|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 28, 2012 08:30 AM |
|
|
Certainly many unjust laws are based on purely emotional gut feelings. That doesn't mean they should exist. Not all currently existing laws have a basis in something useful. I'm not talking about currently existing law, but the ideal/optimal law.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:02 AM |
|
|
|
Law as an optimal ideal is not just a contract, it is also a manifestation, a declaration of society's identity, of how it sees itself as a concept. So, it is still not based on day to day simple pragmatism. But then of course there is the Hobbes perspective (which is also a very strong case in my opinion) saying that humans are basically selfish and harmful and the law is to give away your freedom in order to achieve protection and safety. That's why all those "self-evident" rights can be taken away with the snap of a finger in case of national emergency or an epidemic by the government. But on that level, there aren't any human rights neither.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:42 AM |
|
|
I get the feeling that some people here are missing the obvious.
What rights have legitimate food sources? Obviously NOT the right to live.
Would you be inclined to concede other rights? The right to be killed painlessly, for example? Nature would see that different, obviously, so that would be something of a boon granted by guilty-feeling humans?
What about a right not to be tortured or treated cruelly? Umm, "species-appropriate husbandry"? "Cage-system-housing"? What's that supposed to be? Animals's holiday camp?
Does it make sense to say, "you can boil a lobster alive - but if you use its pincer to pinch your nipples ... uh oh. Should be worth a hefty fine."
Think human: if you were allowed to keep humans in pens to later eat them - how silly would it be to forbid raping them? "Hey, isn't it enough to slaughter and eat the poor snows, do you really have to rape them as well? How will they FEEL about it?"
Yeah, well.
Oh, and maybe a last thing: it hasn't been illegal for some time now. Does that mean, the abuse of animals has reached staggering proportions now - like you would expect for thievery if that would suddenly become legal? Are animals threatened in general to be abused as playthings, serving as hapless victims in barbaric rituals of ungodly orgies? Will the fines be used to compensate the abused animals? Will they come into rehab, be treated, so that they may forget their horrid trial?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 09:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Law as an optimal ideal is not just a contract, it is also a manifestation, a declaration of society's identity, of how it sees itself as a concept.
So if a society wants an identity of "Christian purity", it would be ideal for it to have laws for stoning homosexuals?
Laws are about protecting the rights of individuals and nothing else.
---
If animal rights people feel so strongly about animal abuse, they should buy the animals from those who are abusing them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 10:05 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 10:09, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
One can have the moral right to be able to do something while it would still be the case for it to be wrong to do that thing. Drug use is one prime example - people should be not be legally prevented from ruining their lives with heroin, but that doesn't mean they should do it. As far as animal rights goes, it's popular to support them to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean they're right. The "civilized public" supports a lot of incorrect policies, such as current US foreign policy. What is the rational justification for animal rights?
When first states were created in 18th century, the main reason for it was to protect ones wealth and health, not only from other individuals but also from themselves when needed, that is one the duties every country/gov has...
Examples... DUI is an offense - goal to prevent the drunk driver from harming himself/others.... makes sense to me
Mentally unstable person is placed on a suicide watch coz it is gov's duty to protect him from himself and he himslef isnt thinking clearly atm... makes sense to me
Drug abuse is an offense - goal to prevent the user from harming himself as well as others (coz guess what, drug users arent being rational but are instead driven by the need to get drugs hence are considered dangerous to others)...
Its about creating a safe environment for everybody, a bunch of drug addicts running around doesnt feel safe to me...
Quote:
Something similar is true for slavery/legal discrimination. Slaves were inefficient and occasionally rebellious. I could gain much more from dealing with them as legal equals. Racial discrimination in education and other areas have led to the creation of ghettos - and I definitely don't benefit from the existence of ghettos.
Made me laugh there, slavery was extremely efficient and produced a lot of wealth for slave owners as well as built half the country...
Discrimination in education creates different social classes hence is extremely beneficial for the upper classes.
Quote:
But how does it benefit most people if animals received rights? I don't see any positive effects for us. Thus, animals should not have rights - animal rights don't comply with the standard established by other rights.
Animals are living beings, humans are living beings, creating a society that treats all living beings with certain respect (animals or humans) as opposed to with bloodlust is beneficial for the society...
Think of it like this, person A would never harm a fly, person B on the other hand enjoys torturing animals (coz lets be real, you need to enjoy it in order to do it) which one of them is more likely to hurt a human ? Which one of them would you rather have in our society.... Teaching compassion for even animals creates a safer environment for humans as well....
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 10:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Law as an optimal ideal is not just a contract, it is also a manifestation, a declaration of society's identity, of how it sees itself as a concept.
So if a society wants an identity of "Christian purity", it would be ideal for it to have laws for stoning homosexuals?
Laws are about protecting the rights of individuals and nothing else.
---
If animal rights people feel so strongly about animal abuse, they should buy the animals from those who are abusing them.
Well, first of all, history has seen that kind of law too. But let's talk about today's standards of modern democracy, I assume when you say "Laws are about protecting the rights of individuals and nothing else." you are referring to that and to you animal rights conflicts with the rights of the individual so it is a matter of principle. What about the rights of germs then, right? My first objection was and still is, in real world, tradition always effects law, there is no pure law based on rights. You cant walk naked in a crowded street if it isn't some sort of festival or organized protest. You didn't harm anyone, you didn't even protest the government, say you are just a nudist who wants to go shopping. You'll get arrested. They wont hang you, but they'll cover your body. Just an example. Then you object to that by saying but i am talking about the ideal law. Now, from that point on, you are structuring your thesis on an ideal (unlimited rights of human individuals as long as they don't harm others, liberalism)just like a christian is basing his idea of law on his ideals. Personally i would prefer your ideal and I share it although i have a pessimistic side too (as i mentioned parapharesing Hobbes, those rights are given and people in power take them away if they see fit, they just don't do it so bluntly these days). But the thing is your ideal will never be a 100 percent fulfilled too and i don't think not being able to torture animals is a bad compromise. I mean if you're such a purist start with the right to walk naked on the street or smoking pot or whatever... If all that is done, then you can defend being able to torch a cat on principle. And don't forget that lifeless (out of life?) principles and ideals never make it. That's what happened to the equality principle of communism.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 01:21 PM |
|
|
Another animal rights garbage move from the west.
You see, some months ago I saw a video about animal cruelty. Some 200 or more people replied with rage saying all sorts of stuff.
During the same time, I saw a censored video about a guy getting killed by, what appeared to be, neo nazis.
Just a couple of people replied and thats it. Of course, the same pattern repeats itself in every video hosting site.
Western society is completely desensitivized towards human suffering but when it comes to animals oh dear...
The moral of my explanation is that the western scoeites are crybabies when it comes to their own desiers. You see some doggies dying, well, thats nature.
An animal should have NO rights in a human society because it lacks everything that makes up a sentient human being.
It may not be the same as inanimate property but thats about it.
What people do with their "Dogs" in their privacy is completely their responsibility.
The reason why animal "Rights" exist is that nobody wants to see some brutalized things on the streets or in their appartments.
Fine, but laws that tell people not to do something in privacy are complete bollocks.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 01:25 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 13:30, 28 Nov 2012.
|
This thread is creeping the living **** out of me.
LOOK. AT. THESE. GODDAMN. ADORABLE. PUPPIES.
And tell me you approve of raping and torturing them.
Seriously what the **** people.
Basic morals? Anyone? Does the lamentations of an animal in pain not move you? Is it alright as long as you don't need to hear it and the sadists do it in privacy? How does that make it ok?
This kinda talk is psychotic.
____________
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 01:33 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 13:39, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
This thread is creeping the living **** out of me.
And tell me you approve of raping and torturing them.
Seriously what the **** people.
Of course I approve in the right of the people to do whatever thehell they want in their appartments with their "Organic-Material".
Why is it that dogs and all other animals have so much love but when it comes to spiders, lice, mites and bacteria, we feel differently. We have no problem in killing millions of chicken aswell.
Animal rights is just pure desire of confornt. Its the same mindset as making death illegal in certain areas.
People just dont want to see "vandalism" towards animals people "Play" with.
PS:
Why is it ok to kill these :
http://tassiefarmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/worms.jpg
[Dont click if you are about to eat]
They can have babies, they live and they do their part in nature.
You know the answer.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Basic morals? Anyone? Does the lamentations of an animal in pain not move you? This kinda talk is psychotic.
Thank you,Adrius,for writing this down,I feel the same way.
I wonder what would Mvass girlfriend would say when she reads he approves sex with cats and dogs for example.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 01:49 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 13:49, 28 Nov 2012.
|
I don't approve of the torturing of any animal whatsoever.
I see the necessity in killing for food, albeit it's a moral grey area I admit, I do not see the necessity in raping and torturing to fullfill your own sadistic desires. It's unneccessary and cruel. We have much work to do in reducing the suffering of our food animals, and I support it all.
Organic material? o_O I'm dumbfounded.
If an alien species of vastly superior intellect come visit us, is it in their right to torture and rape us simply because of their superiority? Because their mind is on such a different level?
We feel pain the same way.
____________
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't approve of the torturing of any animal whatsoever.
Since when is sex with animals torture? People may enjoy having sex with animals.
Most people keep animals because they are playthings, I am not taling about farmers or productive animals.
Dogs are mostly playthings. Now, by your logic, even keeping a dog inside a house is sadistic.
But this is not even my point.
Most Animals are not self conscious. Any "Humanizing" with them is just pathetic.
These animals are not even capable or processing humiliation. The idea that an an animal can be raped is completely bollocks.
Quote:
I do not see the necessity in raping and torturing to fullfill your own sadistic desires.
Yet our "Sadistic" desiers crated abominations such as the Beagle,Chihuahua and so on.
Most of these animals are "Playthings". Why is it so wrong if somebody decided, for their own sadistic needs, have sex with one of them? Its not even sadistic because the key word rape does not exist for animals and is completely off.
Quote:
It's unneccessary and cruel. We have much work to do in reducing the suffering of our food animals, and I support it all.
Like banning all people from keeping dogs inside a house and let them alone.
Quote:
Organic material? o_O I'm dumbfounded.
How would you define a thing that is a living plaything?
Quote:
If an alien species of vastly superior intellect come visit us,
Dont use "If" clauses to prove a point. I can see where this sentence is heading.
If they came here, they would do whatever they want because they can.
Quote:
is it in their right to torture and rape us simply because of their superiority?
Strawmen fallacy.
Quote:
We feel pain the same way.
Ok, starve yourself to death and see if your puppy feels pain for you.
I bet that puppy does not feel the psycological pain humans have.
Equating human feelings with animals is absurd.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 03:17 PM |
|
|
Isn't the question simply this:
Why would it be ok to kill and eat a sheep, but punishable to screw it?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 03:36 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 15:36, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Because we don't have a natural need for screwing sheep? It's completly unnescessary and violates a sentient being?
Why can we have sex with humans but not kill them?
This thread gives me chills, there's a lot of evidence supporting that animals such as dogs have emotions too. That makes animals a lot more than "organic property".
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 03:38 PM |
|
|
Why is it ok by law to kill a human being (death sentence), while it is NOT ok to torture it?
Sometimes I love the internet...there is no need to look in the face of some people who are writing some really weird stuff....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 03:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:44, 28 Nov 2012.
|
Quote:
How would you define a thing that is a living plaything?
i don't know if you ever had a dog but they are not your play thing, they become your friend. yes, you play with them, but with that logic people play with their little kids too, are they also play things? high-level mammals are capable of emotion, not humiliation though, you are right on that one.
Quote:
isn't the question simply this:
Why would it be ok to kill and eat a sheep, but punishable to screw it?
The dictionary defines bestiality as:
1.
brutish or beastly character or behavior; beastliness.
2.
indulgence in beastlike appetites, instincts, impulses, etc.
3.
an instance of bestial character or behavior.
4.
sexual relations between a person and an animal; sodomy.
I take it the law focuses on the first meaning of the word not the fourth, or is it just about having sex with animals?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 04:04 PM |
|
|
I knew it was folly to get in here.
Sometimes I think, some people just lack something important. Take for example angelito's comment.
It is ok to PUNISH humans for a supposedly proven misdeed - with death or else, but if you think "torture" is basically limited to physical pain, you are obviously overlooking something important.
Now, when a sheep is killed and eaten - what misdeed has it done that justifies it? That its meat is tasty? Is it ok to kill and eat humans - even after a misdeed? I don't think so
No.
Animals are killed and eaten to serve a need that could be satisfied otherwise.
So let me ask again: why is it ok to kill and eat an animal, serving a need that could be satisfied otherwise, and why is it punishable to SCREW an animal - serving a need that could be satisfied otherwise?
And since we are at it - why is it ok to keep animals bred purely for consumption under abysmal conditions in a space that's not big enough to move? Isn't THAT torture?
Why is it ok to keep animals in zoos - out of their natural habitat, making reproduction difficult and being OBVIOUSLY torturous, when looking at the big cats marching up and down their cages - just for the pleasure of the people coming to look at them?
If all that is allowed - does really anyone think the question of "sexual abuse of animals" is of utmost importance when it comes to "animal rights"?
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 04:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Isn't the question simply this:
Why would it be ok to kill and eat a sheep, but punishable to screw it?
I find that to be the issue aswell. The point is, it should not.
Quote:
Animal abuse is the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.
The definition is ambiguous because "Suffering" is subjective word.
Quote:
1:Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
2:Be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment).
So folks, the germans apparantly have the ability to define or "Feel" what an animal would perceive as suffering or if the are able to percieve suffering at all.
Quote:
Because we don't have a natural need for screwing sheep?
Define "natural need"?
Quote:
It's completly unnescessary and violates a sentient being?
Sheeps are not sentient.
Quote:
This thread gives me chills,
Yes, "How could people say such things".
Quote:
there's a lot of evidence supporting that animals such as dogs have emotions too. That makes animals a lot more than "organic property".
They are playthings. Nearly every animal has emotions,if emotions are nothing but hormones.
Emotion does not mean that they are capable of knowing or feeling pain if humans are injured, in need of help and so on.
Your implied definition of emotion is not that one you read in biology.
You are implying in empathy, which I dont think there are any scientific studies that show that animals are capable of empathy towards eachother or at least towards humans.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I dont think there are any scientific studies that show that animals are capable of empathy towards each other
Yes, there are. I linked this before on a different subject, it is much more relevant here:
Robert Sapolsky
Besides, you are in a paradox. You say we are different from animals because we have the ability to feel empathy and afterwards you blame people for actually feeling that empathy!
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 28, 2012 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
LOOK. AT. THESE. GODDAMN. ADORABLE. PUPPIES.
And tell me you approve of raping and torturing them.
This is about bestiality, not torture and rape of animals. It may come as a surprise to some, but countries which allows sex between a human and a non-human living being, also have laws against torture of animals, under which rape is a category.
A major point of all of this is consent. Where many countries just yells no to all of this, some countries will e.g. allow human female + non-human male intercourse given it was the non-human male, which engages the act. Other examples are that of using a non-human for sexual fulfillment despite for the non-human there's nothing sexual about it.
All in all, it's a major taboo subject even in countries where it's allowed to certain degrees, and in my opinion it's not something we can get more insight upon by discussing over the internet. The only way this gray zone is ever to be lifted, and for the common guy such as you and me to feel comfortable with the idea bestiality, would be by increasing the intelligence of non-human living beings to a degree where you can say it's consensual.
Then again, we say humans below a certain age, humans with certain mental handicap and humans in certain social situations can't give valid consent. Again the idea is to protect the weak party, but maybe we need to take a deeper look at each case individually, in stead of banning everything which falls under a given criteria.
An example could be a teacher student relationship where all parties are beyond the age of consent. Even if the male student is the one who does all the advancing, it has to be next to rape, before the female teacher will not be both condemned, fired, and go to jail. That's independent of the actual situation, i.e. how mentally mature each party is. Of course it's not easy to define which always leaves gray zones, but in some cases it should be freaking obvious. And that goes both ways, btw.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
