Current Topics
Big Lies and Tax Cuts
by NW Ponderer
Today at 01:17 PM
Gun Control
by rporter314
Today at 01:02 PM
Al Franken 2020
by NW Ponderer
Today at 10:38 AM
'fixing' the internet
by Jeffery J. Haas
Today at 04:04 AM
more help for the middle class
by jgw
Yesterday at 07:46 PM
sex assaults
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 02:07 AM
the democratic plan to win
by jgw
11/20/17 07:10 PM
Trump held his first VA listening session without veterans advocates
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/20/17 12:48 AM
Round Table for November, 2017
by pdx rick
11/20/17 12:06 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/19/17 10:32 PM
Donald Trump Jr.'s Elephant Tail
by NW Ponderer
11/19/17 08:22 PM
Reign of Idiots
by rporter314
11/19/17 12:50 PM
Is keystone xl dead?
by pondering_it_all
11/19/17 06:05 AM
Let’s just cancel the Oscars
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/18/17 10:23 PM
Why Netflix’s ‘Godless’ is the Western you’ve been waiting for
by Golem
11/17/17 08:57 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
57 Forums
16104 Topics
277469 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#22432 - 07/20/07 05:14 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Greger]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Greger
If the above mentioned male lion should get caught trying to kill a female lions cubs I'm guessing he would find himself in some serious trouble. There would be no investigation nor reports to the lion police, she would simply chew his balls off and spit them in his face.


Actually, she eventually mates with him. Go figure.

Anyway, I disagree with you on self-ownership and on the lack of inherent Rights (if by that you mean natural Rights), however that is neither here nor there because I am more interested in your suggestion that ethics may play a major part in how animals are eventually treated -- not based on the whimsical emotionalism and mysticism displayed by many and subject to fickle change, but a more reliable and grounded base of protection for the lesser critters.

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 heavilly dependent on ethical considerations, no? But that can wait for another day. Time for me to hit the sack.
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. Thanks for the suggestion.



Edited by issodhos (07/20/07 05:16 AM)
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#22435 - 07/20/07 09:44 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: olyve]
Sandy Price Offline


Registered: 01/06/99
Posts: 503
Loc: N.W. Phoenix
Rights of Animals?

Could it be that male humans look at animals with different brain functions than women do? Men, being mainly hunters see our forest animals as feed for the family. Women see animals as family units much in the same way as they see their own families. Could it be that man has the capacity to find association with young animals who are helpless and need a little TLC from humans? We women do it all the time.

Our children find a puppy or kitten or even a bird’s nest that has fallen from a tree and brought them home. Is it not a desire to help a helpless critter? Is this not a good action to expand the child’s love for nature?

I have a keen respect for Murray Rothbard but a deeper respect for the human mind which is unique in all respects if allowed to develop individuality. There is no set model for the human brain and our strength at being top of the food ladder can be found in our individual look at the animal world as well as how we treat our planet.

Even our indigenous American natives understood the care of the soil they used to grow their grains and fruits by staggering their plants not to deplete the nutrients and probably learned too late to stop slaughtering the bison that fed and clothed them.

The human brain has learned the art of balancing what they seem to enjoy and that is showing the power of men over the animals, especially when holding the power of a gun in their hands. The female brain sees a different point of view and we tend to find this action offensive. But human nature is just that. Maybe the balance of male and female points of view are necessary for the survival of the animal world and mankind.
_________________________
Sandy

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

Top
#22439 - 07/20/07 10:52 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: issodhos]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9573
Loc: The Great American Desert
 Quote:

 Quote:

Were I a lion, I might say that it's simply a natural step to recognize my people. Your arguments on this one are a direct parallel to those used against the non-white and the female. They worked - for awhile - in those situations; as a rhetorical device , I think perhaps their time is over.


Piffle. Not even a good try, Mellowicious.
Yours,
Issodhos


I didn't write the obvious because it was ... obvious.

 Quote:
The fundamental natural Right of Man is self-ownership -- the ownership of one's person. Without this natural Right, man would exist in one of two states -- ownerless or as the property of another. The same is true of animals. Does an animal have self-ownership? No. And again, it is because animals in general, like the lion, do not and cannot recognize the Right of self-ownership in other animals of their kind. What does this mean for the animal? If it is a domestic animal it is the property of its human owner.


 Quote:
The fundamental natural Right of Man is self-ownership -- the ownership of one's person. Without this natural Right, man would exist in one of two states -- ownerless or as the property of another. The same is true of women. Does a woman have self-ownership? No. And again, it is because women in general do not and cannot recognize the Right of self-ownership in other women. What does this mean for the woman? If it is a wife, it is the property of its male owner.


The argument is just as wrong if you replace the gender with a race. For me, that means the argument is seriously doubtful when applied to any class of being.

As for the Declaration of Independence making no such distinction - it may not a legally binding document, but I've never heard it discounted for that reason before, and that does not negate its effect on this country. The writers may have made no such distiction; the readers most definitely have.

Second, if you have not read it, I'd introduce you to a Declaration of the Rights of Women?; even the first two paragraphs make a huge difference.

Which is why I'll tell the lioness to get it in writing.

(Edited note: I realize this is not a discussion of women's rights. My point is that if this form of argument stands, then all we have to do re-define the kinds of people we don't like, as animals, and rights are gone. And I don't put it past us, because I believe it's been done before.)


Edited by Mellowicious (07/20/07 11:28 AM)
_________________________
Julia

Curiosity killed the cat - Satisfaction brought it back

Top
#22442 - 07/20/07 11:30 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Sandy Price]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13828
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: Sandy Price
Rights of Animals?
probably learned too late to stop slaughtering the bison that fed and clothed them.


Ah, lass, the Indigenous Tribes of the original occupants of this country did NOT slaughter the Bison. They killed them with respect and only as needed. The actual slaughter and near extinction of the mighty herds of Buffalo was a directive handed down from Washington. It was a simple theory, kill all the food and all the Indians will die. Genocide plain and simple. Trainloads of men with guns were sent to kill ALL the Bison. Another beautiful example of why mans "natural rights" are undeserved. Although if I think in racist terms it seems that ethics are more often set aside by white folks than by races of colour. Most all the nasty shite that has happened in in our recorded world history has been perpetrated by us white folks.
Not all of it of course,in our dim past we couldn't be everywhere at once, now we can. AS a brief f'rinstance, Iraq, everyone got along okay under Saddams brutal regime, enter the white man and the killing commences. This is strictly conjecture though and unrelated to the topic.
Issodoss, what has mankind, male, female and non white done to deserve any natural rights beyond that of other species? Religious claims don't do it for me and rescuing kittens is cute but doesn't earn totalitarian claims over the planet. All the studies and theories about mans nature have been conducted by men (and women) and so might be a we bit slanted in our favor.
Who gave us these rights and did not give them to animals?
In a nutshell is it simply that might makes rights?
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#22443 - 07/20/07 11:38 AM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Greger]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13828
Loc: Florida
Issodos,
I'm sorry, I got to ranting along and forgot that you had cleared up where the rights came from. Political philosophy. Quite correct.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#22446 - 07/20/07 01:29 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: olyve]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: olyve
I'm not sure debating animal rights isn't jumping a rung. Shouldn't we get the 'top of the food chain' straightened out first?
At the same time.....isn't abusing animals often a precursor to some really really nasty stuff?


Indeed.
_________________________
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
#22447 - 07/20/07 01:30 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Irked]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: Irked
dead on--Guns




A pun my word!
_________________________
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
#22448 - 07/20/07 01:31 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: issodhos]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
I would postulate that for individual lions to have Rights, lions as a whole must . . . recognize that if they infringe upon the Right to life of another non-aggressor lion (by killing it for example), they could be held accountable . . .


 Originally Posted By: stereoman
Why change the debate to whether lions should respect each others' rights?


 Originally Posted By: issodhos
It seems to me the only one attempting to change the debate is you, Stereoman.


Oh.

 Originally Posted By: issodhos
there is no straw man.


 Originally Posted By: issodhos
It is about whether animals have the same Rights as Man


We are all in agreement, issodhos. Animals should not have the same rights as man.
_________________________
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
#22481 - 07/20/07 03:59 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Mellowicious]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

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


I didn't write the obvious because it was ... obvious.

[quote]The fundamental natural Right of Man is self-ownership -- the ownership of one's person. Without this natural Right, man would exist in one of two states -- ownerless or as the property of another. The same is true of animals. Does an animal have self-ownership? No. And again, it is because animals in general, like the lion, do not and cannot recognize the Right of self-ownership in other animals of their kind. What does this mean for the animal? If it is a domestic animal it is the property of its human owner.


 Quote:
The fundamental natural Right of Man is self-ownership -- the ownership of one's person. Without this natural Right, man would exist in one of two states -- ownerless or as the property of another. The same is true of women. Does a woman have self-ownership? No. And again, it is because women in general do not and cannot recognize the Right of self-ownership in other women. What does this mean for the woman? If it is a wife, it is the property of its male owner.


The argument is just as wrong if you replace the gender with a race. For me, that means the argument is seriously doubtful when applied to any class of being.


For those who may be confused, the second 'quote' is a paraphrase of what I wrote. The flaw in it need not be pointed out because -- well -- because it is so obvious.:-)

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
#22483 - 07/20/07 04:27 PM Re: THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS [Re: Greger]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Quote:

Ah, lass, the Indigenous Tribes of the original occupants of this country did NOT slaughter the Bison. They killed them with respect and only as needed. The actual slaughter and near extinction of the mighty herds of Buffalo was a directive handed down from Washington.


Actually, the whole "Nobel Savage" thing can be quite overworked, Greger. One tactic used by some tribes was to drive a group of buffalo over a cliff at the bottom of which was waiting the rest of the tribe to do the processing work for current consumption and preserving for later consumption – I suspect that they would have done back-flips for a functioning freezer. Not much respect there. As to claims that the American Indian did a lot of praying and respecting of the animals, it was probably more a superstitious attempt to placate the Spirit World and ensure a good hunt than out of any sense of kinship with the critterworld.

And it seems to be historically accurate that the elimination of the herds was indeed done at the direction of Washington with the intent of starving the Western Indian tribes onto reservations.

 Quote:

Although if I think in racist terms it seems that ethics are more often set aside by white folks than by races of colour. Most all the nasty shite that has happened in in our recorded world history has been perpetrated by us white folks.


Yeah, it is racist, but in this era it is to be expected and is neither here nor there. The ‘sin’ here is in the error of thinking “nasty” comes with a skin color – or even that your statement is even correct. However, that is not what this thread is supposed to be about, so maybe you or someone else could start a separate thread entitled, “Whitey is the Devil”. That could be fun.:-)

 Quote:

Issodoss, what has mankind, male, female and non white done to deserve any natural rights beyond that of other species?


Who wrote that natural rights had anything to do with deserving?;-)
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 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 36 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2