Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 238
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Man shoots a horse to prove a point

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No. There doesn't have to be a source. What are you trying to say - that there are no rights?
    Of course there must be a source. Are you claiming that anyone is granted "rights" in life without any source? Are you claiming there is such a thing as "rights at birth?"
    I am saying that there are no rights. There is no morality, no ethics, no absolutes.

    They are inventions based entirely on our evolved state, our wants and motives.
    And I know that you know it.
    NO ONE is granted rights automatically. Someone must believe in rights and some governing body must accept and enforce those rights.
    So, yes, there must be a source.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No it isn't. You are dodging the questions.
    How stupid do you think I am, Harold? I mean, really- what do you take me for?
    Do you honestly think you were clever, just then?
    You are dodging and it's clear that you're dodging and deciding to go full on liar now won't change it one bit.
    Now, it's well established that your debate tactics consist of befuddling rather than expressing verifiable arguments and you prefer dishonesty and hand-waving over presentation of valid points or positions that have merit.

    But I am not going to tolerate it. It's very simple: Present a well thought out position and back it up with logic, rational suppositions, evidence or beliefs.
    Or do not bother posting at all because the only thing you're doing at this point is making a fool of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do I need a source? What is the source of any right? What is the source of the animal's right? What are the consequences?
    Did you really just ask this? This is the type of question that would result in newforum members being cautioned or sanctioned on. The legal governing body of a region/country determines whether something has rights or not, as you are fully aware. The consequences of violating those rights are described in detail in the legal code. What legal evidences do you have to support the removal of those legally granted rights from the legal code?
    Rights are not given to people by government or governments.

    You may think you can take a mans right to kill a horse and you may think you can give a horse the right to live but, you, nor no other man, woman or child can.

    Rights do not come from you, government laws, your votes or your elected officials. Rights are governed and issued through evolution and natural laws. You are born, due to the processes which led to your very existence on this planet, with rights and liberties. That process has given individuals, and no one but the individual, complete control over what to do with and how to exercise their rights and liberties.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, everyone is endowed with rights and liberty. I do not understand why you think it is you who gives dogs the right to bite, or horses the right to run, or fish the right to swim. You do not gift or grant rights or liberties. What you can do is use or attempt to use the rights and liberties you have been endowed with to attack, limit or remove the rights and liberties of others but, they can still use what they have been endowed with to resist you, fight you and stop you. Nature and the evolutionary process will dictate who wins that struggle, and that is natural.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Rights are not given to people by government or governments.

    You may think you can take a mans right to kill a horse and you may think you can give a horse the right to live but, you, nor no other man, woman or child can.

    Rights do not come from you, government laws, your votes or your elected officials. Rights are governed and issued through evolution and natural laws. You are born, due to the processes which led to your very existence on this planet, with rights and liberties. That process has given individuals, and no one but the individual, complete control over what to do with and how to exercise their rights and liberties.
    Wishful thinking. The motives for what are deemed "rights" are evolved, true. But only governments, voted officials and laws grant you those rights.
    If you disbelieve, try breaking the law and see how quickly you lose 'rights.'

    People like you and me will fight very hard for what we believe is right. But we have acknowledged since the outset that we each are arguing beliefs, here.
    Each of our concepts of "right" are in disagreement with the each other.
    This is because there is no such thing as right. Is it right or breaking rights for an asteroid to strike the Earth- or a GRB?
    There is no governing body for "right and rights" except for ourselves.
    It is us- we are the source. And if you are outvoted by the majority then your concept of 'right' gets stamped out, no matter how hard we fight for it.

    You believe that you have a "Right" to kill an animal for any reason. I disagree, I say that their right to live outweighs your personal whims. These are subjective beliefs. You've known this all along.

    And you are not born with rights or liberties. You are just born and after that- the onus is on you to survive in a harsh world that does not really give a damn about your beliefs.

    There is good news, however. There are those like me, that have a belief that some of us should stand up and fight for those that may be exploited. You can disagree all you want. Claim "rights" that were granted at birth by whatever deity you see fit. But in the end, you're born at the mercy of everyone else. And you should be grateful there are plenty of people that have empathy in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, everyone is endowed with rights and liberty. I do not understand why you think it is you who gives dogs the right to bite, or horses the right to run, or fish the right to swim. You do not gift or grant rights or liberties. What you can do is use or attempt to use the rights and liberties you have been endowed with to attack, limit or remove the rights and liberties of others but, they can still use what they have been endowed with to resist you, fight you and stop you. Nature and the evolutionary process will dictate who wins that struggle, and that is natural.
    This entire set of spewing is nothing but an absurd distortion of what I have said and deserves no meaningful response to point out the glaring and obvious nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Again Neverfly, laws do not gift me rights or liberties, nor do laws limit my rights and liberties. I was endowed, I was born, with my rights and liberties and it is I who limit my own rights and liberties based on my own beliefs and governence.

    What a group of people can do, what a government can do, with the same endowments and natural laws, is attempt to limit or remove my rights and liberties, by force or persuasion, etc., but that is all they can do. They can only attempt to limit or take rights and liberties from people by force or threats of force. This is not, as you think it is, them being the creator and/or giver of rights and liberties.

    If the fear that you may lose your life or suffer consequences for using your endowed rights and liberties causes you to curb your actions, then that's on you. I would and only can tell you not to be so scared, that you are a free man and to not let the fear of death, consiquences or tyrants be the reason you do not excercise your rights and liberties.

    No one said that a gazelles right and liberty to run around and graze on food would not be challenged and threatened by a lion excercising his own right and liberty to hunt down and kill that gazelle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No one said that a gazelles right and liberty to run around and graze on food would not be challenged and threatened by a lion excercising his own right and liberty to hunt down and kill that gazelle.
    I'm not going to bother with debating whether we are born with "rights" or not.

    But the last bit... You said, "Well, I will let you explain it." I did explain it. You either did not read it or did not understand it.
    I have no problem with hunting. I stated an issue against Killing without need. I responded to the O.P.
    This, again, is a Red Herring. Since I made a lengthy post that explained my point of view, you also have no excuse for positing such red herrings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No one said that a gazelles right and liberty to run around and graze on food would not be challenged and threatened by a lion excercising his own right and liberty to hunt down and kill that gazelle.
    I'm not going to bother with debating whether we are born with "rights" or not.But the last bit... You said, "Well, I will let you explain it." I did explain it. You either did not read it or did not understand it.I have no problem with hunting. I stated an issue against Killing without need. I responded to the O.P.This, again, is a Red Herring. Since I made a lengthy post that explained my point of view, you also have no excuse for positing such red herrings.
    I respect your beliefs and opinions. You and I, as well as most on this thread, are pretty close in our feelings and beliefs concerning animals.

    My only point is that I will not support infringing upon, or attempting to infringe upon, human rights and liberties for animal rights and animal welfare. This is not because i have a lack of respect, awe or compassion for animals, it is because I have a greater respect for human rights and human liberties. Not a single person has to agree with me. Of course, that is ok with me.

    I do understand your points and opinions, and I respect them.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 2nd, 2013 at 03:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No one said that a gazelles right and liberty to run around and graze on food would not be challenged and threatened by a lion excercising his own right and liberty to hunt down and kill that gazelle.
    I'm not going to bother with debating whether we are born with "rights" or not.But the last bit... You said, "Well, I will let you explain it." I did explain it. You either did not read it or did not understand it.I have no problem with hunting. I stated an issue against Killing without need. I responded to the O.P.This, again, is a Red Herring. Since I made a lengthy post that explained my point of view, you also have no excuse for positing such red herrings.
    I respect your beliefs and opinions. You and I, as well as most on this thread, are pretty close in our feelings and beliefs concerning animals.

    My only point is that I will not support infringing upon, or attempting to infringe upon, human rights and liberties for animal rights and animal welfare. Not a single person has to agree with me. Of course, that is ok with me.

    I am also not trying to force my convictions or beliefs on others, I am just expressing my opinion and obsorbing, while also trying to understand, the opinions and the merits/strengths of those opinions.

    I do understand your points and opinions, and I respect them.
    A bit of off topic rambling -- It is three am and I feel like rambling.

    I do not respect yours. Nor do I respect some of the tactics you have used.
    But the problem I run into is that the difference between your belief in mine is both very small and very large at the same time. There is a very fine line, and that fine line requires each of us be slightly hypocritical in our views.

    I think it's perfectly acceptable to kill because you are hungry, yet unacceptable to kill because you felt the urge to get a rush.
    It's rather arbitrary.

    Yours is rather arbitrary because yours is entirely self serving. It is not based on a value of life but a value of only one kind of life.

    And Freedom is one of the most important concepts I can believe in.
    I do respect those that will defend it-- not in political maneuvering or foreign relations, but in real life.

    I believe the reason for this strangely opinionated difference is that our entire society is utterly flawed.
    We want to have our cake and eat it, too. We want convenience but we also want welfare. We want independence but we also want safety.

    I do not respect your belief because the flaw in your belief is that you think a persons rights are being violated if someone stops them from causing harm.
    I think that the only rights you can lay claim to are the rights that deal with your own life, not the needless ending of the lives of others.
    I do not understand your concepts of ownership. If you run a dog fighting ring... Do you own the lives of those dogs just because you claim you own them? That is the concept of slavery, not ownership. It is based on ancient superstition of the bible, not on anything that makes sense.
    Asserting dominance is not necessarily a right, it is just a behavior.

    You say you respect my points, but you do not appear to read them. You present a falsified version of what I said, a little too often.

    In the end, the only way you can claim a "right to kill" is whether or not you can do so unchallenged. That's the way it really is. If something bigger and stronger than you decides you do not have that right- then you do not have it. And you can squeal all you like about it, you still won't have it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, I read every word everyone types in threads I post in/on. I also digest those words and I understand them.

    My interest in human rights and human liberties are also not self serving, meaning myself alone, it is for all humans... Although, I am very appreciative and extremely grateful for those who fought and took on the same type of tyrants you referred to so that I have fewer bullies, sickos and tyrants, than i otherwise would have, to contend with in order to exercise my own rights and liberties.

    I simply will not harm or advocate for the infringement upon people's rights and liberties because they harmed or infringed, or are infringing, upon the rights, liberties or welfare of an animal they own.

    It is not a good enough reason/excuse/justifiction to "put boots on the throats of people" IMO.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 2nd, 2013 at 04:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why do I need a source? What is the source of any right? What is the source of the animal's right? What are the consequences?
    Did you really just ask this? This is the type of question that would result in newforum members being cautioned or sanctioned on. The legal governing body of a region/country determines whether something has rights or not, as you are fully aware. The consequences of violating those rights are described in detail in the legal code.

    What legal evidences do you have to support the removal of those legally granted rights from the legal code?
    Interesting position you are taking. Rights are determined by laws. This would mean that the Jews in Nazi Germany had no right to live. Slaves do not have a right to freedom in a region/country where slavery is legal. I guess you could say that. Do you really want to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I simply will not harm or advocate for the infringement upon people's rights and liberties because they harmed or infringed, or are infringing, upon the rights, liberties or welfare of an animal they own.
    Is it unrestricted freedom? Put another way, if they had consequences that did not involve a fine or jail time... Such as a restriction on animals they could keep, etc., would you find that to be common ground or still too much infringement?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Interesting position you are taking. Rights are determined by laws. This would mean that the Jews in Nazi Germany had no right to live. Slaves do not have a right to freedom in a region/country where slavery is legal. I guess you could say that. Do you really want to?
    The fallacy in this is that others enforced the rights of the jews, invaded Germany and released the survivors from the concentration camps. So in the end, the basic humanities were restored.

    But aside from that, I will say it. That is how it is. Some will say it's a benefit that the majority of people today oppose slavery or laws that allow the killing of a race.
    But it absolutely is as you just said and if the majority of people on Earth decided that a race could be exterminated or slavery was acceptable, that would be how it is.
    That is how rights would be granted. There are no absolute rights. No absolute morality. To have either would require a source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    You have the right to fight, you do not have the right to win.

    You can do whatever you want to rights and liberties, except create them. Our evolutionary journey/path on this planet has created them and it will continue to develope and create them, not the government.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 2nd, 2013 at 04:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    People can only take rights and liberties away, they are not the creators of them.
    Who is the creator of them, then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The fallacy in this is that others enforced the rights of the jews, invaded Germany and released the survivors from the concentration camps. So in the end, the basic humanities were restored.
    Aha. You gave yourself away. You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    So you didn't?

    If not why don't you think that all people including Jews have rights?
    Last edited by cosmictraveler; April 2nd, 2013 at 04:54 AM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    People can only take rights and liberties away, they are not the creators of them.
    Who is the creator of them, then?
    Our evolutionary journey/path on this planet created them.

    A have the right to walk. You did not give that to me. The government did not give that to me.

    The government did not give me my rights or liberties, the only thing they can do is try to help people protect/defend the rights and liberties given to them or they can try to take or limit the rights and liberties given to people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    So you didn't?

    If not why don't you think that all people including Jews have rights?
    I'm not the one claiming that. Neverfly and Paleoichneum say that rights come from the law. Jews didn't have rights under the law at that place and time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    So you didn't?

    If not why don't you think that all people including Jews have rights?
    I'm not the one claiming that. Neverfly and Paleoichneum say that rights come from the law. Jews didn't have rights under the law at that place and time.
    But I'll ask you again , do you think the Jews have any human rights at all in your opinion not under Hitler.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Harold has made his position clear, at least IMO. All people, Jews included, have rights no matter what nation they are in or what the laws of those nations are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Harold has made his position clear, at least IMO. All people, Jews included, have rights no matter what nation they are in or what the laws of those nations are.
    I'll await his answer for it isn't right for others to say things that others might think.

    By the way can you answer my post Man shoots a horse to prove a point thanks.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Cosmictraveler, I thought I addressed that post already. I see and have seen no evidence that killing animals or abusing animals causes people to kill humans.

    If this is the case then hunters, vets, vet assistance, shelter employees, butchers, farmers, scientist, etc., must be killing, and have killed, a lot of people by now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I wanna see the complete vidio wherein the guy actually shoots the horse, then drags it off and butchers it.
    and
    ain't it ironic that employees of the meat packing company are receiving death threats---(but that's ok? to --threaten to--kill a human for killing a horse?)--------but the "news" jerks don't show those either.

    long ago when i was a student i came upon some rather peculiar laws
    one of which was that threatening to beat someone up(assault) carried a longer prison sentence, than just doing it(battery)

    tempest in a tea pot

    screw the animal rights loonies, and lets see some human rights activists going after the people who threatened to kill other humans.

    here's an hypothetical for you
    If someone threatens to kill me
    do I have th right to drop them before they get their chance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Aha. You gave yourself away. You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    Gave myself away? Are you trying to be clever, again?
    If you're going to engage in sophistry simply because you cannot support the questions you provide as answers, don't bother to post.

    The Jews in Germany had no rights because what we call rights were denied to them. However... they had those basic human rights before and after the Reich.
    So, yes- it was restored- and yes, your example is flawed. "We" Want to believe in basic human rights, "we" being the majority of people on the planet, as that is a self protective measure to ensure we have rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neveryfly, you still do not understand what rights and liberties are, nor where they come from.

    Hitler did not refuse to give the jews rights and liberties, they are not his to give. The Jews, like everyone else, are born with rights and liberties, what hitler did was infringe upon them.

    A slave has the same rights and liberties as a slave owner. The only difference between the two is that the slave will have to be willing to fight harder and put his life on the line to exercise those rights and liberties.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 2nd, 2013 at 01:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I have been following this discussion and I think that I comprehend what gonzales has been reiterating.

    It is life that confers rights and those rights are determined by the form of life manifest. All forms of life impinge upon each other. Humans are, presently, capable of infringing upon most known species and their own kind.

    Humans have devised the concept of law, rule and regulation by which means they impose their will upon other humans and species.In summary, we are all born into the rights of life though we may not be in a circumstance to exercise them.

    Thats all my little brain is capable of at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Aha. You gave yourself away. You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    Gave myself away? Are you trying to be clever, again?
    If you're going to engage in sophistry simply because you cannot support the questions you provide as answers, don't bother to post.

    The Jews in Germany had no rights because what we call rights were denied to them. However... they had those basic human rights before and after the Reich.
    So, yes- it was restored- and yes, your example is flawed. "We" Want to believe in basic human rights, "we" being the majority of people on the planet, as that is a self protective measure to ensure we have rights.
    People do not believe in rights as a tit for tat proposition. I don't think even you do. They are just taught to respect other people's rights, and they internalize that as a belief in rights. And how will you explain animal rights? Do people think they have to respect animal rights for fear of retaliation, a la Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Aha. You gave yourself away. You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    Gave myself away? Are you trying to be clever, again?
    If you're going to engage in sophistry simply because you cannot support the questions you provide as answers, don't bother to post.

    The Jews in Germany had no rights because what we call rights were denied to them. However... they had those basic human rights before and after the Reich.
    So, yes- it was restored- and yes, your example is flawed. "We" Want to believe in basic human rights, "we" being the majority of people on the planet, as that is a self protective measure to ensure we have rights.
    People do not believe in rights as a tit for tat proposition. I don't think even you do. They are just taught to respect other people's rights, and they internalize that as a belief in rights. And how will you explain animal rights? Do people think they have to respect animal rights for fear of retaliation, a la Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"?
    Well first, we establish what "rights" are: They are a concept based primarily on wanted treatment and behavior. If you want to be treated a certain way, you decide you have a "right" to receive that treatment.
    If a Gay couple, a black man, a woman, a Hispanic or a Jew all decide that they have the "right" to equal and fair treatment, they will speak out against unfair, racist, bigoted or intolerant behavior.
    All of those "rights" are just concepts of what they want.
    These "rights" are not granted by God. They are not, as Gonzo and Scheherazade pointed out, created or granted by society- only recognized by it. But we are not born with rights, either. They are merely our wants.
    Being such, do animals have rights? Of course they do because we are animals.

    Oh... You meant other animals.

    Yes, because they want to be treated well. It is their wants, to not be butchered, or beaten and it's society that will either recognize or not recognize that.

    See, my thing is that I do not see humans as anything more or better than animals. I think that if humans want to eat eachother, we should be able to hunt eachother. Messed up, huh?
    I think we place ourselves on a pedestal. I don't think we need to treat animals like people. I think that people are animals and should be more aware of that. We should be treating eachother like animals. Because that is what we are.
    If being hunted is good enough for deer, it should be good enough for us.
    I think we created a massive flaw with pre-packaged meat.
    We elevated ourselves above our station. It's not that other animals should be elevated, but us that needs to step down a notch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Aha. You gave yourself away. You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    Gave myself away? Are you trying to be clever, again?
    If you're going to engage in sophistry simply because you cannot support the questions you provide as answers, don't bother to post.

    The Jews in Germany had no rights because what we call rights were denied to them. However... they had those basic human rights before and after the Reich.
    So, yes- it was restored- and yes, your example is flawed. "We" Want to believe in basic human rights, "we" being the majority of people on the planet, as that is a self protective measure to ensure we have rights.
    People do not believe in rights as a tit for tat proposition. I don't think even you do. They are just taught to respect other people's rights, and they internalize that as a belief in rights. And how will you explain animal rights? Do people think they have to respect animal rights for fear of retaliation, a la Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"?
    Well first, we establish what "rights" are: They are a concept based primarily on wanted treatment and behavior. If you want to be treated a certain way, you decide you have a "right" to receive that treatment.
    If a Gay couple, a black man, a woman, a Hispanic or a Jew all decide that they have the "right" to equal and fair treatment, they will speak out against unfair, racist, bigoted or intolerant behavior.
    All of those "rights" are just concepts of what they want.
    That's a pretty weird definition of a right. If I want something, then I have a right to it? Nonsense.
    These "rights" are not granted by God. They are not, as Gonzo and Scheherazade pointed out, created or granted by society- only recognized by it. But we are not born with rights, either. They are merely our wants.
    Being such, do animals have rights? Of course they do because we are animals.

    Oh... You meant other animals.
    There are two definitions of animal in the dictionary, the biological definition and the common definition. It should be obvious from the context which meaning I am using.
    Yes, because they want to be treated well. It is their wants, to not be butchered, or beaten and it's society that will either recognize or not recognize that.

    See, my thing is that I do not see humans as anything more or better than animals. I think that if humans want to eat eachother, we should be able to hunt eachother. Messed up, huh?
    I think we place ourselves on a pedestal. I don't think we need to treat animals like people. I think that people are animals and should be more aware of that. We should be treating eachother like animals. Because that is what we are.
    If being hunted is good enough for deer, it should be good enough for us.
    I think we created a massive flaw with pre-packaged meat.
    We elevated ourselves above our station. It's not that other animals should be elevated, but us that needs to step down a notch.
    Fine, that is your opinion, but I see no reason why I or anyone else should adopt it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Harold are you going to answer my post...Man shoots a horse to prove a point
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    That's a pretty weird definition of a right. If I want something, then I have a right to it? Nonsense.
    I never said that you do have a right to it. I said that is what rights are: Something someone wants and in their common entitlement issues; decide that it is a right to have it.
    Do you deny it, Harold? Or do you believe that Rights are something God given or that you are born with? Can you define what a "right" is so those of use discussing this don't have to guess at your game of twenty questions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There are two definitions of animal in the dictionary, the biological definition and the common definition. It should be obvious from the context which meaning I am using.
    Unless you are in denial that humans are animals, then there is only one definition and if others misuse proper descriptions because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs- That is not my problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Fine, that is your opinion, but I see no reason why I or anyone else should adopt it.
    And I have no reason to adopt yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I have been following this discussion and I think that I comprehend what gonzales has been reiterating.It is life that confers rights and those rights are determined by the form of life manifest. All forms of life impinge upon each other. Humans are, presently, capable of infringing upon most known species and their own kind.Humans have devised the concept of law, rule and regulation by which means they impose their will upon other humans and species.In summary, we are all born into the rights of life though we may not be in a circumstance to exercise them.
    Correct. Life on this planet is endowed with rights and liberties by the evolutionary processes on this planet. The abilities we possess, the abilities to walk, sit, lay, use our hands and arms, talk, laugh, cry, see, hear, think, feel, etc., are all rights given to us by evolutionary processes on this planet.

    Ones rights and liberties are written, stored and found within their DNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I have been following this discussion and I think that I comprehend what gonzales has been reiterating.It is life that confers rights and those rights are determined by the form of life manifest. All forms of life impinge upon each other. Humans are, presently, capable of infringing upon most known species and their own kind.Humans have devised the concept of law, rule and regulation by which means they impose their will upon other humans and species.In summary, we are all born into the rights of life though we may not be in a circumstance to exercise them.
    Correct. Life on this planet is endowed with rights and liberties by the evolutionary processes on this planet. The abilities we possess, the abilities to walk, sit, lay, use our hands and arms, talk, laugh, cry, see, hear, think, feel, etc., are all rights given to us by evolutionary processes on this planet.

    Ones rights and liberties are written, stored and found within their DNA.
    Show us the peer-reviewed paper where these rights are enumerated quantified and defined. Because as of my my major cell biology class section have shown be that this is more bullshit.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, again, you do not have a right not to be killed, you have a right to try and defend yourself though.

    You also have the right and liberty to try and defend animals.

    You have a right to attempt anything you want but, you do not have a right to be successful. We are still governed by the laws and rules of nature and the universe, and we must still contend with things in nature and the universe (including humans). No one has a right to a favorable outcome, they only have the right and liberty to act/actions, the outcome will be decided by the laws and rules of nature and the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I have been following this discussion and I think that I comprehend what gonzales has been reiterating.It is life that confers rights and those rights are determined by the form of life manifest. All forms of life impinge upon each other. Humans are, presently, capable of infringing upon most known species and their own kind.Humans have devised the concept of law, rule and regulation by which means they impose their will upon other humans and species.In summary, we are all born into the rights of life though we may not be in a circumstance to exercise them.
    Correct. Life on this planet is endowed with rights and liberties by the evolutionary processes on this planet. The abilities we possess, the abilities to walk, sit, lay, use our hands and arms, talk, laugh, cry, see, hear, think, feel, etc., are all rights given to us by evolutionary processes on this planet. Ones rights and liberties are written, stored and found within their DNA.
    Show us the peer-reviewed paper where these rights are enumerated quantified and defined. Because as of my my major cell biology class section have shown be that this is more bullshit.
    You can believe that Man is viod of all things, that they could not, and never would be able to think, walk, talk or use their arms and hands if a government did not created these things and then allow mankind to use them but, you would be wrong.

    I truly hope you are not paying for the education you are receiving.

    For my amusement, did they also teach you that birds could not fly until a government somewhere created and then gifted/endowed birds with an ability to fly?

    Who knows, maybe the US congress can use the powers you think governments have and pass a law stating magical unicorns and Care Bears are real, defining their looks, movement, abilities and powers, and then poof, they will appear. Not only will they appear, they will be completely bound, controlled and confined in what they can do, in their actions and thoughts, by the all giving and all powerful government law.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 3rd, 2013 at 01:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You think they already had basic humanities before they were "restored."
    So you didn't?

    If not why don't you think that all people including Jews have rights?
    I'm not the one claiming that. Neverfly and Paleoichneum say that rights come from the law. Jews didn't have rights under the law at that place and time.
    But I'll ask you again , do you think the Jews have any human rights at all in your opinion not under Hitler.
    Yes, I think Jews have human rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    That's a pretty weird definition of a right. If I want something, then I have a right to it? Nonsense.
    I never said that you do have a right to it. I said that is what rights are: Something someone wants and in their common entitlement issues; decide that it is a right to have it.
    Do you deny it, Harold? Or do you believe that Rights are something God given or that you are born with? Can you define what a "right" is so those of use discussing this don't have to guess at your game of twenty questions?
    Yes I do deny your definition of rights. It is ridiculous. I do not have a definition of human rights other than they are what I was taught to believe are rights, and are considered rights by long standing tradition. I do not claim any rational basis for it. However, it is at least as rational as yours or anyone else's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There are two definitions of animal in the dictionary, the biological definition and the common definition. It should be obvious from the context which meaning I am using.
    Unless you are in denial that humans are animals, then there is only one definition and if others misuse proper descriptions because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs- That is not my problem.
    Humans are animals, biologically. So what? I was referring to non-human animals as any fool can tell. Before, you said that we respect others' rights as a self protective measure. This can only mean something in the context of human societies, where other people can recognize who is adhering to society's conventions and who is not. Then, people who do not conform to the norms of society would be ostracized or punished. It is not a reason to grant or recognize rights to non-human animals who do not know anything of the norms of society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Fine, that is your opinion, but I see no reason why I or anyone else should adopt it.
    And I have no reason to adopt yours.
    All, right. But I am not the one pontificating on this thread about people shooting horses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes I do deny your definition of rights. It is ridiculous. I do not have a definition of human rights other than they are what I was taught to believe are rights, and are considered rights by long standing tradition. I do not claim any rational basis for it. However, it is at least as rational as yours or anyone else's.
    You are not making any sense at all- you just basically agreed with how I defined "rights" and then claimed that you didn't.
    I say they are just wants and are not rational and you say they are just traditional concepts and are not rational.

    I am beginning to think you are trying to be dishonest, here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is not a reason to grant or recognize rights to non-human animals who do not know anything of the norms of society.
    Humans do not even know anything about the norms of society. We just live as animals do and when we get caught by law enforcement, we plead ignorance. This is where your whole argument falls down, Harold. You keep pretending that we are somehow different animals from all other animals.
    NO WE ARE ANIMALS. In ALL aspects. We are not Divine or special in ANY WAY. We act as animals, we create laws based on animal wants, animal dominance, animal territoriality, animal hunger and survival.
    It is all animal in every single sense of the word.
    You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that there are Humans and there are Animals. This primitive superstition is also an animal behavior.
    -We were not placed here by traveling aliens.
    -We were not placed here by a God.
    -We were not divinely created in his image.
    -We are just another branch in the evolutionary tree and we share all our traits and behaviors.

    Every bit of human psychology, every bit of human anatomy and medicine is all animal.
    Now, unless you have evidence of some divine intervention, some alien tweaking of our nature, or some other undefined event that somehow made us not animals and some evidence of these not animal behavior traits, I suggest you get off the high and mighty holy roller primitive superstition that homo sapiens is not another product of evolution and carries along with it every single trait we inherited from our ancestors just like all the other animals on the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All, right. But I am not the one pontificating on this thread about people shooting horses.
    No, you are pontificating about how animals are not animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes I do deny your definition of rights. It is ridiculous. I do not have a definition of human rights other than they are what I was taught to believe are rights, and are considered rights by long standing tradition. I do not claim any rational basis for it. However, it is at least as rational as yours or anyone else's.
    You are not making any sense at all- you just basically agreed with how I defined "rights" and then claimed that you didn't.
    I say they are just wants and are not rational and you say they are just traditional concepts and are not rational.
    At least my definition is consistent with the traditional use of the word "rights" whereas you have made up a definition that no other speaker of the English language would recognize.
    I am beginning to think you are trying to be dishonest, here.
    And I am beginning to think you are totally full of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is not a reason to grant or recognize rights to non-human animals who do not know anything of the norms of society.
    Humans do not even know anything about the norms of society.
    Another ridiculous statement. Humans are certainly aware of laws, customs, etc. That is what I mean by norms of society.
    We just live as animals do and when we get caught by law enforcement, we plead ignorance. This is where your whole argument falls down, Harold. You keep pretending that we are somehow different animals from all other animals.
    We are different in that we have culture and customs. This is the only context where we can talk about rights. Animals other than humans don't have the concept of rights.
    NO WE ARE ANIMALS. In ALL aspects. We are not Divine or special in ANY WAY.
    Why do you keep bringing up religion? You seem to be obsessed with that.
    We act as animals, we create laws based on animal wants, animal dominance, animal territoriality, animal hunger and survival.
    It is all animal in every single sense of the word.
    You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that there are Humans and there are Animals. This primitive superstition is also an animal behavior.
    -We were not placed here by traveling aliens.
    -We were not placed here by a God.
    -We were not divinely created in his image.
    -We are just another branch in the evolutionary tree and we share all our traits and behaviors.

    Every bit of human psychology, every bit of human anatomy and medicine is all animal.
    Now, unless you have evidence of some divine intervention, some alien tweaking of our nature, or some other undefined event that somehow made us not animals and some evidence of these not animal behavior traits, I suggest you get off the high and mighty holy roller primitive superstition that homo sapiens is not another product of evolution and carries along with it every single trait we inherited from our ancestors just like all the other animals on the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All, right. But I am not the one pontificating on this thread about people shooting horses.
    No, you are pontificating about how animals are not animals.
    All humans are animals. Not all animals are humans. Is that too hard to understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Harold, I think you need to start supporting your assertions with evidence. Provide evidence that other animals lack the concept of a want to live, for example. You claim I am speaking nonsense, not because I am, but because you disagree with my assessment.

    You need to support your claims with evidence, showing that animals do not live by the same domination and desire that define our spoken concept of "rights."
    Period.
    Show that other animals lack any culture or customs and show that that is purely a human convention. (Good Luck!)
    Until you do so, you are just spewing your religious beliefs in a self serving attempt to create a false separation between Divine Humans and dirty animals.

    And yes, humans are aware of laws. This is why you can interview random people on the street and they can tell you what laws are in place, what local ordinances are in place and most can name off their congressmen and representatives.

    Oh wait... the vast majority can't. The majority cannot even pass a basic geography test, basic science test or basic history test.

    While you're at it- look into the field of sociology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Harold, I think you need to start supporting your assertions with evidence. Provide evidence that other animals lack the concept of a want to live, for example. You claim I am speaking nonsense, not because I am, but because you disagree with my assessment.

    You need to support your claims with evidence, showing that animals do not live by the same domination and desire that define our spoken concept of "rights."
    Period.
    Show that other animals lack any culture or customs and show that that is purely a human convention. (Good Luck!)
    Until you do so, you are just spewing your religious beliefs in a self serving attempt to create a false separation between Divine Humans and dirty animals.

    And yes, humans are aware of laws. This is why you can interview random people on the street and they can tell you what laws are in place, what local ordinances are in place and most can name off their congressmen and representatives.

    Oh wait... the vast majority can't. The majority cannot even pass a basic geography test, basic science test or basic history test.

    While you're at it- look into the field of sociology.
    Animals have wants and needs, and a rudimentary form of culture, which is severly limited by lack of spoken or written language. How does this have any bearing on whether or not we shoot a horse?

    Animals kill one another, sometimes in a cruel fashion and/or without an apparent reason. You think humans should be different though. Is that some kind of quasi-religious belief that you have?

    What happened to your hypothesis about rights being a self protective measure? You seem to have backed off of that. It makes sense that people have reciprocal agreements to honor one another's rights. This way they protect themselves from one another and can expect to have their own rights honored. How would this apply to shooting a horse? The word will not get out among the other horses that you are a horse killer. The horses aren't going to stampede and stomp you to death if you kill a horse.

    I think you must have a belief about karma or some other sort of religious thing going on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Animals have wants and needs, and a rudimentary form of culture, which is severly limited by lack of spoken or written language. How does this have any bearing on whether or not we shoot a horse?
    ...
    Is that some kind of quasi-religious belief that you have?
    Obfuscating. It's been made clear for all these pages that humans are animals and both are aware of consequences. With our spoken word and slightly higher intellect than most, we are more aware of consequences.

    The arguments you have been making would be used to justify bigotry, slavery, environmental pollution and wanton lack of care or concern.
    This is in sharp contrast to what you usually post on topics- such as denouncing bigotry (Should religious people be barred from voting) and the like which is very suggestive that you haven't got your beliefs straight.
    This results in a lot of conflict when you go head to head with me. This is why I accused you of engaging in sophistry.

    You asking now how all of this discussion has to do with the topic is absolutely absurd. Our fundamental nature is crucial to understanding the motives of both action and belief and how it relates to moral beliefs, actions/consequences and responsibility for both.
    You are obfuscating, projecting, hand-waiving and avoiding serious discussion with Red Herrings and frankly, it is very difficult to take you seriously when you throw crap out sometimes, science out others and half the time present the appearance of a closet theist. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot claim scientific principle sometimes, then fall back on a (Almost divine) separation between human and animal that is unscientific, claim that others are bigoted and then present arguments that support bigotry other times.
    Psychology, sociology and psychiatry all deal with instincts, base animal behavior and human/animal interactions with eachother, our concepts that have evolved along with us such as Pareidolia, sociopathy, Dunbar number, mating and sexuality, concepts of religion, self-serving qualifiers, territoriality, competitiveness, politics and business. ALL of these are base animal behaviors.

    It is YOU that is presenting a case that these are somehow above, different or special and this is in contradiction with mainstream science and the onus is on YOU to provide evidence that we are anything other than base animals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What happened to your hypothesis about rights being a self protective measure?
    Nothing happened to it. You are attempting to distort what has been said in order to create confusion in order to undermine my arguments rather than supporting your own statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You seem to have backed off of that.
    No, I have not. I do not seem to have, not have I done so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The horses aren't going to stampede and stomp you to death if you kill a horse.
    See... all your obfuscating yet you come right back to what I previously pointed out:
    The Human Animal will define rights or right/wrong based on what they can get away with, not based on any true or absolute measure.
    And guess what that is? An animal trait and the fallacy of morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think you must have a belief about karma or some other sort of religious thing going on.
    You are very transparent, Harold. You are reacting to my accusations which are supported by your separation of Human/animal. They are not separate, we are not divine, nor are we special.

    Again, you're engaging in attempting to undermine my argument by creating confusion.
    Rather, I never once mention Karma nor horses stampeding humans. That was what YOU said.
    However, both Gonzales and Myself set the precedent right off the bat that we were arguing from a belief - his belief being in freedom above all and my belief being of ethical consideration for the damages humans wreak in our environments.

    My argument for showing responsibility for consequences deals with our intellect (evolved) and awareness of damages, such as pollution, climate change, drastic changes to ecosystems, our self serving interests resulting in extinctions and the like. This IS a belief. I never denied that. The only real contradiction here is in you chastising members you claim are bigoted when they say religious people are deluded, yet now making every argument to support bigotry when I take a more scientific approach to human/animal nature and behavior.

    This is why I think you're a closeted Fundamentalist.

    We have powerful brains and with that power comes responsibility. That is a belief. But that belief is an evolved animal trait- the amount of strength, endurance and influence an animal has over his herd, pack, troop or prey.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    It looks to me like you are just blustering.

    How did you connect the dots from a guy shooting a horse to pollution and climate change?

    You are putting humans above other animals by putting expectations of different standards of behavior, so I don't get how you accuse me of that.

    If the horses are not stampeding or otherwise taking revenge, then what is the connection between animal rights and your hypothesis about self protection? Where does the self protection come in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It looks to me like you are just blustering.

    How did you connect the dots from a guy shooting a horse to pollution and climate change?

    You are putting humans above other animals by putting expectations of different standards of behavior, so I don't get how you accuse me of that.

    If the horses are not stampeding or otherwise taking revenge, then what is the connection between animal rights and your hypothesis about self protection? Where does the self protection come in?
    You don't really read posts, do you?
    I connected the dots for you.

    You already seem to put your own beliefs forth- that any animal can do whatever it wants as long as no one stops them. As long as they are not held accountable. But in nature, animals are held accountable. If you eat too much, your herd starves. They learn. If you're small and weak and you attack a lion, you become food. Others see that and decide to avoid lions. This is very basic stuff, Harold. Are you going to go forward from here to claim animals do not learn? That they do not behave based on requirements of their environment and society (Ecosystem)? I will only ask you to support that non-mainstream opinion as well- and probably have no luck in getting you to do so.

    So, You decide to kill without cause. If I believe you should beheld accountable... then I am that thing stopping you. Then I am that thing preventing you from doing whatever you want. Maybe by our conventions or maybe by stopping your hand or maybe by taking you to court or maybe by picketing your business... Whatever means are used.
    And you can whine and lie and moan and claim it's your "right" (Which you won't really define in any meaningful way much less give any support for and will obfuscate beyond all reason any one else's definition) to kill with impunity all you want... In the end, actual nature will not be on your side. If anyone stops you- then you got stopped. The only difference here is that we're arguing about it. Were it a natural encounter, you would be pretty screwed. So you really should be grateful that the human animal engages in chest thumping (ape trait) prior to physical altercation in order to get the Alpha Position.

    All of your denials here are you just you trying to weasel out of
    -supporting your arguments
    -providing evidence that humans are above or superior to other animals
    -Providing evidence that there are no consequences for actions
    -Providing evidence that human psychology is not animal psychology

    Furthermore, you're dishonest in your claims of blustering. I Have been clear about what is belief and what is scientific. I have been clear about why I believe human intellect obligates us to be responsible for our actions. I have been clear that that is a belief that is supported by our awareness of damages and how- in our lack of responsibility, we have done great damage unchecked.
    You, on the other hand, have half supported your claims with religious based superiority bias, might makes right and have supported none of your claims with mainstream. You express confusion over how it all ties together.
    You speak of society and civilized humans, yet your arguments are apocalyptic and anarchistic.

    I think I hit a nerve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I can have rights, but others cannot. (This is how supression of other races was justified.)
    -They are beneath us, less intelligent or inferior.
    -They don't organize themselves against us, so I guess they don't mind the oppression. (I guess them "Colored boys" back in 1790 liked the slavery and didn't want to organize a rebellion.)
    -This is how it's always been.
    -They are not us.


    Tell me something, Harold. That thread that advocated that religious believers should be denied the right to vote for being inferior minded- Did you call that "Bigotry" and react in anger?
    Was that argument different from this one? If so- what were the differences?

    The right to defend yourself... is it a born right?
    If a group, such as the abolitionists, organize to stand against the status quo- are they not an accountability force?
    When you told that member he was a Bigot- were you arguing from belief?

    Can belief be well reasoned and rational- can a belief be based on logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Well, I looked through the thread again and didn't see any dots connected on the environment. Clearly, you are way out on the fringe of the animal rights spectrum. We're not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
    Abolition is a totally different story because there we are talking about the same species.
    I never claimed humans are "above" or "superior" to other animals. They are different species. Therefore we do not need to treat them the same as our own species. I didn't claim there were no consequences for actions. Where did you get that from? I didn't say that human psychology is not animal psychology, but it sure is. Our brains are different, so how could the psychology be the same?
    You have gone way off the deep end here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Well, I looked through the thread again and didn't see any dots connected on the environment. Clearly, you are way out on the fringe of the animal rights spectrum. We're not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
    On the fringe... got it.
    Yeah, since you cannot back up or support what you've claimed, I am the one on the fringe for pointing out the basic fallacy of human carelessness. Instead of attacking with accusation, maybe you should try showing why or how it counts as "on the Fringe," Harold.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether we should not go abusing other animals because they might take revenge or stampede us en masse- which was an absurdity you used to weasel out, by the way.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether my saying our higher intellect included a notion of responsibility to not shoot ourselves in the foot with our careless behavior.
    Granted, climate change seems like an extreme example... but all we actually did was build a few machines... It's not like we planned and schemed and went out of out way to dump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Abolition is a totally different story because there we are talking about the same species.
    Yes, self serving interests. We've already covered that fallacy. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. You justify any action by claiming anything you prefer to be excluded is automatically excluded. In the old days, it was blacks and gays. They don't count because they're a sub-species of human, they claimed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They are different species. Therefore we do not need to treat them the same as our own species.
    One:
    This does not follow.
    Two:
    I never claimed animals are to be treated the same as humans. In fact, I said the opposite. Later, I asked whether you even read posts...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Our brains are different, so how could the psychology be the same?
    Our brains are different from what animals, exactly? What are the exact differences? Can you provide scientific support for the difference accounting for humans and other animals having an entirely different set of motives, desires, defensiveness or survival instincts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You have gone way off the deep end here.
    Which is all I ever get from you- Claims and no substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    It is I who believe humans are superior to all other animals on this planet at this time, and that those animals have been, for sometime, the resources of man.

    There is a reason some of our relatives on this planets are hairy and live in the trees or on jungle floors. There is no doubt in my mind that human populations will split into different sub species and different species over and over again, and those splits will start with different beliefs and different ways of living.

    If animals are your equal, and nature is your god/s and you seek to live in harmony with planet earth, good luck with that. I know that planet earth is brutal, and will herself, be brutallized by the universe around her.

    I do not want to hang out in trees, run or hide from preditors or let the earth and things around her destroy mankind. Ignorance and stupidity should not be the chosen option or the goal.

    I want humans to continue to have no faith in this planet, to not leave their welbeing and life in the hands of others and other things. I want to continue to utilize every resource on this planet in order to further mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is I who believe humans are superior to all other animals on this planet at this time, and that those animals have been, for sometime, the resources of man. There is a reason some of our relatives on this planets are hairy and live in the trees or on jungle floors.
    An egocentric belief that has no foundation with reason.
    We are just another animal with our species specific traits. We are superior? How so? You don't see other animals engage in the massively destructive wars that we do. They are not clouding the skies with pollutants.
    I know another crowd that believes in superiority...
    We have the capacity to do what they cannot. And you act as though that's justification for going ahead and shooting ourselves in the foot.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If animals are your equal, and nature is your god/s and you seek to live in harmony with planet earth, good luck with that. I know that planet earth is brutal, and will herself, be brutallized by the universe around her.
    You two have great difficulty in setting aside bias and actually reading posts, don't you?
    You just don't get it at all...

    I AM BRUTAL.

    I am a killer. I am an animal. I am a predator. I kill other animals and I eat them. Make no mistake, I am far more a monster than you are. Your assumptions are based on your flower sniffing preconceptions. I'm a carnivore, not a vegan. I have hunted your fellow oh so superior humans. And I have killed them.

    The difference is not that I think we are all equal. A slug is not my equal. But I am not the Superior being, either. There is variance in degrees, but no single superiority. We are all just facets in the diversity of life and your philosophy of megalomaniac superiority is the cause of the destruction our descendents will have to try to fix- including those attending school NOW looking at what possible viable options for our most immediate concern. Feigning ignorance as to how the 'exploitation mentality' serves to further global problems is disturbing.
    My claim is not one of equality but of entitlement to fair quality of living. To not exploit, murder and destroy wantonly.
    But to live honorably with other creatures even if the differences between you are vast. That is what you fail to understand and I believe that it is deliberate for the both of you. You cannot save your arguments if you actually understand what I have said. So you are then obligated to invent fantastic claims as if I have made them when I have not.

    Let's look at it from an entirely different angle- By removing the distraction of Living Things:
    Strip Mining.
    Does dirt have "rights?"
    Responsibility for the double edged sword of intellect is essential. Trying to ignore that reality by pandering to your own self serving egos is exactly why the Earth is in the sad state it is in today. We're so superior and so intelligent that our shortsighted greed screwed up the atmosphere.

    The both of you in your arrogant and self centered blindness have presented every flawed argument in the book. Every rationalization, every justification, every excuse.
    But neither of you have supported your claims with logic, reason or even an admirable fallacy.
    It's all just pompous spouting about how great we are (We're a frakkin MESS) and how powerful we are and that anything else is just to be used.
    You come up with silly claims about my position rather than recognize it for what it is, mostly as some circus side show to detract from the serious points made so that you don't lose any face for having presented the arguments that you have- the same kind of arguments used to justify, rationalize and excuse-
    racism
    bigotry
    persecution
    slavery
    and every other power hungry exercise in our history.
    You guys really didn't think this one through, all of the way... did you?

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    let the earth and things around her destroy mankind.
    Yeah... we're in so much danger of that with our overpopulated butts right now, huh? We're getting more obese while hamburgers are served up hot! And you don't see the major malfunction, there?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Ignorance and stupidity should not be the chosen option or the goal.
    Yeah, I am trying... But I just can't talk you guys out of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I want to continue to utilize every resource on this planet in order to further mankind and to get closer to becoming the masters of our own fate.
    Responsibly?
    Or are the rungs on your ladder crafted from the dead?
    You don't have to exploit all the resources carelessly in order to progress. That is your most nonsensical argument, yet.

    Oh the plight of the honey bee... No regrets, there, right?
    Last edited by Neverfly; April 4th, 2013 at 01:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    On the fringe... got it.
    Yeah, since you cannot back up or support what you've claimed, I am the one on the fringe for pointing out the basic fallacy of human carelessness. Instead of attacking with accusation, maybe you should try showing why or how it counts as "on the Fringe," Harold.
    You are on the fringe because you are flying off the handle over a story about some guy shooting a horse. I can tell you are way out there by how angry you are getting.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether we should not go abusing other animals because they might take revenge or stampede us en masse- which was an absurdity you used to weasel out, by the way.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether my saying our higher intellect included a notion of responsibility to not shoot ourselves in the foot with our careless behavior.
    Granted, climate change seems like an extreme example... but all we actually did was build a few machines... It's not like we planned and schemed and went out of out way to dump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...
    You still haven't connected any dots. Killing a horse is irresponsible --->Polluting the environment is irresponsible---> Therefore people who kill horses pollute the environment. Sure.
    Yes, self serving interests. We've already covered that fallacy. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. You justify any action by claiming anything you prefer to be excluded is automatically excluded. In the old days, it was blacks and gays. They don't count because they're a sub-species of human, they claimed.
    I did not justify "any argument." You are committing the "slippery slope" fallacy as well as a "straw man" fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They are different species. Therefore we do not need to treat them the same as our own species.
    One:
    This does not follow.
    Two:
    I never claimed animals are to be treated the same as humans. In fact, I said the opposite. Later, I asked whether you even read posts...
    It follows in my mind. It's an opinion. Don't ask me to prove an opinion. You can't prove your opinions either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Our brains are different, so how could the psychology be the same?
    Our brains are different from what animals, exactly? What are the exact differences? Can you provide scientific support for the difference accounting for humans and other animals having an entirely different set of motives, desires, defensiveness or survival instincts?
    Nice goalpost move. "Different" to "entirely different."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    On the fringe... got it.
    Yeah, since you cannot back up or support what you've claimed, I am the one on the fringe for pointing out the basic fallacy of human carelessness. Instead of attacking with accusation, maybe you should try showing why or how it counts as "on the Fringe," Harold.
    You are on the fringe because you are flying off the handle over a story about some guy shooting a horse. I can tell you are way out there by how angry you are getting.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether we should not go abusing other animals because they might take revenge or stampede us en masse- which was an absurdity you used to weasel out, by the way.
    The connected dots were when you asked whether my saying our higher intellect included a notion of responsibility to not shoot ourselves in the foot with our careless behavior.
    Granted, climate change seems like an extreme example... but all we actually did was build a few machines... It's not like we planned and schemed and went out of out way to dump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere...
    You still haven't connected any dots. Killing a horse is irresponsible --->Polluting the environment is irresponsible---> Therefore people who kill horses pollute the environment. Sure.
    Yes, self serving interests. We've already covered that fallacy. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. You justify any action by claiming anything you prefer to be excluded is automatically excluded. In the old days, it was blacks and gays. They don't count because they're a sub-species of human, they claimed.
    I did not justify "any argument." You are committing the "slippery slope" fallacy as well as a "straw man" fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They are different species. Therefore we do not need to treat them the same as our own species.
    One:
    This does not follow.
    Two:
    I never claimed animals are to be treated the same as humans. In fact, I said the opposite. Later, I asked whether you even read posts...
    It follows in my mind. It's an opinion. Don't ask me to prove an opinion. You can't prove your opinions either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Our brains are different, so how could the psychology be the same?
    Our brains are different from what animals, exactly? What are the exact differences? Can you provide scientific support for the difference accounting for humans and other animals having an entirely different set of motives, desires, defensiveness or survival instincts?
    Nice goalpost move. "Different" to "entirely different."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    did the guy eat the horse?

    I had an uncle who trucked Indiana coalmine ponies up to the chicago slaughterhouses near the end of ww2.
    When beef was hard to get, many dined on pony meat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are on the fringe because you are flying off the handle over a story about some guy shooting a horse. I can tell you are way out there by how angry you are getting.
    Ok, so when I get frustrated with your dissembling, you say this above. Riiiight.
    That claim lacks accuracy because you ignore very basic details--What I am reacting to is what you two have expressed in a great many posts. Not just one incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You still haven't connected any dots. Killing a horse is irresponsible --->Polluting the environment is irresponsible---> Therefore people who kill horses pollute the environment. Sure.
    That is not what I said. What I said deals with exploitation. You asked me why I asserted the opinion or belief that I had. I pointed out the exploitation mentality starts out simple; ends up problematic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It follows in my mind. It's an opinion. Don't ask me to prove an opinion. You can't prove your opinions either.
    Nice back peddling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Nice goalpost move. "Different" to "entirely different."
    As usual, you did not answer the question. You did not provide any support for your statement. None.
    Sure, neither of us can "prove" opinions. But we can support them with logic and reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Anyone who kills an animal just to prove a point is a complete lowlife piece of scum. I hope an accident befalls the perpetrator, something that would disfigure them beyond the recognition of their own mother.

    One should avoid senselessly and purposefully hurting, injuring or killing any animal.

    The vile creature mentioned in the OP sickens me to the pit of my stomach. Anyone who supports such a senseless act also sickens me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    I don't see what he achieved with a video (I didn't watch it), but that is how the majority of horses die. By a bullet to the head.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    the BLM allows for adoption of wild horses, and those not adopted are sold at auction
    adoption means you have to care for the horse for 1 year before you get clear title to the horse
    sales mean instant transfer of title
    the restriction being that you cannot harvest the meat for commercial production

    some of the horses have recently sold for as little a $25
    at 1000 plus pounds, that's some real low cost meat---and grass fed, free range to boot
    (probably a heck of a lot healthier than feedlot beef with growth hormones and antibiotics)
    wild guess---if you dress out a 1000 pound horse, that should give you enough meat to feed a family of 4 for a year?
    anyone else in here ever eat horse meat?
    share a recipe?

    .....................
    pyoko
    you didn't miss anything, they didn't show him shooting, nor harvesting the meat
    just a bunch of moralizing crap
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    but that is how the majority of horses die. By a bullet to the head.
    Evidence? That's a pretty bold claim...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I hope an accident befalls the perpetrator, something that would disfigure them beyond the recognition of their own mother.The vile creature mentioned in the OP sickens me to the pit of my stomach. Anyone who supports such a senseless act also sickens me.
    This is one of the problems with animal welfare and animal rights. They are often used by, and an excuse for, people to harm or advocate for harm to other human beings. it is hard for them to resist or pass up the oppertunity to do what they are perversely drawn towards, and that is harming, or advocating harming, other humans.

    I will say it again, animal rights and animal welfare are not good enough reasons or justification for harming or for advocating harming humans.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I sort of agree on the surface, gonzales56, which is why I said I hope that fate does the job instead and an accident befalls the perpetrator.

    Then again, if I found someone harming a dog just for laughs say, I would find it very difficult not to set about them with a large blunt instrument. And if it were my dog, I would probably want to kill them. Seriously.

    So actually, I think animal rights and animal welfare are very good reasons for advocating harm to come to any piece of scum who needlessly harms animals.

    If you want to eat animals, the least you can do is do away with them in a humane and dignified fashion. Anything else is off limits and deserves retribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I sort of agree on the surface, gonzales56, which is why I said I hope that fate does the job instead and an accident befalls the perpetrator.Then again, if I found someone harming a dog just for laughs say, I would find it very difficult not to set about them with a large blunt instrument. And if it were my dog, I would probably want to kill them. Seriously.So actually, I think animal rights and animal welfare are very good reasons for advocating harm to come to any piece of scum who needlessly harms animals.If you want to eat animals, the least you can do is do away with them in a humane and dignified fashion. Anything else is off limits and deserves retribution.
    With prosperity comes many warped values, and I believe animal rights and animal welfare to be one of those warped values.

    Concerning your own animals, your right to own them and so what you want with them and for them should be defended and protected from the law and government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Let's try something... quote altered:
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    With prosperity comes many warped values, and I believe [black] rights and [black] welfare to be one of those warped values. Concerning your own [slaves], your property, your right to own them and protect them should be defended and protected.
    Huh... that's weird. It didn't make much of a difference at all... Maybe because this topic is about evolved and living things, instead of rocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Let's try something... quote altered:
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    With prosperity comes many warped values, and I believe [black] rights and [black] welfare to be one of those warped values. Concerning your own [slaves], your property, your right to own them and protect them should be defended and protected.
    Huh... that's weird. It didn't make much of a difference at all... Maybe because this topic is about evolved and living things, instead of rocks.
    I am not sure why you keep suggesting that African Americans or Jews are compatible/equal to cows, dogs, pigs, horses, etc. but, they are not. Owning a pig is nothing like slavery. Killing a cow is nothing like gassing Jews. The irony, the reality, is that cows, pigs, horses, dogs etc. are being used as an excuse/reason to violate human rights and liberties. There is no doubt that slavery has its perverse excuses/reasons as well, so did the holocaust but, the one thing they all have in common is twisted excuses/reasons for violating humans and their rights and liberties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am not sure why you keep suggesting that African Americans or Jews are compatible/equal to cows, dogs, pigs, horses, etc. but, they are not. Owning a pig is nothing like slavery. Killing a cow is nothing like gassing Jews. The irony, the reality, is that cows, pigs, horses, dogs etc. are being used as an excuse/reason to violate human rights and liberties. There is no doubt that slavery has its perverse excuses/reasons as well, so did the holocaust but, the one thing they all have in common is twisted excuses/reasons for violating humans and their rights and liberties.
    You missed my point- that I have made repeatedly: The arguments you have been making are the same arguments made to justify slavery and racism.

    -That the oppressed are lesser creatures
    -That the oppressed are different
    -That the oppressed don't mind or don't know any better
    ...and so on.

    I do not disagree that killing a cow is not the same as gassing the Jews. I agree that owning a pig is not the same as owning a slave.
    But the line is very fine and while they are not quite the same; the principles of it are.

    So let's say I own a dog- Is the dog my slave?
    Not really, no... because I believe in freedom and I share that with the dog. Not everyone is the same way and some people do smother their pets.
    So, while it is not slavery- it's getting close. And the closer it gets- the more like slavery it becomes.
    When a human being takes another animal, a horse, a cow, a bear- whatever and goes beyond your concepts of ownership; goes into abuse, killing senselessly, exploitation then they have overstepped the boundaries of "righthood."
    You have certain rights. You lose those rights, however, if you go above and beyond the accepted normal behavior.
    Creating harm and suffering is above and beyond.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I get the point you have been trying to make, it is wrong and has been wrong though. Again, my position that human rights and liberties should be defended and drive, contain, restrain, control and trump all policies and laws can never lead to slavery, holocausts or any other human rights and liberty violations. The reality is that slavery, holocausts, etc., happen when people use inappropriate excuses/reasons to violate human rights and human liberties. When you start fining and locking people up for animal rights and animal welfare, you have crossed an inappropriate line.

    Let me ask you a few things. On top of that, what do you think happens when prosperity dips and governments must cut back? Do you think they will cut back on a reason or reasons to make money by fining people, or will they amp it up? What of the prisoners they already have locked up? Do you think they are going to increase or decrease their care and food? How bad can it get for them? People should not be hunted down, arrested, fined, put in prison or harmed in anyway for the excuse/reason of animal rights and animal welfare.

    Animal rights and animal welfare are perverse and disturbing reasons, IMO, to attack and harm human beings.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 8th, 2013 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    When you start fining and locking people up for animal rights and animal welfare, you have crossed an inappropriate line and things can get really bad for a lot of people real quick.
    I'd think just the opposite is true. By not having laws that protect animals who then, other than humans, can protect the animals from being decimated and eventually becoming extinct? If we continue on your path we would find no wild large game left for poachers would have killed them off by now.

    Do you think that we should not protect animals from extinction? Do you not think that there are people out there who only want to torture animals to bring themselves pleasure in seeing something suffer? If you believe that those things I've asked you aren't correct then I guess there's no way of convincing you that humans should and will continue to protect animal rights from abuse and extermination by humans.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Wildlife parks, sanctuaries and all other public lands are owned by "the people" in the US and laws governing the rules concerning the animals on those lands are appropriate. No one has a protected right or protected liberty to go into your yard and do anything they wish to your animals. That is your land and you set the rules concerning your animals.

    People's right and liberty to govern and keep their own animals should always be defended. On public lands, it is the people who have the right and liberty as a collective to set the rules and regulations concerning "the people's" animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You missed my point- that I have made repeatedly: The arguments you have been making are the same arguments made to justify slavery and racism.
    Making a point repeatedly does not increase the validity of the argument. You seem to be making the assumption that slavery and racism are objectively wrong. They are not. It is just a consensus of opinion. It is also a consensus of opinion that the guy has the right to shoot his horse, at least in the place where he lives, where it is apparently not against the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    By not having laws that protect animals who then, other than humans, can protect the animals from being decimated and eventually becoming extinct? If we continue on your path we would find no wild large game left for poachers would have killed them off by now.
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc., which may be opposed by animal rights groups. Your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc
    The "culling" takes place where humans overpopulate an area and make the animals living there very unsustainable because their food has been destroyed and their land built up with human dwellings. So "cull" away, one day there won't be any animal life if we don't choose to protect it with laws and education.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc
    The "culling" takes place where humans overpopulate an area and make the animals living there very unsustainable because their food has been destroyed and their land built up with human dwellings. So "cull" away, one day there won't be any animal life if we don't choose to protect it with laws and education.
    Your argument is still a slippery slope fallacy because you do not recognize a middle ground between shooting a domesticated animal and having no laws or education. Also you have failed to make a connection between shooting a horse and putting up houses in a wild animal's habitat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You seem to be making the assumption that slavery and racism are objectively wrong. They are not.
    Of course they are, in a civilised society. Only an uneducated savage would think otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is just a consensus of opinion.
    Nope. Even if the majority believed slavery and racism to be objectively "right", that doesn't make them correct in their belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is also a consensus of opinion that the guy has the right to shoot his horse, at least in the place where he lives, where it is apparently not against the law.
    Well, it is a good thing he doesn't live where I live. Here, we have laws against that sort of thing, because we understand that it is wrong to do it. Here, people are quite correctly not allowed to kill any animals in their care unless there is a medical (or public health) reason to do so. We can put an animal out of its misery if it is suffering, of course, but a healthy animal has rights, just as it should be. Here, if you killed a horse just to make a point, you would be prosecuted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You seem to be making the assumption that slavery and racism are objectively wrong. They are not.
    Of course they are, in a civilised society. Only an uneducated savage would think otherwise.
    That's the emotional argument, but what is the logical argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is just a consensus of opinion.
    Nope. Even if the majority believed slavery and racism to be objectively "right", that doesn't make them correct in their belief.
    How do you know this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is also a consensus of opinion that the guy has the right to shoot his horse, at least in the place where he lives, where it is apparently not against the law.
    Well, it is a good thing he doesn't live where I live. Here, we have laws against that sort of thing, because we understand that it is wrong to do it. Here, people are quite correctly not allowed to kill any animals in their care unless there is a medical (or public health) reason to do so. We can put an animal out of its misery if it is suffering, of course, but a healthy animal has rights, just as it should be. Here, if you killed a horse just to make a point, you would be prosecuted.
    We can't tell why he killed the horse. It seems to be in part to make a point, but he may have had another reason. The fact that it is illegal in the UK does not sway my opinion on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction.
    Quite the opposite, if there were humans who killed off the horses once they either arrived in North America or while they were over in Europe we would never have been able to see a wild horse. If the mentality humans have today were around when those horses were first known about many humans would just as well have killed them off and eaten them. Why they did not is a mystery but I think it was because the horse was useful to them. Other animals today are not and are killed off because they eat crops, ruin grazing lands and a whole host of other things humans have come up with to "cull' them.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Also you have failed to make a connection between shooting a horse and putting up houses in a wild animal's habitat.
    At one time horses were very abundant and were found in many areas of America. Since humans have settled here they have become decimated to the point of there being fewer than a few hundred, if that, "wild" horses left on the "free" range. That is my point and if you do not get it I will reword it until you do, but I hope not.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction.
    Quite the opposite, if there were humans who killed off the horses once they either arrived in North America or while they were over in Europe we would never have been able to see a wild horse. If the mentality humans have today were around when those horses were first known about many humans would just as well have killed them off and eaten them. Why they did not is a mystery but I think it was because the horse was useful to them. Other animals today are not and are killed off because they eat crops, ruin grazing lands and a whole host of other things humans have come up with to "cull' them.
    I'm afraid you contradicted yourself by admitting that people keep horses because they are useful. This is probably the case for the guy that shot the horse. He probably has other horses which he breeds, or buys horses that are bred by other people, and this is how domesticated horses are perpetuated. The fact that he shot the one horse, which might even have been past breeding age, does not indicate that he would shoot wild ponies on the range.

    At one time horses were very abundant and were found in many areas of America. Since humans have settled here they have become decimated to the point of there being fewer than a few hundred, if that, "wild" horses left on the "free" range. That is my point and if you do not get it I will reword it until you do, but I hope not.
    No, I still don't get it. Suppose he had euthanized the horse in an approved manner by getting a vet to give it a massive dose of barbiturates. How would this result in more grazing range for the wild ponies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    long before people domesticated horses, they hunted and ate them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc., which may be opposed by animal rights groups. Your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
    Harold you have yet to rationally support the premise that animals do not/should not have rights. You have repeatedly justified your position based on "tradition". That is an argument that you yourself would not accept in any other debate, why are you using it here? What is your rational evidence based arguments based off science or legal precedent.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc., which may be opposed by animal rights groups. Your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
    Harold you have yet to rationally support the premise that animals do not/should not have rights. You have repeatedly justified your position based on "tradition". That is an argument that you yourself would not accept in any other debate, why are you using it here? What is your rational evidence based arguments based off science or legal precedent.
    And you have failed to support your premise as well. If you are going to ask people for evidence to support a belief, then you have to provide evidence for your beliefs. I don't think any moral beliefs can be supported on a rational basis. You are taking a phony pseudo-skeptical, sciency, position by asking for it. That irritates me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You seem to be making the assumption that slavery and racism are objectively wrong. They are not.
    Of course they are, in a civilised society. Only an uneducated savage would think otherwise.
    That's the emotional argument, but what is the logical argument?
    It is logical to treat others as you would like others to treat you. Do unto others as you would have them do seems like a completely logical approach to living your life in harmony with others - it is the logical way to end up with a civilised society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is just a consensus of opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Nope. Even if the majority believed slavery and racism to be objectively "right", that doesn't make them correct in their belief.
    How do you know this?
    History tells us this. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is also a consensus of opinion that the guy has the right to shoot his horse, at least in the place where he lives, where it is apparently not against the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well, it is a good thing he doesn't live where I live. Here, we have laws against that sort of thing, because we understand that it is wrong to do it. Here, people are quite correctly not allowed to kill any animals in their care unless there is a medical (or public health) reason to do so. We can put an animal out of its misery if it is suffering, of course, but a healthy animal has rights, just as it should be. Here, if you killed a horse just to make a point, you would be prosecuted.
    We can't tell why he killed the horse. It seems to be in part to make a point, but he may have had another reason. The fact that it is illegal in the UK does not sway my opinion on the subject.
    And the fact that it isn't illegal in the place where he lives doesn't sway my opinion either. It should be illegal where he lives. He is a piece of lowlife scum, as he either did it just to make a point, which is barbaric, or if there was another reason (the horse was suffering, or was a public health hazard) then he is being completely disingenuous in order to prove a point.

    I hope he gets what he deserves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Harold14370, I find it interesting that you've now swung around to agreeing with my points that there are no absolutes and the concept of "rights" are man-made and rather arbitrary.

    Gonzales, claiming that it is warped or perverted to ensure basic well-being and quality of life is nonsense.
    You have your freedom your rights and your liberty as long as you do not maliciously or needlessly kill others, abuse others or subject them to deplorable living conditions. That's not a new standard and you distorting that standard just to present a case is not helping you to present it. The only perversion here is your argument that a person can own another being and subject that being to any torture or cruelty that they wish as long as they can claim that they have the Liberty, Freedom or Right to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You seem to be making the assumption that slavery and racism are objectively wrong. They are not.
    Of course they are, in a civilised society. Only an uneducated savage would think otherwise.
    That's the emotional argument, but what is the logical argument?
    It is logical to treat others as you would like others to treat you. Do unto others as you would have them do seems like a completely logical approach to living your life in harmony with others - it is the logical way to end up with a civilised society.
    Why is it logical to value a civilized society, as opposed to, say, the maximization of your own genes in the human gene pool? The latter approach is the way many humans seemed to have behaved in the past. Why is yours preferred?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is just a consensus of opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Nope. Even if the majority believed slavery and racism to be objectively "right", that doesn't make them correct in their belief.
    How do you know this?
    History tells us this. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.
    History tells us that most societies have moved away from slavery. It does not make a judgement as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, or any basis to judge whether it is good or bad. It is only a factual account of what has happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It is also a consensus of opinion that the guy has the right to shoot his horse, at least in the place where he lives, where it is apparently not against the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well, it is a good thing he doesn't live where I live. Here, we have laws against that sort of thing, because we understand that it is wrong to do it. Here, people are quite correctly not allowed to kill any animals in their care unless there is a medical (or public health) reason to do so. We can put an animal out of its misery if it is suffering, of course, but a healthy animal has rights, just as it should be. Here, if you killed a horse just to make a point, you would be prosecuted.
    We can't tell why he killed the horse. It seems to be in part to make a point, but he may have had another reason. The fact that it is illegal in the UK does not sway my opinion on the subject.
    And the fact that it isn't illegal in the place where he lives doesn't sway my opinion either. It should be illegal where he lives. He is a piece of lowlife scum, as he either did it just to make a point, which is barbaric, or if there was another reason (the horse was suffering, or was a public health hazard) then he is being completely disingenuous in order to prove a point.

    I hope he gets what he deserves.
    Okay. I can't argue with that, because it is your opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Harold14370, I find it interesting that you've now swung around to agreeing with my points that there are no absolutes and the concept of "rights" are man-made and rather arbitrary.
    I don't think I have swung, as I have always contended that people's moral beliefs are illogical, including mine. If you completely believed that rights are arbitrary, I doubt you would be arguing so strongly for animal rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't think I have swung, as I have always contended that people's moral beliefs are illogical, including mine. If you completely believed that rights are arbitrary, I doubt you would be arguing so strongly for animal rights.
    And I doubt you read the actual words in the posts that I have made.
    I doubt it very strongly. The evidence from your replies is supportive of my claim.


    I fully believe that rights are arbitrary- but that does not stop me in any way whatsoever for arguing my beliefs. To claim that it should is senseless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc., which may be opposed by animal rights groups. Your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
    Harold you have yet to rationally support the premise that animals do not/should not have rights. You have repeatedly justified your position based on "tradition". That is an argument that you yourself would not accept in any other debate, why are you using it here? What is your rational evidence based arguments based off science or legal precedent.
    And you have failed to support your premise as well. If you are going to ask people for evidence to support a belief, then you have to provide evidence for your beliefs. I don't think any moral beliefs can be supported on a rational basis. You are taking a phony pseudo-skeptical, sciency, position by asking for it. That irritates me.
    I have supported my position. I have noted that a majority of people in the US and otehr countries have deemed animals worthy or fiar treatment, and codified that position with additions to there codes of law.

    My request of you is the exact same requirement that you have numerous times placed on threads in the Religion subforum, and then used that justification for the moving or closing of threads you deemed not scientific enough.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no relationship between shooting a domesticated horse and hunting an endangered species to extinction. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes environmentally responsible to cull ovepopulated herds, etc., which may be opposed by animal rights groups. Your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
    Harold you have yet to rationally support the premise that animals do not/should not have rights. You have repeatedly justified your position based on "tradition". That is an argument that you yourself would not accept in any other debate, why are you using it here? What is your rational evidence based arguments based off science or legal precedent.
    And you have failed to support your premise as well. If you are going to ask people for evidence to support a belief, then you have to provide evidence for your beliefs. I don't think any moral beliefs can be supported on a rational basis. You are taking a phony pseudo-skeptical, sciency, position by asking for it. That irritates me.
    I have supported my position. I have noted that a majority of people in the US and otehr countries have deemed animals worthy or fiar treatment, and codified that position with additions to there codes of law.
    That is an "argumentum ad populum," a fallacy which concludes that the proposition is true because many or most people believe it. But the fact is that the existence of animal rights is not a hypothesis. It can't be proven or disproven.
    My request of you is the exact same requirement that you have numerous times placed on threads in the Religion subforum, and then used that justification for the moving or closing of threads you deemed not scientific enough.
    The Scientific Study of Religion forum is supposed to be used for scientific discussion. I have moved threads from there which were not discussing the subject in a scientific way. This is the General Discussion forum, where it is okay to discuss matters of opinion, like animal rights. What I objected to in this thread is discussing animal rights as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and demanding "evidence" for people's beliefs when they are asserting opinion, not fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Harold- so it is a double standard that you get to apply when you want to and opt out of when you choose not to answer the same question you have posed to others. Understood.

    Re:"argumentum ad populum," ALL right are determined by popular opinion, you as someone in the minority opinion, have been asked to supply a better reason then "tradition", which has not been tradition for decades in many places.

    I have not at any point asked you for anything you are NOT capable of producing, I have asked for legal precedents and rational evidence. To claim this is NOT something that can be supplied or researched by you is not an acceptable answer.
    Neverfly likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't think I have swung, as I have always contended that people's moral beliefs are illogical, including mine. If you completely believed that rights are arbitrary, I doubt you would be arguing so strongly for animal rights.
    And I doubt you read the actual words in the posts that I have made.
    I doubt it very strongly. The evidence from your replies is supportive of my claim.


    I fully believe that rights are arbitrary- but that does not stop me in any way whatsoever for arguing my beliefs. To claim that it should is senseless.
    I understood you perfectly. You believe in an intellectual way that they are arbitrary, but you still think of them as being absolute. It's okay, we all do that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I understood you perfectly. You believe in an intellectual way that they are arbitrary, but you still think of them as being absolute. It's okay, we all do that.
    Speaking of 'intellectual,' how about you drop the intellectual dishonesty?

    I, for one, am fed up with you altering what I've said just so you can knock the alteration of what I've said, call me "far over the edge" and attack my character just because you choose to lie about what I've put forth in this thread.

    Now I am calling you out- Provide a quote from my posts which demonstrates with reasonable accuracy that I have stated Absolutes.

    Quite the contrary, in fact. I have pointed out to repeatedly- which you conveniently forget the next time you throw an accusation at me- that I've argued from my own belief that granting rights to those you like while excluding those you think is less worthy is nonsense.

    Harold14370- You lose face by resorting to ad homs and deceitful tactics. Some of what you've said in the thread lately is accurate. But the attacks against anyone that doesn't post the way you think they should, or say things how you think they should in combination with you using imaginative re-interpretation of what they've said needs to stop.
    You are, at this point, a distraction and a disruption with your dishonesty.

    You also need to learn some reading comprehension. I'm really tired of repeating myself over and over because you take what I say- change it into something else, then defecate it all over the page.
    I should only have to make each argument once. Not over and over and over again to counter-act your incessant tactics of attacking things I have neither claimed nor said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold- so it is a double standard that you get to apply when you want to and opt out of when you choose not to answer the same question you have posed to others. Understood.
    Yes there are two standards. One for a science sub-forum, and one for a "general" sub-forum. It's not arbitrary.
    Re:"argumentum ad populum," ALL right are determined by popular opinion, you as someone in the minority opinion, have been asked to supply a better reason then "tradition", which has not been tradition for decades in many places.
    Rights are something different than popular opinion. For example the US Bill of Rights lists certain restrictions on the kinds of laws that Congress can pass. Congress is supposed to be the representatives of the people and the laws passed by Congress are an expression of the popular opinion. So, if rights were determined only by popular opinion, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights. Who says mine is a minority opinion? The guy who shot the horse was within the law. Animal rights activists are trying to change laws, so they must be in the minority.
    I have not at any point asked you for anything you are NOT capable of producing, I have asked for legal precedents and rational evidence. To claim this is NOT something that can be supplied or researched by you is not an acceptable answer.

    Legal precedents are a form of tradition, aren't they? I don't follow what you are getting at. Rational evidence for what? There you go again. Animal rights are not a testable hypothesis. You can't provide any rational evidence for them. I would maintain that the null hypothesis would be that animal rights do not exist. You provide the evidence that they exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Animal rights are not a testable hypothesis. You can't provide any rational evidence for them. I would maintain that the null hypothesis would be that animal rights do not exist. You provide the evidence that they exist.
    This is not accurate.
    The granting of rights is often based on the suffering that can be felt if those rights are not invoked to prevent harm and suffering.

    It is testable to see if creatures other than humans suffer, feel pain, fear, remorse, oppression, or destructive emotional issues due to abuse, neglect, mistreatment or outrageous exploitation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Animal rights are not a testable hypothesis. You can't provide any rational evidence for them. I would maintain that the null hypothesis would be that animal rights do not exist. You provide the evidence that they exist.
    This is not accurate.
    The granting of rights is often based on the suffering that can be felt if those rights are not invoked to prevent harm and suffering.

    It is testable to see if creatures other than humans suffer, feel pain, fear, remorse, oppression, or destructive emotional issues due to abuse, neglect, mistreatment or outrageous exploitation.
    You are just making stuff up. How about providing a definition of rights. You've already said it's arbitrary, now you are claiming it's a testable hypothesis. No, I am not putting words in your mouth. Here is what you wrote: "I fully believe that rights are arbitrary." Then show me how you measure a creature's suffering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are just making stuff up. How about providing a definition of rights. You've already said it's arbitrary, now you are claiming it's a testable hypothesis. No, I am not putting words in your mouth. Here is what you wrote: "I fully believe that rights are arbitrary." Then show me how you measure a creature's suffering.
    Yeah... ok.. Now I am just making stuff up... And you're doing that dishonesty thing, again...
    I said,
    "rights are arbitrary."
    True.
    "It's testable whether or not animals suffer."
    Also true and in spite of your tactics- they do not contradict eachother in any way whatsoever.

    So tell me, Harold- what exactly am I making up here?

    Are you actually suggesting that animals crying out in pain is NOT testable? Are you claiming that depression in animals is NOT testable?
    Parrot psychology and beh... [Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI
    AGRIS repository search result
    article
    AGRIS repository search result
    From Nonhuman to Human Mind
    article
    The sage journal article is particularly fascinating.

    You talk real big about what's scientific but you certainly seem more than willing to ignore science when it suits you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are just making stuff up. How about providing a definition of rights. You've already said it's arbitrary, now you are claiming it's a testable hypothesis. No, I am not putting words in your mouth. Here is what you wrote: "I fully believe that rights are arbitrary." Then show me how you measure a creature's suffering.
    Yeah... ok.. Now I am just making stuff up... And you're doing that dishonesty thing, again...
    I said,
    "rights are arbitrary."
    True.
    "It's testable whether or not animals suffer."
    Also true and in spite of your tactics- they do not contradict eachother in any way whatsoever.

    So tell me, Harold- what exactly am I making up here?
    You are making up a definition of rights which has no relationship to the common use of the word "right" except you haven't defined a right yet like I asked you to do.
    Are you actually suggesting that animals crying out in pain is NOT testable? Are you claiming that depression in animals is NOT testable?
    Parrot psychology and beh... [Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI
    AGRIS repository search result
    article
    AGRIS repository search result
    From Nonhuman to Human Mind
    article
    The sage journal article is particularly fascinating.

    You talk real big about what's scientific but you certainly seem more than willing to ignore science when it suits you.
    How are you measuring it? How can you compare it to the competing right of a human to own an animal as property? You can't make a science out of this. Stop pretending that you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You are making up a definition of rights which has no relationship to the common use of the word "right" except you haven't defined a right yet like I asked you to do.
    You claimed to re-read the thread and go over the posts- Now you claim I have NOT done what I have done several times?
    I defined rights clearly, so many times it is absurd.
    They are WANTS that are arbitrarily claimed in order to fulfill those wants. Remember that now, Harold?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    How are you measuring it?
    See... this is exactly where your tactics fall down.
    Is Dark Matter a valid hypothesis? By the standard you're trying to pull here, it is not because you're working toward acting as though Direct Observation is not good enough. D.M. only has indirect. In fact, a great deal of established theory is supported by a lot of indirect observation- Including large portions of Evolution- unless we develop time travel.

    If the animal does not speak and say, "Oh wow- that really hurts!" then it's simply not good enough for you.
    This kind of ignoring of direct observation and clear evidence is a fundamentalist religion trait.
    It also goes hand in hand with scripture claiming God made animals for us to use.
    And you wonder why I make that accusation?

    Harold- do you have a secret?


    Would you like to share?



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    How can you compare it to the competing right of a human to own an animal as property?
    Your obfuscation:
    1.) You are claiming that I have said something I have not.
    2.) It is not being compared to the human concept of ownership, but to human exploitation and abuses, needless or senseless killing and the like.
    I've said this in the vast majority of my posts. Your disingenuous tactics are wearing thin. I have even posted links to examples like the Bile bears.
    I have disregarded the "right to own" as silly, but just a westerners convention. What I have argued against, clearly and repetitively, is the claim made that ownership entitles the "owner" to abuse, cause harm, suffering or torture.

    How many times have I made that clear? How many more times will I before you stop with the constant tilting at windmills?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You can't make a science out of this. Stop pretending that you can.
    Bull.
    I posted Journal links and other links and you haven't posted jack squat except your assertions. Veterinary practices are scientific and so are the articles and the Hard Direct Observational evidence that I have posted.
    Stop pretending that there is no science in what I have supported and Do Not Insult the readers intelligence by turning around and trying to claim, "But you said you argued beliefs, earlier!" I have been clear about what is my beliefs and what is scientific through-out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, how are wants "rights"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    Dark Matter- arbitrary?!
    There you go with your obfuscation again. Arbitrary referred to the concepts of "Rights." I never, not once, claimed that Dark Matter was arbitrary in any way whatsoever.
    I used Dark Matter as an example of the scientific aspects. Science- You know- that stuff you deny as fervently as a flat Earther when your arguments fail.

    Talk about disingenuous.

    So, what hypothesis would you like, Harold? Remember those Links I posted that you Ignore? I guess those guys are all a large grouping of BS scientists, right? It's already been tested. Vigorously. Your denial is not fooling anyone.

    At this point, I'm left with questioning either your honesty or your intellect.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you a Liar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    Dark Matter- arbitrary?!
    There you go with your obfuscation again. Arbitrary referred to the concepts of "Rights." I never, not once, claimed that Dark Matter was arbitrary in any way whatsoever.
    I used Dark Matter as an example of the scientific aspects. Science- You know- that stuff you deny as fervently as a flat Earther when your arguments fail.
    No, dark matter is not arbitrary. That's what makes it different from rights, so that you can have a valid scientific hypothesis about dark matter. See?

    Talk about disingenuous.

    So, what hypothesis would you like, Harold? Remember those Links I posted that you Ignore? I guess those guys are all a large grouping of BS scientists, right? It's already been tested. Vigorously. Your denial is not fooling anyone.

    At this point, I'm left with questioning either your honesty or your intellect.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you a Liar.
    Well, I think a scientific hypothesis of animal rights would define exactly what rights an animal has. To declare that an animal feels pain or has wants or needs tells me nothing about what the animal's rights are. What obligations does it impose on me, and why? If an antelope feels pain when being eaten by a lion, how does it affect me, or what obligation am I under to prevent it? Can I shoot a horse in the head, bringing a swift and relatively painless death? Or do I have to let the horse die of old age? What laws are to be passed, and what is the scientific basis? A science of animal rights will need to be based strictly on facts, with no opinions or appeals to sentiment involved. Do you see how absurd this is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why is it logical to value a civilized society, as opposed to, say, the maximization of your own genes in the human gene pool? The latter approach is the way many humans seemed to have behaved in the past. Why is yours preferred?
    Because we have learned from the mistakes we made in the past, in the way we behaved. This is what separates a civilised society from a bunch of barbarians or savages. It is entirely logical, in order to make a better future for mankind, for us to treat others with equity, rather than to subjugate them to our own wills and desires. It is logical to take account of everyone's needs, rather than to be selfish.

    Unless you are a barbarian or a savage, that is. Are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    History tells us that most societies have moved away from slavery. It does not make a judgement as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, or any basis to judge whether it is good or bad. It is only a factual account of what has happened.
    Now address racism in the same way...

    It is not an emotional response to say that racism is a bad thing, it is the logical response of a civilised person. It is logical in a civilised society.

    It all boils down to the question of whether you think it is more logical to be civilised than to be a barbarian or a savage. Why would it be more logical to be a barbarian or a savage, unless selfishness is the motive? Why would selfishness be logical?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    You are applying your double standard again, dismissing this because you claim a lack of evidence or testability, while saying absolutely you do not have to do the same when asked for evidence.

    This is a science forum, and if you are asked for evidence, then you should be prepared to give it. Show us the detailed posting rules that say the Religion subforum should be given a different set or rules to the general forum.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why is it logical to value a civilized society, as opposed to, say, the maximization of your own genes in the human gene pool? The latter approach is the way many humans seemed to have behaved in the past. Why is yours preferred?
    Because we have learned from the mistakes we made in the past, in the way we behaved. This is what separates a civilised society from a bunch of barbarians or savages. It is entirely logical, in order to make a better future for mankind, for us to treat others with equity, rather than to subjugate them to our own wills and desires. It is logical to take account of everyone's needs, rather than to be selfish.
    Why should you be concerned about the future of mankind? How can you predict the future of mankind? What makes it logical? Why is it logical to take into account someone else's needs instead of being selfish?
    Unless you are a barbarian or a savage, that is. Are you?
    It isn't about me. We are supposed to be discussing the logical basis for slavery or no slavery. A scientific theory does not depend on the person doing the science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    History tells us that most societies have moved away from slavery. It does not make a judgement as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, or any basis to judge whether it is good or bad. It is only a factual account of what has happened.
    Now address racism in the same way...

    It is not an emotional response to say that racism is a bad thing, it is the logical response of a civilised person. It is logical in a civilised society.

    It all boils down to the question of whether you think it is more logical to be civilised than to be a barbarian or a savage. Why would it be more logical to be a barbarian or a savage, unless selfishness is the motive? Why would selfishness be logical?
    I am not defending the logical basis of one or the other. You are claiming there is a logical basis, not I. But since you ask, selfishness could be logical if you are concerned primarily about yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All of the above is bs until you can state what your hypothesis is, and how it is to be tested. You are just beating around the bush.

    Effects of dark matter can be measured or estimated by the rotation of galaxies. Methods of looking for and validating dark matter have been proposed. Dark matter has not been declared to be arbitrary by the same people who are studying it. There isn't any comparison.
    You are applying your double standard again, dismissing this because you claim a lack of evidence or testability, while saying absolutely you do not have to do the same when asked for evidence.

    This is a science forum, and if you are asked for evidence, then you should be prepared to give it. Show us the detailed posting rules that say the Religion subforum should be given a different set or rules to the general forum.
    The double standard is because you are claiming that there is a science of rights and I do not make the claim. Since you are making the claim, then you are the one who is required to present evidence.
    There are not any detailed posting rules for the Scientific Study of Religion forum, except that preaching is not allowed. I interpret that to mean either religious preaching or preaching of an atheistic viewpoint. The name of the forum indicates that scientific discussion is expected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why does man perceive god made Man in his image
    By Genesis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 06:25 AM
  2. How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 20th, 2010, 07:24 PM
  4. Horse woman
    By Robin Hood in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 28th, 2007, 11:50 AM
  5. has anybody seen my horse!
    By susan in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 28th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •