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.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.
The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.
The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.
Just as a note, animal cruelty is still illegal in every state + Washington D.C., so if any TLers link to animal cruelty videos, you can be arrested for criminal charges. The SC ruling only strikes down the federal law, it doesn't touch the state law. (See Alito's appendix in the opinion, linked below)
Some key excerpts: If you only read one of these, read this one:
The Court then went on to analyze the 1999 law under traditional First Amendment principles, and found it went too far. The law makes it a crime, with up to five years in prison, to make, seell or possess a “depiction of animal cruelty,” if any of those acts is done for commercial gain. It defines “animal cruelty” depiction as one in which a living animal “is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” provided that the action violates a federal or state law. The law says that it does not apply to depictions if they have “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”
Legal stuff for those that are interested:
While the Court conceded that Congress had passed the law to try to stop interstate trafficking in so-called “crush videos,” showing the actual killing of cats, dogs and other small animals by stomping or other intensely cruel methods, it said the resulting law itself reached far more than that kind of portrayal. Limiting the law’s reach to those depictions, the opinion said, would require the Court to give “an unrealistically broad reading” to the exceptions Congress wrote into the law...
Roberts wrote: “The Government proposes that a claim of categorical exclusion should be considered under a simple balancing test: ‘Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Calling that “a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage” and a “highly manipulable balancing test,” the Chief Justice said the test was “startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
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.
This isn't a slippery slope. You can say that animals have the right to not be tortured to death without giving them the vote. It's not all or nothing, you can give them a right without giving them human rights. If only there were some kind of term for what that would be. Like human rights, but for the rights of animals.
Edit: That said, I believe there is a hypocrisy in giving animals rights while we continue to treat them the way we do. I think animal cruelty should come under a behavior likely to cause public outrage kind of offence rather than animal rights because that is essentially the problem. We don't really care about animals except the cute fluffy ones that we don't eat. It's not a question of animal rights, just one of causing offence to the sensitive hearts of people.
I didn't read the judges' decision, but to me it seems the law had to go. Who is going to decide what is artistic, cultural, religious, or scientific lol. So I can make a video of a cat being killed if it is artistic? Shit law.
On April 21 2010 01:16 KwarK wrote: This isn't a slippery slope. You can say that animals have the right to not be tortured to death without giving them the vote. It's not all or nothing, you can give them a right without giving them human rights. If only there were some kind of term for what that would be. Like human rights, but for the rights of animals.
Edit: That said, I believe there is a hypocrisy in giving animals rights while we continue to treat them the way we do. I think animal cruelty should come under a behavior likely to cause public outrage kind of offence rather than animal rights because that is essentially the problem. We don't really care about animals except the cute fluffy ones that we don't eat. It's not a question of animal rights, just one of causing offence to the sensitive hearts of people.
Bingo. Do not criminalize, but ostracize. I wouldn't do business or serve anyone who tortured or maimed animals, nor would I socialize with such a person. I am sure many would follow similar behavior towards those individuals. Then again, are those who are so fervently anti-any discrimination willing to forgo and recognize that discrimination and the freedom of association is an inherent right to all persons?
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.
I don't think that you understand the problem. Animals aren't granted the same rights than humans, you can definitly kill a chicken if you want to have a meal. However many Western countries forbid deviant behaviour like torture, gratuitous violence etc... The problem isn't that an animal get killed / tortured because things worse happen when animal are eating each others, the issue is that this kind of sadistic behaviour towards superior mammals is fucked up and can lead / are linked to more serious problems ( aggression toward others humans, desensitization, psychotic behaviour etc ... )
Animals have no rights but humans don't have the right to torture them or to kill protected species.
On April 21 2010 01:22 Romantic wrote: I didn't read the judges' decision, but to me it seems the law had to go. Who is going to decide what is artistic, cultural, religious, or scientific lol. So I can make a video of a cat being killed if it is artistic? Shit law.
Precisely what I was about to type. It was a bad law so it had to be abolished.
I support the criminalization of cruelty against animals to only a very limited extent. Animals are not equal with humans It does not mean that people should be allowed to live out their vicious fantasies on animals. However, I do not think that torturing/killing animals should be punished by anything more than a fine/social work. 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons, but especially considering that aggreviated assault (and even manslaughter) has a similar punishment in many cases.
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
I know people do cruel things to animals, but what retard would like to watch a vid containing such material? I didn't even know that such videos existed (and yeah, I do know that this is the internets, but still). There isn't a SINGLE thing one could profit or learn from such videos, and whoever enjoys watching such freaking bullshit should go see a psychiatrist. I bet every honorable TLer here respects all forms of life, and wouldn't go posting such rubish here.
Seen one with a puppy and stillettos. There was a mewing and a crunch but it didn't move after the first impalement. I had a friend who liked to send me videos like that on msn. People have weird fetishes, I guess it's easier than going out into the woods and trapping your own animals to hurt, especially if you're fat or live in the city.
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
Let's put it in perspective. Cruelty towards animals is disgusting, and so is the abuse of children. Freedom of speech gives me the right to broadcast videos of cruelty towards animals, but not videos of children being abused?
Seems like an irregularity to me. I'm all for free speech, I love it. Would die for it. Free speech is to express ideas, no matter how controversial they may be. There's very little relevant speech in a video of a live dog being cut into pieces.
So, if it's legal to post it, isn't it infringing on our freedom to say we don't get to broadcast underage porn?
This is ridiculous, what does society have to gain. I'm not a big fan of legislation because it's often ridiculous. At least try to make it a bit less of a joke.
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
On April 21 2010 01:44 KwarK wrote: Seen one with a puppy and stillettos. There was a mewing and a crunch but it didn't move after the first impalement. I had a friend who liked to send me videos like that on msn. People have weird fetishes, I guess it's easier than going out into the woods and trapping your own animals to hurt, especially if you're fat or live in the city.
I hope you meant that your friend did that just to fuck with you...
So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
WTF are you basing that off? My grandmother had a pit bull terrier and it was the sweetest dog ever.
On April 21 2010 01:53 Djzapz wrote: This is an odd issue...
Let's put it in perspective. Cruelty towards animals is disgusting, and so is the abuse of children. Freedom of speech gives me the right to broadcast videos of cruelty towards animals, but not videos of children being abused?
Seems like an irregularity to me. I'm all for free speech, I love it. Would die for it. Free speech is to express ideas, no matter how controversial they may be. There's very little relevant speech in a video of a live dog being cut into pieces.
So, if it's legal to post it, isn't infringing on our freedom to say we don't get to broadcast underage porn?
This is ridiculous, what does society have to gain.
I read a little bit of the decision, and the justices claim a number of differences. One of them is the government failed to show how stopping the videos would stop the abuse. They clearly made that case for child porn, but not animal abuse. Another problem was that the law was too broad and would technically ban things like Roman gladiator battles, hunting videos, etc. It would even criminalize someone if they humanely killed an animal that they had stolen, like a cow, because of the way it is worded. Another problem is that the law can impose penalties of one state on to another because of the way they determine which state's laws will be used to prosecute.
Basically, the government did not provide a case for why they should make a special exception for dog fighting videos against free speech. Not to mention the law was poorly written to begin with.
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.
On April 21 2010 01:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?
I believe, for example, you are now allowed to distribute a video of bullfighting, cockfighting, etc, which is illegal in all US states because it constitutes an act of cruelty. The problem with the law was it could be understood to limit things like documentaries covering these things, however while I don't personally support such acts, I think we need to learn to accept the difference between the fundamental rights of animals and those of humans.
BTW, for the people who don't understand the role of the Supreme Court: this decision has nothing to do with animal rights. It's about how broadly one should construe the statute (Alito argues that it should be construed as to preserve its constitutionality) and whether the subject matter of the statute fits into a category outside the protection of the First Amendment.
If Congress had narrowly tailored the law to only include the "extreme" videos that are closely tied with the underlying criminal conduct, there might be a different result. But the majority correctly read the statute as overly broad, and thus cannot be included as a category that falls outside First Amendment protection.
On April 21 2010 01:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?
I believe, for example, you are now allowed to distribute a video of bullfighting, cockfighting, etc, which is illegal in all US states because it constitutes an act of cruelty. The problem with the law was it could be understood to limit things like documentaries covering these things, however while I don't personally support such acts, I think we need to learn to accept the difference between the fundamental rights of animals and those of humans.
isn't that why we have district attorney and trials by jury? So we can have a law like this on the books, but not enforce it on a person making documentaries? The whole thing seems silly to me.
On April 21 2010 01:53 Djzapz wrote: This is an odd issue...
Let's put it in perspective. Cruelty towards animals is disgusting, and so is the abuse of children. Freedom of speech gives me the right to broadcast videos of cruelty towards animals, but not videos of children being abused?
Seems like an irregularity to me. I'm all for free speech, I love it. Would die for it. Free speech is to express ideas, no matter how controversial they may be. There's very little relevant speech in a video of a live dog being cut into pieces.
So, if it's legal to post it, isn't infringing on our freedom to say we don't get to broadcast underage porn?
This is ridiculous, what does society have to gain.
I read a little bit of the decision, and the justices claim a number of differences. One of them is the government failed to show how stopping the videos would stop the abuse. They clearly made that case for child porn, but not animal abuse. Another problem was that the law was too broad and would technically ban things like Roman gladiator battles, hunting videos, etc. It would even criminalize someone if they humanely killed an animal that they had stolen, like a cow, because of the way it is worded. Another problem is that the law can impose penalties of one state on to another because of the way they determine which state's laws will be used to prosecute.
Basically, the government did not provide a case for why they should make a special exception for dog fighting videos against free speech. Not to mention the law was poorly written to begin with.
Guess ambiguities are the problem with written laws. It's a shame we can't trust written laws and we certainly can't trust common sense to be the judge of how it should all be handled.
Also I disagree with the idea that child porn being legal has more of a positive effect in that field than making animal torture videos illegal to broadcast. It would have a positive effect perhaps in that the making of those videos would be hindered in some way. Keep in mind I'm all for making it illegal based on the fact that those videos have to be produced which is the real problem at hand.
Naturally I can't speak with certitude when I say that I don't think it has the positive effect that they "made a case" for. My thoughts on the matter are based on the fact that in Japan, the rape rate (in general) is something like 20x lower than in the US, and yet they have *LEGAL* games in which rape is the goal. This by itself naturally doesn't constitute sufficient evidence to fully support my claim but I still personally lean towards my conclusion (duh...). Naturally the dynamics here are different - no "videos" are made so nobody's hurt initially.
Anywho, I guess I just don't want people to have fun making dog-torture videos to show other people... At the same time, if we make it illegal, they'll find ways. It's not like those videos will ever plague youtube or anything like that.
In the end, whatever, it doesn't change anything - but it's still awfully retarded.
PS: This is my second language and there's some lines I wrote poorly... Don't over analyze this... If you don't understand something, ask me first because you may misunderstand =P
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
Dog fighting is still going on. The breeding for aggression is still going on.
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.
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.
They're alive, nobody cares. They can feel pain... I don't think it's asking too much to say don't go film yourself purposely torturing animals.
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.
They're alive, nobody cares. They can feel pain... I don't think it's asking too much to say don't go film yourself purposely torturing animals.
There's a bit of a gap between not caring that they're alive and filming myself torturing them. I'm on the not caring side of that divide.
Also its worth mentioning, where do you draw the line of censorship? Passing laws like this opens a can of worms when it comes to free speech. You can't possibly censor everything that might be offensive.
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.
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.
All you say is debatable and is still hotly contested. You can't just spell out something you think make sense and assume that you're right.
Why don't animals have rights? What are "negative rights"?
You're holding the bar pretty high if we assume animals don't have "right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness" simply because we can't hold them accountable on the same grounds we hold other humans to. What about feral human beings? What about severely mentally retarded or handicapped human beings? What about those with severe dementia or Alzheimer's?
What is "Natural Law"? What dictates what it is? Who dictates what it is? Why should we listen to whoever you cite?
Why does one need to be able to acknowledge the many things you write in the first paragraph in order to be entitled to them? What about babies, children, hell, even most teenagers, as well as mentally handicapped individuals and people of old age?
Whoever said that animals have the same moral status as human beings? Why does a crime against an animal have to have the same punishment as if it were committed against a person?
There aren't many (except maybe some PETA extremists) who would argue that animals and human beings carry the same moral weight. That is NOT exclusive, however, to the idea that animals do carry moral weight period.
You're not really saying anything meaty and there's no linked chain of argumentation in what you posted. Then there's also a lot of bad, wrong, and/or misinformed assumptions made as well, in it.
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.
Its a question of emotional intelligence. A living being that is devoid of emotion (eg. a tree) cannot feel the feelings that are associated with pain, torture and fear. However many animals can. Many animals will feel the same feelings as a human would placed in the same situation. So why is it accceptable to subject those animals to these emotions when it is completely wrong to do so to another human?
Also, on the pitbull discussion. They are also banned here due to the extremely high rate of dog attacks by that breed in comparison to other breeds.
On April 21 2010 02:18 Undisputed- wrote: Also its worth mentioning, where do you draw the line of censorship? Passing laws like this opens a can of worms when it comes to free speech. You can't possibly censor everything that might be offensive.
Well the Government isn't arguing that this law should be in a category that falls outside of First Amendment protection because it's offensive. Their argument is that this is the best/only way to stop the underlying illegal conduct (torturing of animals and whatnot). The problem is that the statute actually reaches further than just that goal.
The Government then argues that they''ll exercise restraint and discretion in applying the law (even if it's unconstitutional on its face, they'll make sure to apply the law in constitutional ways only). But the majority correctly notes that if a law is too broad as to be unconstitutional, the government can't save it by saying we should just trust them to not apply that law in an unconstitutional way.
On April 21 2010 02:18 Undisputed- wrote: Also its worth mentioning, where do you draw the line of censorship? Passing laws like this opens a can of worms when it comes to free speech. You can't possibly censor everything that might be offensive.
Well the Government isn't arguing that this law should be in a category that falls outside of First Amendment protection because it's offensive. Their argument is that this is the best/only way to stop the underlying illegal conduct (torturing of animals and whatnot). The problem is that the statute actually reaches further than just that goal.
The Government then argues that they''ll exercise restraint and discretion in applying the law (even if it's unconstitutional on its face, they'll make sure to apply the law in constitutional ways only). But the majority correctly notes that if a law is too broad as to be unconstitutional, the government can't save it by saying we should just trust them to not apply that law in an unconstitutional way.
Yeah there have been plenty of laws passed with the best of intentions that end up back firing.
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.
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.
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 02:06 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 02:06 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote: 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."
If:
1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and 2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote: 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."
If:
1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and 2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote: 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."
If:
1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and 2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory
is win/win because in 15 minutes neither of them will be suffering from hunger.
logic!
It doesn't seem like it's win/win to you because you're still alive and reacting to the picture. It certain doesn't make a difference to them after they die.
Alito's dissent says: "Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment rights of others.... The overbreadth doctrine “strike[s] a balance between competing social costs.” Williams, 553 U. S., at 292. Specifically, the doctrine seeks to balance the “harmful effects” of “invalidating a law that in some of its applications is perfectly constitutional” against the possibility that “the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law [will] dete[r] people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.” Ibid. “In order to maintain an appropriate bal-ance, we have vigorously enforced the requirement that a statute’s overbreadth be substantial, not only in an absolute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Ibid."
I think that the first amendment is not about a balance but about protecting all constitutional speech against banning or deterrence, similar to how people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not innocent until there is "substantial" evidence that they are guilty. I think that the proper response is to narrow the law by banning sales of the videos (which the Humane Society seems to support in the Huff. Post article linked to by the topic creator) and to ban the actions depicted in the videos (already illegal). If both of those are done, I don't see the problem. Some might possess these videos and consume them like pornography, but the exact same footage could be possessed by police as evidence or a vegan activist documentary director for unobjectionable use. So, I don't think the root of our disgust is the mere existence of such footage as in the case of child pornography.
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.
Would telling my friend during his ordeal that its ok because he wont remember it ease his suffering? Not a chance. We live in the moment. Which is why even with a viewpoint that life in essentially meaningless, we still work our hardest to make ourselves happy in the here and now.
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.
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?
Honestly this is such a difficult question I decided to just avoid it altogether in my last post(it was the direction it was heading...)
If you do want to get into it I would start by asking, "do you believe that the suffering of others is experienced by others, just as your suffering is experienced by you?"
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.
How does anything that happens to anyone while they are alive matter then? It matters because it happens.
I would accuse you of being a part of something and not realizing it. If everyone was selfless and promoted wellbeing imagine what kind of awesome world we would live in.
(not actually personally attacking you, none of my business what u do as long as ur not hurting people)
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.
You were pretty busy correcting his vocab anyways...
Don't worry your arguments are already about as simple as they come. You could surely convince an army of kindergartners. + Show Spoiler +
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.
Banning animal cruelty does not give animals rights. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it, even if it hurts others. Kids engaging in animal cruelty are much more likely to abuse people as well, for instance. I guess we should strike down all the laws about using a person's property (gun) in any particular way. Banning animal cruelty doesn't mean you have to give animals the right to vote - Exhibit A = Status Quo. Laws can and should have nuance, so gtfo with your cravings for black/white dichotomies and slippery slopes.
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.
You were pretty busy correcting his vocab anyways...
Don't worry your arguments are already about as simple as they come. You could surely convince an army of kindergartners. + Show Spoiler +
I don't know what your deal is but I was nothing but polite to that guy and I am pretty sure he has no problem with me. If you think I was being sarcastic or insincere then you are wrong.
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?
The existence of child pornography hurts the victim further because they can be cognizant of that footage out there and people exploiting their image. I don't think any animals would suffer on going psychological trauma from worrying about their image being distributed and exploited. So that is at least one difference that could justify treating them differently in the law.
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.
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote: 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.
I don't. Life with no pain would be bland. An excess of pleasure can render one idiotic.
To render someone incapable of feeling pain or make them feel constant overwhelming pleasure would be a terrible crime against them.
Neither deserves primary standing in moral philosophy.
I believe we have no direct moral responsibility to animals, but that our instinctive empathy toward animals, and its link to our capacity for sympathy toward other humans, creates important practical considerations with regard to our treatment of animals. It is bad in principle to cause suffering in animals because on some level we perceive it in the same way as human suffering, and are troubled and confused by it. However, principles have exceptions, and this is a very complex issue.
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote: 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.
To render someone incapable of feeling pain or make them feel constant overwhelming pleasure would be a terrible crime against them.
My morality is not about pleasure and pain. It is about suffering. You do not need to experience pleasure in order to not suffer, and you can not suffer while experiencing pain.
On April 21 2010 03:37 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I think that the first amendment is not about a balance but about protecting all constitutional speech against banning or deterrence, similar to how people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not innocent until there is "substantial" evidence that they are guilty.
You're forgetting about the part in the constitution where it says that none of its absolute restrictions should be taken seriously, and any of them can be set aside for practical or philosophical reasons as long as a majority of Supreme Court Justices think there's a really good excuse.
Remember "it's a living document" and words only mean what we decide to let them mean, on a case-by-case basis.
Actually amending the text of the constitution is too much of a hassle. It's far easier to just pretend.
Organized animal fights is indeed fucked up but three years in jail for that is a bit of stretch. Freedom of speech is a important basis of a democracy but it's also a very vague concept : There is freedom of speech as long as it does not impede the exercice of other fundamental rights or harm the overall well-being of society.
Before i have read this tread i didnt even know that such videos exist. Thats just sick. Thank You teamliquid.net for showing me another proof of human depravation. Just when You think nothing can surprise You anymore, theres a solution for You. Visit TL.net. Thank You all folks!
On April 21 2010 04:21 Silvanel wrote: Before i have read this tread i didnt even know that such videos exist. Thats just sick. Thank You teamliquid.net for showing me another proof of human depravation. Just when You think nothing can surprise You anymore, theres a solution for You. Visit TL.net. Thank You all folks!
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Do you want me to link the Two Girls One Pup video or not?
On April 21 2010 01:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?
It's said to violate free speech because freedom of speech loosely translates into freedom of expression and "silent speech". Therefore, being able to create a video and show it is an expression of yourself (or something like that). It's not so much that the supreme court took a look and said
"OH MAN WE GOTTA LET THOSE PEOPLE SHOW THEMSELVES KILLING AMINALS"
It's more like: People have the freedom to create and share videos. There is a law preventing this. This law should be struck down, as it prevents freedom of speech (expression) and thus is unconstitutional.
So it's not really about the act itself.... The only exception to this is pornography and a few other cases.
On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote: 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.
It isn't ignorant to think so. Also, if people want to make valid arguments, then don't argue by saying things like "everyone,all", when it is clearly not true. It is the reason there is usually a response arguing otherwise. You can't say, for example, "no one sane thinks my sister is hot.. that is outrageous! Only a sick person would think so". Psychological evidence is NOT like math where 2+2 will and always equal 4. Saying "well only an idiot would think like this", or "I can't believe the monsters that would do this", are mere opinions and makes your argument weak. No one on the other side of the topic will believe you if emotional opinions are being thrown out like that. (goes for everyone doing it)
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).
The question of if an animal feels pain like a human is still up to debate. Especially because of the cases on "Animal Testing". It is a very controversial subject, and one can not just say on this thread, "Yes animals do feel pain like a human being as a fact".
Now you should consider what type of pain we may be talking about as well. Yes, most people can agree that an animal does feel 'physical' pain like a human, but is the 'emotional' pain the same? A tree can react to the 'physical pain' of being chopped by an axe, and react to it naturally. One can say confidently though, that a tree doesn't feel emotional pain. Emotional pain is a deep factor in if a human being can cause pain to another. Saying 'animals' experience this the same as a human is wrong. Saying Kid A thinks the same as Kid B is wrong as well.
Lets think of this as a staircase. Humans being on the top at the moment, and bugs being one of the bottom steps. I personally find shame in the thought of torturing or killing a helpless bug, but it doesn't mean most of us haven't done it when we were kids.
On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote: 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.
It isn't ignorant to think so. Also, if people want to make valid arguments, then don't argue by saying things like "everyone,all", when it is clearly not true. It is the reason there is usually a response arguing otherwise. You can't say, for example, "no one sane thinks my sister is hot.. that is outrageous! Only a sick person would think so". Psychological evidence is NOT like math where 2+2 will and always equal 4. Saying "well only an idiot would think like this", or "I can't believe the monsters that would do this", are mere opinions and makes your argument weak. No one on the other side of the topic will believe you if emotional opinions are being thrown out like that. (goes for everyone doing it)
If I am wrong then show me. What evidence points otherwise.
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).
The question of if an animal feels pain like a human is still up to debate. Especially because of the cases on "Animal Testing". It is a very controversial subject, and one can not just say on this thread, "Yes animals do feel pain like a human being as a fact".
Now you should consider what type of pain we may be talking about as well. Yes, most people can agree that an animal does feel 'physical' pain like a human, but is the 'emotional' pain the same? A tree can react to the 'physical pain' of being chopped by an axe, and react to it naturally. One can say confidently though, that a tree doesn't feel emotional pain. Emotional pain is a deep factor in if a human being can cause pain to another. Saying 'animals' experience this the same as a human is wrong. Saying Kid A thinks the same as Kid B is wrong as well.
Lets think of this as a staircase. Humans being on the top at the moment, and bugs being one of the bottom steps. I personally find shame in the thought of torturing or killing a helpless bug, but it doesn't mean most of us haven't done it when we were kids.
you are right about all of this, and I didn't really word my thoughts clearly enough. I don't disagree that humans and animals may feel different kinds of pains and pleasures. Never really meant to say that though I think I may have.
People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.
It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?
On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote: People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.
It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?
Can't we just be selfish and say the reason we think humans are more important is because we are humans and we make the decisions about what we do. That's no more selfish than the thought process of a lion attacking a human, it's hungry and it makes the decisions about what it does.
Do we need all this rationality justification about why we favour our own species or can we just be blunt and say that we think we're pretty awesome.
On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote: People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.
It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?
Can't we just be selfish and say the reason we think humans are more important is because we are humans and we make the decisions about what we do. That's no more selfish than the thought process of a lion attacking a human, it's hungry and it makes the decisions about what it does.
Do we need all this rationality justification about why we favour our own species or can we just be blunt and say that we think we're pretty awesome.
We can do whatever we want to. If we want to behave like other animals and act selfishly we can do that. But that would be quite a waste of the gifts that make us different from other animals.
Have you ever noticed how no matter how retarded and wrong something is, some guy in the room always has to rush to its defense to prove he "gets it" that there is no such thing as "morality"? Yeah morality is a human invention, and yes you could practically defend anything if you take it from that angle, but for me, thats all the more reason not to.
Whether there is or isnt such thing as "right" or "wrong" you will never see me hurting something else for my own entertainment, person or animal. The human race has had enough violence and stupid shit to last till the end of time. Its hard to understand why people arent ready to move on from that and do something better than stand on a dog.
I don't see why states cannot simply expand their definitions of animal cruelty to classify persons involved with the perpetrator of the illegal act as accomplices. This would allow documentary or candid filming of the illegal act to remain legal, but criminalize those whose participation aids the criminal act, which would presumably include anyone filming for the type of youtube video mentioned.
On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote: People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
But that's how it is, isn't it? Do you know of any people with mental and physical capabilities that live independent lives like everyone else? The relationship between then and their legal guardian probably isn't a whole lot different than the relationship between a pet and it's owner, if I may speak frankly. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that people with such mental capabilities are legally allowed to be killed, for example fetuses in Roe v Wade, or brain dead people, in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.
On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote: People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.
It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?
It is actually quite disturbing to me that you think there isn't a difference from an injured/disabled human to a chimpanzee. That "*only* living human with far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee", is linked by blood to a human family. This *human* could have been a genius, but had a serious car accident which turned him/her into a vegetable. We accept this person as what he/she used to be, and what he/she could revert back to (if lucky). If a mother gave birth to a dog that could speak, with the same mental capacity as a human, we would treat that dog more equally to humans than any regular dog. ( Unless it was a long time ago, then it would be chased down the streets with sticks and stones. People a long time ago just didn't treat any abnormal thing equally, even abnormal humans )
"Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy." In a way, standing on a dog for pleasure is unworthy. Think about why a person might do it though. It is part of nature that makes creatures strive to feel like they are dominant. Why is there bullying? There is bullying among animals as well. The difference with humans, that separates us from the animals, is that we can teach our children or others what is currently 'right or wrong'. Also, we as humans can rationalize what is right or wrong by ourselves. Before someone punches another out, he/she can think "Is what I'm about to do right? What are the consequences of this?"
Sure animals can't waterboard other animals, or use tools to give better 'torturing' effects, but animals still by nature do beat other animals from near-death, to death just to show dominance. We are better than animals though, right?
On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote: People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.
Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.
It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?
Can't we just be selfish and say the reason we think humans are more important is because we are humans and we make the decisions about what we do. That's no more selfish than the thought process of a lion attacking a human, it's hungry and it makes the decisions about what it does.
Do we need all this rationality justification about why we favour our own species or can we just be blunt and say that we think we're pretty awesome.
Speak for yourself. I don't de facto favour my own species. I'd say that humanity has the capacity to do some ridiculously barbaric and uselessly destructive things. I'd say that a good deal of humans are completely worthless to me, and I couldn't care less what happens to them. If you want to talk about selfish, I'm going to be selfish and say that if a pedophile rapist is shot in the street when discovered raping a child; I couldn't give two shits. There are some animals which just flat out rock.
Dogs for the blind just flat out fucking rock. Let me tell you if I saw anyone attacking one I would hit them with a brick. If I saw anyone attacking a pedophile rapist who was raping a child, I would applaud. My plan is that I hope there are enough people who are like me, and don't just immediately favour humans over animals, who will be on my side when we change the law to make complex and especially helping animals not just property but valuably and worthwhile creatures that people should not be allowed to inflict pain upon needlessly.
Ok the applauding part was an exaggeration but I was in fact extremely happy when Eugene Terreblanche was brutally hacked to death, if we're going to be totally selfish and honest!
Bizarre that animal cruelty is illegal and yet battery farms receive subsidies from the government (maybe not in America, I dunno). Strange world, but then maybe thats just the craaaaaazzzzzzzzzzy vegan in me
On April 21 2010 08:17 SheepKiller wrote: It is actually quite disturbing to me that you think there isn't a difference from an injured/disabled human to a chimpanzee.
I didn't say that, I said if you use the previously listed methods of describing a human then you will most likely count out some heavily disabled or injured people from the human race! I don't personally think that. Because it's scientifically wrong.
Makes sense. It's okay to have the videos and post them up, but since they didn't actually commit the crime they're in the clear. The Supreme Court only interprets the legality of the law itself not on the details within the crime. Doesn't make sense most of the time though....
On April 21 2010 08:19 sc4k wrote: Speak for yourself. I don't de facto favour my own species. I'd say that humanity has the capacity to do some ridiculously barbaric and uselessly destructive things. I'd say that a good deal of humans are completely worthless to me, and I couldn't care less what happens to them. If you want to talk about selfish, I'm going to be selfish and say that if a pedophile rapist is shot in the street when discovered raping a child; I couldn't give two shits. There are some animals which just flat out rock.
Dogs for the blind just flat out fucking rock. Let me tell you if I saw anyone attacking one I would hit them with a brick. If I saw anyone attacking a pedophile rapist who was raping a child, I would applaud. My plan is that I hope there are enough people who are like me, and don't just immediately favour humans over animals, who will be on my side when we change the law to make complex and especially helping animals not just property but valuably and worthwhile creatures that people should not be allowed to inflict pain upon needlessly.
Ok the applauding part was an exaggeration but I was in fact extremely happy when Eugene Terreblanche was brutally hacked to death, if we're going to be totally selfish and honest!
I don't think that solving violence with more violence would be the best thing to do.
Plus, it is probably not best to compare attacking something with raping something. Those are extremely different. People have different views on what someone's punishment would be if it was attacking or raping something, but I don't think a brick or killing would be the best solution to either (unless it was defending yourself).
You might be able to come across a better point if it was less emotional-based....
Of course there is nothing wrong with favoring one species over another. Even the vegetarians do it. Ever notice they are concerned about maybe a few million animals that are killed for food but they don't give a rat's ass about the billions and billions that Orken and other extermination companies kill every day?
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
Ugh, Kwark, see I was good with just observing this discussion, but then you had to go off on an unrelated tangent. So, here goes.
If you had any experience working with domesticated animals then you'd understand banning a breed is flawed at best. I'm going to take a jab at it and considering your other posts you've probably never owned an animal. But we'll get to that.
Pit Bulls are known for being excellent family pets because they're extremely loyal and have a very high pain threshold which meshes well with a child who might play roughly, but you've probably gotten all of your information from the News.
Pit Bulls have some natural dog aggression. That is, aggression toward other dogs, NOT people. If you're a responsible owner and properly socialize your Pit Bull or other "dangerous" breed then your dog will be remarkably fine. Surprising right? Oh wait, no that's fairly basic. If you've ever adopted a dog from a shelter you will notice that on their information it will state if they're suitable for other dogs, cats, or children. You will find quite a variety from small dogs that have to be in a home with no other dogs, cats or children to large dogs that are "omg so scary, a rottweiler" that would be quite good in that same home. A lot of times a dog that can't be placed because it has been abused so much it can't cohabit with dogs, cats, or children and will be euthanized regardless of breed.
The problem for Pit Bulls is that people perpetuate the stigma and abuse of them. They're screwed because they have assholes who want to breed them and fight them and then you have the other assholes who want to cull them. Also, you have morons who hear about their monstrous reputation and decide they want a Pit Bull guard dog (or other "dangerous breed) and so they get one and chain it up and mistreat it by not feeding it. Point is, don't fucking chain a dog up or hit it. Feed it, walk it, get him/her neutered/spaid, introduce it to other animals properly and there won't be a problem the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.
Everything has the potential to be abused. A small dog will likely attack people/children/dogs/cats if it's chained up and mistreated and the only difference is that it's typically not going to be lethal. An abused Pit Bull definitely has the potential to kill or injure someone. But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused. Why stop there though, let's ban all guns. Also, while we're at it why don't we ban sports cars or large trucks because they have the potential to do more damage. Let's get rid of alcohol so no one will ever drive drunk. I could go on and on, but I think it's pretty clear that those laws and ideas are flawed.
And yes, I own a Pit Bull and he's never attacked another dog, person or cat.
Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
"But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused."
Might be the single worst argument ever used on a Brit
This law is blatantly against the 1st amendment. Animal cruelty is and should still be illegal but it's obvious that this was a violation of free speech.
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
I'm kinda perplexed that you have had six dogs and gotten them from shelters and yet you harbor that opinion. And no, I'm not drawing my entire argument off the fact that I own a Pit Bull, it was a basis for experience with Pit Bulls (more than one). I was merely preempting any bullshit attempt at a rebuttal based around my ownership of a Pit Bull. My ownership of a Pit Bull does not preclude my ability to make logical statements about Pit Bulls in a discussion.
Also, I like how you stopped at the automatic guns portion of that rather than continuing into the portions which are based off the SAME threads of logic. Same with BlackJack.
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
Kwark you do well to derail the main topics of threads with your own opinions
First: You are citing evidence of the Dangerous Dog Act as good evidence and because "dangerous dogs" thus should be banned because they can harm people. According to BBC and lots of high up officials this is voted as one of the worst and most unfavorable laws in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/8481943.stm This sounds to me like a very rushed law in response to a few incidents regarding some dogs without much thought put into it or really much research done at all.
Secondly we have been talking about AMERICAN politics and animal cruelty laws here in the states. To me this seems like UK laws would not be the best basis for argument as we have seen the UK has some of the most restrictive laws concerning gun ownership. All automatic guns are not banned in the US. Semi-automatic guns are also not banned in the US. Most airsoft guns by way of your law produced in the united states are against the law in your country due to restrictions on muzzle velocities. Because of that they are considered dangerous weapons which seems pretty outrageous. Just figured id point out some problems with UK laws as you always have problems with ours. Anyways to continue on the point. You grabbed the automatic gun quote and excluded the other part of the quote. It just said that all guns can then be abused and should be banned. No one should have a gun because it can be dangerous. The same then should be said for alcohol, we should just ban alcohol as well because it can be very dangerous if abused to you and people around you. The argument is that lots of things can be abused and thus why don't we just ban them all?
Overall though it seems crazy that one can harm an animal and take a video of it and not receive a punishment for it. I have seen that video of the gang where they beat and kill that man in the woods. They are the same people who nailed a cat to a board and shot it repeatedly with bb's for entertainment. Torturing an animal and making a video about it is just wrong.
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
That UK law is absolute bullshit and everyone in the UK (besides you apparently) knows that.
The way a pit bull acts when it is grown is exactly the same as ANY dog will act when it's grown. It depends entirely on the environment the pit bull was brought up in and the owner of said dog. The banning of an entire breed is flawed at absolute best and your ridiculous "Dangerous Dogs Act" is laughable as evidence.
I can honestly say I've run into far more aggressive Chihuahuas than Pit Bulls but nobody cares because you can punt the stupid rat dog across a fence if you have to.. a Pit Bull is much more resilient. I'm also willing to bet that my personal experience with all sorts of dogs is going to outstrip anyone besides a full fledged veterinarian at that. ANY dog is going to be insanely aggressive if it's raised to be that way.
Pit Bulls have a social stigma.. a horribly misguided one but it's going to make a lot of studies biased. You will notice a near universal commonality in Pit Bull attacks and by proxy all dog attacks...shitty owners.
The UK has a habit of banning anything that isn't 100% safe anyway so this further makes your evidence shaky at best.
On April 21 2010 10:32 KwarK wrote: Regarding how I've never owned an animal. I've always had a dog. I'm now 21 and have therefore seen 6 different dogs come and go, all of whom have come from rescue centres. The argument based around personal ownership of a single pit bull is compelling but perhaps less compelling than the fact that a British Government inquiry that looked at a sample size greater than just your dog banned them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
I'm kinda perplexed that you have had six dogs and gotten them from shelters and yet you harbor that opinion. And no, I'm not drawing my entire argument off the fact that I own a Pit Bull, it was a basis for experience with Pit Bulls (more than one). I was merely preempting any bullshit attempt at a rebuttal based around my ownership of a Pit Bull. My ownership of a Pit Bull does not preclude my ability to make logical statements about Pit Bulls in a discussion.
Also, I like how you stopped at the automatic guns portion of that rather than continuing into the portions which are based off the SAME threads of logic. Same with BlackJack.
Hm, seems the main problem was that the actual wording of the law was to open to interpretation. I do not think animals have rights, but I do think those crush videos are in violation of any decent action. The laws original intention was correct I think to stamp out the crush videos- and apparently it worked. My thought is the lawmakers should try again, but make sure that the law is more specified so it actually goes after the crush videos (rather than hunting videos and documentaries on the history of dog fighting.)
I'm not going to get into the moral justification of what is/isn't aceptable behavior towards animals. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the distinction between different types of speech and why it's okay to eat animals, not okay to be cruel to them, but if you are cruel to them, it's okay to film it and use it for sexual gratification.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not actually an issue of this law restricting speech so much as the fact that the law is so vague that it's not entirely clear what it does or doesn't actually restrict.
And yet, reading excerpts from the law, it seems pretty clear about what it restricts, at least as clearly as any child pornography law.
I don't know if such a law is a good idea or not, even though I am repulsed by the idea of maiming or killing any living being for sexual gratification, because I'm not sure why animals are considered sacred in this regard and not in others. The fact that I can eat delicious beef tacos as I did earlier tonight for dinner I think tells me all that I should need to know about the true regard that exists for animals as a whole in human society. They are disposable property. If they are disposed of for sexual gratification, I find the idea repellent, and yet I don't really see how that form of expression is inherently less moral than consuming their flesh because of its flavor.
As for "But, if we're going to ban Pit Bulls because they have the potential to do more harm than small dogs or some other dogs then we should ban automatic weapons because they have the potential to kill people when abused.". I'm glad you made that comparison because not only is the ownership of a pit bull in Britain illegal but so is the ownership of an automatic firearm. So it's good that you equated the two for me as that kind of reaffirms what I was trying to say.
But there again, you've probably gotten all your information from news and probably know nothing about the subject and probably don't own a dog.
Does the British government ban swimming pools? I guarantee that more children and adults have died in swimming pools in the past year than have died from firearms and animals combined.
And a swimming pool does not have the power to protect our liberty from a thug, the way that a dog or a gun might.
I don't think we ban things like certain dogs or certain guns for reasons that are rational at all. I think we have an emotional reaction, and we then try to justify that reaction in rational terms to make ourselves feel better about it. Hence we ban a gun or a dog because our emotional reaction to violence is, by nature, much stronger than our emotional reaction to accidents. Our brains evolved in an era millions of years ago when violence was a more immediate threat to our survival than accidental drowning, and that has carried over into making irrational decisions in an era when accidental drowning is a far greater threat than physical violence.
If we were making our laws on a truly rational basis, we would ban swimming pools long before we banned guns or dogs. Hell, we'd have banned soft drinks and McDonald's before we even got to swimming pools, because in America at least, obesity is virtually the greatest preventable health risk that exists.
im not sure if anyone is forgetting, but animals die just like everything else. what does it matter how they die? fuck em... they are animals O_O
now, dont get me wrong. im not saying torture them, but if an animal gets crushed, it feels pain for MAYBE a split second. so... im not really seeing the problem.
i kill birds every day with my pellet gun, and its actually pretty fun.
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).
No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarchies where higher order thought is characterized by degrees self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display very limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. Self Reflection, a prerequisite of self awareness comes from the Thalamocortical, ours being literally 10000 bigger then a mouses. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me, if they experience it at all.
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).
No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarches where higher order thought is characterized by self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me.
Mirror test is a good one. Whether an animal can recognise the image in the mirror as itself is a good indication of whether they understand what they are. Most animals can't but several primates, dolphins and, oddly enough, magpies can. Babies can't until they're a few years old.
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.
I wanna run into you in a dark alley.
So you can cause him pain because of what he believes about causing animals pain?
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).
No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarches where higher order thought is characterized by self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me.
Mirror test is a good one. Whether an animal can recognise the image in the mirror as itself is a good indication of whether they understand what they are. Most animals can't but several primates, dolphins and, oddly enough, magpies can. Babies can't until they're a few years old.
Basically. Animals are not fully conscious, they only react, they do not reflect. Reflection is what gives life value; your computer is capable of reaction.
Even dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Because they have no selves. Our society values individuals, to protect them. That's good and all, and animals are not individuals.
By the way I'm against senseless violence against animals. Its stupid and "wrong". However, I'm against it In the same way I'm against..idk... arson, senseless destruction of property or nature, not in the same way I'm against harming human beings, or harming an agent entity.
I think the strongest argument for pitbulls being banned and not guns, is that pitbulls have a will of their own, and even under the correct training and control, everything done right by the owner, the pitbull may still burst out in sudden acts of violence, since they've been bred to be so agressive. A gun at least can be controlled dependably if it is used properly. Whether a pit bull can be raised or trained to be free of risk of assaulting innocent people, is arguable.
Back to the main topic, violence against animals is wrong, and should be illegal. But it should not be any more illegal to film someone doing something illegal than it is to film someone doing something legal. I can see the exception in certain fringe pornographies, beastiality, pedophelia, snuff porn etc. But there's just not that much reason to regulate in general the filming of violent acts or criminal acts. Such a law does more harm than good.
On April 21 2010 14:51 zobz wrote: I think the strongest argument for pitbulls being banned and not guns, is that pitbulls have a will of their own, and even under the correct training and control, everything done right by the owner, the pitbull may still burst out in sudden acts of violence, since they've been bred to be so agressive. A gun at least can be controlled dependably if it is used properly. Whether a pit bull can be raised or trained to be free of risk of assaulting innocent people, is arguable.
What the hell are you talking about?
Where on earth did you read such absolute bullshit?
Pitbulls in general aren't even aggressive towards human beings at all. They have a strong instinct to prey on small animals like you know...SQUIRRELS or something but are in general one of the most loyal dogs you could possibly own.
Pit Bulls are not inherently violent towards humans and they aren't prone to sudden acts of biting peoples hands off. People that believe this are completely brain washed.
I'm telling you hands off that small breed dogs like Chihuahuas are much more likely to bite you for absolutely no reason than a Pit Bull ever will.
Pit Bulls are extremely resilient animals, have a powerful bite, and are intelligent. This combination unfortunately makes them a crowd favorite for Dog Fighting and other attack like sports. Seeing as they dominate that arena the amount of aggressive dogs you see being pit bull type is obviously tilted in their direction..because they are the BEST at fighting.
That does not mean they are inherently aggressive or that they just bite people because they can. Pit Bulls can be raised and trained to be completely free of risk of assaulting innocent people, and it's been done over and over and over again.
Blame the owner, not the dog. I have yet to take a case where a Pit Bull attacked a human being and that Pit Bull came from a loving home where it was well taken care of...that shit just doesn't happen to any frequent degree.
yes its all a big myth, its not a stupid cocker spaniel, it is a big and relatively agressive dog but so are the rottweilers, a Dobermans, German Shepperds etc.
Its all about how you take care of the dog, i think we should give way more responsibility to the owner about his dogs actions, that way we make sure people dont be irresponsible with their dogs, if your dog kills a child, you should face years behind bars, that would also be an incentive to not have these dogs if you are not ready.
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.
Hmmm... I can agree with overthrowing of the animal cruelty rule, only if there will be a new one placed in its stead that would clearly state when is showing animal cruelty ok (as in documentaries about mistreated animals etc.) and when it's not.
I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person.
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal.
EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws.
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.
+1 p.s. why do all the ancaps get banned?
unpopular speech is often times bannable speech here. Something to keep in mind
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
sorry for bumping page one post.
I also hate pit bulls and think that they are as dangerous as they can get, however I cannot find any evidence for them being banned in the USA. Furthermore one could argue that pit bull fights turn the animals to killing machines but then the owner should be charged with endangerment and sentenced accordingly. I still think that getting 3 years prison for filming a dog fight is just plain wrong.
On April 21 2010 17:15 onihunter wrote: I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person.
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal.
EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws.
re: the bolded (bold is mine). That's an interesting phrase. I'm wondering why being cruel to animals would be considered a right (whether it hurts a person or not seems irrelevant.) It certainly doesn't seem to be a right on par with right to life, liberty, and security of person.
The issue of ethics would turn into an entirely other topic- is there such thing as absolute morals or is everything relative? Chances are, that's where the debate would to go as I feel some of the arguments rely upon different assumptions and therefore the conclusion make no sense when debating (until the presuppositions are exposed.) But that would just make this thread a real headache.
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
Let me guess. You have a pitbull.
No I don't, I just don't like it when uninformed people advocate things like culling entire breeds based on stereotypes.
And to Kwark, the people still actually using pit bull terriers for dogfighting are an extremely small drop in the bucket compared to those who aren't.
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).
No, they react to stimuli. Rocks react to stimuli. I hit it with a hammer and it breaks. While some animals display higher order thought, the vast majority, including smaller mammals, do not. They may feel pain, they may react, but consciousness is defined in hierarches where higher order thought is characterized by self reflection, or scientifically, the amount one reprocess an internal state. Animals display limited amounts of this, several magnitudes lower to that of humans. In any rate, they do not experience pain or pleasure in the same way like you and me.
Mirror test is a good one. Whether an animal can recognise the image in the mirror as itself is a good indication of whether they understand what they are. Most animals can't but several primates, dolphins and, oddly enough, magpies can. Babies can't until they're a few years old.
Basically. Animals are not fully conscious, they only react, they do not reflect. Reflection is what gives life value; your computer is capable of reaction.
Even dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Because they have no selves. Our society values individuals, to protect them. That's good and all, and animals are not individuals.
By the way I'm against senseless violence against animals. Its stupid and "wrong". However, I'm against it In the same way I'm against..idk... arson, senseless destruction of property or nature, not in the same way I'm against harming human beings, or harming an agent entity.
You guys need to think about what you are saying some more. It makes no sense. Pain is felt in the moment. Right now. Thats when you feel things, right now. Reflection has nothing to do with it. Why do you think animals scream out in pain? You actually think it's a different reason than why you scream out in pain? That's retarded.
why would you guys think self-awareness is a requisite for experiencing things? explain how that makes sense.
"they only react" is the dumbest shit ive ever heard. seriously. think about it some more.
so you think all these animals are out living their lives "only reacting" to things and not actually experiencing anything? what the hell? that actually makes sense to people?
so at what point in evolution did animals go from "only acting" to "actually experiencing", and why would that happen??
On April 21 2010 15:02 Straylight wrote: The law got overturned because it was too broad. It got voted down and then they'll rework it and send it out again. No problem here.
But of course the animal rights activists will choose to ignore all that
If only everyone read the article before posting -- that includes the topic starter.
On April 21 2010 04:21 Silvanel wrote: Before i have read this tread i didnt even know that such videos exist. Thats just sick. Thank You teamliquid.net for showing me another proof of human depravation. Just when You think nothing can surprise You anymore, theres a solution for You. Visit TL.net. Thank You all folks!
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Do you want me to link the Two Girls One Pup video or not?
Actualy i am quite confused myself. Learning new things is cool, but sometimes You think You would be better without certain knowledge. That might be the instance here, i am not realy sure right now.
And about that video, no thank You. I have heard about it, i do not wish to see it. Sometimes ignorance is realy a bliss.
You guys need to think about what you are saying some more. It makes no sense. Pain is felt in the moment. Right now. Thats when you feel things, right now. Reflection has nothing to do with it. Why do you think animals scream out in pain? You actually think it's a different reason than why you scream out in pain? That's retarded.
why would you guys think self-awareness is a requisite for experiencing things? explain how that makes sense.
No, you need to think about it instead of relying on social bias. Think about why you experience pain, not react to it. Animals scream in pain because of a biological mechanism that causes a reaction when painful stimuli is recieved. Thats exactly why humans react to pain, and nobody was trying to say anything different.
We are not talking about reaction, we are talking about experiencing. A rock reacts to getting hit with a hammer, but a rock does not experience getting hit with a hammer.
You experience it because you are conscious. Right now, all evidence points to mpst animals not being on the same level of consciousness as human beings are. Exceptions are their, mostly in highly developed social mammals such as dolphins or apes.
On April 22 2010 02:41 travis wrote: so at what point in evolution did animals go from "only acting" to "actually experiencing", and why would that happen??
When animals evolved developed pre-frontal lobe and a thalamocortical system.
dude self awareness is not the same as consciousness
you do not have to be self aware to experience things. why would you have to be? I experience things all the time without being self aware, while awake and while asleep.
want an example? dreams. most people have no self awareness during dreams but sure enough we experience those right?
man these debates going on in this thread is pretty damn ridiculous.
All I have to say is, for the people debating about which animals (or living things for the matter) should have which rights over other kind of animals, it's pretty obvious. I think that as long as the animal in question has potential to have social attachment and connections with a human, they should be deemed of more worth, and of more "rights", whatever those may be.
if you disagree with me, try raising a puppy and becoming close friends with it, and then continue to argue otherwise
On April 21 2010 17:15 onihunter wrote: I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person.
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal.
EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws.
re: the bolded (bold is mine). That's an interesting phrase. I'm wondering why being cruel to animals would be considered a right (whether it hurts a person or not seems irrelevant.) It certainly doesn't seem to be a right on par with right to life, liberty, and security of person.
The issue of ethics would turn into an entirely other topic- is there such thing as absolute morals or is everything relative? Chances are, that's where the debate would to go as I feel some of the arguments rely upon different assumptions and therefore the conclusion make no sense when debating (until the presuppositions are exposed.) But that would just make this thread a real headache.
I consider animals to be property (as we buy and sell them), and it is our right to be able to do what we want with what we own. And yeah I agree with that second paragraph; it all depends on whether ethics can ever be considered absolute, and if so, when.
On April 21 2010 17:15 onihunter wrote: I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person.
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal.
EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws.
re: the bolded (bold is mine). That's an interesting phrase. I'm wondering why being cruel to animals would be considered a right (whether it hurts a person or not seems irrelevant.) It certainly doesn't seem to be a right on par with right to life, liberty, and security of person.
The issue of ethics would turn into an entirely other topic- is there such thing as absolute morals or is everything relative? Chances are, that's where the debate would to go as I feel some of the arguments rely upon different assumptions and therefore the conclusion make no sense when debating (until the presuppositions are exposed.) But that would just make this thread a real headache.
I consider animals to be property (as we buy and sell them), and it is our right to be able to do what we want with what we own. And yeah I agree with that second paragraph; it all depends on whether ethics can ever be considered absolute, and if so, when.
and lots of people consider other people (slaves) to be their property, as they buy and sell them, so what exactly is your point
yes I will continue to argue with people about this shit as long as people are making posts equivalent to "I think it should be done this way because that's how I want it to be done"
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.
I find the philosophical concept of "Natural rights" completely ridicoulus, but I suppose elaborating on that will derail the thread so I wont.
Dexter comment just shows example of how he seems to lack empathy and could be analyzed as some level of psychopath. Babies or young child dont understand laws as much as animals wont, but they are still granted protection, as its not normal behaviour to torture someone for fun or kill for fun. Hunting has tradition of doing it for living and today domestic slaughterhouse etc work with ethical levels society sees required.
So overall if person can enjoy torturing animals without any empathy, i would think hes capable of doing same for humans and is getting his rights revoked also, as unfit society member.
I don't see why it should be illegal to post videos with animal cruelty and still be legal to post videos with human cruelty (loads of this on the internet, even some links on TL I have seen).
The supreme court is right. 1st amendment needs to be kept strong even when it is being abused for immoral reasons.
The Holy Bible says that animals were made for the consumption of man. Since I take Jesus Christ as my savior, I am therefore inclined to agree that animals exist for no other purpose than man's. Thus if my toilet needs scrubbing and I happen not to have a scrubber in my possession, it should be perfectly irreproachable if I duct taped a baby kitten to the end of a stick and used its grisly fur to remove traces of excrement from the walls of my toilet bowl.
Since the animal exists purely for my pleasure, there should be no reason to put the baby kitten out of its misery first either. In fact, a writhing, drowning kitten more effectively removes said excrement. And of course, I also must emphasize the literal delineation of "consumption" and believe that any animal is suitable in some capacity for food. As it so happens, 99.99% of all animals, no matter how poisonous, fluffy, or harmless, have edible body parts, a fact which should henceforth be exploited in totality. Bunny ears, for example, while attached to live bunnies are full of nutritious blood. To kill the bunny would halt its respiration and necessarily reduce the richness of the ear's hemoglobin and to anesthetize the rabbit in any way would only mar the purity God's natural gift. Thus, the only moral way to enjoy this delicacy is to take from a fully conscious and squirming bunny a hearty bite. If this course of action seems excessively cruel or unnecessary, fear not for there is still time to repent your sinful worldview and embrace the Righteous path. If animal suffering irks your pagan sensibilities, you need only ask yourself how irked Jesus Christ must have been when he suffered for mankind on the Cross, and God will help you return from whence you have strayed.
It is my prayer that, with the help of God, I have enlightened your hearts to the proper Scriptural stance on animal rights, and graced your minds with a moral methodology for that stance's righteous implementation. May Jesus bless you. Amen.
On April 24 2010 03:49 Harma wrote: Dexter comment just shows example of how he seems to lack empathy and could be analyzed as some level of psychopath. Babies or young child dont understand laws as much as animals wont, but they are still granted protection, as its not normal behaviour to torture someone for fun or kill for fun. Hunting has tradition of doing it for living and today domestic slaughterhouse etc work with ethical levels society sees required.
So overall if person can enjoy torturing animals without any empathy, i would think hes capable of doing same for humans and is getting his rights revoked also, as unfit society member.
would buying a steak at the supermarket constitute that person as an "unfit"
if not then, why is torture bad, but killing is fine?
Im in favor of animal rights but the enforcement thereof wont solve anything especially w\ such a flawed legal concept
what matters the most is the economical feasibility of recognizing rights in animals. right now it's not worth it. maybe one day when we can grow cheap synthetic meat to eat then it may be.
slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go
On April 24 2010 04:33 Yurebis wrote: slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go
Very interesting. So that would mean that medieval canon law that abolished slavery in Christian Europe was not devised because slavery went directly against scripture and the "spirit of Christianity", but because the slavemasters of that time found that it was economically viable to let them go? Care to state those economic reasons?
much like people here may be in favor of this ruling, for their first ammendment, the south was in favor of being left alone (w\ slavery if so be it), for their tenth or w/e.
even if those people dont personally torture and even if the south didnt profit that much from slaves anymore
slavery was not the main cause of the civil war, it was the issue of federal govt. v. the states.
of course the state would want you to believe that lincoln was a saint and was doing it for the blacks, but it was just an excuse. an excuse like many others used in other wars to further central power
no I'm not racist. and no this wasn't my main point.
main point is, people are gonna do what they want to do. statist restrictions just play a minor role in what they choose to do. writings on legal papers don't make the world go round. the people make the world go round. and if they want to crush kitties skulls with high heels then kitties skulls are going to be crushed
and no I do not like that and I wish it could stop, but it's not going to stop w\ stupid laws is my point.
On April 24 2010 04:33 Yurebis wrote: slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go
Very interesting. So that would mean that medieval canon law that abolished slavery in Christian Europe was not devised because slavery went directly against scripture and the "spirit of Christianity", but because the slavemasters of that time found that it was economically viable to let them go? Care to state those economic reasons?
i argue that it is cheaper to not babysit and provide housing, food, enough sanitation so they dont die to slaves, but instead just give them a paycheck and let them handle themselves
think self-service restaurants for example.
freedom pays for itself if given a chance
edit: and I believe it will also be true with animals, again, once its viable
On April 24 2010 05:02 love1another wrote: I agree. People need to abuse animals until they don't want to do it anymore. Then the law won't even be needed!
you know there's a law against prostitution, drugs, and.. meh forget it
Four young guys in Sweden set fire to a rabbit and uploaded it on youtube. Today they got sentenced to jail for animal cruelty and will serve four months, three months and two months respectively. The fourth guy got a fine. I'm surprised that the supreme court in the US would find some redeeming factor in torturing animals.
On April 21 2010 17:15 onihunter wrote: I think animal cruelty legislation is where ethics start taking over government policies; since ethics are never universal (pretty hard to find a case where something is condemned by EVERY PERSON in the country) I don't think you can really impose certain morals upon others, even if 99% of the population believes it to be just. Sure, democracy rules, but ultimately you're infringing on the rights of that 1% minority, since them being cruel to animals doesn't hurt any other person.
Obviously I agree that animal cruelty is bad, but I don't think imposing your own ethical code upon others is just. I agree with above posts saying that it should simply be ostracized in society rather than illegal.
EDIT: I suppose it could hurt other people psychologically and such, but you need hard evidence that indicates this is the case to justify passing these laws.
Yeah, personally, me and my family don't believe that killing other people for our own pleasure is wrong. I know only probably 0.1% of the population, maybe less, share our morals, but gosh darnit it would be an infringement on our rights for the majority to impose THEIR crazy morals on us. Hell, it was be unjust.
On April 24 2010 04:33 Yurebis wrote: slavery wasn't abolished when a state or lord said it was so. it stopped when the slavemasters throught it was economically viable to let them go
Very interesting. So that would mean that medieval canon law that abolished slavery in Christian Europe was not devised because slavery went directly against scripture and the "spirit of Christianity", but because the slavemasters of that time found that it was economically viable to let them go? Care to state those economic reasons?
i argue that it is cheaper to not babysit and provide housing, food, enough sanitation so they dont die to slaves, but instead just give them a paycheck and let them handle themselves
think self-service restaurants for example.
freedom pays for itself if given a chance
edit: and I believe it will also be true with animals, again, once its viable
You haven't really answered my question, you stated that slavery was abolished because of economic reasons, while I pointed out that it is historical fact that it was first abolished on religious grounds. But ok i'll let that slide.
If your primary concern is cost-effectiveness i would argue that you can maintain a slave for a much smaller cost than a salary you'd be paying a free man. AKA 1 meal a day, 18 hours of work, and when he's not working he's chained to the floor(or perhaps even while he's working).
Even if you feed and clothe a slave properly this is an individual whose sole purpose is to do what you tell him to do, if need be 24 hours a day, as opposed to a free individual whose main concern is himself, and he will no doubt spend alot of his time on his needs, not his employer's. Not to mention that an employee can refuse to do what you tell him to( extremely hard manual labour, sex etc...) Thus I fail to see how freeing slaves could be considered more practical or economically sound for the slave-owner.
I would agree though, that in terms of productiveness it is immensely better to have a society of equal free men, than a society of free men and slaves, but in no way do I agree that slavery was abolished(anywhere) primarily because of those reasons, or any economic reasons for that matter.
Slavery in the course of human history has always been implemented because of practical and economic reasons, and abolished because of cultural, religious and/or philosophical reasons.
What is actually economically better long-term, is a debate of the 20th century when slavery was already extinct.
On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote: If your primary concern is cost-effectiveness i would argue that you can maintain a slave for a much smaller cost than a salary you'd be paying a free man. AKA 1 meal a day, 18 hours of work, and when he's not working he's chained to the floor(or perhaps even while he's working).
^ this...
On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote:I would agree though, that in terms of productiveness it is immensely better to have a society of equal free men, than a society of free men and slaves, but in no way do I agree that slavery was abolished(anywhere) primarily because of those reasons, or any economic reasons for that matter.
^ and this are mutually exclusive
the society is nothing but an aggregation of individuals something cant be best for one and not the other
if you concede that its more productive to hire than to babysit then you concede my point thank you
On April 21 2010 01:31 ggrrg wrote: 3 years in prison for filming pit bull fights is ridiculously stupid for many reasons
Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.
Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.
Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.
Dog fighting is still going on. The breeding for aggression is still going on.
Wow you might the be the most uninformed person on TL who always chimes in like he knows something. Try reading a book or looking into what pit-bulls were bred for. "They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled", oh really? So being bred to lift and drag heavy things is now considered mindless aggression? Good one, please add more of your endless knowledge and enlighten us on more topics.
On April 24 2010 01:42 travis wrote: yes I will continue to argue with people about this shit as long as people are making posts equivalent to "I think it should be done this way because that's how I want it to be done"
Doesn't it make you equal to guys which you are fighting and declaring to be wrong? You are fighting [assumption of myself, feel free to correct me if i'm saying something inaccurate] because you refuse to accept the moral of the ones who says "who cares, we will die anyway". It's making us worse in your definition. I'm not saying that you are wrong but neither i do say that you are right. I say that you cannot accept that not every one is the way [insert come random religion / believe whatever you want to] want it to be. You made a decision and you are fighting for it. Others have others opinion and are fighting to protect their believes, what makes you differen from them?
In my personal opinion humans are much worse as any other animal [We are animals and by far not the "best" one]. We enjoy suffering of other beings.We enjoy to punish everyone that doesn't agree with our terms as long as we are superior!
We are on the top because we fought for it. We weren't peaceful and tried to socialize with every being, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk today. We took it because we were able and now we decide the rules. Who says that something that we do is wrong or right? We decide it, no one else. We are granting us and others the rights or refuse them.
Imagine if some sort of weird alien would appear and would start killing humans. Do you serious believe that they would give a shit about our consciousness or that we are living beings, if we wouldn't be of any use to them? They would be above us and they would set the rules. Would we like it? No, because: We created the rights to protect ourselfs from others and not to protect others from ourself. The one decide what's right and what's wrong is the one on the top and no the one on the bottom. As long the top feel sorry for the animals, it will be a bad thing.
As long as no one is interfering with my freedom, i don't care about it. (egoistic? heh, every decision is egoistic and anyone says something else is a hypocrate) [The boundries of this freedom decide everyone for himself, however he decide it]. Someone who cares about the right threating of animals, shall be free to do so. Saying that his personal view of the world is different is welcome, but not that his way is better.
Anyone who find grammar and other mistakes, you can keep them.
Wow this was deep. But what if I interfere with my OWN freedom? Then should I be upset and cry foul that my rights have been violated. Nay, instead I choose to keep your boundries.
^^ agree (dxfx), but I would add that there should be no apparent reason for aliens to kill us in large scale for fun
in general, peace is much more profitable. only when war comes for free (when you can make someone else aka taxpayers, pay for it) is when it's done.
so unless them aliens wanted to eat us i dont see why else would they need to kill us
^ rights are interpersonal. I agree to respect you and you agree to respect me when there is no benefit to be gained from aggression (due to retaliation or just nothing to steal really) or more to be gained by cooperation
the egoistical mindset is completely compatible w\ peace and an egoist can claim rights exist, why wouldn't he. if it increases his utility then do it. just not externally (god, natural, w/e)
On April 24 2010 01:42 travis wrote: yes I will continue to argue with people about this shit as long as people are making posts equivalent to "I think it should be done this way because that's how I want it to be done"
Doesn't it make you equal to guys which you are fighting and declaring to be wrong? You are fighting [assumption of myself, feel free to correct me if i'm saying something inaccurate] because you refuse to accept the moral of the ones who says "who cares, we will die anyway". It's making us worse in your definition. I'm not saying that you are wrong but neither i do say that you are right. I say that you cannot accept that not every one is the way [insert come random religion / believe whatever you want to] want it to be. You made a decision and you are fighting for it.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the opinions of those who use actual reasoning to come to their conclusions. But it took me about 5 seconds to explain why his didn't make any sense. "I consider animals to be property". Oh really, and why is that? Just because?
I think what he means is that he respects the property claim that other fellow humans may have over animals. Reason being that perhaps he wish to eat them or imprison them as well, so if he respects and leaves others alone with their animal enslavement, those others are more likely to respect and leave him alone to eat/confine animals as well.
On April 24 2010 07:46 travis wrote: Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the opinions of those who use actual reasoning to come to their conclusions. But it took me about 5 seconds to explain why his didn't make any sense. "I consider animals to be property". Oh really, and why is that? Just because?
Ironic as it is, but it is just because, at least if you ask me. No god said that we have to live in the equilibrium with other species and we shouldn't harm others. We don't have to rectitude to anyone. All the moral, ethic and stuff we believe in, is created by mankind and it's not set in stone. Nothing prohibit us to change into a different direction? It's simple a change, nothing special in particular. Do you have to like it? Of course not.
Today we have something against children-pornography, as we look 200+ years back it was normal to get a child with 13 years or something like that. If we go much further then it was normal to do it with young boys. Today it's impossible and it's neither good or bad.
The ones who enjoy torturing animals do it, because they simple can. Do you have to like them? No, then you can choose to avoid this people (and they will avoid you, if we assume that this kind of people believe that animals are property, they won't touch your property, so both sides are "happy") or declare a war and if win it, you are good and they are evil
On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote: If your primary concern is cost-effectiveness i would argue that you can maintain a slave for a much smaller cost than a salary you'd be paying a free man. AKA 1 meal a day, 18 hours of work, and when he's not working he's chained to the floor(or perhaps even while he's working).
On April 24 2010 05:47 Myrkul wrote:I would agree though, that in terms of productiveness it is immensely better to have a society of equal free men, than a society of free men and slaves, but in no way do I agree that slavery was abolished(anywhere) primarily because of those reasons, or any economic reasons for that matter.
^ and this are mutually exclusive
the society is nothing but an aggregation of individuals something cant be best for one and not the other
if you concede that its more productive to hire than to babysit then you concede my point thank you
They are not mutually exclusive. The first quote is from a 11th or 18th century slaveowner's point of view, the second one is from a 20th century economist's point of view, what I am saying is that the reason slavery was abolished (from the point of view of those who abolished it) was certainly not because the slaveowners did not want them, but for those other reasons i mentioned(cultural, ethical etc..). From the point of view of slaveowners of that time, slaves were alot easier to manage than workers, and alot more productive and cheaper.
On April 24 2010 07:46 travis wrote: Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the opinions of those who use actual reasoning to come to their conclusions. But it took me about 5 seconds to explain why his didn't make any sense. "I consider animals to be property". Oh really, and why is that? Just because?
Ironic as it is, but it is just because, at least if you ask me. No god said that we have to live in the equilibrium with other species and we shouldn't harm others. We don't have to rectitude to anyone. All the moral, ethic and stuff we believe in, is created by mankind and it's not set in stone. Nothing prohibit us to change into a different direction? It's simple a change, nothing special in particular. Do you have to like it? Of course not.
Today we have something against children-pornography, as we look 200+ years back it was normal to get a child with 13 years or something like that. If we go much further then it was normal to do it with young boys. Today it's impossible and it's neither good or bad.
The ones who enjoy torturing animals do it, because they simple can. Do you have to like them? No, then you can choose to avoid this people (and they will avoid you, if we assume that this kind of people believe that animals are property, they won't touch your property, so both sides are "happy") or declare a war and if win it, you are good and they are evil
Well, all I can say about insane opinions like yours is that at least you are probably far in the minority. You might have aspergers syndrome or something, or you just may be very emotionally cold to the world. Perhaps you suffered a personal tragedy when young, or no one likes you and you have few friends, leading you to detach yourself from the world. Perhaps you are young and too influenced by the ethics of the internet (ie. none).
Regardless, all I can say in the face of opinions of people like yours (and by the way I include your previous long post as well as this one quoted); is thank god that there are enough sane, caring people to realise animal cruelty is disgusting and must be stopped just like any vile underside of human society, including the ones you mentioned. Thank god not every country is run in the completely economically driven way the US is.
I can't even believe that some people believe government is entirely for creating economic viability in a country. No, no and no.
Hah, we even have huge, huge arguments about people hunting foxes; which literally are classed as vermin, albeit protected vermin in many cases. Thank god I live in a sane country with enough moral people to make the thought of broadly legalizing animal cruelty unthinkable.
On April 24 2010 07:46 travis wrote: Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the opinions of those who use actual reasoning to come to their conclusions. But it took me about 5 seconds to explain why his didn't make any sense. "I consider animals to be property". Oh really, and why is that? Just because?
Ironic as it is, but it is just because, at least if you ask me. No god said that we have to live in the equilibrium with other species and we shouldn't harm others. We don't have to rectitude to anyone. All the moral, ethic and stuff we believe in, is created by mankind and it's not set in stone. Nothing prohibit us to change into a different direction? It's simple a change, nothing special in particular. Do you have to like it? Of course not.
Today we have something against children-pornography, as we look 200+ years back it was normal to get a child with 13 years or something like that. If we go much further then it was normal to do it with young boys. Today it's impossible and it's neither good or bad.
The ones who enjoy torturing animals do it, because they simple can. Do you have to like them? No, then you can choose to avoid this people (and they will avoid you, if we assume that this kind of people believe that animals are property, they won't touch your property, so both sides are "happy") or declare a war and if win it, you are good and they are evil
Well, all I can say about insane opinions like yours is that at least you are probably far in the minority. You might have aspergers syndrome or something, or you just may be very emotionally cold to the world. Perhaps you suffered a personal tragedy when young, or no one likes you and you have few friends, leading you to detach yourself from the world. Perhaps you are young and too influenced by the ethics of the internet (ie. none).
Regardless, all I can say in the face of opinions of people like yours (and by the way I include your previous long post as well as this one quoted); is thank god that there are enough sane, caring people to realise animal cruelty is disgusting and must be stopped just like any vile underside of human society, including the ones you mentioned. Thank god not every country is run in the completely economically driven way the US is.
I can't even believe that some people believe government is entirely for creating economic viability in a country. No, no and no.
Hah, we even have huge, huge arguments about people hunting foxes; which literally are classed as vermin, albeit protected vermin in many cases. Thank god I live in a sane country with enough moral people to make the thought of broadly legalizing animal cruelty unthinkable.
I understand your disgust with dude you were talking to. I really think I do. But I hope you realize you don't touch his argument -- that there is no such thing as an objective moral code. Your post is, in effect, this: BOO to those who have moral views I disagree with!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.creationcsp.org/uploaded_images/DSC01372-701024.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.gan.ca/images/hooks/slaughterhousecattle.bmp)
![[image loading]](http://www.mfone.com.kh/images/portalone/images/world-news/04-May-2009/art.slaughtered.pigs%5B1%5D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thepirata.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nilgunyalcin_childvulture.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/save-planet-kill-yourself.jpg)
