Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Human vs. Animal Rights
    #4986130 - 11/27/05 12:24 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

This is mainly directed toward Phred because he put forth certain ideas in which I saw a flaw. I brought up some points to refute what he was saying, but he insisted that I was going off-topic and he refused to address my arguments.

When we were debating "natural rights" (do a search for "The natural right's thread to end all natural right's threads" in the Politics forum...it's a good read), Phred asserted that the rights of men were not created and granted by society (they are not artificial), but that these rights are naturally present in men and that men are owed them. I expressed the idea that the only way anything could be absolute and bestowed upon men is if there was a divine force (Creator/God/etc..) that instituted a particular "Order", "Meaning", or "Absolute Truth" (all of those terms mean the same thing).

Phred doesn't seem to be too hot on the idea of a God, so he said that Man's desire and need to survive is natural and that certain undeniable ideas on rights can be derived from this fact. He calls these "natural rights" and he believes implicitly in their existence and correctness.

I brought up the "Animal rights vs. Human Rights" argument. The only way I could see Man having any rights that were more important than an animals is if a "Divine Mandate" had been instituted that granted Man a "favored species status". Since Phred does not seem to believe in God or any divine mandates from God, I asked him what seperated humans from animals? If there was no Creator the only possible explanation would be some type of evolution. If evolution is true then humans are merely intelligent animals who are descended from other creatures. Why are animals any less deserving of rights than Man is? Why is Man deserving of any extra consideration or rights if he is nothing but an animal?

Edited by RandalFlagg (11/27/05 06:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4986200 - 11/27/05 12:54 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

i think animal is just man by a different degree; there is no clear-cut distinction between the two. you make a good point.

i think that the idea of metaphysical guarantee of political preferences is as absurd today as it was during the time of monarchies.

incidentally i wonder if introducing god into the equation really solves any problem. how could god say "humans have rights but not animals" and mean anything by it, when there's no clear-cut distinction between the two? god is the last entity who could say something like that (assuming he's perfect).


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4986220 - 11/27/05 01:07 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
i think animal is just man by a different degree; there is no clear-cut distinction between the two. you make a good point.

i think that the idea of metaphysical guarantee of political preferences is as absurd today as it was during the time of monarchies.

incidentally i wonder if introducing god into the equation really solves any problem. how could god say "humans have rights but not animals" and mean anything by it, when there's no clear-cut distinction between the two? god is the last entity who could say something like that (assuming he's perfect).




why couldn't god say that? in this case the distinction between humans and other animals is their power of creation. humans have a much greater ability to create than other animals and thus the idea that humans were created in god's image (because both of them possess the ability to imagine something and then create it). that was why it was said that humans were supposed to multiply and take dominion over the earth and become co-creaters with god. and the idea isn't that animals have no rights, only that human lives are more valuable.

Edited by Deviate (11/27/05 01:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSolutarch
Satan Claws

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 189
Loc: The South Pole
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4986248 - 11/27/05 01:18 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Human rights and animal rights do exist as a matter of definition of conditions.* Rights (in the traditional sense) are concepts which deal with interactions between people. Given a basic premise, I can determine if a right is a natural right or not. Animal rights are a relatively new concept which deals with interactions between humans and other animal species. Preference for human over animal is a matter of your values, logically choosing one over the other is dependent upon your premises, subjectively arrived at.

I never hear discussions of animal rights which deal with interactions between non-human animal species. The wildebeest will have rights when hunted by humans, but not when hunted by lions. Nor do I hear about the animal rights of humans when attacked by another species. The cougar will have rights when hunted by humans, but humans will have no rights when hunted by a cougar. A consistent view of animal rights should take into account these kinds of situations, it should afford all species equal rights, predator and prey alike, regardless of species. This is where the 'logic' of animal rights activists seems to break down.

*Definition of conditions means assigning a label to a recognizable situation. For example, middle C exists. We define the vibratory frequency of 278.4375 Hz as middle C. This frequency does exit in nature independent of government or human edict. However it requires a certain situation of the condition of matter, it is humans who have identified these situations and decided to label these conditions as middle C. Now you may decide that you do not like the 7 note or 12 note scale, and prefer a 19 note scale with different labels and never want to play a note at 278.4375 Hz, this does not negate the existence of middle C. Likewise, you may recognize natural rights by applying an objective definition to determine what is a natural right, but you may disagree that such rights should be protected.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4986292 - 11/27/05 01:31 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

why couldn't god say that? in this case the distinction between humans and other animals is their power of creation.




this is a difference of degree, not kind. where do you draw line? & how do you measure power of creation? and what about those humans with little power of creation? a doctor may help many people but never create, or be creative.

Quote:

humans have a much greater ability to create than other animals and thus the idea that humans were created in god's image (because both of them possess the ability to imagine something and then create it). that was why it was said that humans were supposed to multiply and take dominion over the earth and become co-creaters with god.




but animals create too. ants create antfarms, yet we say only humans were created in god's image. why?

anyway, who cares what some book written thousands of years ago claims? the bible is full of contradictions (for example, contradicting accounts of judas' death). plainly everything in the bible can't be true just because it's in the bible.

Quote:

and the idea isn't that animals have no rights, only that human lives are more valuable.




so a more creative person is more valuable than a less creative person? so for example, a doctor's life is less valuable than an artist's?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4986345 - 11/27/05 01:46 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

this is a difference of degree, not kind. where do you draw line? & how do you measure power of creation? and what about those humans with little power of creation? a doctor may help many people but never create, or be creative.

you draw the line at humans vs other species obviously (because their creative powers FAR exceed those of any other species). and creative doesn't necessarily mean creative in the sense of painting a picture, i mean the ability to manipulate the environment according to a plan. something a doctor can do just as well as a painter.

but animals create too. ants create antfarms, yet we say only humans were created in god's image. why?

i already explained why. humans have the ability to imagine something and they create it. then can do this to such a greater degree than any other species that even a little child would be capable of making this distinction.

anyway, who cares what some book written thousands of years ago claims? the bible is full of contradictions (for example, contradicting accounts of judas' death). plainly everything in the bible can't be true just because it's in the bible.

millions upon millions of people care what a book written thousands of years ago claims, but that is irrevelent. you asked what problems the introduction of the concept of god could solve and i told you. i am not discussing the bible or even any real god necessarily, merely speculating on what problems the concept would be capable of solving.


so a more creative person is more valuable than a less creative person? so for example, a doctor's life is less valuable than an artist's?

where did you get this idea from? as i explained the doctor contributes an entirely different form of creation which is no less valuable. the idea is simply that humans as a whole were designed to be co-creators with god on earth, it is no bases for making subjective value judegements against individual people.

Edited by Deviate (11/27/05 01:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMoonshoe
Blue Mantis
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4986378 - 11/27/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

you have the "right" to do whatever it is in your power to do.

Humans have every right to rape and destroy the planet, commit murder and rape, shit on babies or eat their wives.

they also have the right to save the planet, respect all life, treat humans with love and dignity, or imprison and execute people they disagree with.

i dunno. what am i saying?


just that your rights are whatever is in your power to do i guess. which is more or less everything. Your personal preferances will determine what you do.

nothing is right or wrong. their is only unlimited, uninhibited choice


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4986554 - 11/27/05 02:37 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

you draw the line at humans vs other species obviously (because their creative powers FAR exceed those of any other species). and creative doesn't necessarily mean creative in the sense of painting a picture, i mean the ability to manipulate the environment according to a plan. something a doctor can do just as well as a painter.



no, not every doctor is going to be as good at imagining something and creating it as well as every painter.  a doctor may have merely learned to act according to routine; said doctor may only be capable of such a thing; in that case a painter would certainly be far more creatively capable than a doctor.

are you really trying to argue that every person is as creatively powerful as every other person?  what about children?  what about babies?  what about people with alzheimer's?  what about the mentally handicapped?  what about people with brain damage?

also, chimpanzees (i think that's the primate) can draw termintes out of an anthill using a twig in a way that very few humans can mimick.  plainly that's an example of an animal manipulating the world according to a plan that far exceeds most humans' abilities.  again, how do you measure creative power?  do you have some measuring stick for this mysterious quantity?

Quote:

i already explained why.  humans have the ability to imagine something and they create it. then can do this to such a greater degree than any other species that even a little child would be capable of making this distinction.




:lol:
well, individual children may make such a distinction, but that doesn't make such a distinction well-founded.

for example, i doubt that every child, given analogous tools, etc, would be able to construct a web with as intricate detail and perfect proportions as a spider's web.

Quote:

millions upon millions of people care what a book written thousands of years ago claims, but that is irrevelent.



agreed

Quote:

you asked what problems the introduction of the concept of god could solve and i told you. i am not discussing the bible or even any real god necessarily, merely speculating on what problems the concept would be capable of solving.



there are more possibilities for god than a biblical one.

Quote:

so a more creative person is more valuable than a less creative person? so for example, a doctor's life is less valuable than an artist's?

where did you get this idea from? as i explained the doctor contributes an entirely different form of creation which is no less valuable.




what if he's acting according to routine?  certainly he's not planning anything.  and yet according to your argument, the life of a painter (who plans, and creates from that plan) must be more valuable than that of the doctor incapable of such things.

Quote:

the idea is simply that humans as a whole were designed to be co-creators with god on earth, it is no bases for making subjective value judegements against individual people.




yet if it's the "far" superior power of creation that guarantees humans their superior moral status over animals, then whenever a single animal demonstrates a "far" superior power over a human, then it must be false that all humans have a superior moral status to all animals, due to superior creative power; and furthermore whenever one human demonstrates "far" superior creative power to another human, that human must have a superior moral status; furthermore the life of the "far" more creatively powerful person, according to your argument, is always more valuable than the life of the less creatively powerful person, regardless of any other circumstance.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4986657 - 11/27/05 02:58 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

no, not every doctor is going to be as good at imagining something and creating it as well as every painter. a doctor may have merely learned to act according to routine; said doctor may only be capable of such a thing; in that case a painter would certainly be far more creatively capable than a doctor.

are you really trying to argue that every person is as creatively powerful as every other person? what about children? what about babies? what about people with alzheimer's? what about the mentally handicapped? what about people with brain damage?

also, chimpanzees (i think that's the primate) can draw termintes out of an anthill using a twig in a way that very few humans can mimick. plainly that's an example of an animal manipulating the world according to a plan that far exceeds most humans' abilities. again, how do you measure creative power? do you have some measuring stick for this mysterious quantity?


when other species start creating airplanes and computers or things of similar complexity than we may need a measuring stick. humans have a far greater ability to manipulate the environment than other species. yes or no?

well, individual children may make such a distinction, but that doesn't make such a distinction well-founded.

for example, i doubt that every child, given analogous tools, etc, would be able to construct a web with as intricate detail and perfect proportions as a spider's web.


what if he's acting according to routine? certainly he's not planning anything. and yet according to your argument, the life of a painter (who plans, and creates from that plan) must be more valuable than that of the doctor incapable of such things.

why? i never said that the only factor that determines value.

yet if it's the "far" superior power of creation that guarantees humans their superior moral status over animals, then whenever a single animal demonstrates a "far" superior power over a human, then it must be false that all humans have a superior moral status to all animals, due to superior creative power; and furthermore whenever one human demonstrates "far" superior creative power to another human, that human must have a superior moral status; furthermore the life of the "far" more creatively powerful person, according to your argument, is always more valuable than the life of the less creatively powerful person, regardless of any other circumstance.


no, not at all. you asked how the concept of god could solve the problem and i told you. if there was a god he could instill any purpose he wished into his creation. if he wished for human lives to be more valuable than other species he could designate them as such. your argument was based on the premise that there was no difference between humans and other species and that was why i brought up the whole creative bit.

Edited by Deviate (11/27/05 03:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4986740 - 11/27/05 03:21 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

when other species start creating airplanes and computers or things of similar complexity than we may need a measuring stick. humans have a far greater ability to manipulate the environment than other species. yes or no?



the answer depends on the circumstances. in certain circumstances it is true, in certain circumstances it is not. if you put a grizzly and a baby in a cage, you could watch and see who has the greater ability to manipulate the environment.

furthermore your whole argument seems to depend on the use of the word "far". far? that's a meaningless, subjective definition. what's far for one person isn't far for another. thats like saying "one shade of blue is 'far' brighter than another shade of blue" and pretending that everyone would agree with that. yet a person who considers blue a bright color might very well consider all blues to be of comparable brightness.

as for this stuff about computers and airplanes, do you really mean that cultures without these advancements are morally inferior to those with? that the lives of individual humans who don't understand computers and airplanes are morally inferior to those do? that the life of each member of a technologically backward culture is less valuable than the life of every member of a technologically advanced culture?

Quote:

what if he's acting according to routine? certainly he's not planning anything. and yet according to your argument, the life of a painter (who plans, and creates from that plan) must be more valuable than that of the doctor incapable of such things.

why?



because you by saying "human lives are more valuable" in the context of your post, you imply that it's "far superior creative power" that gives right to life. so if a painter has far superior creative power than a doctor who operates according to routine, then the painter would have a more valuable life, according to your post.

Quote:

you asked how the concept of god could solve the problem and i told you. if there was a god he could instill any purpose he wished into his creation.




he could but he couldn't do this according to a formulation such as "in every case what's far more creatively powerful is morally superior in every case, and all humans are far more creatively powerful than all animals" because that would be nonsensical, and god could never formulate something like that without changing reality.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4986775 - 11/27/05 03:33 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

the answer depends on the circumstances. in certain circumstances it is true, in certain circumstances it is not. if you put a grizzly and a baby in a cage, you could watch and see who has the greater ability to manipulate the environment.

as a WHOLE humans have greater creative powers.

furthermore your whole argument seems to depend on the use of the word "far". far? that's a meaningless, subjective definition. what's far for one person isn't far for another. thats like saying "one shade of blue is 'far' brighter than another shade of blue" and pretending that everyone would agree with that. yet a person who considers blue a bright color might very well consider all blues to be of comparable brightness.

if there were 10 lamps and 9 of them operated between 50 and 100 watts but the 10th operated at 10,000 watts would it be a subjective and meaningless distinction to say the 10,000 watt lamp shown far brighter than any of the others?

as for this stuff about computers and airplanes, do you really mean that cultures without these advancements are morally inferior to those with? that the lives of individual humans who don't understand computers and airplanes are morally inferior to those do? that the life of each member of a technologically backward culture is less valuable than the life of every member of a technologically advanced culture?

if you infer that you obviously didn't understand my previous posts.


because you by saying "human lives are more valuable" in the context of your post, you imply that it's "far superior creative power" that gives right to life. so if a painter has far superior creative power than a doctor who operates according to routine, then the painter would have a more valuable life, according to your post.

stop making baseless assumptions. i never said it was the only thing that determined value.

he could but he couldn't do this according to a formulation such as "in every case what's far more creatively powerful is morally superior in every case, and all humans are far more creatively powerful than all animals" because that would be nonsensical, and god could never formulate something like that without changing reality.

and i never claimed that. he could create the earth specifically for humans though thus giving them superiority over other animals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4986902 - 11/27/05 04:16 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

as a WHOLE humans have greater creative powers.



that may be true. but if it's the creative powers that grant the moral superiority, than any animal with greater creative powers than any human, or any human with greater creative powers than any other human, would be morally superior.

Quote:

if there were 10 lamps and 9 of them operated between 50 and 100 watts but the 10th operated at 10,000 watts would it be a subjective and meaningless distinction to say the 10,000 watt lamp shown far brighter than any of the others?




yes, for example a person with extremely poor eyesight might consider the brightness comparable.

Quote:

if you infer that you obviously didn't understand my previous posts.



i'm just going by what you wrote. feel free to make your position clearer.

Quote:

stop making baseless assumptions. i never said it was the only thing that determined value.



so what determines value? i'm just looking for a concrete distinction between (all) humans and (all) animals.

Quote:

he could create the earth specifically for humans though thus giving them superiority over other animals.




what's the clear-cut distinction god would use to differentiate between whether he was creating the world for a particular entity- IOW what makes a particular entity human vs animal?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4986978 - 11/27/05 04:42 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

that may be true. but if it's the creative powers that grant the moral superiority, than any animal with greater creative powers than any human, or any human with greater creative powers than any other human, would be morally superior.

it's not the creative powers that grant moral superiority, its the fact that god created the earth especially for human souls as evidenced by their great creative powers.


yes, for example a person with extremely poor eyesight might consider the brightness comparable.

but the distinction is still meaningful is it not? a person with very poor eyesight might not be able to see the difference between a dophin and a shark but there is still a meaningful distinction.

i'm just going by what you wrote. feel free to make your position clearer.

airplanes and computers are indicative of the tremendous potential creative powers of humans in general, not of simply one culture.

so what determines value? i'm just looking for a concrete distinction between (all) humans and (all) animals.


god determines value. if a god wanted to create a world specifically for one type of entity it would be within his power to do that and grant them superiority. you are saying he couldn't do this because there is nothing that divides humans from animals. i don't agree with this but i don't really want to get into a debate about what seperates humans from animals, it's an age old question. essentially one side holds the difference is only of degree while the other side holds there is a difference of kind. but why can't differences of degree qualify as criteria for value? with the lights the 1000 watt light would obviously be of greater value than the 50 watt light even though the difference was only of degree. why do you need a more concrete distinction than that? and furthermore, why do you need one at all? god, being god could create the world speficially for earthworms if he so chose. humans seem to have the greatest influence over the world of any species, or in other words there DECISIONS have a greater impact over the world than those of any other speicies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4987012 - 11/27/05 04:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

i really dont have time to respond anymore but i still think that the concept of god could potentially solve the problem. just be creative and try to think of ways in which such a concept could solve it. i'm sure you can find some other answer if you don't like mine.

Edited by Deviate (11/27/05 04:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4987273 - 11/27/05 06:38 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

it's not the creative powers that grant moral superiority, its the fact that god created the earth especially for human souls as evidenced by their great creative powers.




1- what makes this more likely than the possibility that humans evolved these creative powers out of darwinism? if that's the case, then these creative powers are not evidence of god's hand, but the hand of natural selection.

2-many case are imaginable of individual humans lacking the creative powers of individual animals. one must conclude from your argument that god doesn't create the world for persons lacking the "far superior" creative power- for example the chimpanzees i mentioned have far greater creative power than a baby who dies at 1 month of age. do you really wish to imply that such a baby is morally inferior to a chimp?

Quote:

the distinction is still meaningful is it not? a person with very poor eyesight might not be able to see the difference between a dophin and a shark but there is still a meaningful distinction.



the distinction is real in the example of the lightbulbs. what i'm taking issue with is whether one lightbulb is "far" greater than the rest- "far" is a subjective word, as evidenced by the differing appraisals given by the nearly blind person, and everyone else. as such talking about certain creatures as having "far" more creative power, is meaningless for discussions about objective moral superiority.

Quote:

airplanes and computers are indicative of the tremendous potential creative powers of humans in general, not of simply one culture.



yet certain cultures might lack airplanes and computers. certain humans might lack the capacity to ever understand how to build airplanes and computers. as such airplanes and computers are only indicative of the tremendous creative powers of the humans who build these things, and any human with the capacity to build these things, but ARE NOT indicative of any supposed creative power humans without the capacity to build these things. since many humans lack the creative power to build these things, as such, these things wouldn't be indicative of the creative power of humans "in general" but at most certain humans.

Quote:

but why can't differences of degree qualify as criteria for value? with the lights the 1000 watt light would obviously be of greater value than the 50 watt light even though the difference was only of degree. why do you need a more concrete distinction than that?




the watts of a lightbulb is a quantifiable value. the "creative powers" of every human being is not.

Quote:

and furthermore, why do you need one at all? god, being god could create the world speficially for earthworms if he so chose.




not if he's differentiating human rights from animal rights.

Quote:

humans seem to have the greatest influence over the world of any species, or in other words there DECISIONS have a greater impact over the world than those of any other speicies.




so god must have put us here? the fossil record makes the theory of evolution the more parsimonious alternative.

furthermore many individual humans lack such power, and many animals have it; consider the asp who bit cleopatra and altered the flow of history. if it's this power that produces moral superiority, then plainly all humans can't be morally superior to the exclusion of all animals.

i suppose god, if he existed, could say "all humans as opposed to all animals are morally superior" and define what he had in mind by "human" by selecting the particular individuals he had in mind.

but that hardly seems very moral of god to arbitrarily decide which individuals get to be morally superior. so that scenario seems impossible to me.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4987462 - 11/27/05 07:28 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

in my last post i said "it's not the creative powers that grant moral superiority, its the fact that god created the earth especially for human souls as evidenced by their great creative powers." yet you are still hung up on the idea that of creative powers being the measure of value. explain why god couldn't create a world with the intent for one species to be dominent. lets say for the sake of argument that humans are the only species of animal god gave souls. thus any human is automatically superior to any animal because it has a soul. now that i think of it i believe this is the christian position. as for what reason we should believe this over darwinism is irrevelent because we are discussing whether the concept of a god could in theory solve the problem, not whether it does or whether there is evidence of it which are compeltely different question. so there you have it, there is your objective difference between humans and other species. humans could be the only ones that god gave souls. however unlikely this may strike you as being it is still a possibility at least in theory. it is a possible way in which a god could give one species moral superiority in his creation.

Edited by Deviate (11/27/05 07:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4987626 - 11/27/05 08:04 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

in my last post i said "it's not the creative powers that grant moral superiority, its the fact that god created the earth especially for human souls as evidenced by their great creative powers." yet you are still hung up on the idea that of creative powers being the measure of value.



i thought this issue was coming up again in your previous post, so i addressed it again

Quote:

explain why god couldn't create a world with the intent for one species to be dominent. lets say for the sake of argument that humans are the only species of animal god gave souls. thus any human is automatically superior to any animal because it has a soul. now that i think of it i believe this is the christian position. as for what reason we should believe this over darwinism is irrevelent because we are discussing whether the concept of a god could in theory solve the problem, not whether it does or whether there is evidence of it which are compeltely different question. so there you have it, there is your objective difference between humans and other species. humans could be the only ones that god gave souls. however unlikely this may strike you as being it is still a possibility at least in theory. it is a possible way in which a god could give one species moral superiority in his creation.



how could god determine which beings to give souls, without an objective standard to differentiate between humans and animals to begin with?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCorporal Kielbasa

Registered: 05/29/04
Posts: 17,235
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4987745 - 11/27/05 08:28 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I dont beleave animals should be treated like an object on an assembly line in a factory. I dont think its moraly or ethicaly right to produce thousands of chickens within one facility. Geneticaly motified to grow to maturity in 28 days. I dont beleave its right that these animals grow so fast and so large that they cant walk even if they were allowed to. I don't beleave in mink farms eather. I take Teddy Nugets stand on his political views when it comes to meat and hunting. He refuses to eat production raised animals like chickens and cows.

I prefer free range animals or wild game.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4987751 - 11/27/05 08:30 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

if i can tell a mosquito from a fly there is no reason god couldn't tell humans from other species as well. as for why he chose to give humans souls isntead of earthworms, well only god knows that for sure. perhaps he felt the human body was a good place for a soul.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Deviate]
    #4987864 - 11/27/05 09:10 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

if i can tell a mosquito from a fly there is no reason god couldn't tell humans from other species as well. as for why he chose to give humans souls isntead of earthworms, well only god knows that for sure. perhaps he felt the human body was a good place for a soul.




i agree that god can tell humans from other species, but it's nonsensical to presuppose that god or anyone else could tell humans from animals. that's like saying someone could tell the difference between a square and a shape. a square is a kind of shape.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4987872 - 11/27/05 09:12 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

well i never disagreed with that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4987883 - 11/27/05 09:16 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I agree with Solutarch's first post in the thread. It is incorrect to refer to animal "rights". The term "rights" when referring to interactions between species -- any two or more different species -- is a null concept, as Solutarch so aptly and concisely explained. I have nothing to add to his analysis as far as it goes.

As for what differentiates Homo sapiens sapiens from other species inhabiting the Earth, the fundamental difference is that a human survives through exercising his reason, while animals survive through the use of inbuilt "knowledge" -- they survive instinctually.

It is not that a human is intrinsically superior to a cougar, therefore God must have valued humans more highly than cougars, or anything like that. A cougar's mode of survival differs from a cow's, which differs from a honeybee's or a coral polyp's, and all of theirs differ from a human's.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
    #4987911 - 11/27/05 09:26 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive. Does Man's superior intelligence and reasoning ability grant him a status that is above other creatures?

Also...

Quote:

Phred said:
while animals survive through the use of inbuilt "knowledge" -- they survive instinctually.




There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.

Edited by RandalFlagg (11/27/05 09:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4987960 - 11/27/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive.




Stressed or not stressed, the fact remains I made it very clear in the thread to which you refer that man survives through exercising his reason. Review the thread if you don't believe me.

Quote:

Does Man's superior intelligence and reasoning ability grant him a status that is above other creatures?




Answered above.

Quote:

There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.




Believe what you want. Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason. A human's survival does.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
    #4988149 - 11/27/05 10:57 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason.




if you let pet mice out into the wild, they die. yet mice born into the wild survive there. this ability to survive is therefore not instinctual, but something each wild mouse learns.

even the lowly mouse uses its mental faculties to help it survive. that's why evolution gave the mouse a brain. animals with more developed brains survive better, not just for the instincts those brains include.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4988161 - 11/27/05 11:04 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
if you let pet mice out into the wild, they die. yet mice born into the wild survive there. this ability to survive is therefore not instinctual, but something each wild mouse learns.




That is incorrect. There are only a small amount of animals which are completely domesticated. Cows cannot survive without human support, but cats, mice, dogs, etc all go feral relatively quickly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
    #4988164 - 11/27/05 11:04 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Phred, let's say hypothetically that there's some other creature that requires reason to survive. Just to make it interesting, let's also suppose that they taste great with barbecue sauce. Would humans have to respect their natural rights even though they are not human?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
    #4988178 - 11/27/05 11:11 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
I agree with Solutarch's first post in the thread. It is incorrect to refer to animal "rights". The term "rights" when referring to interactions between species -- any two or more different species -- is a null concept, as Solutarch so aptly and concisely explained.




:thumbup:
"Rights" exist because of a social contract which other species don't have the ability to adhere to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4988201 - 11/27/05 11:23 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

That is incorrect. There are only a small amount of animals which are completely domesticated. Cows cannot survive without human support, but cats, mice, dogs, etc all go feral relatively quickly.




i'm just going with what i read from a number of sources on the internet about my little pet mices. but hey, maybe that's wrong, it's just the internet after all. do you know if that's true for all mice? i have the little white snake food ones. do you have support for your conclusion?

also, the issue is the idea that humans use reason to survive and animals use instinct. but animals use their brains in all sorts of ways. many of the earliest learning experiments were done with dogs, and these showed that such animals can learn, and thus that the behavior of such animals is sometimes founded on more than just instinct. furthermore the innate capacity to learn implies that such a capacity was necessary for the survival of some of their anscestors, since this trait was naturally selected for.

similarly chimpanzees, or whatever the primate is, that uses sticks to fish for termites- must have evolved this capacity to figure out how to do this because at some point in the being's evolutionary history, an ancestor with this capacity was naturally selected for, and therefore this capacity was necessary for the survival of one of its ancestors.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
    #4988886 - 11/28/05 06:05 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Randalflagg said:
There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.

Quote:

Phred said:
Believe what you want. Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason. A human's survival does.








You don't consider intricate social structures and intelligent actions by the great apes to be intelligence and reason?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla


Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent. A few individuals in captivity, such as Koko, have been taught a subset of sign language

The following observations were made by a team led by Thomas Breuer of the Wildlife Conservation Society in September 2005. Gorillas are now known to use tools in the wild. A female gorilla in the Nouabal?-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo was recorded using a stick to gauge the depth of water whilst crossing a swamp. A second female was seen using a tree stump as a bridge and also as a support whilst fishing in the swamp.

Also, in September of 2005, a two and a half year old gorilla in the Republic of Congo was discovered using rocks to smash open palm nuts.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive.




Stressed or not stressed, the fact remains I made it very clear in the thread to which you refer that man survives through exercising his reason. Review the thread if you don't believe me.




I still think that you have yet to adequately explain why Man's ability to reason imparts any special natural rights upon his body, property, or existence in general.

Edited by RandalFlagg (11/28/05 08:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4988889 - 11/28/05 06:13 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
:thumbup:
"Rights" exist because of a social contract which other species don't have the ability to adhere to.




Be careful with your language here.  A social contract is an agreement between several individuals; it is an artificial construct.  Natural Rights as they are envisioned are not artificial; they are absolute and "set in stone" so to speak.

Hm...but what I think you are trying to say is an interesting view.  Are you saying that natural rights exist, are "Absolute", and are available to all species, but Man is the only species that has been able to recognize and access them?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
    #4989012 - 11/28/05 08:37 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Solutarch said:
*Definition of conditions means assigning a label to a recognizable situation. For example, middle C exists. We define the vibratory frequency of 278.4375 Hz as middle C. This frequency does exit in nature independent of government or human edict. However it requires a certain situation of the condition of matter, it is humans who have identified these situations and decided to label these conditions as middle C. Now you may decide that you do not like the 7 note or 12 note scale, and prefer a 19 note scale with different labels and never want to play a note at 278.4375 Hz, this does not negate the existence of middle C. Likewise, you may recognize natural rights by applying an objective definition to determine what is a natural right, but you may disagree that such rights should be protected.




I don't think that natural rights proponents have proven the existence of "Middle C" so to speak, but that is a topic for another thread.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSolutarch
Satan Claws

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 189
Loc: The South Pole
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4989050 - 11/28/05 09:12 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Can you identify conditions where someone can do as he pleases as long as he does not force another to act or prevent another from acting of his own free will or is injuring or initiating some force against another?

If so, you have identified conditions which point to a natural right. Notice that such conditions can exists without government creating them, however as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to protect these rights.

It is fairly easy to determine whether or not an ability to act is a natural right. What is not fairly easy is getting everyone to agree that government should protect such an ability to act.


--------------------

Edited by Solutarch (11/28/05 09:24 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
    #4989205 - 11/28/05 10:35 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Check out "The natural right's thread to end all natural right's threads" in the P A & L archives.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
    #4990028 - 11/28/05 03:01 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Solutarch said:
It is fairly easy to determine whether or not an ability to act is a natural right. What is not fairly easy is getting everyone to agree that government should protect such an ability to act.



That's all well and good when determining a right to act in a given manner by oneself, but surely there are some things which get complicated as one introduces more people into the equation. For example, in the absence of other people, one is free to roam wherever they wish. However, when others settle the area, they put up fences and have this idea called "property" which prevents you from acting in ways that you could otherwise act in their absence. Also, does one have a right to clean air and clean water? Such a right would require restricting the behavior of everyone, even though they would be free to do so in the absense of others.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4991315 - 11/28/05 07:01 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I'm just going off what my Biology Professor told me. She told us that all species, except truly domesticated animals, go feral eventually. Cats and dogs aren't 'truly domesticated', but animals like cows are. Due to hundreds of years of artifical selection, Cows cannot survive without human support. Mice may be domesticated too, but I'm not sure.

And, the Chimpanzee you're talking about is the Bonobo, which is the only animal, besides humans, that has sex face-to-face.  :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4991343 - 11/28/05 07:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I was trying to say that "Natural Rights" simply don't seem to exist, at all. Its almost a contradiction in terms. "Rights", as we know them, are a product of human social interaction and language/communication, 'Nature' could care less about fairness, decency, etc. To 'nature', what ever is best suited to survive does survive.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSolutarch
Satan Claws

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 189
Loc: The South Pole
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Silversoul]
    #4991344 - 11/28/05 07:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
That's all well and good when determining a right to act in a given manner by oneself, but surely there are some things which get complicated as one introduces more people into the equation.



Rights are a null concept without more than one person.

Quote:

when others settle the area, they put up fences and have this idea called "property" which prevents you from acting in ways that you could otherwise act in their absence



Yes, it is a problem that is not generally recognized (or IMHO, not adequately addressed) in natural rights theory by many political philosophers. What gives one a right to take land from the public or unowned domain and make it theirs without compensation to those deprived of it's use? Should one generation be able to take from all future generations the unearned gifts of nature?

Quote:

Also, does one have a right to clean air and clean water?



Yes, but only as clean as occurs without human pollution. One does not have a right to force others to clean up water or air which they have not polluted. I would consider pollution to be a sort of trespass on that which should rightfully belong to everyone.

Quote:

Such a right would require restricting the behavior of everyone, even though they would be free to do so in the absense of others.



I agree.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4991345 - 11/28/05 07:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

I think cows in India survive just fine. Or are they not wild there anymore?


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks

Edited by bellylard (11/28/05 07:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: barfightlard]
    #4991436 - 11/28/05 07:23 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

There are plenty of bovine that are feral, but European cows will die if they are not milked.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4991442 - 11/28/05 07:24 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

So the calves no longer have the instinct to suck the tit?


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsolute zero
The Hero
Male User Gallery
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Moonshoe]
    #4991580 - 11/28/05 07:46 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Moonshoe said:
"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

you have the "right" to do whatever it is in your power to do.

Humans have every right to rape and destroy the planet, commit murder and rape, shit on babies or eat their wives.

they also have the right to save the planet, respect all life, treat humans with love and dignity, or imprison and execute people they disagree with.

i dunno. what am i saying?


just that your rights are whatever is in your power to do i guess. which is more or less everything. Your personal preferances will determine what you do.

nothing is right or wrong. their is only unlimited, uninhibited choice




:thumbup: :thumbup:

Without divine intervention or mandate, we have no absolute statements. Without absolute statements, we have no absolute morals, no absolute right and wrong, rather it is up to the individual to make these definitions.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4991775 - 11/28/05 08:20 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I was trying to say that "Natural Rights" simply don't seem to exist, at all. Its almost a contradiction in terms. "Rights", as we know them, are a product of human social interaction and language/communication, 'Nature' could care less about fairness, decency, etc. To 'nature', what ever is best suited to survive does survive.



this is the view closest to what i believe about rights.

since man is part of nature, and nature could care less about natural rights, i think that says something. i think that says, man's concept of natural rights is a game itself.

consider national law vs international law. international law is virtually meaningless because there's no international state (entity with a virtual monopoly on force) to enforce international law. yet national laws, of many nations, do make sense because there's power to back them up.

so laws are about power, yet and i don't think it makes sense to say that "law" is merely an expression of the haves oppressing the have-nots. in fact, law is its own expression of power, often exercising power in favor of the have-nots at the expense of the haves, for example the civil rights movement as it manifested in supreme court cases.

IOW "natural rights" is entirely a power game itself that obscures its reality with bogus concepts like "justice" and "right and wrong" -concepts that are bogus because they pretend to be relevent regardless of any exercises of power.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: barfightlard]
    #4992361 - 11/28/05 10:56 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

After the calves mature, the cow still will produce milk.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4992689 - 11/29/05 12:57 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
After the calves mature, the cow still will produce milk.




By the time the calves mature, I'm sure the cow will be in the process of birthing/raising a new calf (or set of calves :wink:).

:grin:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineabsolute zero
The Hero
Male User Gallery
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4992854 - 11/29/05 01:36 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I was trying to say that "Natural Rights" simply don't seem to exist, at all. Its almost a contradiction in terms. "Rights", as we know them, are a product of human social interaction and language/communication, 'Nature' could care less about fairness, decency, etc. To 'nature', what ever is best suited to survive does survive.





?In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature?s everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act recognized by human laws, nature does once to every being that lives, and in a large proportion of cases after protracted tortures such as only the greatest monsters whom we read of ever purposely inflicted on their living fellow creatures.? --John Stuart Mill


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesauroman1
Emrys

Registered: 03/22/14
Posts: 207
Loc: Shangrila
Last seen: 6 days, 4 hours
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: absolute zero]
    #21473267 - 03/29/15 05:58 AM (9 years, 2 days ago)

I think one day if humankind successfully evolves animal murder will considered as serious crime. If you look into history of social evolution there was gradual coming to more liberation and protection of lesser beings. Starting with lower castes, classes, rasism and until today sex or sexual orientation, animals rights, rights to get high on drugs and so on.

Humans are just one species of animals. Maybe more intelligent and creative, but somehow people don't slaughter babies or retards.


--------------------
"You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” ― Terence McKenna

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,077 20 01/22/03 08:54 AM
by Shroomism
* We are spiritual beings having a human experience
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ShroomismM 8,774 75 10/03/17 12:10 PM
by Apples in Mono
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )
mrfreedom 5,096 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* Right and Wrong
( 1 2 all )
CherryBomM 4,429 31 10/02/01 09:18 AM
by oneoverzero
* first human cloned
( 1 2 all )
quemo 2,472 24 12/28/02 06:18 PM
by ribbit
* my view of humans as a race
( 1 2 all )
Levidicus 3,146 38 05/31/02 05:57 AM
by gumby0zero
* Instinct = Reincarnation = Oversoul ? HagbardCeline 1,314 7 04/17/09 07:52 AM
by HagbardCeline
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,746 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,293 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.