Animal Liberation Movement (Animal Rights)

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly.
And what comes with power?
In case you truly don't know, it's... responsibility.
Responsibility to those without power.
To children, the disabled, the old, women, etc.
Or do you beat, rape and kill them too, just because you can?


Perhaps you do. I don't. Unless it's mosquitoes.


Obviously. And what a great job we're doing, aren't we?
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, right?
So you're okay if I rob you, just because I'm stronger than you?
I mean if nobody sees it and you can't prove it, what "right" would you like to plead to to protect you? And what makes you think I wouldn't laugh at your pleading?



Yea, we've owned human slaves for generations and cannibal tribes have eaten humans for generations.


I'm glad you agree.


Oh yes. I am. And I'm bugging you with them...


I agree.


Perhaps we exist to be eaten by others? Tigers, cannibals...


As said, YOU are not presenting any arguments.
Like children, mentally disabled, etc. could. Do we eat and experiment on them?



Yea, and maybe we should change that?


That is true, but again, you are not presenting an argument.
It's true what you say, but that in no way makes it right.
The Nazis gassed Jews. That is true. So does that mean that was right?
In your belief system it does.
I suggest you invest some time in beefing it up.
You've been left standing at the green light with a stalled motor!



I agree. Even more so, we also need the protein.
That's why modern man invented tasty veggie meat replacements.
Want me to send you a picture of the smoked veggie sausages, steaks, etc. in my fridge?
I still love meat, just the kind which no animal was killed for.
It tastes double good, going down AND thinking about it... Ahhhh...
Note: I'm not trying to convince you to do likewise, I'm presenting an argument here.


That's O.K., just don't be it.

No, it probably wouldn't be logical to kill half of the planet. I mean, a big question is "who will do the killing?". I don't think we could ever have agreement on that matter. Too many fights would happen just in the effort, especially as some parties that we'd want peace with might actually believe that we'll come after them next. And it certainly isn't worth a fight between powers to get rid of the half we'd want to get rid of. An additional issue to worry about is the disruption of trade. Finally, an additional issue is whether it really is beneficial. Most halves of the world are good guinea pigs for some study.

Genius is not an equilibrium. Genius is genius, and it is the ability to revolutionize perspective, not a matter of emotion.

No, it probably wouldn't be logical to kill half of the planet. I mean, a big question is "who will do the killing?". I don't think we could ever have agreement on that matter. Too many fights would happen just in the effort, especially as some parties that we'd want peace with might actually believe that we'll come after them next. And it certainly isn't worth a fight between powers to get rid of the half we'd want to get rid of. An additional issue to worry about is the disruption of trade. Finally, an additional issue is whether it really is beneficial. Most halves of the world are good guinea pigs for some study.

Genius is not an equilibrium. Genius is genius, and it is the ability to revolutionize perspective, not a matter of emotion.[/quote

Dogs are not like asparagus.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1X55b6t-UM&feature=related[/youtube]

Dogs are nothing like asparagus.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiiG3-yU7k&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/youtube]

I don't really want to rape children and old people.

Not only that, but really, old people have more power than young people. Who votes more often? As for children, well, what constitutes a child? We already allow for abortions of fetuses in the womb, and from what I've heard, sometimes efforts to prevent young with genetic diseases(such as retardation) from making it on are promoted. Heck, it is actually the case that Peter Singer, a major animal rights activist would allow for the killing of newborns. There really isn't a consistency in this matter.

In any case though, no, there is no responsibility to the powerless. At most there is responsibility to promote efficiency, and killing animals to eat them is very efficient at the moment. There is no other way to get meat than to kill animals, and I am pretty sure people are willing to pay the premium for land and other resources to get meat.


Because mosquitoes are the evil animals?


That's why I believe in gun ownership. Who is stronger is more of an open question if one or more parties is holding a gun. In any case, that's also the reason why clarity on these matters is important. In any case though, society is always run by might making right, the issue is a question of who has the might? The more of a coalition it is, the more of an open question it is.


Sure, the problem is that for most things, slaves aren't very efficient. The only exception is sex, and a lot of that is due to the legal issues. Cannibal tribes have eaten humans for generations, and unless they integrate with the modern world, they will continue to make these efforts. When they integrate though, it will be more important to get human flesh through more proper channels.


No, you are trying to mess with my ideas to see if they are consistent on some level.


No, we have guns, they don't.


Children are usually considered "pre-persons", they are in a special position because they have future personhood, and because they are considered to belong to the parents somewhat and to society as well. As for the mentally disabled... well... often they die. In the past we actually would sterilize them at times. I doubt we tend to eat them though simply because very few people want to do that. Experimenting on the mentally handicapped also has it's problems, but it could be viable if we really needed the resources.


No, we obviously shouldn't. It's a waste.


I know, neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can. I may have said this here, but I know said this in one location.

Well, if the Nazis won then all of our textbooks would say that it was right and many of us today would agree. We'd even cite Hitler's arguments about Jewish conspiracies and so on to argue this case.

In any case, it was wrong. Why? We had more guns.


No, you actually aren't presenting an argument. You are attempting to undercut one of my rationales. The issue is that fake meat often doesn't taste as good as real meat.

Can you hear me now?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L28CnhmeAD4&feature=related[/youtube]

You're right, dogs are nothing like asparagus. Dogs are meat. Meat tends to be better tasting than asparagus.

Another f*****g robot...

^^^ My cats are that smart too, all animals are, it's just people haven't taken the time to notice or figure it out, and I guess some or many will never care anyway.

Awesomelyglorious:

Oh boy, you're a real "tough nut" aren't ya?
I think you're arguing here for the mere pleasure of arguing. Or boredom?
You fail to acknowledge when others make arguments, but insist instead that every argument they make is an effort to undercut your... what was it? your "rationales"...
Isn't that a little a biased, skewed and thus immature way of discussing?

Why is it, if we call arguments "rationales" instead of what they are, namely arguments, why is it that only your "rationales" are deemed "rationales", while all other people's are mere efforts to undercut yours?
Is it perhaps so that you can continue to be an ignorant egoist and so that you can uphold an image of others as lacking "rationales" (which you simply choose to call something else when they are made by anyone but you), in other words as being simply not "rational"?
How convenient. And immature. (not meant personally, just an analysis of your argumentation style)

I know when I provide an argument, you call that not an argument, but an effort to undercut your "rationales", but I'll still do it, and I'll call it an argument no matter how biased your view of communication between you and others seems to be:
Again, you spoke the truth: Often or even mostly, fake meat doesn't taste as good as real meat. But that's not the only quality fake meat has. Fake meat, unlike real meat has the quality that one knows that no animal suffered for it, was killed or treated without respect.
That quality might not mean anything to you, but it is a quality and my mentioning it is an argument. Mr. "undercutting my rationales"...

And in regards to you're belief in guns protecting you or making you equally strong as me if am stronger than you, what would you say if I hired 2-3 guys with machine guns to rob you?
Would you still whine about your right not to be robbed because you have a right to hold a gun, etc.? Or if I simply shot you from behind with a sniper rifle?
Where would YOUR rights, those which you deem so important, be then?

Why should the fact that I eat meat cause trouble?

I don't eat anything I don't own or was not given to me as a gift.

ruveyn

I don't think you are making arguments, that doesn't mean that what you are doing is illegitimate in an argument. Arguments have more of a structure, neither of us have been providing structure.


Oh, you have rationales as well, but you have actually been trying to undermine my reasons more than support yours in this situation.


No, it has nothing to do with that. I said earlier that neither side can really make an argument on this issue. If either side could make an argument, then we could talk more about rationality. But as it stands, nobody really has solid foundations.


Umm..... it isn't an argument. My statement in return also wasn't an argument. The issue is that nobody is creating intellectual coercive statements or anything close, therefore no arguments. I am also not being biased on this matter.

Well, ok? Saying that no animal has died for fake meat does not make it an argument. In fact, the very fact that it "might not mean anything to [me]" makes this not an argument. If it were an argument, then it would be intellectually coercive on some level, but you have admitted that this could easily not be intellectually coercive at all. Thus, it isn't an argument. It is an assertion, it is a statement, if you used it better, it could be a rationale, but it lacks sufficient foundations to be an argument.


Umm.... let's see:
1) If I was robbed, I would get you back, for doing this.
2) If I was shot in the back, then I would be dead.

Secondly, to further address the matter, you are assuming that I am being a realist about rights, as in I think that rights exist in reality. I don't think that, I think that society is a messy bloody issue, but instead, I prefer individuals over tyranny of central authorities. The problem is that our language and our intuitions are realist despite our recognition of the anti-realism of reality.

But your issue of the robbers isn't an argument, as it fails to be rationally coercive. (not only that, but the hiring of 3 guys is probably something beyond your power in the first place, as people don't like risking their lives)

THE BREAKFAST MOUSE

There is a mouse
Inside my house
Who comes outside to see.
When he comes out
I look at him
And he looks at me.

With his teeth
He mines my wall
To make his living room
And hall.
My architecture,
No conjecture,
For his pragmatic taste.
My house is just a warmer hole

To make his Winter living space
Where Summer always seems to be.
When he comes out
I look at him
And he looks at me.

The round small eyes
To take in facts
Like shiny headed ball top tacks
Regard me with but little fear.
Just let me sneeze -
He'll disappear.
But sometimes,
When I'm drinking tea,
Then he comes out.
I look at him,
And he looks at me.

Since he's the guest
And I'm the host
I sometimes offer him
Some toast
Which he accepts most gratefully.
And as he eats
I look at him,
And, he looks at me.

I do not mind,
In my house
A single solitary mouse.
But it happens frequently
Mice start their own
Community.
I cast a worried look at him,
And he looks at me.

If he brings a girlfriend home
With her suitcase, brush and comb,
To have a family,
Soon every nook and every cranny
Will fill with kids and aunts and granny!
Frankly, that's a bit too many.
Nervously, I look at him
And he looks at me.

If he over-multiplies
He'll fill the walls
With small mouse cries.
They'll gaze at me,
Near and far,
Eyes like
Russian caviar.

They'll drill my walls
Like Swiss cheese
Admitting in
The Winter breeze
And we'll cough and gasp and sneeze!
This is what I could foresee.
Panicking, I look at him
And he looks at me.

Toast in paw,
He looks at me
Trusting in humanity,
Gnawing very steadily,
Extending friendship readily.
"Oh well," I think,
"I'm sure he's single.
Let him stay and hang his shingle.
Allow this fellow to exist.
Perhaps he's a misogynist !"
My house is nice, we both agree.
I smile at him.
He grins at me.

My house is like the Earth,
You see.
There's room for him
And room for me.
But we must plan
Most carefully
So space for both of us
Is free.
I at my chair, he in his hole
Can make it very comfortably.
I wipe my mouth,
He scrubs his nose.
I nod my head to him, and he
Shows his tail to me.

My philosophy class is talking about the ethics of what we eat. It's very fascinating. We had a book by Peter Singer as a required text for the class. It's really interesting to hear what they have to say, as well as some of the reasons not to buy the cheap meat at the stores. It's too bad that people don't treat animals with respect. Even though I still eat meat, I think that animals should be treated with respect, have a good environment to live in, and good food to eat. It's interesting that the factory farms feed cows (and even fish) corn, which not only isn't their natural diet, which is fairly unhealthy for them, but it's less efficient (as it takes energy to grow and transport corn). Just a few issues that we discussed thus far. I'm doing the best I can to try to know where my food comes from, and that the animals were living healthily and being treated with respect.

I disagree.


Again, I disagree.


For many things in life there are no solid foundations. Hence people argue about them. Physics might be an exception, but even there, there's different theories over which physics people argue, making this argument and that.


I disagree. I think I am making intellectual coercive statements and therefore presenting arguments. You simply fail to accept or recognize them as such.
It's like me saying: You're stupid. And no matter what you say, even if you beat Einstein, I can still say: "You're stupid."
Just because you fail to accept or recognize intellectual coerciveness, does not mean something is not an intellectual coercive thought / argument.


This I think is the heart of this little "argument" we're both having here, it is where I think you are mixing things up. Saying that no animal has died for fake meat makes it an argument, and a very important one as such, for all those people who care about animals. You might not be one of them (obviously), and thus, for YOU, that might not be an "argument", or more specifically, not an argument that you accept as relevant (for you), but that does not mean it is not an argument per se.
We live in a society with humans having rights as you like to boast, such as your right to bear arms, but not animal rights.
Then tell me: For Nazis, a Jew's right to live, simply because he was a human being, was not an argument. Nazis simply didn't accept that argument and murdered Jews.
Now tell me, saying that Jews deserve not to be murdered, simply because they are humans, is NOT an argument simply because Nazi's didn't accept it as intellectual coercive?
For Nazis, Jews were an inferior race. For them, it was intellectual coercive to murder them.
Don't you see that your way of argumentation is identical to what Nazis used to excuse, or rather "explain" their murdering of Jews?
Wouldn't you agree that this is an argument indeed, and a problematic one for your arguments presented so far (because it renders them intellectual non-coercive)?
(I mean IF you were / are honest...) Or do you simply lack the intellectual power / abilities to perceive the intellectual coerciveness of this? Maybe we should simply consider that?
Just because Nazis thought Jews were an inferior race, telling them that they are human beings like others, and that thus, they have human rights like others, was NOT an argument for Nazis.
So does that make it NOT an argument IN GENERAL, to say Jews should not be murdered because they are human beings and thus entitled to human rights?
Just because something is NOT an argument FOR YOU, or for anyone else, does NOT make it NOT intellectual coercive. You're failing to accept, or understand the intellectual coerciveness of an argument does not mean it's not intellectual coercive.
Have you ever taken into consideration that your own intellect might be limited and that thus, you don't understand perfectly intellectual coercive arguments? Or is that a possibility that has slipped your supposedly "intellectual coercive" mind entirely?


I disagree. It is intellectual coercive, you just fail to accept the intellectual coerciveness of it. That's a difference. And I can't remember having "admitted that this could easily not be intellectually coercive at all". If you're implying what I said about that animal rightists perhaps being a little "boinkers", you are jumping to intellectual non-coercive conclusions. Just because someone is "boinkers" does not mean he or she cannot make intellectual coercive arguments. If you are an Aspie, you're a little "boinkers". That doesn't mean you cannot make intellectual coercive arguments.
You should judge arguments by their content value, not by their origin.


So you say. I disagree entirely. This isn't an argument, but simply your opinion. Your opinion is that all I say aren't any arguments because none of it is intellectual coercive as you deem. That's your opinion. I disagree, but you are entitled to your own opinion. Just like I am to mine.
Now was that intellectual coercive?


Now *I* think you're becoming a little more intellectual coercive.
You're admitting, that you don't "believe" in human rights either. That makes it coercive that you wouldn't "believe" in animal rights either.
Now THAT's a whole different issue.
I'm glad I could help you reach this conclusion. It's very different from what you started out with, namely your belief that you have rights as a human and that you support human's rights, such as your right to bear an arm (a right of humans, if not a "human right", which exists only in the USA).

I really don't think Animals should be granted rights because, if they are, there is no way of knowing how far it would go.

PETA has literally stated that they want all pets banned outright because they believe that if you have any kind of pet you are enslaving it. (I have a Dog, and he is happy, but should I be arrested simply because he is in my house and has a collar and an I.D tag on it? (these are VERY important, since the pet can be indentified if he/she gets lost, but is found by someone later on))

They also say that wearing fur, leather, silk, and other materials that come from Animals is "unethical", will we start passing laws that prohibit us from wearing clothes made out of these materials? Or tell everyone that they can't eat eggs, bacon, fish, etc, etc, because they come from Animals? I really don't think we should allow Animal rights groups to tell us how to live our lives.