the suffering of an adult human my business anymore than a bunny rabbit? If ASG (and his ilk) are correct and these creatures are "suffering" (or whatever criteria you choose to use) then their actions are completely understandable and it's everyone business.

I suppose my response comes back, as it does in so much of what I think, to the 'Jack Sparrow' philosophy to which I ascribe.

The 'none of your business' remark may be reconciled within my own belief system regarding society and what it does, if you will indulge me. You will recall that I do not believe in intrinsic rights. I do believe in extrinsic rights, that are extended by a society to its members, but these extrinsic rights are just consequences of the responsibilities accepted by members of the society as a condition of their membership, e.g. the responsibility to not kill anyone else in the society has the consequence that people in the society will be afforded protection against murderers.

The reason I prefer the 'responsibilities' model rather than the 'consequential rights' model may be understood thus: Consider the breaking of one of societies laws. Person A has killed person B. Person A is the one who has broken the terms of their membership of society. There is no reason that A should be able to affect B's membership, so what happened to B's rights? Has society failed to extend B's rights to him? There's only so much society can do, and it can't guarantee life for B. If it did guarantee life for B, society would have to have shunned B when A decided to kill him - that isn't how society works. So A must be the one who has moved outside society by commiting murder, and so society's responsibilities towards him are altered (rather than B's right being changed). Society members no longer have the responsibility of not imprisoning him, for example.

There's no reason that torturing a human is objectively wrong. I don't like it. One hell of a lot of people don't like it. Society, consequently, decided that it's unacceptable, and members are forbidden to engage in it. If you know someone is being tortured then it's your business because of your role in society. If this torturing is occuring outside our society, it may be your own 'moral code' that drives you to interfere, or a requirement of society of it's members that they interfere with other cultures in such cases. Either way, you can go for it, and try to help them, but you may have to accept that there will be consequences of your attempt that may be beyond society's ability to protect you from.

Society hasn't declared animal testing to be illegal, so it should be an issue sorted out by those involved, which is the protocol in society. If someone tries to interfere (see ALF for details) then they are in violation of the society's terms of membership. They can peacefully protest, that's fine in society. But people can tell them that they think they are ill-informed idiots - also allowed in society.

You see, when you don't believe in objective morality, it all becomes very simple. There is no 'shouldn't', or 'bad', or 'wrong'. Everything above is nothing more than an observation of how society works. And so, in considering the society where things we don't like are legal, we must remember that Jack Sparrow applies to society as well. So try to change society, but realise there may be consequences. You're never going to be perfectsy happy with society. You just have to value your membership enough to put up with the 'crap'. Again, this isn't anything profound. It's just an observation.

So would I murder if society allowed it?

No, of course not. I never said I didn't believe in subjective morality. I would not kill, and I would try as far as possible to avoid being killed. Of course I would hate living in fear, and hate it if someone I knew was murdered. Could I say it was 'wrong' for someone else to kil me? Well, what is 'wrong' from a subjective point of view? Things we don't like, mostly.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 03:54   #57
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qdeathstar
The problem with this thread is that you are going to find that almost no one (except those doing it for spite) will argue against your position on Animal Rights, or animal cruelty.
I beg to differ. I am not arguing out of spite; I believe he is wrong about animal rights. Cruelty is a different matter, and on that, we agree (as far as accepting that people draw their lines in different places regarding what is or is not cruel.)

I can't help feeling, though, that you're just getting to a situation where everyone agrees that animal cruelty is wrong, but some people think that any mild discomfort is cruel, while others think that it is not possible to hurt an animal badly enough that the treatment could be considered cruel. If we were to all agree on what constitutes cruelty, then I suspect you would find we are actually disagreeing over how cruel is too cruel.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 04:03   #58
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by neptis arcos
teknicly you are corect thay wer not real untill me invented them to make life a more hapy one and now thay are the law and animals do have right's
See my post on responsibilities. We do have a certain duty of care, within our society. But those 'rights' were extended by society, and can be taken away, and are not evidence that animals have intrinsic rights that we must respect.
Quote:
i personaly do not like rats but that dus not mean thay have no rights
That's not the reason that they don't have [intrinsic] rights, but the fact remains that they don't.
Quote:

no thats cald the law
Correct. But they are as I described them, and do not exist in the absence of society.
Quote:

thats cald your morals
Also correct. And as I said, they are not universal.
Quote:

neptis arcos
Nice to meet you.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 07:43   #59
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
As far as the question of whether or not we should allow it goes, I think the consensus among people in society is that too many people would feel uncomfortable with it for us to allow it. I derive that in the same way we arrive at 'thou shalt not commit murder'. I don't believe it is objectively wrong, because I don't believe in objective morals, but it's 'wrong' in society because one hell of a lot of people don't like it.
Who cares what most people think? A few hundred years ago the idea of interracial marriages would have made most of society feel uncomfortable, and even today youll still find a lot of people who believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to have sex. I find it hard to believe that your personal ideas of what is 'right' in day-to-day life are dictated by the whims of the masses, so I'm not sure why youre prepared to treat the opinions of average people as being gospel when you scale things up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
There's no reason that torturing a human is objectively wrong
What do you mean by 'objectively wrong'? Saying that 'morality isnt objective' is like saying that 'numbers arent real'. Theres just so many different things that statement could mean that its vacuous without further explanation.

Pointing out that "Society thinks X" isnt really much of an explanation, because you arent considerng why society thinks X. A widespread moral belief can be based on an irrational evaluation of facts ("The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so it's wrong"), or a rational one ("I want to live in a society where most people are able to be happy, so murder is wrong"), or an outright refusal to evaluate ("It just feels wrong to me, and I dont have to justify this!"). Moral beliefs dont come out of a vacuum - they are generally based on an underlying evaluation of reality, and this evaluation can often be demonstrated true or false. If someone thought interracial marriages were morally wrong because he believed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, then a biologist would be able to show him that his premises was false. If someone thought that gays were evil because the Bible said so, we could explain to him that the Bible is largely nonsense. If someone thought that killing animals was wrong because it 'felt icky' then we could ask him for a rational justification of his beliefs, and then ignore him when he failed to provide one.

Saying that 'morality is objective' doesnt necessarily mean that you think moral laws are somehow built into the universe in the same sense that the laws of physics are; it can just mean that you think moral beliefs should be based on facts, and that they are true or false to the extent that the judgements they are based on are true and false. If people are unable/unwilling to provide good reasons for their beliefs then there's no need to take them seriously, regardless of whether they constitute the majority..

Last edited by Nodrog; 5 Aug 2006 at 08:24.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 08:26   #60
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
You will recall that I do not believe in intrinsic rights. I do believe in extrinsic rights, that are extended by a society to its members, but these extrinsic rights are just consequences of the responsibilities accepted by members of the society as a condition of their membership, e.g. the responsibility to not kill anyone else in the society has the consequence that people in the society will be afforded protection against murderers.
As an analytical tool morality is like an accounting system. It doesn't really "exist" in some physical sense, it's just there to try and ensure certain values are correctly represented and you can make consistent and coherent judgements over time and in different conditions.

The problem with having everything tied into notions of consequence is that it becomes very difficult to determine what is right & wrong (and therefore our own course of action) in the long term, or in certain circumstances. For instance, if I randomly murder someone then there will be consequences against me (generally quite negative consequences) and so the system works there. But if, say, the Colombian military kills some poor person in Bogota, the consequences for them are much altered - perhaps reduced to the point where there is no disincentive for them to act at all.

As always, I like the distinction between tactical and ethical concerns. So in our Colombia example, what has occurred is just as "wrong" as my hypothetical murder but there are very real tactical reasons why they won't be punished and I probably will. But that doesn't mean the actual act of what they've done has changed, and indeed the victims family might hold out hope that eventually they might get justice in x years (much like in war crime tribunals and the like). So basically there is a distinction between what _should_ happen and what _will_ (or does) happen. If we do not have some sort of record of what should happen (distinct from what does happen) on our moral balance sheet, how are we to keep track of what we want?

I do not like the idea that the only reason it is "our business" to interfere with someone being tortured is because of our role in society. Society is often wrong, as is the law. And so I will intervene regardless of what society says. Obviously there will be consequences - but that is a tactical concern. If I could get away with murder then like yourself, I still would not murder. That's what morality is about.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 08:41   #61
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
If someone thought interracial marriages were morally wrong because he believed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, then a biologist would be able to show him that his premises was false.
I am less confident that we can use factual evidence to disprove "bad viewpoints" (for want of a better term). In the above example, it would actually be pretty difficult for a biologist to show anything at all, unless the hypothetical racist had a specific theory which was obviously disprovable (e.g. "mixed race babies are 1000% more likely to be brain damaged at birth" which you could presumably disprove relatively easily with statistical evidence).

Of course, in those sorts of discussions I suppose it's more about convincing an audience rather than the person involved directly.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 08:51   #62
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I am less confident that we can use factual evidence to disprove "bad viewpoints" (for want of a better term). In the above example, it would actually be pretty difficult for a biologist to show anything at all, unless the hypothetical racist had a specific theory which was obviously disprovable (e.g. "mixed race babies are 1000% more likely to be brain damaged at birth" which you could presumably disprove relatively easily with statistical evidence).
Well without getting caught up in semantic matters about proving negatives, it would be pretty easy to show that his beliefs had no basis in current science and were essentially pulled out of thin air, which is all it takes really. I doubt you could give a completely irrefutable proof that homosexuals werent actually possessed by demons, but you could show that this is so unlikely that noone is going to believe it unless they already had a previous committment to some anti-gay ideology.

Quote:
Of course, in those sorts of discussions I suppose it's more about convincing an audience rather than the person involved directly.
It depends on the person. Some people are more open to reason than others; I wouldnt normally bother trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian that they were wrong about something because I doubt that most of them have any real committment to intellectual honesty, but a lot of people are just genuinelly mistaken.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 10:00   #63
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

A few months ago, there was one of those animal protesting stands in Cambridge, just off St Andrew's Street (by the Lloyd's). Standard pamphlets, pictures of kittens and puppies and what have you, and manned, as it were, by a middle aged women and a small child. Fairly obviously, mother and son.

With time to kill and feeling jovial, I decided to harrang this womany thing. Back and forth for a few seconds with the usual nonsense, until she mentioned that "animal testing has never had any benefits towards people".

What tosh. I started listing a few of the medical advances which were gained through animal testing, which was halted when I got to organ transplants, because the small child was crying. Was I being too aggressive? Was his masculinity threatened by this pompous oaf harassing his mother?

Of course not. The item in the list before was the treatment of diabetes. "Do you know anyone with diabetes? Do you want them to die? Do you?" I had announced.

The child of course had diabetes.

Another victory won for science, through the medium of making a child cry.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 10:28   #64
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
Seeing as human beings are not a higher form of life when compared to animals it therefore follows that animals shoud shre some of the same basic rights. For if it is right to kill and eat a pig then surely it is the same to kill and eat a human being. I can see no reason why (apart from potential health risks) why it would be acceptable to eat all other animals except for human beings.
This is just pure rubbish. Maybe someone already pointed this out but here goes.

Animal such as cows, pigs, chicken ect. exist soley for we as human being to use them as we see fit. Eat them, wear them, test on them or what have you. It is possible that these animals would not even exist today if humans did not struggle to breed and maintain livestock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
the same goes for animal testing. If it is ok to test on a mouse then why not on a human being? Once the illusionary distinction between humans and animals is removed (which is only there for conveinance) things become far more complex.
Some testing is done on humans but some cannot be done on humans without first testing a lower life form. Besides its not like we are still firing chickens out of a cannon to test wind velocity effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I believe in the future that vegetarianism will become the norm (unless scientists can grow meat in a lab, the result of which would be meat with no suffering from an animal) and the only reason I am not one now is because I do not care enough to change my lifestyle.
Not convicted enough in your own beliefs to actually do what you are willing to speak out against.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 12:28   #65
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Who cares what most people think? A few hundred years ago the idea of interracial marriages would have made most of society feel uncomfortable, and even today youll still find a lot of people who believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to have sex. I find it hard to believe that your personal ideas of what is 'right' in day-to-day life are dictated by the whims of the masses, so I'm not sure why youre prepared to treat the opinions of average people as being gospel when you scale things up.

What do you mean by 'objectively wrong'? Saying that 'morality isnt objective' is like saying that 'numbers arent real'. Theres just so many different things that statement could mean that its vacuous without further explanation.

Pointing out that "Society thinks X" isnt really much of an explanation, because you arent considerng why society thinks X. A widespread moral belief can be based on an irrational evaluation of facts ("The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so it's wrong"), or a rational one ("I want to live in a society where most people are able to be happy, so murder is wrong"), or an outright refusal to evaluate ("It just feels wrong to me, and I dont have to justify this!"). Moral beliefs dont come out of a vacuum - they are generally based on an underlying evaluation of reality, and this evaluation can often be demonstrated true or false. If someone thought interracial marriages were morally wrong because he believed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, then a biologist would be able to show him that his premises was false. If someone thought that gays were evil because the Bible said so, we could explain to him that the Bible is largely nonsense. If someone thought that killing animals was wrong because it 'felt icky' then we could ask him for a rational justification of his beliefs, and then ignore him when he failed to provide one.

Saying that 'morality is objective' doesnt necessarily mean that you think moral laws are somehow built into the universe in the same sense that the laws of physics are; it can just mean that you think moral beliefs should be based on facts, and that they are true or false to the extent that the judgements they are based on are true and false. If people are unable/unwilling to provide good reasons for their beliefs then there's no need to take them seriously, regardless of whether they constitute the majority..
To your first point: That's not what I said. I made extremely clear the distinction between individuals' sense of right and wrong, which is based on what we don't like, or find distasteful, and society's imposed rules, which are based on mass opinions. If you want to be part of a society, you have to respect the rules. If you don't like them, you leave the society, or you convince enough people in society that they need to be changed. This will probably involve appealing to their 'moral centres' in the way our friend ASG did, with his 'animal testing is the same as human testing, if you think human testing is bad, you must agree with me about animal testing' bit.

I mean objectively wrong: Wrong for all observers. Wrong regardless of whether the person doing it thinks it is right or wrong. Something can be objectively true in the absence of our ability to prove it, so it doesn't matter if we are able to argue the case for something being true or false, so objective morality isn't about whether or not we can have a rational argument about it.

As far as I can see, the root of our disagreement lies in what we mean by objective morality. If our own moral values are not to be derived from what makes us 'feel uncomfortable', or from what we just 'don't like', then from what should they be derived? You present wanting most people to be happy as a rational basis for morality, and to most people here that probably seems quite sensible, but wanting to live in a world where *I* am happy (e.g. wanting to steal other people's stuff so that I can have it) is not accepted as 'rational'. I could quite probably convince someone that wanting to go about your life ensuring the happiness of other people that you don't know, when to the best of our knowledge this life is all we've got and then we die, is irrational.

You can't base morality on fact in any sound fashion. Maybe a geneticist can look at a black person's DNA. Can they actually show that the black person should not be treated badly because they are inferior? First of all, how do you show that someone is not 'inferior'? The term itself is subjective. You can show their DNA is not substantially different, but unless the person quantifies 'inferior' for you, it's a lost cause.

I might think that anyone who hasn't been to Keble College, Oxford is inferior, and yet may still accept that they should be treated with equal respect. Animals can arguably be considered inferior, but the matter of contention is whether or not we can hurt them, given that they are. A fact by itself doesn't make the morality.

I could say 'I think the moon is made of cheese, therefore we should beat puppies.' There are two problems here: The 'fact' is wrong. The causal link between cheesy moon and bloody puppies is what you would call 'irrational'.

If I said 'The moon is not made of cheese, therefore we should beat puppies' then it's samething based on a true fact, but again you would call the link irrational. The issue of whether the moon being cheese-free is a reason for beating puppies is not a 'factual' thing. It's a matter of opinion, in the same way that 'does the inferiority of animals entitle us to hurt them in the name of science?' is not a factual issue.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:13   #66
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Morality and beauty. The greatest things are always human constructs.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:28   #67
hyfe
Dum Di Dum Di
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
hyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogster
Why are you not more concerned with the rate of abortions?
Because animals (atleast the smartes ones) are capable of feeling pain, distress, joy and actually survives themselves. Fetuses on the other hand, are parasites living off their host. In fact, leeches are above fetuses on 'the grand list of things to care about', because leeches actually manage to move around and copulate somehow.
__________________
Ni! M00!
my boring homepage
hyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:37   #68
Cannon_Fodder
Registered User
 
Cannon_Fodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
Cannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldCannon_Fodder spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
Besides its not like we are still firing chickens out of a cannon to test wind velocity effects.
You know the funny this is, we still fire them at jet engines for testing.
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
Cannon_Fodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:37   #69
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Didn't really want to do it but I feel I must reply to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
No, it certainly is not. Punishment should be just and ideally purposeful in terms rehbilitatian, etc, because that's what society wants for the people who have 'strayed'. I personally would like the victims to have a say, but society wouldn't like that and tbh it would probably be a bad thing, so lucky for the criminals, I don't make the rules.
From what I've read you're philosophy is based on 'what I feel is right'.

You would like victims to have a say. Why? What would it achieve except for inequality in our justice system? How would help society to move forward and become more peaceful (if that is what you are aiming for)?

You can support all kinds of laws to encourage punishment of criminals but if this is not going to decrease crime (which history has shon, it does not) then surely the reaction to the crime is purely an emotional one devoid of rational thought?

Personally, I wouldn't cry if a child abuser was sexually assaulted in prison but this is just an emotional reaction. Emotion should have no effect on the law. It does, and many laws exist because of this but this is not a good thing.

What you want and what is best are rarely (if ever) the same thing. For example, I might want to sit and eat chocolate biscuits all day. Now this would be fine if I was prepared to accept that I would get fat and probably die young. But if I wanted to live longer and be thinner then I wouldn't follow that course of action. It's the same with the law. If you might want to make a criminal suffer then you have to accept the consequences of your actions. If it is shown that punishment makes a criminal more likely to offend then what is the point of punishment (except to make you feel a bit better, atthe expense of other victims of crime)?

to take this back to the start, I believe animals are capable of suffering. If I am wrong on this point then the rest of the argument collapses.

If I am right and animals are capable of suffering then to not give them certain rights is to be hypocritical and biased in favour of human beings. You might say 'Yeah, so what? I don't care.' and I can't argue with you because you would have stepped outside the realm of rational argument and rejected valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
I think the people who should have the most say are those involved, because obviously the decision affects them most of all.
Having an emotional attachment clouds a persons reasoning and that is not a good thing if they are to make important decisions. Extreme example, if a person had AIDs and knew that by killing 100 random people they would be cured, should they have the choice whether or not it should happen? It effects them more than us, so by your logic it should be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Are you telling me that if the animals could speak and reason with us, and assert their rights, they shouldn't be allowed to say that they don't want to be tested on, because thoy are involved?
Your analogy is backwards. If animals were able to communicate this information to us then it would be no different than if they were testing on humans. the animals would be the victim of crime and should have no say how their torturers (the scientists) were punished for their crime. It would be the animals rights that are being violated, not that the animals are violating the rights of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Yes, you have. But you also stated that you believed animals had rights, which was actually what I was contradicting there, if you have a look.
Sorry, my mistake I over looked that single line about animal testing which was advocating that if you can test on animals then you can test on humans, which was the logical extension of my argument so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
So, rights don't exist in the absence of people dishing them out. I am giving you reasons for my belief that your statement regarding animal rights has no basis if you accept the notion that morality is subjective.
that is true. Rights do not exist in any real sense, but they must be based on some type of logical thought process with some particular aim in mind otherwise you end up with a random set of rules based on emotion which leads to discrimination. If you want to set up a world based on emotion where homosexuals and people with different shades of skin are treated as inferoir then fine but I don't.

[quote=Jennifer]Which is exactly my point. If testing on animals could end a human's suffering, but the testing isn't allowed because of the animal's right to be free of suffering, what happened to the human's right to not suffer?

From a theoretical viewpoint I have already stated that I do not give greater regards to a human life to the life of an animal. this thread is not so much about geonig 'oh, aren't animals wonderful!' but more along the lines of 'humans aren't that great'. You can pick whatever biased ideology you wish to justify animal testing, but if animals and humans are both capable of suffering (which is the key point here, if animals cannot suffer then it all goes out the window) then the only reason for choosing animals (which is the least efficient form of testing out of the option of the two) is discrimination against animals on an emotional level. this is unacceptable hypocracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Do you see why I say I don't believe in rights? This water becomes even more murky when the two parties involved are both human, but the potential 'testee' is unable to function 'normally' in society, e.g. they're mentally disabled, a baby, in a coma, whatever. Normally we can just dismiss those murky waters because society has drawn an arbitrary line for us to tell us that it's 'not allowed'.
Arbitrary lines are not a good thing. this is one of the core roots of my argument here. Distinctions should not be made because 'it makes me feel bad'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
See above. They both have the right to not suffer, allegedly.
I see no reason why it should be any other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
So how do you decide whose rights are worth more? If you have the choice of do X and A suffers, and don't do X and Y suffers, why is Y's suffering more acceptable just because it involves you standing around doing nothing instead of doing something?
Why punish A for a problem effecting Y? If someone broke into my house and stole my television does that give me the right to ease my suffering by breaking into your house and stealing your television? Why should you suffer because something bad has happened to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
And you're welcome to that opinion, and most people in the world agree with you. On that grounds, I support your implied statement that torture should be banned by society.
I don't care whether or not people agree with me that torture should be banned unless there is some decent level of reasoning behind their decision to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
On the other hand, I think football is crap. But I never watch it. I'm entitled to thinks it's crap, and that's my *opinion*, but I wouldn't say that I think no one should be allowed to play it or show it in pubs.
Once again I shall go back to the beginning. I believe maximum rights should be given to people and the only laws should be to protect people from other people e.g. I have the right not to be murdered by you. Freedom is the key to what I am talking about. Football does not infringe on your freedom nor does it do any harm to you, you choose to watch it so if it does harm you then it's your choice and you should be free to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Well, am I right?
I am only the voice for myself. If I criticise the Israeli actions gonig on right now I don't say that I'm 'the voice of the Lebonon.' I am merely stating my view on a particular topic.

I am not speaking on behalf of the animals I am simply raising the discussion of an issue which I feel I cannot currently reconcile with my way of living. If I am provided with some information to show me that my main premise (i.e. that animals are capable of suffering) is incorrect then my position will change. So far, despite some good points being made, my opinion has not been altered as in every post here the belief of whether or not animals can feel pain has been simply shown as a personal opinion, which is not good enough for me.

[quote=Jennifer]Well, now you mention it...
I do inflict pain on others and have them do likewise to me, on a pretty regular basis.[/uote]

If that's what you enjoy, go for it. Just don't expect others to feel the same way. I defend your right to cut yourself with glass if it was your choice (although I might recommend you seek psychiatric help) but that doesn't mean you have the right to inflict that on other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
It makes you realise that there's a difference between discomfort, pain and suffering. Tho it's not all that applicable to animals.
Coud you clarify this please. Is it a typo or did you mean to type 'it's not all that applicable to animals.'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
But then, I'm not the one going round saying testing should be banned on the grounds that it causes pain, am I?
I try and look beyond myself when considering what laws should govern everyone. I would be quite content if people had to pay money to myself so I didn't have to work and could pursue personal interests but that would be completely self-centred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
See my post to thingy who accused me of elitism.
Sure, I'll have a look at that in a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Please finish the sentence next time you post, I'm sure I'd have something interesting to say in response (even if you don't intend to read it). I'm going to answer the rest of this this at the end of my post.
I can't remember what I was going to say, I just remember that I was going to go back to it later. Oh well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Heroes willing to face the wrath of the AR nuts to help those in need of medicine.
See my reply to Dante's post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
My post was, in all ways that matter, utterly devoid of emotion. Seeing people as better isn't clouding the issue with emotion.
You did not give a reason why you think humans are better then animals, at least not one I have already dealt with in previous posts. If you do not back up your argument with your ideoligcal basis then I have to assume it is emotional, especially considering your tone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
In the absence of objective morals, we can do what we like, because we're smarter, cos we're capable of higher reasoning, because we've got opposable thumbs, pick a reason.
We can do what we like but we choose to have a set of rules in place to govern everyone. therefore, these rules (in order to make them fair) should be based upon higher reasoning rather then gut reaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
You're the one being emotional, by suggesting that we can't do exactly what we want, because of the poor animals rights.
I never said that we can't, I said that we shouldn't given the logical extension of laws to protect suffering. Once you accept that people are just animals (albeit with larger brains) then the prevention of suffering due to human actions should be extended to animals as well. Once again I shall state, that if animals cannot suffer then the idea of their rights is null and void otherwise we may as well give rights to trees and rocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Admittedly, I don't remove emotion from my post entirely, you will detect a little apathy towards this issue of whether you ever grasp what I'm talking about.
I undertand what you're talking about but I disagree with the direction your coming from in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
I've said the same things to so many people before, everytime I say it, I care a little less about whether my words are understood. You will notice a little pride. I still care enough about being right so bother to elucidate my points for you in this step-by-step manner.
I don't care whether you are right or wrong as long as you display reasoning (I'm kind of like an Engish teacher in that respect ), which I feel that you have failed to do. Not to say that you havn't given reasons except to say that they do not extend much further than 'I am right and you are wrong' and that will not move the dabate forward at all.

You have said you believe rights are purely a man-made creation and that we can apply them to whatever we choose. Whilst this is true I do not think it is a good way of approaching the issue because it can (and does) lead to discrimination on feelings and personal opinion which is a very bad thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
You will notice cynicism. But you won't see me tainting my own view on the issues with my own emotion. Emotion is a huge factor in deciding society's laws. You can't just ignore it. You have to examine, objectively, its influence.
Either morality is applied fairly and equally or it is not. If animals can suffer then it makes it just as wrong as testing on people and then choosing to continue to test on animals is just discrimination pure and simple. If you have no problem with this then fine. But consider this, a rapist attacks a load of women causing them a lot of suffering he knows and doesn't care. How is that any different? It's discrimination just towards humans not animals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
I brought up testing because you mentioned it in your first post. You're accusing me of not reading your first post; it sounds more like you don't know what it contains. You mentioned it, I think it's important, so I wrote about it. You didn't say 'don't talk about it, it's a side issue', did you? I also addressed the issue of rights. You just responded with 'so?'
I mentioned it in one line and I did not say stop animal testing, I advocated human testing. If it is fine to test on animals why not on humans? It's just hypocracy and that should have no place in law.

You may think it's important but it is an issue that really had no place in this thread. I was talking about animal suffering in general, whether it's for food or for testing is of little relevance.

I did say 'So?' as what you posted did not really address any issues. 'We have certain rights because we say we have certain rights' is not an acceptable answer in my book. It lacks any depth and with it any validity. If rights are to actually mean something then there needs to be some intellectual basis for them otherwise they are just random nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
It's not emotional drivel. Your post was though. You merely stated your beliefs, including the idea that hurting animals is no different from hurting humans, and appealed to us on an emotional level to agree with you because you had offered us the choice of telling you that you were right, or condoning something you could be sure we would find abhorrent.
Where was the emotioal plea? I must have missed that along with my discussion of animal testing. I stated my beliefs and then stated that when I extrapolate them I find that suffering to animals is unacceptable and that they are also covered under some human rights (whther we like it or not).

Wheter or not what I have stated is practical or not means nothing in regards to an intellectual debate. If the logical conclusion is that animals have rights then that should be acknowledged. We can then either decide to do something about it or ignore the problem and accept we're hypocrites. As long as self-deception is not involved then the issue can be discussed rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Sorry, if my post was patronising. It wasn't fair of me to assume that you would need me to explain things to you in simple terms. Now that I know I do, however, you have nothing to complain about. You cannot deny, having read this post, that you did not understand my first?

If you don't want to read my stuff, fine. That's your business, you don't need to tell me, just put me on ignore. I'll still post tho, on the off-chance that someone reading your stuff might appreciate my take on the matter.
Bravo, you've mastered being patronising and sarcastic at same time. Do you have any positive emotions you would like to show?

I don't put people on ignore, I don't see the benefit.

I appreciate where you're coming from but I just think it's a rather hypocritical and irratioal stance.

It is highly logical though as it is greatest benefit to you to think in that way. What I have posted is not to my benefit in any way. that is the main difference here.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:47   #70
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

I've just written a very long reply and I'm going to take a break from this debate for a short while. But before I do I feel the need to tackle this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
This is just pure rubbish. Maybe someone already pointed this out but here goes.

Animal such as cows, pigs, chicken ect. exist soley for we as human being to use them as we see fit. Eat them, wear them, test on them or what have you. It is possible that these animals would not even exist today if humans did not struggle to breed and maintain livestock.
this is a very important point as it accuratly displays how your starting ideological viewpoint influences your opinion on the matter. Where we start influences where we end up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
Some testing is done on humans but some cannot be done on humans without first testing a lower life form. Besides its not like we are still firing chickens out of a cannon to test wind velocity effects.
It all be done on humans. there is no reason why animals need to be involved at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travler
Not convicted enough in your own beliefs to actually do what you are willing to speak out against.
No I'm not convinced enough in my own beliefs actually in this regard. this is largely what this debate is about. I see no reason to make massive changes in my life if it is based on an initial flwed principle.

I think that is something you should consider.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:54   #71
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
This will probably involve appealing to their 'moral centres' in the way our friend ASG did, with his 'animal testing is the same as human testing, if you think human testing is bad, you must agree with me about animal testing' bit.
Oh this made me smile. It really does explain so much. there is no moral centre there. I was not attempting to pull at peoples heart strings. You've got it all backwards. If both humans and animals can suffer then either one is equally as valid a test subject. Except that humans are better test subjects to use.

If you have no problem with animal testing then why do you have a problem with human testing? the only reason is an emotional response from YOU.

I displayed no emotion in my initial post. All I did was follow a particular train of thought to a logical conclusion.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 13:58   #72
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
It all be done on humans. there is no reason why animals need to be involved at all.
You mean beyond saving human lives?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:00   #73
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
If both humans and animals can suffer then either one is equally as valid a test subject.
I actually agree with this, I just don't think animals can be said to suffer in any meaningful sense.

But as lots of people have said to me, what if one can suffer more? What if this isn't a boolean thing, but actually a matter of degree? What if humans have a greater capacity for suffering? Would that make a difference?
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:06   #74
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Also can we stop this accusing other people of getting emotional thing.

"This is silly, you're just getting emotional."

"No I'm not, you're getting emotional."

"I'm getting emotional? **** YOU I'LL KILL YOU FOR THAT INSULT!"
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:10   #75
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
You mean beyond saving human lives?
It's all about how much worth you place in human life. See Nodrogs post about testing on babies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I actually agree with this, I just don't think animals can be said to suffer in any meaningful sense.
Well that's the crux of the matter. If it can be shown that animals cannot suffer then the whole issue goes away. What reasons are there to show that they can suffer and what reasons are there to show that they cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
But as lots of people have said to me, what if one can suffer more? What if this isn't a boolean thing, but actually a matter of degree? What if humans have a greater capacity for suffering? Would that make a difference?
Well it clearly does but then you have to decide if making any creature suffer is acceptable. If we concede that testing on animals is acceptalbe then we also have to concede that testing on mentally defective humans is acceptable.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:14   #76
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I can't argue with you because you would have stepped outside the realm of rational argument and rejected valid argument.
That assumes that the reasoning is the same. I'm not going to vivisect humans because they're humans, only part of which is the capacity to "suffer". You're still ignoring that rights are meaningless without responsibilities, which animals cannot hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
but they must be based on some type of logical thought process with some particular aim in mind otherwise you end up with a random set of rules based on emotion which leads to discrimination. If you want to set up a world based on emotion where homosexuals and people with different shades of skin are treated as inferoir then fine but I don't.
Hah. All rights lead to some form of descrimination, because giving someone a right takes away the (moral) capabilities of others. You can argue a utiliterian viewpoint all you like, with the proviso that you recognise that it is not universally true for everyone.

Quote:
this is unacceptable hypocracy.
Hypocrisy, unless you're referring to a method of governence by self-contradiction. Be that as it may, I still fail to see the contradiction.

Quote:
Coud you clarify this please. Is it a typo or did you mean to type 'it's not all that applicable to animals.'?
I don't see what's so crazy about saying "this distinction does not apply to this group". I may not agree with it, you definitely seem not to, but that statement makes perfect grammatical sense. Except "tho" instead of "though".

Quote:
You did not give a reason why you think humans are better then animals, at least not one I have already dealt with in previous posts. If you do not back up your argument with your ideoligcal basis then I have to assume it is emotional, especially considering your tone.
"Dealt with?" You can't "deal with" a moral viewpoint. If I state that humans are better than animals and thus animals should be killed in droves to save the life of one human, then that isn't an emotional viewpoint because I consider humans to be superior to animals because I'm a human, and humans have an enormous number of capabilities that animals lack, ones which I consider essential to the whole process.

Unless you've proved that animals have the near universal capacity for higher reasoning, I don't think you've "dealt with" any chain of that reasoning.

Quote:
We can do what we like but we choose to have a set of rules in place to govern everyone. therefore, these rules (in order to make them fair) should be based upon higher reasoning rather then gut reaction.
This makes no sense in context.

Quote:
I never said that we can't
Suggesting that we ban something kind of does suggest that, in your ideal society, we couldn't do it.

Quote:
Once again I shall state, that if animals cannot suffer then the idea of their rights is null and void otherwise we may as well give rights to trees and rocks.
We agree on one thing, at least.

Quote:
Whilst this is true I do not think it is a good way of approaching the issue because it can (and does) lead to discrimination on feelings and personal opinion which is a very bad thing.
You think something is true but you reject it because it's inconvenient? Very intellectually honest.

Quote:
Either morality is applied fairly and equally or it is not. If animals can suffer then it makes it just as wrong as testing on people and then choosing to continue to test on animals is just discrimination pure and simple.
Discrimination isn't inherently bad, you know. We'd never get anywhere if there was no discrimination between individuals because not all individuals are alike, just as not all species are alike. Your position is a gaiaic version of the commonly held, flawed, view of communism where doctors go work in the fields.

Quote:
I advocated human testing. If it is fine to test on animals why not on humans?
We do test on humans. However, your average mouse tends to mature and breed a lot faster than your average human. There's a reason we don't use Sea Turtles in labs.

Quote:
'We have certain rights because we say we have certain rights' is not an acceptable answer in my book. It lacks any depth and with it any validity. If rights are to actually mean something then there needs to be some intellectual basis for them otherwise they are just random nonsense.
Rights are a social construct. You have to accept that the arguments that go into them are also defined by the society from which they originate. There are human cultures where life and death of an individual is much less important than in the standard Western philosophy, and to them "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is arbitrary tosh. "We have certain rights because we say we have certain rights" is all that needs to be done. If we all agree that it is a man's right to have a slice of cheddar once a day, then that is a right in our society.

Quote:
If the logical conclusion is that animals have rights then that should be acknowledged.
It's not, boo hoo.

Quote:
It is highly logical though as it is greatest benefit to you to think in that way. What I have posted is not to my benefit in any way. that is the main difference here.
Oh please, you're not some great martyr for the cause, you don't even follow what you believe.

Last edited by MrL_JaKiri; 5 Aug 2006 at 14:33.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:16   #77
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Personally I dont have a problem with breeding human babies specifically for the purpose of medical experimentation, which I justify on the grounds that a) for many drugs, testing on babies is likely to yield results that scale up more accurately to adults than animal testing, b) it would be _really_ helpful for invasive neuroscientific research (as would experimentation on criminals who have been convicted of serious crimes, which we should also be doing), and c) babies generally arent thought to be self-aware during the first year of their life anyway, so it's doubtful that they could 'suffer' anymore than a rat could (ie they could feel the sensation of pain, but there probably isnt the sense of selfhood that would be required for actual suffering) Pretty much all of your arguments here still work if you replace 'animals' with 'babies' ("you arent involved so you dont get an opinion" etc etc), so I assume you wouldnt have a problem with this either?

(I'm not even doing a devil's advocate thing here, I'm serious)
Ignoring points a and b and just basing it off point c would I be allowed to breed a human baby specifically to sexually abuse it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
It's all about how much worth you place in human life. See Nodrogs post about testing on babies.
As I said before I differentiate between beings which are not intelligent and beings which are not intelligent but have a definite capacity for such.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.

Last edited by JonnyBGood; 5 Aug 2006 at 14:28.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 14:36   #78
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
this is a very important point as it accuratly displays how your starting ideological viewpoint influences your opinion on the matter. Where we start influences where we end up.
Of course it does you buffoon. The axioms of a logical system determine the outcome of that logical system, I don't think anyone's arguing that you'll get the same results if you start off with A=B as if you start with A=!B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
It all be done on humans. there is no reason why animals need to be involved at all.
There are practical reasons (not enough humans) and, to many, moral reasons. Don't dismiss things out of hand because you've had a great epiphany and want to show us the true light of the way.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 15:29   #79
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't see what's so crazy about saying "this distinction does not apply to this group". I may not agree with it, you definitely seem not to, but that statement makes perfect grammatical sense. Except "tho" instead of "though".
the language was ambivilant which is why I asked for clarification. the sentence is an akward way of saying it does not apply to any animals, if that is what was intended. If it was meant to say animals have no rights then it's a very bad way of saying it..
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 15:32   #80
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
Moral reasons? Really? Funny that concept hasn't arisen yet in this thread.
Funny you should mention that, because:

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I've dismissed nothing out of hand
You see to be dismissing the moral viewpoint of others, especially in the bit I quoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
Stop presuming to know my intentions.
Stop ignoring valid counterargument. We might get along fine!
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 19:28   #81
Jennifer
Destroyer of Worlds
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 552
Jennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet societyJennifer is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

ASG:
I promised myself I wouldn't waste time posting on here tonight, so I'll leave you in the capable hands of MrL_Jackanory here. My posts are always logically self-consistent and well-reasoned, whereas you started off stating that you didn't believe in the value of morals other that what we place in them, and then said that we shouldn't hurt animals. These two statements are obviously contradictory. If you don't understand what I mean by that, my Tab counterpart will be able to tell you.

Apart from that, in the interest of preserving my own reputation, I was not referring to self-harming, which involves damage, as distinct from pain that does not cause damage. I was talking about martial artistry, where we learn ways of hurting people with varying levels of damage to accompany the pain. We do not damage each other in training.
__________________
“In spite of the roaring of the young lions at the Union, and the screaming of the rabbits in the home of the vivisect, in spite of Keble College, and the tramways, and the sporting prints, Oxford still remains the most beautiful thing in England, and nowhere else are life and art so exquisitely blended, so perfectly made one.”
Jennifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 19:58   #82
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by meglamaniac
- Extremists. Seriously, **** you. By any decent interpretation of the law you're terrorists.
Well, some might argue by an unnecessarily wide interpretation of the law, but yeah **** you is pretty much the argument they deserve.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Aug 2006, 20:41   #83
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
this is a very important point as it accuratly displays how your starting ideological viewpoint influences your opinion on the matter. Where we start influences where we end up.
My point had less to do with ideology that the idea that certain animals are breed for certain purposes. War Horses for battle, cattle for food, mice for testing ect. Some of these creatures could have natually become extinct without human cultivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
It all be done on humans. there is no reason why animals need to be involved at all.
Are you going to volunteer for the next test of say something like rat poison?

Even with testing on animals we can never be certain how something will affect everyperson that uses such a product. But the idea is that we reduce the risk and more importantly the liability and lawsuits with releasing a product without proper testing.

How many humans are going to sign up to be test subjects for the next no-tears shampoo or a vaccine for anthrax? I imagine getting human volunteers would be difficult for every test needed. I would rather watch a 1,000 rodents die from laboratory tests than take my chances at being a test subject for the same test.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Aug 2006, 17:48   #84
neptis arcos
is back for a while
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: largs/Scotland
Posts: 53
neptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these partsneptis arcos is infamous around these parts
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
See my post on responsibilities. We do have a certain duty of care, within our society. But those 'rights' were extended by society, and can be taken away, and are not evidence that animals have intrinsic rights that we must respect.
That's not the reason that they don't have [intrinsic] rights, but the fact remains that they don't.
Correct. But they are as I described them, and do not exist in the absence of society.Also correct. And as I said, they are not universal.
Nice to meet you.
very nice to meat you to

neptis
__________________
RIGHT THATS IT you idiot's do not even now what it is like to be slagged like this do you , well lets just say i will rejoice when you do you idiotic f***ers, good by. well you lot still haven't learned then have you. well you hopefully you elitist f***ers
neptis arcos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Aug 2006, 20:12   #85
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Well, some might argue by an unnecessarily wide interpretation of the law
By the dictionary definition, they're terrorists. It's not a particularly contentious issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Aug 2006, 20:31   #86
hyfe
Dum Di Dum Di
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
hyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Ignoring points a and b and just basing it off point c would I be allowed to breed a human baby specifically to sexually abuse it?
Sexually abuse a pre-showing-signs-of-intelligence would-be-human-being?

Small babies are blobs of fat, whom no-one ever finds even mildly attractive (except its breeder/mother), let alone actually sexually arousing. If you can get it up and find somewhere to put it, you deserve it for the effort.
__________________
Ni! M00!
my boring homepage
hyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Aug 2006, 20:57   #87
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyfe
whom no-one ever finds even mildly attractive (except its breeder/mother), let alone actually sexually arousing..
A recent case where someone raped an 8 month old (or whatever) suggests otherwise!
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Aug 2006, 21:18   #88
hyfe
Dum Di Dum Di
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
hyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet societyhyfe is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Animal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
A recent case where someone raped an 8 month old (or whatever) suggests otherwise!
most likely a 'rape the most disgusting thing you can think off'-competion.
__________________
Ni! M00!
my boring homepage
hyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018