|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
|
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
|
absolute zero
The Hero

Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Moonshoe]
#4991580 - 11/28/05 07:46 PM (18 years, 2 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

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.
--------------------
|
crunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
|
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
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: barfightlard]
#4992361 - 11/28/05 10:56 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
After the calves mature, the cow still will produce milk.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
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 ).

 Peace.
--------------------
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
|
absolute zero
The Hero

Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
|
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
--------------------
|
sauroman1
Emrys

Registered: 03/22/14
Posts: 203
Loc: Shangrila
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
|
|
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
|
|