|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But mvass, you make it sound like the animals have rights?
Well, I don't think that the animals have rights, but still, human behavior shouldn't be that depraved.
Try to make up your mind, are they property or not. What business is it of yours what people do with their property?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 10:40 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Face it, not every human thinks that way
Try thinking about what you do every day, and if you think about it hard enough, you'd realize that you're quite motivated by self-interest (if you include emotional benefits, of course). 
Minion:
Quote:
Try to make up your mind, are they property or not. What business is it of yours what people do with their property?
This is an excellent question, actually. What people seem to be stuck on is the idea that government should enforce people's extraneous morals (that is, morals beyond the non-aggression principle). So if you don't think that animals should be tortured, you don't believe that animals are property, and if you believe that animals are property, then you're okay with them being tortured. I disagree with both of these viewpoints. I think that animals are indeed property (in most cases). And, of course, I oppose the government interfering with property rights. On the other hand, I do think that animal cruelty is barbaric and disgusting, but I'm not going to use the government to put the yoke of my preferences upon others. It's one thing to disapprove of it, and another thing to be violently against it. I think that society should indeed discourage it. But those who seek to make it illegal, while having good intentions, would be setting a bad precedent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 11:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Try thinking about what you do every day, and if you think about it hard enough, you'd realize that you're quite motivated by self-interest (if you include emotional benefits, of course).
Well in that case, emotional benefits are the only reward that can motivate you and still keep you good
(speaking your language  )
Quote:
This is an excellent question, actually. What people seem to be stuck on is the idea that government should enforce people's extraneous morals (that is, morals beyond the non-aggression principle). So if you don't think that animals should be tortured, you don't believe that animals are property, and if you believe that animals are property, then you're okay with them being tortured. I disagree with both of these viewpoints. I think that animals are indeed property (in most cases). And, of course, I oppose the government interfering with property rights. On the other hand, I do think that animal cruelty is barbaric and disgusting, but I'm not going to use the government to put the yoke of my preferences upon others. It's one thing to disapprove of it, and another thing to be violently against it. I think that society should indeed discourage it. But those who seek to make it illegal, while having good intentions, would be setting a bad precedent.
Well some humans are barbaric and primitive -- if they do only for their self-interest (not more different than, say, a monkey), they don't deserve to be treated any better than an animal (I mean, how THEY treat animals). I know you'll say that it is dangerous or blabla, but I don't care. I'm not going to obey that like a sheep in this society. Animals should have the same rights to life as any other creature. Humans nowadays seem to lack that basic respect for life and peace -- they continually disturb anything they can find useful for them. It's not like we are animals who can't reason and subjugate to our instincts. Those that do so (e.g: seek only self-pleasure and self-interest) fail the most important thing that makes them evolved, rendering them primitive.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
they don't deserve to be treated any better than an animal
But humans are animals. Even the most enlightened human is still an animal. But as to how they should be treated, well, we're all humans, so we should treat each other the way we want to be treated. I keep asking you, can we make contracts with nature? If we stop eating animals and polluting, will the hurricanes and earthquakes stop? No, of course they won't.
Quote:
Animals should have the same rights to life as any other creature.
Why?
Quote:
Those that do so (e.g: seek only self-pleasure and self-interest) fail the most important thing that makes them evolved, rendering them primitive.
"The thing that makes them evolved"... you seem to be missing the point. The purpose of evolution is to create more successful species. In this, we've certainly succeeded. And seeking self-pleasure and self-interest doesn't mean that we seek it at the expense of others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But humans are animals. Even the most enlightened human is still an animal. But as to how they should be treated, well, we're all humans, so we should treat each other the way we want to be treated. I keep asking you, can we make contracts with nature? If we stop eating animals and polluting, will the hurricanes and earthquakes stop? No, of course they won't.
Let me ask you something, what makes someone better than another? If someone comes and helps you in a way, are you supposed to help him back? No, but that is EXACTLY what makes him better than you, the fact that he does and you don't.
In the case with nature, we can be "better" by not disturbing it. We can be "better" by loving and helping animals, even if some still want to eat us, because they are inferior, and THIS IS what makes them inferior, not anything else. Like I said, the strong need not feast on the weak, for they will be tyrants. If the strong help the weak (regardless of whether this is reciprocal) then that truly makes them "better".
The moment we stop thinking about our own gains (APART from emotional benefits), it's the moment we become better, in the sense that we achieve something which most animals don't (subjugate to their instincts).
Quote:
Quote:
Animals should have the same rights to life as any other creature.
Why?
Because we are not tyrants? 
Quote:
"The thing that makes them evolved"... you seem to be missing the point. The purpose of evolution is to create more successful species. In this, we've certainly succeeded. And seeking self-pleasure and self-interest doesn't mean that we seek it at the expense of others.
Ok so let me rephrase it: "Seeking self-interest and self-pleasure at the expense of something else (be it balance or life)"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 12:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me ask you something, what makes someone better than another?
You are speaking too vaguely. "Better" is a very abstract term. Better at what? Better how? Your definition of "better" is one that I don't agree with.
Quote:
If someone comes and helps you in a way, are you supposed to help him back?
Yes, if you're a good person.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:01 AM |
|
|
Animals are chattel.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:07 AM |
|
|
And they should be essayed like gold in a furnace...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 11:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that animals are indeed property (in most cases). And, of course, I oppose the government interfering with property rights. On the other hand, I do think that animal cruelty is barbaric and disgusting, but I'm not going to use the government to put the yoke of my preferences upon others. It's one thing to disapprove of it, and another thing to be violently against it. I think that society should indeed discourage it. But those who seek to make it illegal, while having good intentions, would be setting a bad precedent.
Bad precedent? For your information, here where I live, animals do have some rights. I must live in a totalitarian goverment, interfering with property rights? Jeez. According to the 1st article of animal protection law: "Animals are to be treated well and causing unnecessary pain or suffereing is forbidden.." It gets more detailed later, but the part I quoted was from the general principle of the law. So be happy you weren't born here
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 12:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Try thinking about what you do every day, and if you think about it hard enough, you'd realize that you're quite motivated by self-interest
While I agree on a philosophical level everything human beings do is out of self-interest at the core, most (by far not all) human beings have something called a CONSCIENCE Which prevents them from say, murdering someone to steal their goods or torturing an animal for sheer pleasure.
You state you wouldn't torture an animal because you wouldn't want to see your "divine human persona" degrade itself to that level. That doesn't eradicate my suspicion that you lack a conscience (which, I am tempted to think, makes more sense for materialistic people).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 01:52 PM |
|
|
Minion:
Quote:
I must live in a totalitarian goverment, interfering with property rights?
Well, I'll put it this way: America is better than Sweden in economic rights, and Sweden is better than America in social rights. Both are important. Sweden is interfering with property rights here.
Moonlith:
Quote:
Which prevents them from say, murdering someone to steal their goods or torturing an animal for sheer pleasure.
While you are basically correct in this (though I would state it a different way), it's important to remember that this conscience doesn't come out of nowhere.
Quote:
That doesn't eradicate my suspicion that you lack a conscience (which, I am tempted to think, makes more sense for materialistic people).
I think that at this point I must ask you to give me your definition of "materialism".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 01:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sweden is interfering with property rights here.
No it is not, since it's what "gives" property rights. Maybe it interferes with American property rights, but then again who said the american way is the true way? I find it much more "primitive" actually than some EU countries...
Quote:
While you are basically correct in this (though I would state it a different way), it's important to remember that this conscience doesn't come out of nowhere.
Ok, you call it "emotional benefit" he calls it "conscience" what is the difference as long as we understand each other? Why do you keep on small and insignificant things like this when you know what we're talking about?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No it is not, since it's what "gives" property rights.
We already had this discussion. I said that rights are not given by the government, but should merely be protected by one. You disagreed.
Quote:
Ok, you call it "emotional benefit" he calls it "conscience" what is the difference as long as we understand each other?
I was more referring to how it came from society's wants/needs.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We already had this discussion. I said that rights are not given by the government, but should merely be protected by one. You disagreed.
"Rights" come from the people, and people make up the government, which is why obviously it is subjective. "Society" is in no way better than a government, and the reciprocal is also true. That is, when you use the word "society" you usually refer to the entire human race, as if democracy and capitalism are the only options used by this "race". You think that it is the best, which would need a topic of it's own. Suffice to say that it is no superior than other systems in the "subjective" category. Just because you like it doesn't mean it's more objective or justified than other systems.
Or are you telling me that rights come from mvassilev?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Rights" come from the people, and people make up the government
And immediately we hit this snag. The people make up the government? When'd that happen?  Even in a democracy, the ones in the government are not typical of the actual people. In a sense, that's good, since there is a great amount of "ordinary people" I know that I would definitely not want in the government. On the other hand, the government is supposed to act in the best interests of the people, but what it's really doing is engaging in a power grab. Conservatives tell us that it's for "moral values", socialists tell us that it's to "stop exploitation", and nationalists tell us that it's for "preserving the nation". Anyway, it's a power grab. And, of course, various special interests (oil companies, the military-industrial complex, teachers' unions, farmers) have far too strong of an influence. So an ideal government does what is best for the people, but no government is ideal.
Quote:
"Society" is in no way better than a government
On the other hand, far more of the people make up society than they do the government. Society is more representative of the people than any government. But while society can establish a government, that is not the extent of its powers. You see, what can a government do? It can reward by giving subsidies or catching criminals, and it can punish through fines, incarceration, or death, if the crime is severe enough. But there are some things the government can't do, while society can. For example, in America, the government can't stop you from torturing animals (as far as I know), but society can strongly discourage it, and raise people that don't like to torture animals. The government shouldn't make abortion illegal (but let's not make this topic about abortion), but society should discourage and frown upon abortion, to minimize it. And so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:30 PM |
|
|
Wow I never said the government is supreme and we should listen to it. But aren't your ideas some kind of 'government' (you = government) in this case? You also say that it's in our best interest and benefits, blabla... practically what a government says. Obviously I disagree with you, so it's like ordinary people disagree with the government.
Don't get me wrong, i never said the government is divine and all that. Actually like you said, it's open to exploits (by those in power obviously). What I was saying was that your "society" ideas are nothing more than a typical government (that supposedly rules out the entire planet).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
You know mvass, the government is formed of people in case you didn't know. If they are flawed, what makes you think the others are not flawed as well? What makes you think YOU are not flawed as well?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 02:42 PM |
|
|
Exactly my point 
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 03:32 PM |
|
|
|
Because he is 16 and knows best A stage we all go through.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted July 18, 2008 03:37 PM |
|
|
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
