Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/02/15 19:19:36
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
Manchu wrote: MGS, I'll be clear as well, I don't really care whether you are insulted by me bringing up Disney. The issue with Disney is they present characters that look like animals but act like human beings. The basis of your argument is that that there is no real difference between human beings and animals concerning rights. I contend that this argument is facially preposterous because the only proper subject of a right is a person, regardless of whether said person is an animal. That is, animalness does not give rise not personhood as Disney -- and you -- seem to imagine. .
OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'. I'll bear your 'care' of my beliefs in mind the next time we're discussing your dearly held belief in a beared giant sky man who's told you how to live according to a collected tome of desert tribe's mythology on why things are the way they are, given their own diminutive knowledge of reality, written two thousand years ago then filtered through languages time and the manipulations of various bodies writing it. Say three hail marys and it will all go away and your 'dignity' will remain intact (see, not very nice is it, how about some decorum from you towards an opposing viewpoint, that is how you'd expect someone else to debate, both according to the rules of the forum and the expectation of a decently conducted conversation). You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly that 'these things obviously exist and anyone who doesn't immediately realize that they are so obvious and intrinsic are fools!' and you'll still be you and the entire scientific world will still be the entire scientific world, you keep your fairy tale and I'll stick with modern learning. Might just as well say humans are special because it says so in the Lord of the Rings... Perhaps I don't have the 'obvious' understanding of the 'absolute' nature of human dignity because I did not correctly read the chicken entrails?
Your counterargument is that personhood is a construct and therefore could meaningfully be extended to animals. I should have reminded you earlier that the characteristic of being an animal is also a construct. Could it therefore be meaningfully applied to plants? Obviously not. Science insofar as it is empirical is the process of encountering phenomena and explaining them by means of abstraction. Every single scientific explanation is also merely a human construct. Their meaning, in the proper context, is not for that reason inhibited.
Incorrect. Animal is a 'concrete'/'literal' or 'real', personhood is an 'abstract'. You can't just make everything up as you're going, slap some big words around it and pretend it's rational thinking.
This is also true of non-scientific constructs, such as human dignity. You're correct that human dignity cannot be precisely measured in abstract empirical terms such as inches, temperature, or mass. That does not mean we do not encounter human dignity and its violation in the real world. The inability to scientifically account for human dignity is no argument that human dignity is not a thing that exists. Of course, you will tell me that it definitely exists -- but only in our minds. This in turn relies on a particular reference to Cartesian duality, for which there is also no scientific evidence.
We encounter human dignity within the framework we have constructed for it in terms of it's sociological application, as a construct of our society. Take a look at the people stranded on a life raft eating the weakest and ask them where that 'absolute' human dignity exists. It exists right up until it needs to step aside to more primitive driving forces, like survival.
Moreover, like Albatross, as long as you contend that human dignity and the natural rights derived from it exist only as a subjective imposition upon the real world, which is entirely material, you must stand in the position of raising no intellectually serious moral objection to the violation of human rights.
Do you hear the contradiction in what you're writing? So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights? Of course my constructed morality and belief system can be upset by instances that break it's framework. How do you think people with no threat of failing the laws of a God manage to survive on a day to day basis without raping or eating our peers? I recognize that I live my life with a sense of what's right and wrong for me and my society, that I judge my peers and other people not in my society based upon my moral code, constructed from my upbringing and surroundings. It still remains a sociological construct.
Therefore your view is myopic, at least to the extent that raising a moral objection to violations of human rights is a desirable thing. If all you want to do is rattle on in an emotional appeal to authority about you experiences caring for animals or some fantasy of beating up people who, in terms of your own argument, simply disagree with you ... then I concede you are amazingly foresighted inasmuch as you have accounted entirely for your very narrow goals.
Again, you're being rude. Stop it. I have not said i will beat people up, if you're referring to my answer to Grey Templar, it was in humor, although I wonder what your reaction would have been to 'burning heretics and catholics'? Not as amusing I'm guessing? I was simply showing him that making these off the cuff remarks is liable to insult the people around you.
If you can't discuss these things in a mature fashion, without resorting to passive aggressive attack and insult, then we should agree to part company on this and further discussion.
This last paragraph is directly personal in nature and insulting, you really need to chill when you encounter someone who does not immediately concede to your wisdom. Especially when you're wrong.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 19:27:26
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2013/02/15 19:27:50
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
MeanGreenStompa wrote: OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'.
You are absolutely wrong. The reason that I don't care whether you think me bringing up Disney is insulting is that you finding it insulting does not make it insulting. I have repeatedly explained why I brought up Disney and your continued misunderstanding of it and twisting it into an insult does not produce an insult in reality. And then you tell me to chill out? Amazing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your hypocritical sparring.
Wrong again. There is no such thing in the material world as an animal. There are material things that you abstractly classify as animals according to social constructs.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights?
As I already said, you can have a moral objection -- just not an intellectually serious one. According to your own argument, the only objection you can raise to an abuse of human rights is that according to you such an abuse is wrong. But the rest of your argument provides that it might not be wrong insofar as the abuser is concerned. Therefore, your objection is entirely meaningless to the abuser -- unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board. (But that's not intellectually serious.) More importantly, you have no basis to judge his indifference to your objection or to the object of those he abuses. If he abused you, you could not really object. You believe that he shouldn't abuse you but in your own argument your belief is no better or worse than his belief that he should or at least that there is no reason for him not to.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 19:48:50
MeanGreenStompa wrote: OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'.
You are absolutely wrong. The reason that I don't care whether you think me bringing up Disney is insulting is that you finding it insulting does not make it insulting. I have repeatedly explained why I brought up Disney and your continued misunderstanding of it and twisting it into an insult does not produce an insult in reality. And then you tell me to chill out? Amazing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your hypocritical sparring.
You came into this thread by saying 'ITT disney fans ', you stated there that you equated the viewpoint of people speaking about animal rights with children's cartoons. That was patronizing and dismissive. If I've misunderstood and somehow you meant to compliment those advocating animal rights, instead of equating our views with something infantile and trivial, to be ridiculed, then please explain it clearly, because I read it as insulting. The correct answer when presented with someone who has taken offense at something you've said is to either explain that they have misunderstood and that you really meant was 'x' or apologize, not dismiss the offense with 'I don't care'. At least in the framework of how we are supposed to operate on this site and in discussions.
Wrong again. There is no such thing in the material world as an animal. There are material things that you abstractly classify as animals according to social constructs.
The word 'animal' is an abstract, animal in conversation is an abstract, animal is a literal, animal exists. Unless you want to get existential about it. Love is abstract, Dignity is abstract, animal is literal and solid, along with brick or car or woman. I am not wrong.
2013/02/15 19:44:32
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
I have no doubt that the thing we call animals exist. Whether or not they are animals is the question and the answer is that identifying them as such is an abstraction; the concept of animal is a construct in the exact same sense as human dignity.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 19:48:15
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights?
As I already said, you can have a moral objection -- just not an intellectually serious one. According to your own argument, the only objection you can raise to an abuse of human rights is that according to you such an abuse is wrong. But the rest of your argument provides that it might not be wrong insofar as the abuser is concerned. Therefore, your objection is entirely meaningless to the abuser -- unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board. (But that's not intellectually serious.) More importantly, you have no basis to judge his indifference to your object or to the object of those he abuses. If he abused you, you could not really object. You believe that he shouldn't abuse you but in your own argument your belief is no better or worse than his belief that he should or at least that there is no reason for him not to.
Look, what I'm saying is that we all exist in a society with rules and guidelines, that's what fashions our view on the world. The right and wrong I perceive is likely not the same as the animal abuser as that's why they are, to me, abusing the animal and to them, they are doing whatever it is, 'educating' the animal or whatever. It's all on a sliding scale as all abuse is, at the nearest side it's heavy handed discipline and on the furthest side it's terrible torture.
Also explain why the objection cannot be intellectually serious? What are you basing that on? What measurement? Of course the objection raised is not as valid to the abuser as to the accuser, if it were, the 'crime' would likely not exist.
unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board.
I am unaware I make frequent physical threats? Please expound on this. It sounds like I'm doing something that personally offends you, can you explain more?
I have no doubt that the thing we call animals exist. Whether or not they are animals is the question and the answer is that identifying them as such is an abstraction; the concept of animal is a construct in the exact same sense as human dignity.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 20:03:00
2013/02/15 20:04:08
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
It doesn't personally offend me because, instead of trying to be personally offended, I understand that you're not really trying to bully people. At least I think so. And if you are trying to bully people, then do I really need to explain what is offensive about that? In the context of this discussion ... maybe so ...
So let's get back to the simple example of someone depriving you of your human rights. According to you, your only objection is that you think this is wrong. But you refuse to object that it really is wrong, wrong in a way that binds both you and your abuser. In your argument, he might even be doing the right thing by abusing you -- that's up to him, I guess. This is what I mean by not intellectually serious. I mean it is absurd. To scream out to your torturer, "I wish you'd respect my opinion that torturing me is wrong" is absurd.
I'm putting everything else in a spoiler because I think it's a sideshow.
Spoiler:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: you claim I'm misunderstanding what you've said, the onus is on you to expand this
I've already met my burden. If there is any further onus, it's on you.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
According to you,
"solidity" (I think you mean, whether something is material) = exists
abstraction = does not exist
Therefore, you would say inches, democracy, and physics do not exist. Biology could not exist in your terms and neither could biological categories. Therefore the category of animals also cannot exist.
So whatever all these things are that are running around, they cannot be animals because animals don't exist.
Meanwhile, I have said that non-material things do exist. Science is not just a name for a thing made up of atoms. Being made up of atoms is not a requirement of existence.
So do you really perhaps mean that human dignity does not exist because different people have different conceptions of what it is? And in that case, how do you explain how other things (like science or democracy), which are available to multiple interpretations, exist?
I'll be honest with you, I think this is entirely dumb but I'm willing to go along with you if you continue to insist that somehow the construct of "animal" exists in a more privileged way than the construct of "human dignity."
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 20:33:28
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Manchu wrote: It doesn't personally offend me because, instead of trying to be personally offended, I understand that you're not really trying to bully people. At least I think so. And if you are trying to bully people, then do I really need to explain what is offensive about that? In the context of this discussion ... maybe so ...
So why bring it up? What relevance did portraying me as 'someone who likes to threaten people' have to our discussion? It seems very out of the blue and random. It read as personal.
So let's get back to the simple example of someone depriving you of your human rights. According to you, your only objection is that you think this is wrong. But you refuse to object that it really is wrong, wrong in a way that binds both you and your abuser. In your argument, he might even be doing the right thing by abusing you -- that's up to him, I guess. This is what I mean by not intellectually serious. I mean it is absurd. To scream out to your torturer, "I wish you'd respect my opinion that torturing me is wrong" is absurd.
That's puerile. I'm going to think it's very wrong if someone is torturing me, I might well try to convince the torturer of the wrongness, by deploying attempts at empathy. If the torturer is convinced I'm a threat to national security and he's got to get vital information about me to protect his country and his family, he's not liable to view it as wrong, he's liable to see it as very right. In my reality it's terrible I'm getting the car battery to the nads, in his, he's got a limited time to make me talk before the dirty bomb goes off in a city center. My abstract vs his abstract. Neither is wrong in each reality. I'm the unfortunate victim of circumstance and he's doing what's best to prevent a terrible outcome and I'm a nasty terrorist. That's why it's an abstract, it's not got a viable measurement and it's variable according to the viewpoint.
I'll be shouting 'this is wrong' and that's correct in my version of the truth and he'll be shaking his head and waiting for me to cough up the location of my bomb, according to his truth.
If he's torturing me because there is a bomb that may kill his family located somewhere, is that taking away my human rights? Am I a muslim in a hercules transport over international waters at the mercy of CIA agents racing against time to locate a viral weapon in Civilian US? Am I a Navy Seal captured by the North Koreans trying to locate a spy team in NK? One may well seem acceptable, one not. That's what I'm saying about human rights, that's all I've been saying, they are not absolute, they are not fundamental and they can be removed at any time by another in a position of power, is that a good thing? Location, location, location. Who are you? Who are they? Who's judging?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: you claim I'm misunderstanding what you've said, the onus is on you to expand this
I've already met my burden. If there is any further onus, it's on you.
You said in explaination:
Manchu wrote: [I was referring more to the fact that Disney films often make no distinction between the characteristics of human beings and other animals, i.e., anthropomorphism. So really Disney is not advocating animal rights for the simple reason that Disney movies rarely portray animals but rather humans disguised as animals.
So you were saying that people in this thread were guilty of anthropomorphizing animals, in the manner of a Disney cartoon. It read extremely poorly as seems to infere that anyone, including myself, saying that animals deserve protection in the law were stupid enough to assume our animals could talk and think like humans, in the manner of a child's cartoon, further hinting at considering those speaking of animal rights as childish. It read as aloof, dismissive and patronizing. It was commented on immediately and your response to that (and I have no idea about your relationship with Kovnik Obama) was sarcasm and again, immediate dismissal. His comment wasn't helpful but did demonstrate that you may have opened with a less than stellar statement. When I mentioned that I did not like it, you told me to take a running jump, again, reinforcing a very negative message and abrasive stance.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
According to you,
"solidity" (I think you mean, whether something is material) = exists
abstraction = does not exist
Therefore, you would say inches, democracy, and physics do not exist. Biology could not exist in your terms and neither could biological categories. Therefore the category of animals also cannot exist.
So whatever all these things are that are running around, they cannot be animals because animals don't exist.
Meanwhile, I have said that non-material things do exist. Science is not just a name for a thing made up of atoms. Being made up of atoms is not a requirement of existence.
So do you really perhaps mean that human dignity does not exist because different people have different conceptions of what it is? And in that case, how do you explain how other things (like science or democracy), which are available to multiple interpretations, exist?
I'll be honest with you, I think this is entirely dumb but I'm willing to go along with you if you continue to exist that somehow the construct of "animal" exists in a more privileged way than the construct of "human dignity."
Your implying again. I must not be elaborating well enough, because you seem to take half of what I've said and turn it into something wildly skewed from what I thought I was saying. You've conjured this notion that I'm operating in some black and white 'is and is not' state, you're wrong.
I was not saying abstracts do not exist, I said they exist as a construct. Democracy exists only as long as there is a human society that recognizes it as real. It would cease to exist if there were no people familiar with the concept. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Society vanishes, human viewpoints vanish and the 'animal' would still exist. The concept would cease but the actual animal would remain. The Human Dignity(tm) you've talked about can be said to exist in certain societies or viewpoints, in that regard it's real to those who believe in it. But if those people vanish, it ceases. It is conceptual. It will also be variable in it's quality according to who you talk to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 21:00:37
2013/02/15 21:00:15
Subject: Re:From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
This sounds unethical.
2013/02/15 21:01:56
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
This sounds unethical.
What is unethical about it?
I would say its unethical to try and make someone do something that is against their belief system. Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
kronk wrote: Looking at his views on animals and women in this thread, I'm not surprised.
Aren't people in the medical industry supposed to give fair and unbiased treatment to there patients?
I don't know if pharmicists are under any such obligation. They are simply trained and qualified to dispense medicine. If they object to certain medicines why should they be forced to violate their belief systems?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
This sounds unethical.
What is unethical about it?
I would say its unethical to try and make someone do something that is against their belief system. Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
So If a Doctor refused to give medical treatment to black people, he/she should be allowed to after all it his/her belief that black people don't deserve medical attention, see why this is a flawed theory?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 21:12:57
2013/02/15 21:14:51
Subject: Re:From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
There is a complete difference between overt racisim and refusing to dispense medicine which terminates unborn human life, which is also a luxury treatment that is a privilege and not in any way an entitlement.
There are plenty of birth control methods that would not be objected to. You have options, its not like you have only one choce for birth control.
But this is getting off topic so lets drop it here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 21:15:43
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service. If the business objects to this practice that is their deal. The customer can be turned away by the pharmicist.
A pharmicist is not obligated to fill a prescription if he doesn't want to. What happens as a result is a different matter.
Maybe he shouldn't have been a pharmicist, but the fact remains he is and is being asked to violate his beliefs.
But you won't agree with me and I am not changing my view either, so lets drop this as its off topic for the thread.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Manchu wrote: @MGS: You say the person torturing you may be right. I think that's about as far as we can go.
Classy response. Congratulations.
Yeah, at this point I don't think Manchu is really interested in what you actually said anymore.
He actually said that, as between himself and the torturer, it's just abstract viewpoint against abstract viewpoint. To quote him specifically, "Neither is wrong in each reality." The trouble is there aren't multiple realities. There is one reality. One would think this would be clear, even hypothetically, given the example of torture. MGS says "well that could be okay in his point of view" about a torturer -- and if a torturer, why not also a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile -- or even someone who abuses animals? What more is there to say to MGS about rights since he basically admitted to them not really existing in his view. According to him, animals have rights among people who think they have rights; for every one else, they don't have rights. As it turns out, the people who think animals have rights live in the same reality as the ones who don't. So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 21:35:03
Manchu wrote: @MGS: You say the person torturing you may be right. I think that's about as far as we can go.
Classy response. Congratulations.
Yeah, at this point I don't think Manchu is really interested in what you actually said anymore.
He actually said that, as between himself and the torturer, it's just abstract viewpoint against abstract viewpoint. To quote him specifically, "Neither is wrong in each reality." The trouble is there aren't multiple realities. There is one reality. One would think this would be clear, even hypothetically, given the example of torture. MGS says "well that could be okay in his point of view" about a torturer -- and if a torturer, why not also a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile -- or even someone who abuses animals? What more is there to say to MGS about rights since he basically admitted to them not really existing in his view. According to him, animals have rights among people who think they have rights; for every one else, they don't have rights. As it turns out, the people who think animals have rights live in the same reality as the ones who don't. So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
There is one reality, perceived through the eyes of billions of people, all interpreting it in a different fashion. 'Given the example of torture', what is torture then? In which situation is something torture and in which is it something, anything else?
We only function due to working from the principal that 'the masses dictate reality'.
You insist that something either is or is not, something you accused me of just a few posts up, that 'it's torture so it's wrong!' and I've just given you an example of when it's not wrong, according to one thing, over and over, perception.
My torturer isn't torturing me, he's 'applying necessary force during interogation of a potentially lethal enemy of the state'. Now, you have two realities, or perceptions of the same reality if you prefer, the one where I'm being subjected to the attentions of a brutal torturer and the other where I'm being rightfully questioned using strong but valid techniques to extract information.
I once made two questionnaires at college on fox hunting (another blood sport, like bull fighting, that was made illegal when enough of the masses applied pressure to legislate their version of reality, that it was cruel, and made it illegal).
I asked the question 'do you believe in vermin control in farming food?' on the first and 'do you believe it's acceptable to have the british fox torn apart by dogs in this day and age? with a picture of a fox cub, on the other. In this way, I controlled the vast amount of the answer I got, I dictated that reality via positioning and lettering to trigger two different viewpoints of the reality of fox hunting.
In your quote you go on to say 'why not a pedophile or murderer', they absolutely justify their actions in their worlds in many cases. Many pedophiles will tell you about how much the child enjoyed participating, that it was mutual and enjoyable for both parties or even 'love' or the murderer that what they did was necessary or right or that it just doesn't matter. in their realities, (sorry, their perceptions of the one true reality) they have justified themselves as right, it is the masses that disagree, set a different moral code and measure them as failing that and committing a crime. Murder or Pedophilia, by our standards in the West, are both allowed in certain other cultures, we view these cultures as wrong and criminal, but they will only become so when their own majority change it's moral practices or the rest of the world (the majority) applies enough pressure to force their view of reality of right and wrong onto that culture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
Violent sentiment being expressed here is certainly due to a couple of things, 1. Those posting it are usually males and we males in Western society have a certain level of machismo that means that we express our affection and love and protective urges in terms of violence - 'I'd die for you', 'Anyone comes near my kids in a dirty van and I'd shoot them!', 'Anyone kicks a puppy near me is a dead man!' and 2. That you might well find yourself in a situation where protecting a less powerful being from a more powerful being might require you to deploy violence to prevent further harm on the less powerful being.
What is actually the most likely scenario is 'oh I've seen that guy be abusive to an animal, I'll contact the law enforcement agencies established to serve the majority view of right and wrong and get them to dispense our society's punishments on this person for their crime as our majority have dictated that the protection of an animal's well being is a right we afford animals in our society's version of (view of) reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 22:11:13
2013/02/15 22:27:40
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
You say rights are subjective rather than objective. I'm just telling you that if this is true then rights don't functionally exist. What you're actually talking about is privileges conceded by the strong in favor of the weak that can be rescinded by the strong at any moment for (arguably) any reason. For example, we might concede humane treatment to one another. But, under your argument, there is nothing to prevent treating other people inhumanely so long as we can subjectively justify doing so and have the objective (i.e., violent) capacity to do so.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 22:29:17
Manchu wrote: You say rights are subjective rather than objective. I'm just telling you that if this is true then rights don't functionally exist. What you're actually talking about is privileges conceded by the strong in favor of the weak that can be rescinded by the strong at any moment for (arguably) any reason. For example, we might concede humane treatment to one another. But, under your argument, there is nothing to prevent treating other people inhumanely so long as we can subjectively justify doing so and have the objective (i.e., violent) capacity to do so.
Yes, all rights are subjective. They exist if we create and recognize and enforce them, they cease when we don't.
If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.
If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.
The native american cultures were 'wrong' in the eyes of arriving Europeans who felt their behaviors did not conform to the Christian ideal so they employed a number of options, including violence to bring them into the Christian view of how to behave in reality. The sacrificing of humans to their gods atop ziggurats was not 'wrong' until viewed by a stronger culture who viewed it as unacceptable to their own view of what 'human rights' are.
2013/02/15 23:08:09
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated? Unless a stronger country says so?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 23:20:56
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
Forgive if I missed this being answered up in the passive aggressive swipes at one another that occupied the last three to four pages of the thread, but what are the differences between rights belonging to humans, and human rights?
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
Let's take the genital mutilation of girls in african tribes, it's a very unwholesome thing to us, it's illegal in the UK and I'd imagine, the US, yet it's been a part of the tribal culture for a very long time. We are aghast at the 'torture' of women, this removal of the rights of the girl before she is butchered by this misogynistic and barberous society, I personally find it very unpleasant, and a measure of female subjugation, but within that society it's perfectly acceptable.
That tribe is wrong to us, it's committing a crime. We abhor it.
Then we circumcise our male babies. WTF? How can we perform such a hypocrisy? Simple, one child's genital mutilation is wrong and an abuse of rights and the other is part of our religious or socially acceptable behaviors.
Your people in countries with no human rights are absolutely having their human rights abused when we, who hold these notions, view them.
Women forced to cover themselves, for another example, married at puberty. We find this disgusting, discriminatory and against the notions of right and wrong we hold, yet our own morality in the West was little better a few centuries ago.
It's mutable and always has been. The world over.
And if you accept that, you can accept my original point that we can ascribe certain rights to animals, should we as a society decide to do so. Most of our countries already have, to varying degrees, along the lines of avoiding suffering, limiting pain, providing food and water, providing medicines etc.
0011/02/15 23:25:47
Subject: From spanish congress: Animals lack right to life
daedalus wrote: what are the differences between rights belonging to humans, and human rights?
The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights.
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
This is why I said there was no point in further addressing you. You're not talking about rights at all. You're just talking about violently asserting your opinion on others wherever possible. You think animals should be protected by rights in the sense that you have warm feelings toward animals and angry feelings toward people who hurt them. Hence Disney.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/15 23:27:54
Manchu wrote: The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights.
Nope, those rights that arise from being a human only arise from being a human if enough humans agree that it's a good idea, that's a construct. We can go round and round on this if you like, but these things did not spring from the same place as instinct or reaction, which are animal behaviors, human rights are advanced concepts, borne from theorizing. We all instinctively want to have shelter and food, we only construct that we have the right to them.
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
This is why I said there was no point in further addressing you. You're not talking about rights at all. You're just talking about violently asserting your opinion on others wherever possible.
I'm sorry you feel that, I'm here for the discussion, not to fight you. Rights are afforded by the barrel of a gun, or the jawbone of an ass or having more friends than the other guy, your view of the world is carried forward by majority to become The World View. Underneath it all, we give rights to those we sympathize with and remove them from those who we do not. We the masses, the majority, will define the reality of those in minorities as to whether we afford them a right or do not. If gays want to marry in the US, it will require the benevolence or at least the indifference of the heterosexual majority to afford them that right. If the majority is unsympathetic, and there are plenty of countries to look to for that, then they will continue to have that 'human right' withheld.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/15 23:40:54
Amazing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your hypocritical sparring.
