Current Topics
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by Greger
16 minutes 7 seconds ago
What is wealth? How is it made? How is it accounted?
by logtroll
27 minutes 54 seconds ago
Tucker Carlson’s head writer outed: Obscene racism and homophobia exposed
by logtroll
30 minutes 46 seconds ago
What's the Democratic Party doing?
by Greger
44 minutes 30 seconds ago
Mysteries not solved
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 11:15 PM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 10:47 PM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by jgw
Yesterday at 07:49 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by perotista
Yesterday at 12:01 PM
Coronavirus - everyone was/is wrong?
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 04:27 AM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by jgw
07/13/20 07:42 PM
Little Houses
by jgw
07/13/20 07:04 PM
covid-19 cure
by jgw
07/10/20 06:53 PM
What is the purpose of Capitalism?
by pondering_it_all
07/10/20 12:38 AM
WV woman goes to Mexico with her daughter and series of TOP SECRET U.S docs
by pdx rick
07/08/20 11:07 PM
Batsh!t crazy Kanye West just announced he's running for POTUS in 2020.
by perotista
07/07/20 11:45 PM
Drug prices
by jgw
07/07/20 05:29 PM
The Departed - 2020
by pondering_it_all
07/07/20 07:10 AM
Medications that might help against SARS-CoV-2
by pondering_it_all
07/07/20 07:01 AM
Decisions
by pondering_it_all
07/06/20 07:12 PM
congress gets
by jgw
07/05/20 07:49 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16963 Topics
301254 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#22534 - 07/21/07 02:46 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Greger]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9624
Loc: flyover country
Greger, once again we're on the same wavelength. Steve, I don't see anyone strongly arguing here that animals have the same rights as people. On the other hand, this thread grew rather rapidly and I may have missed it.

I had the impression that a discussion of specific rights wasn't really what people were interested in. It's been a long day, though. If you could direct me to the appropriate page, I'll re-re-read.
_________________________
Julia
Long time passing

Top
#22536 - 07/21/07 03:02 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Frazier]
Irked Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 3494
Loc: Somewhere out in left field
 Originally Posted By: Frazier
Oh I can believe it. I regularly fight PETA, HSUS, and other groups attempts to limit MY rights to enjoy my pets. Do a quick web search on Ingrid Newkirk,Wayne Pacelle and other 'animal rights' type folks. It's illuminating.

Animal welfare? I'm all for it. But I would truly like to see the definition of 'rights'. The 'right' to freely wander where the animal chooses? The right to propogate at will? No more shelters or euthanasia as the animal has a 'right' to life as it chooses? WHat are 'rights' as applied to animals?


The only rights anyone or thing has are the rights it is able to assert.

One can talk about "inalienable rights" "rights by virtue of birth" and even the "rights bestowed by the Almighty" and yet it is all just words.

One's "rights" don't mean anything if a more powerful being or entity decides that one does not possess that right at a given time. One's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be taken from one by a neighbor, a government, a criminal, a tiger or a bacterium and so are not inherently one's own always and forever. The Almighty has provided us with the gun to equalize the struggle with many of the threats to our "rights" and unholy science provides the illusion of equalizing the threat posed by others.

One's rights are what one's might (be it brawn or dollars) will secure--all other talk is so much piffle.

All
_________________________
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar

Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan

Top
#22553 - 07/21/07 06:53 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Mellowicious]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Mellowicious

I had the impression that a discussion of specific rights wasn't really what people were interested in. It's been a long day, though. If you could direct me to the appropriate page, I'll re-re-read.


In an nutshell:
The first question in the thread was “do animals have rights?” and was based on a book excerpt written by Murray Rothbard entitled, “The “Rights” of Animals”.

The first paragraph was:
 Quote:

IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.


He was referring to the full natural rights of Man, and His conclusion was, no, they don’t.

I then said that I also thought they did not have any Rights and went on to explain what I meant by Rights as held by Man and applied to Lions (I could have used bunnies, but they are not as dramatic and just look stupid when fighting each other:-)).

I then stated that aside from spiritual, metaphysical, and religious reason, is there any solid basis for claiming that animals do have rights so such 'rights' would not be left to the whim of the powerful.

I then proposed that, “"The natural Rights of Man is the center of a political philosophy concerning the relationship between the Individual and the state, and extends to how individuals relate to each other. It is based on negative Rights. Since there seems no logical way of recognizing such negative Rights in animals, perhaps what we need to do is develop a political philosophy concerning the relationship between Man and animal. Such a relationship would probably have to be based on what is referred to as positive rights -- something more one way and directed toward a lesser living being. Determining what those positive rights may be will probably be heavily dependent on ethical considerations, no?"

It seems to be virgin territory. Care to take a shot at it?
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#22554 - 07/21/07 10:17 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: issodhos]
Frazier Offline
journeyman

Registered: 02/09/04
Posts: 973
Loc: North of Atlanta
Issodhos,

For those of us involved in animals professionally, or as a serious hobby, 'animal rights' is not some ill-defined philosophical concept. There are groups(PETA, HSUS, DDAL and many more) who have defined what 'animal rights' are, and are working diligently to assert those rights legally, using the political process, as well as violently, using terroristic tactics(lab bombings etc)

We are involved daily in efforts to maintain our rights(privilege) to own pets, and to maintain the freedom to make medical choices for our pets(please check out California AB1634, or the current proposition in Ohio that would require dog breeders to register, and be fingerprinted!)The AR agenda has seeped into every state, under the guise of protecting all those cute and cuddly puppies and kittens put down every year in shelters nationwide. Humane Society of the United States is a massive fundraising machine, and they run ONE shelter in the whole country, they were 'front and center' in the media after Katrina, but talk to any rescue worker who was in the trenches of that mess, and you'll get an entirely different portrait from that which HSUS has painted for itself. I could go on, but not sure how many are interested in the true 'animal rights' agenda in this country, and worldwide.
_________________________
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Top
#22563 - 07/21/07 11:24 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Frazier]
Sandy Price Offline
journeyman

Registered: 01/06/99
Posts: 503
Loc: N.W. Phoenix
In America even under our U.S. Constitution, we are too eager to hand our natural rights over to the government. Irked pointed this out that we are only as free as we assert (I think is what he said).

From an independent society, Americans have become self inflicted slaves to the Big Daddy living in the White House. Most of us have been told Big Daddy is God in heaven who has carefully listed his rules and we can find them in the bible. Now we have taken this down a few pegs and we look to our federal government to tell us what is acceptable right down to how we treat the animals on the planet. I sometimes fear that our children are ignored over the threats from PETA and other associations.

I'm waiting for a revolution from the American people to get the government our of our lives, and learn some respect for our natural rights. When our government cannot even fix broken levees that they had built many years ago it shows all of us that we have no natural rights. We are always going to be under the domination of those we put into power.

We have given our social decisions over to the government because we cannot determine right from wrong rationally. If this continues all Americans will be slaves to the government in very short time. We saw this happen in Rome, USSR, China, Europe and our laws will soon be through petitions from a select few Americans who will speak for the rest of us. That seems to be the way human nature demands. The most obvious threat to all Americans at this time is to hand our social family laws over to the Supreme Court. We are not to deviate in any way from the standard set down by the American Christians.

The problem is that not all of us are Christians and those leaders who are, have shown to be deviants themselves. The end game is to continue to put Catholics in the Supreme Court and all of us will have to live under their decisions.

It makes me happy that I am of such an age that I will not have to see America become a massive Vatican.
_________________________
Sandy

I WANT DON IMUS BACK ON RADIO AND TELEVISION!!!

Top
#22564 - 07/21/07 11:25 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: issodhos]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 16964
Loc: Florida
There may be the beginings of such a philosophy at:
http://www.lcv.org/
The League of Conservation voters, I used to delete their emails immediately mistaking conservation for conservative. I consider myself a conservationist though I can make no claims to be a "tree hugger" as my business revolves around native and exotic hardwoods.
I work with cumaru, ipe', jatoba, and a few other woods you may not have heard of and prefer to imagine that they are farmed and not a direct result of rainforest destruction. The conservation and preservation of wildlife habitat gives the wild beasts the rights to carry on their lives with minimal interference. Corporate factory farms have robbed the farmbeasts of whatever dignity they may once have had as a cherished source of food and textiles. I've heard what goes on in a veal barn and wont eat the stuff, but on the other hand am willing to look away for a moment when a bit of foie gras is served. As you can see, my philosphy is imperfect and stumbling.
Ladies: Let me apologize for my gender. For thousands of years as warriors and hunters we dominated and protected, held as chattel and didn't appreciate the worth of women. Now that brains have become more important than brawn the tables are turning, but, hey, we can still lift heavy shit.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#22569 - 07/21/07 12:32 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: issodhos]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: Greger
So far I don't think anyone among us has come out and claimed that animals should have the same rights as people . . .


 Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
Steve, I don't see anyone strongly arguing here that animals have the same rights as people.


Just to review: it may be true that none of us Ranters is arguing that animals should have the same rights as people. However:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
 Quote:

21. THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS

IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.


That was the opening thesis. On the second page of the thread, issodhos reminds us of the subject at hand:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
Special note should be made of Murray Rothbard's first sentence in this chapter. He is specifically speaking of the idea of extending to animals the full Rights of humans.


I'm with you, Mellow Julia, I don't think that's what the rest of us were intent upon discussing. I replied to iss:

 Originally Posted By: stereoman
I don't see where anyone is arguing that animals should have the same rights as humans.


A page of humorous digressions, and issodhos came back with a slight equivocation:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
Do you think animals have the same or similar rights?


In response to my assertion that his "lion" example was not germane to the opening theme, issodhos once again reminds us:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
It seems to me the only one attempting to change the debate is you, Stereoman. It is about whether animals have the same Rights as Man -- not "whether humans should respect their rights".


And reaffirmed the serious intent of posing the question:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
You can return all you want, Stereoman, there is no straw man.


No doubt your confusion as to the question at hand is fed at least in part by the thread starter's uncertainty. We have the title question:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
The first question in the thread was “do animals have rights?”


But then we have the more specific question reiterated:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
The first paragraph was:
 Quote:
IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.


And underscored:

 Quote:
He was referring to the full natural rights of Man, and His conclusion was, no, they don’t.


I had earlier pointed out that none of us, not one, had asserted that animals' rights should be equal to those of humans, and it doesn't seem that anyone, including issodhos, had or has any interest in that point.

In fact, after these several reminders that the question was whether animals have the same rights as humans, our intrepid guide now offers us a completely different idea:

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
. . . perhaps what we need to do is develop a political philosophy concerning the relationship between Man and animal.


I think that's what we've all been discussing, all along. Off topic though it may have been.
_________________________
Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)


Top
#22570 - 07/21/07 12:56 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: stereoman]
Sandy Price Offline
journeyman

Registered: 01/06/99
Posts: 503
Loc: N.W. Phoenix
Yes indeed, Greger you wonderful men do absolutely lift the heavy shit and I in no way implied that you are redundant. The men in my life have given me my greatest joy. Now please put the toilet seat down.....that's a good boy.
_________________________
Sandy

I WANT DON IMUS BACK ON RADIO AND TELEVISION!!!

Top
#22631 - 07/21/07 08:09 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Irked]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Irked

The only rights anyone or thing has are the rights it is able to assert.

One can talk about "inalienable rights" "rights by virtue of birth" and even the "rights bestowed by the Almighty" and yet it is all just words.


Is this part of your satire schtick, Irked? Just curious.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#22729 - 07/23/07 04:37 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Frazier]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Frazier
Issodhos,

For those of us involved in animals professionally, or as a serious hobby, 'animal rights' is not some ill-defined philosophical concept. There are groups(PETA, HSUS, DDAL and many more) who have defined what 'animal rights' are, and are working diligently to assert those rights legally, using the political process, as well as violently, using terroristic tactics(lab bombings etc)


PETA? Now that is a self-righteous group who has totally failed to control their raging inner fascist, wot! \:\/
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 18 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2