|
On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals.
including humans?
If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise.
|
well, with rights also comes responsibility , so no , animals don't have any rights. as for animal cruelty, this is very gray area ..ill let u guys with better english duke it out.. btw , morality is a relative, culture driven thing.
|
travis, perhaps we experience suffering same/similar way as animals, but it doesn't mean that non-humans perceive it the same way as we are
|
On April 21 2010 02:46 defuzas wrote:
well, with rights also comes responsibility , so no , animals don't have any rights. as for animal cruelty, this is very gray area ..ill let u guys with better english duke it out.. btw , morality is a relative, culture driven thing.
I think you are confusing rights with privileges. Rights do not come with responsibilities. Babies do not have responsibilities, but they have plenty of rights.
|
On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. So morally grounded arguments about animal rights are bound to fail unless you either convince him that his morality is wrong, or that somehow the conduct is still wrong under his morality. You assume that the "natural" measure of morality is pleasure/pain. What if Kwark isn't a utilitarian, or has different ideas of the importance of pleasure and pain in non-humans? Your argument presupposes that he accepts your construction of morality. Woah.... WOAH
I'm going to leave the arguing to you
I will say I am not trying to convince him of anything. Too much effort. Plus, if he has already decided we do not share similarities with other animals that give us a responsibility to live with them as peacefully as possible then I am just spinnin' my wheels. Never have I seen anything to indicate we aren't animals or that our reactions to stimuli are truly any different. I also can't measure his true degree of apathy towards the subject so I wouldn't know where to begin to press on that part.
My argument is for a "logical" approach in respect to how we interact with animals based on pleasure and pain, cost and benefit (This is something I think we informally use right now. Obviously I don't have the educational background or piles of research to back it up, it is just some supposing.). My personal bias is almost always against inflicting violence\death\harm unless in cases where there is a good benefit with minimal loss, much the same way the Court decides extent of free speech (although not with violence and death but specific examples of speech and expression). If others feel differently but still want to use my suggested measurement then we can have a good ol' conversation on the specifics. Alternatively you could suggest a completely different measure. It wasn't my intention to convince anyone they were immoral to any degree, even if I personally felt they were.
|
On April 21 2010 02:49 defuzas wrote:
travis, perhaps we experience suffering same/similar way as animals, but it doesn't mean that non-humans perceive it the same way as we are
Perception is experience. So it does mean that. But maybe this isn't what you mean. I think I understand what you are trying to say. But my response to that is that what you are saying also holds true on an individual basis from human to human. I have no way to know you experience things as I do either. But all evidence says it is the case, and it would be unreasonable to believe otherwise.
|
On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise.
Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of (non-human) animals? Do I really need to explain my morality with logic? If so then I think you'll find that almost every moral construction is "ignorant."
Edit Just as an example using my own personal beliefs: I reject that any life (human or otherwise) has any sort of objective value. Human life is only valuable to me insofar as I happen to personally find that life valuable. Thus, the life of my family and friends are more valuable to me than the life of a stranger. The life of a human is more valuable to me than the life of a dog, mostly because I enjoy intellectually interacting with humans more. But the life of a human who causes me pain has a negative value, and therefore the life of a dog who gives me pleasure (only as a pet owner, you sickos) has more value.
Under this construction, I could care less that you found that dogs feel as much pleasure and pain as humans. If I don't place any value on the life of that dog then what it feels is irrelevant.
|
god damn it, i need to take some english classes , this is a very interesting topic, but i just pwn myself bad:D imma hardcore debate fan but only in my mother tongue. gosh. gonna keep lurking.. 
|
On April 21 2010 01:09 DexterHGTourney wrote:
This is an area where I'm sure hardly anyone agrees with me, though logically, most people are so hypocritical and illogical it blows my mind when it comes to this issue.
Do I agree with the decision? Yes. For the reasons stipulated by the SCOTUS? No. Animals do not have rights. Therefore, animal cruelty while heinous and sickening should not be illegal. They overturned the law based on the First Amendment, but I think they should have went further and dissected the issue at hand. Do animals have rights or not? Now, Governments do not grant rights, they merely enumerate them. Rights are negative. Our rights deriving from Natural Law, and recognized as such by the formation of this Union (Decl. of Independance, ConCon, AoC, state Constitutions, etc.). If indeed they do not have rights, then they are property. Since reason and sentience is for me, a pre-requisite to the self-evidence of Natural Rights, then it becomes quite silly to criminalize someone for harming their own property. Moreover, if we are to believe that animals do have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness then how do we hold them accountable? As is, liberty is borne from negative rights. Where you have the liberty to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on anothers liberty. Once this occurs both parties must have the sentience to acknowledge and to formulate just laws to recompense for this violation.
It is blindingly clear that animals show no ability to either acknowledge through reason or any semblance of sentience these truths. In that vein, the SCOTUS should have struck down all Federal Laws on the books criminalizing the use of the persons property (animal).
The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights. I mean, are people ready to go down that road? That also means you cannot own pets, since slavery violates the rights of the animal. So how do we bring animals to justice? Yeah...
Now, I do not support the disgusting acts perpetuated upon defenseless animals. I also however, do not support criminalization.
Psh, you're not as alone as you think. +1!
|
On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals?
I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter?
Do I really need to explain my morality with logic?
I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless.
|
On April 21 2010 02:58 defuzas wrote:god damn it, i need to take some english classes , this is a very interesting topic, but i just pwn myself bad:D imma hardcore debate fan but only in my mother tongue. gosh. gonna keep lurking..
Sorry I wasn't sure if english was your first language, I could have tried to keep it more simple.
|
On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals? I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter? I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless.
Me too, which is why I am amoral. Why do you think utilitarianism is rational? It starts off assuming pleasure is good and pain is bad in and of itself, because that's something we can all feel and agree with. But that's only true for my pleasure and pain. What is the logical basis for arguing why I should view your suffering as good or bad if I can't feel it?
Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
Edit: I really challenge anyone to present me with a "logical" system of morality.
|
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals? I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter?
Do I really need to explain my morality with logic?
I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless. Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
So you would be completely fine with deliberately hurting yourself? Because when you die you wont remember it, so its as good as never happened? I doubt you actually think that way. Regardless if it is remembered or not, an experience still happened.
|
Sorry I wasn't sure if english was your first language, I could have tried to keep it more simple.
really, no need to say sorry, its only my fault for my poor english ^^ ill just gonna think some more before posting from now on lol
|
On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:
Just as an example using my own personal beliefs: I reject that any life (human or otherwise) has any sort of objective value.
Human life is only valuable to me insofar as I happen to personally find that life valuable. Thus, the life of my family and friends are more valuable to me than the life of a stranger. The life of a human is more valuable to me than the life of a dog, mostly because I enjoy intellectually interacting with humans more. But the life of a human who causes me pain has a negative value, and therefore the life of a dog who gives me pleasure (only as a pet owner, you sickos) has more value.
Under this construction, I could care less that you found that dogs feel as much pleasure and pain as humans. If I don't place any value on the life of that dog then what it feels is irrelevant.
Well IMO it is this kind of selfish view that fuels a lot of wrong in the world. People putting themselves over general wellbeing of all. If everyone shared your view we would be just totally fucked. Well humans are already because so many people do share your view, but whatever.
|
One of the main reasons child pornography is illegal is that it creates more demand (if its legal) and thus more and more children would have to go through that shit. I can't figure out a reason why this same reason wouldn't go for animal cruelty videos. Make them illegal and it will have an effect on how many animals will have to suffer in the hands of sick people.
Human is an animal that has evolved more efficiently as time has gone by, should we allow or make it lesser of a crime to do cruel things towards people who have less developed brain capacity? Where is the line?
There's been quite a bit of activity in the animal rights talk in Finland recently and it sickens me how many of the pig farmers etc. don't seem to understand that the pigs they neglect all the time have pretty much the same brain capacity and needs as the dog they love from the bottom of their hearts.
|
On April 21 2010 00:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this is part of free speech, I mean holy hell. I also never thought I would agree with Justice Alito. How sad that this will spur an influx of videos and only a matter of time when someone posts one here on TL.
Because you should still be able to make movies about anything you want. Right to freedom of speech.
|
On April 21 2010 03:15 Chunkybuddha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 00:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this is part of free speech, I mean holy hell. I also never thought I would agree with Justice Alito. How sad that this will spur an influx of videos and only a matter of time when someone posts one here on TL.
Because you should still be able to make movies about anything you want. Right to freedom of speech.
Yeah like child pornography
oh wait right that's been made illegal because it hurts living beings.. why doesn't the same thing go for animal cruelty?
|
On April 21 2010 03:12 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals? I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter?
Do I really need to explain my morality with logic?
I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless. Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical." So you would be completely fine with deliberately hurting yourself? Because when you die you wont remember it, so its as good as never happened? I doubt you actually think that way. Regardless if it is remembered or not, an experience still happened.
I won't be fine with it now because as an animal I still instinctively shy away from pain and seek pleasure. That doesn't mean that I can then abstract that pleasure and pain and call it "good" or "bad." And I do believe that when I die it's the same as if it never happened. Think about this, right this moment you and your friend just went on an adventure, and had your memories wiped of that. You experienced great pleasures and your friend was tortured nonstop. How do you feel now? Are you feeling that the pleasure you don't remember is "good?" Is your friend right now feeling a sense of "badness?" No because there is no pleasure or pain if you can't remember it. And remember it's worse when you die cause you won't even be conscious that you forgot something. There will be no one to tell you that you experienced pleasure or pain. You simply won't exist.
|
United States42685 Posts
On April 21 2010 03:17 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:15 Chunkybuddha wrote:On April 21 2010 00:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this is part of free speech, I mean holy hell. I also never thought I would agree with Justice Alito. How sad that this will spur an influx of videos and only a matter of time when someone posts one here on TL.
Because you should still be able to make movies about anything you want. Right to freedom of speech. Yeah like child pornography oh wait right that's been made illegal because it hurts living beings.. why doesn't the same thing go for animal cruelty?
No, child pornography is illegal because it hurts living humans. Not living animals. You can't just generalise like that. The children being abused have clearly defined legal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
