|
On February 02 2009 05:57 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:37 Ancestral wrote:On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. Signing an online petition is definitely stupid, but you're argument to me is wildly fallacious. They're poor, so they can savagely beat animals when it probably doesn't make them any less poor than if they didn't? What else should you be allowed to get away with if you're poor, but not if you're rich? Rape? Stealing? Ethnic genocide? Religious persecution? Slavery? A secret police? Those are certainly things that are more likely in poor nations than in rich nations. There's a difference between being morally relativistic and saying "anything goes." It is well known that humans feel pain, and animals do by the same process. Being poor isn't a free ticket to do anything you want because it's "culturally acceptable." There are worse things than beating animals, but there are always worse things - rape is worse than stealing, murder is worse than rape. Insulting the op in that way because you think he should be spending his time doing more relevant humanitarian things is silly, maybe he is already doing them. I'm sure there are things that one can do to contribute to a fairer and better society in China, but for the average citizen I would say there's not much. Perhaps the op is an emissary for a human rights organization though, I'm not sure. Please don't talk about fallacies when you compare killing animals to rape, genocide and slavery, trust me you don't want to go there. You're completely twisting what Im saying, I never said that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. They're poor, so they shouldn't be held to the morals we hold people in our society, when they're basically living off our demand of fur, it's simply not fair. The fact that what they do is morally reprehensible to us is besides the point. Im not saying that we shouldn't try and put a stop to it, but this is the wrong way to do it when we are a big part of the problem. You can't put a stop to supply when there's a demand. (Surprise surprise people are still dealing drugs all over the world.) The big problem here is that the OP wants people to sacrifice something to adhere to our code of morality, when we reached that code of morality through a completely different way. Nobody told us to stop killing animals if we needed their fur, and if they did we wouldn't have cared until we could afford a better alternative. Im not making an argument for apathy here, I just think the OP is a short sighted idiot. Show nested quote +god i hate animal rights nuts A nut? Yesterday I was just like you not giving a shit about animal rights until a friend linked me to the video. I thought it was pretty disturbing so I had two choices: 1) sign the petition (free, takes 15 seconds) 2) do nothing so I signed the petition and showed the video to other people Crazy! Wow Im so surprised you haven't given this an inch of thought. Arguments based on outrage is the #3 most used fallacy by the way.
Comparing them is not fallacious.
You're saying it's necessary to the economy that they beat animals, I'm saying it's not. The fur trade isn't even a large part of China's economy, however I didn't mean to imply that they should stop trading fur.
My only contention is that what they're doing is ethically repugnant and they should stop, and being part of a culture that doesn't think it is ethically repugnant does not make it ok.
All of that notwithstanding, you can still harvest fur without savagely beating an animal and have an audience cheer as you skin it. That kind of frenzied behavior promotes and legitimizes violence.
I think the premise you're using to justify their behavior is flawed, but I do not like the goals of the petition. They can trade fur all they want, cat, dog, or small child, they just shouldn't beat the animals and skin them alive - I apologize if in my argument it was apparent that I was implying anything else.
|
On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property".
Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same.
This doesn't mean, however, that you have to agree with harm to animals personally. If you don't want animals to be treated badly, then don't buy products that encourage that practice, implore your friends to stop treating their animals badly, etc. Doing that sort of thing does not violate anyone's rights, unlike petitioning the government.
As it is, "animal rights" petitions such as these are essentially the same as many other things Westerners try to force upon impoverished countries: carbon emission regulations, high minimum wage laws, etc. While the intentions may be noble, the effects are certainly negative.
More reading "animal rights": http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyone.asp
|
On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself.
Ok, I wasn't going to post about this but I have a serious problem with Frit's position.
Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.
When you say "we aren't in a position to tell them what to do", you're implicitly advocating a system of cultural relativity. If it's true that good and evil is dependent on societal values, then we have no right to condemn the practice of slavery in pre-civil war America, or human rights violations in China. It seems to me the opposite should be true. You would reply that animals aren't humans, but again, I don't know of any biological distinction that indicates we don't share the same facility for pain. We have every right to make ethical judgments wherever there's evil. Further, we have an obligation to act to contain evil if the costs of doing so aren't too great.
|
On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property". Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same.
So if a human being is born mentally retarded, mute, and largely incapable of making rational decisions, we can treat them as property and do with them whatever we like? Moreover, the issue is not sentience. I fail to see how lack of sentience is related to the issue of suffering. This is an entirely arbitrary relationship you're throwing out there that has some intuitive appeal but makes no rational sense whatsoever. Further, if sentience were an issue, why does the lack of it mean less access to rights? Human ethics in general seem to argue that we have an obligation to the less fortunate -- if I am born without feet, I have a reasonable expectation that society provide for me a wheelchair so I can move about. By your logic, my handicap makes me LESS qualified for aid and care from others.
Rather, than sentience, the issue should be of suffering. Lack of sentience doesn't dampen how I experience pain. Even if an animal lacks sentience, it seems to me that he is equally susceptible to pain. Thus, if you're going to argue that there is some kind of fundamental difference between humans and animals that absolve us of responsibility for their pain, that difference has to be biological. You'd need to prove that animals don't experience pain in the way we do -- that it's some unconscious kind of feedback loop. Until you can prove that, it seems to me that we ought to not take the risk of inflicting extraordinary suffering on an animal if we can help it.
|
On February 02 2009 06:23 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property". Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same. So if a human being is born mentally retarded, mute, and largely incapable of making rational decisions, we can treat them as property and do with them whatever we like? Moreover, the issue is not sentience. I fail to see how lack of sentience is related to the issue of suffering. This is an entirely arbitrary relationship you're throwing out there that has some intuitive appeal but makes no rational sense whatsoever. Further, if sentience were an issue, why does the lack of it mean less access to rights? Human ethics in general seem to argue that we have an obligation to the less fortunate -- if I am born without feet, I have a reasonable expectation that society provide for me a wheelchair so I can move about. By your logic, my handicap makes me LESS qualified for aid and care from others. Rather, than sentience, the issue should be of suffering. Lack of sentience doesn't dampen how I experience pain. Even if an animal lacks sentience, it seems to me that he is equally susceptible to pain. Thus, if you're going to argue that there is some kind of fundamental difference between humans and animals that absolve us of responsibility for their pain, that difference has to be biological. You'd need to prove that animals don't experience pain in the way we do -- that it's some unconscious kind of feedback loop. Until you can prove that, it seems to me that we ought to not take the risk of inflicting extraordinary suffering on an animal if we can help it.
Even a mentally retarded human possesses the ability to make free choices. Whether or not you consider those choices "rational" is irrelevant. The sentience is entirely important to the equation, because *that* is where human rights stem from: the essential nature of Man. If they do not stem from there, where do they stem from? Human ethics do not argue any sort of obligations. While you may feel morally obligated to provide for the less fortunate, those morals are essentially by choice. You really need to make a distinction between the two, otherwise this can all get very confusing. By my logic, no one has *any* obligation to help anyone less fortunate, no matter their situation.
Here's some reading on why positive rights (such as the obligation to help the less fortunate) don't really work: http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/6-why-libertarians-should-reject-positive-rights/
Lack of sentience indeed does not diminish pain, but it does not matter whether or not it does. The essential part of whether or not something/someone has rights is whether or not they are sentient. If they are, they possess natural rights. If they are not, they don't.
|
On February 02 2009 04:54 FragKrag wrote:
It's not going to do anything, and what's wrong with breeding dogs/cats for furs? -_-
As long if you're not poaching (dogs and cats lol), it's completely fine by my book.
usually when u skin an animal for fur they kill it first.
read it carefully. they skin the animals ALIVE damit. like its still growling or wtvr when they skin it. and then they just leave it on the streets to get infected for disease.
|
On February 02 2009 06:26 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:23 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property". Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same. So if a human being is born mentally retarded, mute, and largely incapable of making rational decisions, we can treat them as property and do with them whatever we like? Even a mentally retarded human possesses the ability to make free choices. Whether or not you consider those choices "rational" is irrelevant.
I added more to my post.
But also, what makes you think animals don't make free choices? What makes you think they don't have sentience? Because they can't speak? You seem to be basing your argument on a lot of ungrounded assumptions.
|
On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself. Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.
So, since you're "as much of a free market capitalist as any good American," you're not very much of one at all, right? Externalities are bullshit. The free market works always. Any case where you say it does not is either A) a property rights issue that is not dealt with at the moment because we don't have a free market, but rather a managed economy, or B) something that you disagree with personally, but is in fact not a violation of anyone's rights. Environmental issues tend to fall under A, and human/animal rights issues tend to fall under B (assuming for "human rights" you are talking about things like minimum wage/working condition things). We shouldn't enact legislation based on its effects to humans, we should enact legislation based on its ethical backing. To do anything less is to favor one group over another. And, as I already stated, animals have no rights and are therefore property, so there is no ethical backing for any "animal rights" legislation.
|
On February 02 2009 06:33 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself. Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it. So, since you're "as much of a free market capitalist as any good American," you're not very much of one at all, right? Externalities are bullshit. The free market works always. Any case where you say it does not is either A) a property rights issue that is not dealt with at the moment because we don't have a free market, but rather a managed economy, or B) something that you disagree with personally, but is in fact not a violation of anyone's rights. Environmental issues tend to fall under A, and human/animal rights issues tend to fall under B (assuming for "human rights" you are talking about things like minimum wage/working condition things). We shouldn't enact legislation based on its effects to humans, we should enact legislation based on its ethical backing. To do anything less is to favor one group over another. And, as I already stated, animals have no rights and are therefore property, so there is no ethical backing for any "animal rights" legislation.
your entire argument, everything you've posted, is circular. you claim that free market always works because every instance of the free market not working is because i'm wrong. i'm wrong because you arbitrarily assume a.) animals aren't sentient, b.) lack of sentience absolves animals of any rights. i don't know what i'm supposed to say to this. you win?
|
On February 02 2009 06:41 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:33 tec27 wrote:On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself. Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it. So, since you're "as much of a free market capitalist as any good American," you're not very much of one at all, right? Externalities are bullshit. The free market works always. Any case where you say it does not is either A) a property rights issue that is not dealt with at the moment because we don't have a free market, but rather a managed economy, or B) something that you disagree with personally, but is in fact not a violation of anyone's rights. Environmental issues tend to fall under A, and human/animal rights issues tend to fall under B (assuming for "human rights" you are talking about things like minimum wage/working condition things). We shouldn't enact legislation based on its effects to humans, we should enact legislation based on its ethical backing. To do anything less is to favor one group over another. And, as I already stated, animals have no rights and are therefore property, so there is no ethical backing for any "animal rights" legislation. your entire argument, everything you've posted, is circular. you claim that free market always works because every instance of the free market not working is because i'm wrong. i'm wrong because you arbitrarily assume a.) animals aren't sentient, b.) lack of sentience absolves animals of any rights. i don't know what i'm supposed to say to this. you win?
First of all, "animals are not sentient" is not an assumption. It is a fact.
Sentience: the ability to feel or perceive subjectively.
Animals do not possess this ability, because their existence is based on instinct. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to make choices freely. This fundamental difference in nature is what provides Man with natural rights, and why that line is drawn. It is not arbitrary, it is based on much philosophical discussion and inquiry.
|
On February 02 2009 06:26 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:23 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property". Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same. So if a human being is born mentally retarded, mute, and largely incapable of making rational decisions, we can treat them as property and do with them whatever we like? Moreover, the issue is not sentience. I fail to see how lack of sentience is related to the issue of suffering. This is an entirely arbitrary relationship you're throwing out there that has some intuitive appeal but makes no rational sense whatsoever. Further, if sentience were an issue, why does the lack of it mean less access to rights? Human ethics in general seem to argue that we have an obligation to the less fortunate -- if I am born without feet, I have a reasonable expectation that society provide for me a wheelchair so I can move about. By your logic, my handicap makes me LESS qualified for aid and care from others. Rather, than sentience, the issue should be of suffering. Lack of sentience doesn't dampen how I experience pain. Even if an animal lacks sentience, it seems to me that he is equally susceptible to pain. Thus, if you're going to argue that there is some kind of fundamental difference between humans and animals that absolve us of responsibility for their pain, that difference has to be biological. You'd need to prove that animals don't experience pain in the way we do -- that it's some unconscious kind of feedback loop. Until you can prove that, it seems to me that we ought to not take the risk of inflicting extraordinary suffering on an animal if we can help it. Even a mentally retarded human possesses the ability to make free choices. Whether or not you consider those choices "rational" is irrelevant. The sentience is entirely important to the equation, because *that* is where human rights stem from: the essential nature of Man. If they do not stem from there, where do they stem from? Human ethics do not argue any sort of obligations. While you may feel morally obligated to provide for the less fortunate, those morals are essentially by choice. You really need to make a distinction between the two, otherwise this can all get very confusing. By my logic, no one has *any* obligation to help anyone less fortunate, no matter their situation. Here's some reading on why positive rights (such as the obligation to help the less fortunate) don't really work: http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/6-why-libertarians-should-reject-positive-rights/Lack of sentience indeed does not diminish pain, but it does not matter whether or not it does. The essential part of whether or not something/someone has rights is whether or not they are sentient. If they are, they possess natural rights. If they are not, they don't.
human rights stem from arbitrary pronouncements by people who spend too much time thinking about metaphysics. you're following up arbitrary claims with more arbitrary claims. this is your train of logic so far:
1. humans are sentient.
2. ?????
3. sentience gives you rights.
my argument is that
1. we should try to minimize pain.
2. animals feel pain.
3. we should minimize pain to animals.
By my logic, no one has *any* obligation to help anyone less fortunate, no matter their situation.
Ok, then I have nothing else to say to you really. If that's what you believe then this argument can't go anywhere.
|
On February 02 2009 06:49 tec27 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 06:41 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 06:33 tec27 wrote:On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself. Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it. So, since you're "as much of a free market capitalist as any good American," you're not very much of one at all, right? Externalities are bullshit. The free market works always. Any case where you say it does not is either A) a property rights issue that is not dealt with at the moment because we don't have a free market, but rather a managed economy, or B) something that you disagree with personally, but is in fact not a violation of anyone's rights. Environmental issues tend to fall under A, and human/animal rights issues tend to fall under B (assuming for "human rights" you are talking about things like minimum wage/working condition things). We shouldn't enact legislation based on its effects to humans, we should enact legislation based on its ethical backing. To do anything less is to favor one group over another. And, as I already stated, animals have no rights and are therefore property, so there is no ethical backing for any "animal rights" legislation. your entire argument, everything you've posted, is circular. you claim that free market always works because every instance of the free market not working is because i'm wrong. i'm wrong because you arbitrarily assume a.) animals aren't sentient, b.) lack of sentience absolves animals of any rights. i don't know what i'm supposed to say to this. you win? Animals do not possess this ability, because their existence is based on instinct. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to make choices freely.
We do?!?! Are you a neurologist? A biologist? GOD?! How can you know these things without some kind of transcendent understanding? How do you even know we have free choice? Please please tell me how it is you've come across the definitive answer to a philosophical problem people have been debating since before jesus?!
This is ridiculous. I'm not just going to agree with what you say because you say you're right. Meanwhile, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)
|
Lol referring those poor animals as "property" and justifying the way they are treated just tells you about the morals, nothing the petition can do about it.
ahrara I agree with you, and I believe most humans would disagree with this treatment for the animals there.
|
Germany2896 Posts
On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:
Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property.
That is simply wrong. In many european countries animals possess certain rights, evenso they are property. They are no objects.
Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does.
Sentinent may be too strong for cats,dogs etc, but I believe they can feel pain. And IMO that is enough to pose certain restrictions on their treatment.
As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. I disagree with this point. IMO one has to weight the rights of the animals against the rights of the humans. And depending on the situation the result can vary.
For example in Germany killing animals to produce food is obviously allowed. But there are restrictions. For example the duration life animal transports is limited to eight hours. Animals are to be anesthetized before being slaughtered. On the other hand there are exceptions to this rule if it is necessary, for example for religious reasons.
If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same.
That argument is really stupid. Listening to music privately does not hurt anyone, whereas "the rough handling" obviously does.
As it is, "animal rights" petitions such as these are essentially the same as many other things Westerners try to force upon impoverished countries: carbon emission regulations, high minimum wage laws, etc. While the intentions may be noble, the effects are certainly negative. I agree with that part. The well being of humans is certainly more important that that of animals. In a way animal rights are a luxury which we can afford because it does not hurt us much, but the trade off might look much different in less developed countries.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierschutzgesetz_(Deutschland)
|
On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright. Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero. You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible. On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people. If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock. I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works. You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself. Ok, I wasn't going to post about this but I have a serious problem with Frit's position. Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it. When you say "we aren't in a position to tell them what to do", you're implicitly advocating a system of cultural relativity. If it's true that good and evil is dependent on societal values, then we have no right to condemn the practice of slavery in pre-civil war America, or human rights violations in China. It seems to me the opposite should be true. You would reply that animals aren't humans, but again, I don't know of any biological distinction that indicates we don't share the same facility for pain. We have every right to make ethical judgments wherever there's evil. Further, we have an obligation to act to contain evil if the costs of doing so aren't too great.
My argument is based on the fact that the OP is taking the wrong approach to the situation, I never used the economy as a justification for anything in my post.
I do think the skinning of animals alive is bad, but like I said the only realistic and fair way to deal with it is to put China in our position first, otherwise they will never understand our position anyway.
|
Needs naked women like PETA or no one will pay attention. Also those animals that are skinned for furs are later eaten. Nothing goes to waste much like native american cultures.
|
I am making Spanish rice so I don't have too much time, but I would say most people would argue most mammals and more advanced non-mammals are sentient, they feel pleasure and pain.
They are not simply systems that compute a stimulus and then use logic to determine the appropriate response.
|
And tec27, the free market does not "work always," insofar as it is not always of benefit to 100% of all people.
I'm not sure how you made that up, but learn anything or observe the world and you'll see otherwise. I don't know if you just took 1 random econ class, or if you are some kind of die-hard anarcho-capitalist, but there is empirical evidence (i.e., history) that shows that at certain times, some groups of people detriment from the free market while others benefit.
However, if you want to argue that in most cases total surplus is maximized in a free market, then you may be right, except of course for the case of externalities, which you boldly claim "are bullshit."
|
It's fucked up to skin animals alive. Humane treatment.
Not signing an internet petition on the assumption it won't get taken seriously is stupid in my humble opinion as it just gives off more of an air of the complacency and apathy of the public. It's like an opinion poll of the world that will actually be presented to somebody important. One may as well take two minutes to read the thing and consider it and sign it, if one feels strongly about it at all.
On the other hand, this dog and cat skin boycott line seems too vague. I have no idea that all dog and cat skin comes from inhumane facilities or that this refers to the boycott of only those which are. I don't want to sign something that makes too little sense.
|
On February 02 2009 06:51 ahrara_ wrote:
Ok, then I have nothing else to say to you really. If that's what you believe then this argument can't go anywhere.
Good idea... when faced with equal parts arrogance and idiocy, it is best to exit the argument. Pitiless zealots are pretty scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
