|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:26, 30 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
Its ok if dogs or other animals display rudimentary or underdeveloped versions of empathy but we know that that empathy CANNOT be directed to humans.
How does it matter if dogs have empathy towards humans or not?
We should not terrorize sentient animals that can feel misery no matter what they think or perhaps rather, don't think of us.
JJ: My cat is a property that I feel obligated to take care of, yet she isn't my child. I guess this new word could apply to children aswell though.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:30 PM |
|
|
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/humandog.htm
Quote:
The biggest mistake dog owners can make with their dogs is to treat them like humans. The human race is such a kind, compassionate species that we tend to look at our canine companions as little humans, when in reality, they are canines and have a very different thought process. This is what differentiates mankind from other species in pack societies; there must be a specific order, from the leader on down to the last follower. Everyone has a place. The leaders are the strength of the pack, while the followers need the leader to guide them. Dogs have an instinct to constantly test the being above them and an instinct to know they will always be tested by the being below them. Instinct tells them that if there is not a strong being in charge, their life and the lives of the rest of their pack are at stake. This primal instinct keeps the pack secure and happy.
Dogs instinctually crave rules to follow, and limits as to what they are allowed to do. When dogs live with humans, the humans become the dog's pack. For the relationship to succeed, humans must become the dog's pack leader. The mistake is made when the humans in the pack only give the dog love, and overlook the other needs of the dog. To a dog, constant affection without rules and limits goes against every grain in its instinct. While dogs enjoy being given affection, it does not satisfy the animal and it is not what makes them well balanced, stable minded, secure and happy. Dogs love affection, however that alone does not make a dog happy, satisfying its instincts do. You need to provide proper emotional stability in order to achieve this, and showing you have an orderly pack with rules to follow is what the dog needs. Giving your dog affection is important for the human, and enjoyed by the dog, but must be done at the correct times.
Now please, dont tell me that dogs deserve "human" treatment. The very same goes for EVERY other animal.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:33 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:34, 30 Nov 2012.
|
I've never said we should treat all those animals as humans though of course that depends on how you define human treatment.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've never said we should treat all those animals as humans though of course that depends on how you define human treatment.
Then why do they DESERVE any godsnowingdamned rights?
Animals cannot be treated with "Rights". Animals should have no RIGHTS in a human society, only a decent conduct rule.
Thats the whole point of this thread. The basis of the lawmakers in gemrany is off limits. Its not from this planet, its from planet Kolob. There is no legal-biological justification towards such laws.
Its just our "Imagination" that rape-sex or whatever with such animals is inappropriate.
Throwing the moral bandwagon or compass off the roof here can make you understand the real problem with this law.
How can people make laws out of assumptions?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What about all those cases where dog owner were attacked and or murdered by their Dogs?
Lets talk statistic then please. For every human murdered by dogs, probably 1 million humans were killed by humans and 10 million dogs were killed by humans. Who is the more human then, the dog or the "human"?
Which brings to:
Quote:
The human race is such a kind, compassionate species
What can I say? Just LOL
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 22:01, 30 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
Quote:
What about all those cases where dog owner were attacked and or murdered by their Dogs?
Lets talk statistic then please. For every human murdered by dogs, probably 1 million humans were killed by humans and 10 million dogs were killed by humans. Who is the more human then, the dog or the "human"?
Just stop throwing red herrings here now.
Any statistical data neither proves or disproves your assertion.
The idea that less deaths by dogs somehow makes dogs more human is not even logcial.
Quote:
What can I say? Just LOL
Why? Did not you get enough love?
Humans are capable of incredible love and empathy. I dont see any dogs doing that.
If you are so keen on animal love, buy a dog and treat it like you pal.
I find it really amusing how people can be so attached to beings with the intelligence of a retarded child and the instincts of beast.
More of a sidenote:
Some of you might be asking "Why the heck does this guy hate animals so much?" Well, as a victim of a dog attack as a child, I find it hard to be compassionate about these beasts.Luckily, I bear no scars from the attack. It was enough to traumatize me though.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:53 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:58 PM |
|
|
Seraphim, please calm yourself. That goes for everyone. If I have to, I'll put the thread on hiatus for a while until everyone learns how to speak without sneering at each other.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 09:58 PM |
|
|
Ok, I'll make a consious try to bring this back to reason.
You simply have to see the facts, and the fact is that animal protection is BOGUS.
BIG STYLE everything is done with animals you can imagine - only on the personal level this is different. Just think about how Norway and Japan are NOT stopping to kill whales - it's an industry there; just think about how generally the natural habitats of animals are destroyed. Just think about how today animal protection is a tool that can be used to disrupt plans of the competition.
It's NORMAL that species are dying, with or without human help. It's also not a matter of course that animals are to be protected.
If you think about it, you'll see that "animal" is a fairly general word. Most people don't care sqauit about animals - but like, say, dogs, monkeys and squirrels, hate all "bugs", snakes and spiders and eat things thye wouldn't even call animal. In Italy they shoot singing birds and eat them - barbaric?
Animal "rights" are bull, because animals are simply not equal. If you'd make a lwa saying that all monkeys are not to be eaten, treated well and generally concede certain rights, not many would protest. Dogs as well, except in China. 
But what about cattle? Poultry? Fish? Lobster? Snails? Eggs?
It seems to be necessary to go into detail there.
However, political alibi actions like the German one here do not help in any way, because I STILL think that if I'm allowed to kill a sheep by slitting its throat and let it bleed out, I should DEFINITELY be allowed to screw it. DEFINITELY.
Now there are those who come fort saying, hey, forbidding to screw them is A START. It makes no sense to reject small laws pointing to the biggies, because we must start somewhere, right?
Not so. We HAVE animal protection movements for God knows how long and the only effect it has is that we all feel better because of it. WE are just maaking it easier for our conscience by winning EASY victories.
The fur industry is an interesting case study - end of the 80s it looked like it might die out completely.
That, however, was an error. Even though animal protectors spent millions and millions on campaigns, things didn't change globally, on the contrary.
Same thing. If I can kill an animal for fur I ahould DEFINITELY be allowed to screw it.
And there we are on the political level. Politicians are just tap-dancing here. If you are lucky, there is an outbreak of a serious animal disease in some heartrending living-food factory. THAT will give politicians enough of an excuse to push through a law that will make the living space of a cattle a couple of squareinches bigger. If not, they'll have to grab straws - and in this case the straws are a few whackos, who are so much more powerless than the meat industry, the pharmaceutical industry and others. Make no mistake, this is just an slibi action that has to be seen with a view on the failed initiatiove to outlaw religiously motivated cruel animal slaughtering.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:05 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:08, 30 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
Then why do they DESERVE any godsnowingdamned rights?
Animals cannot be treated with "Rights". Animals should have no RIGHTS in a human society, only a decent conduct rule.
I support increased rights for sentient animals that science has proven can feel misery. Why? Because I'm a liberal that believes that no such animal - dog, cat or human - deserves to be mistreated. It's a rare kind of moral that I'll support. A thing to note though is that morals relating to liberty should only apply to animals that can feel it, which is why turning cows into steak would still be okay as long as the cows won't feel miserable in the process.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:17 PM |
|
|
|
2 or 1 billion people are eating meat a day and 1 or 2 billion people are eating plant a day. Soon, no more than than 500 million. Because we eat cheaper poo. So the problem is gone, now the poop is too expensive for the rich.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:38 PM |
|
|
Seraphim, about you being attacked by a dog as child, I am sorry. But 100% of those working or owning dogs will tell you that the only thing to blame in that case is the owner behavior towards his pet.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:56 PM |
|
|
Suddenly, the thread became very interesting from several psychological perspectives.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then why do they DESERVE any godsnowingdamned rights?
Animals cannot be treated with "Rights". Animals should have no RIGHTS in a human society, only a decent conduct rule.
I support increased rights for sentient animals that science has proven can feel misery. Why? Because I'm a liberal that believes that no such animal - dog, cat or human - deserves to be mistreated. It's a rare kind of moral that I'll support. A thing to note though is that morals relating to liberty should only apply to animals that can feel it, which is why turning cows into steak would still be okay as long as the cows won't feel miserable in the process.
You say that only because it's not you who has to kill the cow. The same point could be made about humans. So if it's not ok to turn humans into steak as long as they don't feel miserable in the process, there must be a difference between cow and human, right? This difference must - following you - allow to breed, kill and eat them, as long as they don't suffer.
Wouldn't we have to concede the same then? Wouldn't we have to concede then, that it would be completely ok for an alien race - or parasit - to breed, kill and eat us, provided we don't realize?
Wouldn't it be - for human standards - better, if we knew? If we were abused? So that we could struggle? And resist?.
Anyway. I still don't see that if gang-assault-and-robbery is legal and most of the population is somehow profiting from it, that society gains something it pickpocketing is outlawed. Or the demand to rob them civilly.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 11:03 PM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 15 Dec 2012. |
|
I love slippery slope fallacies, don't you guys? That assumption that if "X" is true, then "Y," which may or may not be strongly correlated to X must also be true because otherwise the world is unfair. I love this assumption because it is utter bullocks. Nothing forces you to make any limits whatsoever, so deciding where to draw the line and define what is black, white, gray or dare I say is, a multitude of thriving moral colors is not restricted to ideas of "Fairness" and it honestly doesn't give a damn about semantics or how connected something is.
When defining something as moral or not comes into the picture, you cannot make statements such as "X and Y are completely inseparable, despite them being different" simply because that isn't how society or human conscious works. In cases of murder, there is a very distinct line between a murder brought about by passion, self defense or reasonless premeditation, at least morally, emotionally and via the process of the law. Yet the result is still the same, someone has been killed by someone else. In a slippery slope system, this makes all of the above situations equally evil, cruel and moral less, not taking into account any external factors or views on the acts themselves. Yet society (as mentioned above) does in fact differentiate between these killings, punishing each differently and possibly rewarding a murder of self defense for removing a danger to society. How could that possibly be if removing life from a human is absolutely wrong? Shouldn't all cases be punished, and punished equally?
No.
Why? Human beings display a thing called empathy. Empathy allows human beings to feel or experience emotions, desires and experiences that never happened to them, figuratively putting themselves into someone's shoes. This is where the black and white system shatters, since emotions can suddenly get involved. Someone might view a situation pragmatically, viewing a case such as murder and judging how it affects them personally (Was it one of their superiors? Does it harm them or their potential in any way? Does it even effect them at all?), while another person views the emotional impact of those affected, and still others use different methods, from flat out ignoring that something has happened to identifying personally with the case. Some people might, in fact, see the issues as black or white. These individuals are most often outcasts from the rest of society, their extreme views are taken to the point that X and Y are no longer just related, they are the exact same and absolutely be treated as such.
Most other people have a rather decidedly more... moderate view on the situation.
The same goes for "What gets special treatment or not." Nothing states that anything ever deserves special treatment, including humans, but the fact that we hold ourselves higher than other living beings and choose to elevate certain other beings to a higher status (often still lower than our own) but not others is absolutely immoral in a black/ white system, isn't it? Everything should be equal, as either slaves or as free beings in such a structured, slippery-slope system. Something's fluffiness or its ability to telegraph its emotions through body stance, facial feature or tone of voice should be of no consequence. The fact remains that all things are alive and equally so. Too bad emotions and basic bodily functions and desires actually matter and that these things break this nice, equal and orderly system, though it could be argued that this is the only moral way to treat everything. We just don't really care about fairness, when you think about it.
So what does this rant have to do with anything in this thread? Well besides directly relating to a crap ton of the arguments that I've seen here, it also serves to show that morals as we understand them are determined by emotions, and not some intrinsic nigh-incomprehensible definition of what is fair and what is not. There are no laws of fairness in this universe, so the fact that humanity attempts to impose any is nothing short of a remarkable revolution against the natural order. There is nothing to stop us from saying that torturing animals is black but that killing them for food is purple, not necessarily something that everyone agrees with but also not something that is bad. And we can also draw the line on what we are willing to eat or what defined roles certain animals are given in our society. For instance:
Cows are stupid, ugly and tasty when cut up and cooked, little pigs give us delicious delicious bacon, and turkeys are stupid, violent and big birds that we consume thousands of during certain holidays. Meanwhile cats, dogs and parrots are not viewed as a food source, instead they are generally are more attractive than most animals and provide us with companionship that we may not feel from our fellow humans. We may find their calls or other various sounds pleasing to our ears, and we give them a higher status than to dogs, pigs, goats or sheep. You might say that this example itself displays a slippery-slope fallacy in and of the fact that it assumes that everyone accepts the roles of these animals as only that, but see that is also an incorrect assumption. Other people see cats as evil, or dogs as stupid vicious brutes, or parrots as a stupid bird without anything to eat on them, or all three as delicacies in a cuisine while the cow and pig are sacred animals and companions.
The "Moral" and "Lawful" things in a mature society are (fortunately) not determined by an individual's perspectives on what is black and what it white, or what purpose everything serves. Rather, it is the closest definition of what is moral as defined by the majority of individuals in a society that determines if the law will deem something as right or wrong. Personal feelings will have nothing to do with it unless you are part of the majority, and "black and white" are never enforced in such a society, because black and white do not, by necessity, exist.
THEREFORE, I see absolutely no problem with be "Hypocritical" when it comes to animal "rights". We can decide and define what it right and wrong simply because we have asserted and can carry out dominance over something, but our empathic natures allow us to assign pain, fear, joy or other such emotions to beings other than our fellow human and thus temper what rules we make and prevent us from just steam-rolling all other species completely under us. These views can be changed over time, we do not have slavery in a mature society as an example, but the simple fact of the matter is that we will always assign a human worth to things and we assign it differently to different objects and beings.
Therefore, claiming absolute morality is something that I deem as either absolute arrogance or just willful ignorance. You have a right to your opinions, but offhandedly disregarding others and misunderstanding them because their opinion does not exactly match up with yours rather defeats the purpose. We're trying to have a discussion after all, some empathy might be a nice thing to exercise. 
X might relate to Y, but they are not the same and can thus be treated differently. That is my opinion, and I'm rather certain it matches up with Cor's as I continually find myself nodding in agreement with his points in this thread.
In conclusion:
Quote:
Human behaviors and laws are full of all kinds of hypocrisies and arbritrarily drawn lines. In this case I draw the line between recognizing that humans do and will continue to kill animals for food as a matter of cultural, economical and nutritional habit, and recognizing that there's no need to cause said animals any more pain or indignity than necessary in doing this.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 11:08 PM |
|
|
Interesting article, i think especially this part highlights some of the conflict in this forum too:
Here we find an interesting division between psychologists, who tend to think in terms of top-down processes, and biologists, who tend to think from the bottom up. The topdown view considers the most advanced forms of empathy, such as putting yourself into another’s “shoes” and imagining his or her situation, and wonders how this ability arises; the inevitable answer is advanced cognition, perhaps even language. Yet merely imagining someone else’s situation is not empathy. Such imagination can be a cold affair, not unlike understanding how airplanes fly. Empathy requires emotional involvement.
Here the bottom-up view offers a better perspective. When we react to seeing someone display emotion and construct an advanced understanding of the other’s situation, this process indeed involves—in humans and in some other large-brained animals—a great deal of cognition. But the emotional connection comes first; understanding and imagination follow. The mouse experiment suggests that the emotional component of this process is at least as old as our early mammalian ancestors and runs deep within us."
Yet even if we agree that emotional attachment is the foundation of empathy (and skip the definition of the dictionary), it still needs the cognitive skill to be complete. Emotional attachment without the cognitive part is only, well... emotional attachment. Also notice all examples are, even if we call them empathy at basic level, within the specie itself, so i fail to see how it makes the other information on this forum bad? And last but not least, it's ironic to give them shock treatments to prove how sensitive they are, isn't it? Kind of like declaring yourself as Dr. Mengele, but i guess that's the dillemma of humans.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 11:09 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:10, 30 Nov 2012.
|
JJ: Sure, if a human wants to get butchered he or she should be able to.
I don't think anybody would want too, though. And that's a difference between humans and other animals. A cow can't agree or disagree to get butchered or not. It can't sign a contract saying "Cow, you agree to become steak." because it can not comprehend the concept of choice on that level. Animal rights should not protect against things that animals can't feel or comprehend anyway.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 11:32 PM |
|
|
gnomes:
As I keep pointing out, if you put emotion higher than reason when deciding what morality or the law should be, you end up with things like the oppression of women and homosexuals, the War on Drugs, lynchings of African-Americans, etc. People's moral intuitions are generally not reliable.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2012 11:54 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:56, 30 Nov 2012.
|
I think morals are fine as long as they don't hurt anybody else's quality of life or liberty (the liberty part doesn't apply to animals that can't comprehend liberty).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 01, 2012 12:05 AM |
|
|
Mvass: Individually? Oh hell no, and I do not support systems that are entirely emotional. But then I also do not see the law as entirely pragmatic, since emotion does play a rather massive role in the way humans make laws, morals, and justify their logic/ pragmatism. Should reason be ignored entirely? Hell no! But just because something makes sense rationally doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Emotions cannot be separated from what is morally right or wrong, because every human has emotions (maybe not a full set as is the case with psychopaths and sociopaths, but they still have some), and so emotions should not be absolutely ignored for the sake of "Fairness," which in and of itself is an idea based, swimming and filled with emotion.
No, I do not support either extreme. Emotions must be tempered with logic, and vice versa, or the system we call society will break apart or be deemed as "Heartless."
Also, nowhere did I state that emotions are the only way people justify why is right or wrong (I made a specific point to state that there are pragmatic viewpoints and people as well), just that the idea of what right and wrong are is inherently an emotional response, and that laws and morals are based off of these responses. Logic and reasoning tell us which ones will benefit us (and how) and also how to implement them best, and thus must be used in tandem with emotion to achieve the best result as a whole.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
