these poor animals need our help! forums

Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights

>> these poor animals need our help!

Search Topic

Subscription

Author

Message

Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...9 10 11 · >>

May 09, 2008 @ 00:08:18

#61

adrinachrome

Über-Minister
18820 points

25/M/, United States (general)
Join Date: Apr 2008

psy said:
to attribute human form or personality to things not human

believe it or not that is what that big word means

ahh yeah I was surprised to see that when I looked it up.

Not surprised by the definition itself but surprised at how small it was.

clever got me this far then tricky got me in

"trust no bitch"

adrinachrome last visited August 28, 2008

Edited: May 09, 2008 @ 00:10

May 09, 2008 @ 00:10:32

#62

psy

General
365 points

99/F/, United Kingdom
Join Date: May 2008

adrinachrome said:
ahh yeah I was surprised to see that when I looked it up.

Bless the almighty google it is a saviour in the realms of us not looking thick and stupid!

May 09, 2008 @ 00:11:33

#63

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

adrinachrome said:
Its my right to eat them, my species bred them for that purpose specifically. You should join me, ribs are good, steak is good!

It was not long ago that we specifically bred human slaves too. We still use human slaves to this day of course. But breeding someone hardly make subsequent use of them right, or else that Austrian guy could have had sex with the children of his daughter too.

The ref to species, of course, provokes the animal rights challenge to speciesism.

rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:16:07

#64

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

jonnythan said:
Because animals are, by definition, not slaves.

Nor are baby animals children.

Definitions change as ethics change. The def of slave: "Slave: A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another."

This already covers nonhumans if they are regarded as persons.

link [www.amazon.com]
rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:17:10

#65

jonnythan

Twinky
90553 points

27/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005

rogy said:
Definitions change as ethics change. The def of slave: "Slave: A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another."

This already covers nonhumans if they are regarded as persons.

link [www.amazon.com]
rogy

Sure, OK.

Animals are slaves.

Only if you consider animals people. But animals are not people.

"So buying a PC is now, for me, almost a kind of masturbation, or some elaborate tool for masturbation, the sort of terrifying thing you might see after you've mistyped a URL." -Tycho

jonnythan last visited <font color=#990033>34 minutes ago </font>

May 09, 2008 @ 00:20:44

#66

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

jonnythan said:
Sure, OK.

Animals are slaves.

Only if you consider animals people. But animals are not people.

And why is that?

rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:21:12

#67

adrinachrome

Über-Minister
18820 points

25/M/, United States (general)
Join Date: Apr 2008

screw it I am still eating meat and dairy products and wearing leather, hell I may even go buy a minx scarf! nah i wont do that, but you gotta at least give me meat, didn't I hear somewhere that the reason our brain developed as big as it has was thanks to eating meat? I mean would you trade your brainpower for an animals sake?

clever got me this far then tricky got me in

"trust no bitch"

May 09, 2008 @ 00:21:40

#68

jonnythan

Twinky
90553 points

27/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005

rogy said:
And why is that?

rogy

Because the definition of "person" is, literally, "a human being."

link [dictionary.reference.com]

Cows, sheep, fish, birds, amoebae, plankton, whales, and spiders are not human beings. Homo sapiens are human beings.

"So buying a PC is now, for me, almost a kind of masturbation, or some elaborate tool for masturbation, the sort of terrifying thing you might see after you've mistyped a URL." -Tycho

Edited: May 09, 2008 @ 00:22

May 09, 2008 @ 00:28:03

#69

alexkidd

Monk
38661 points

23/M/in a bog, Ireland
Join Date: Sep 2006

rogy this argument has no resolution.

first of all you have to show people that an animal deserves the same rights as a person.
this is a conclusion you obviously come to naturally, most don't.

so first convince people that animals should be regarded as equal to humans and then to stop farming them due to this.

you can't say 'you shouldn't eat animals because they deserve the same rights as us' most people don't believe that they do.
thats the harsh reality of it.

May 09, 2008 @ 00:28:41

#70

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

jonnythan said:
Because the definition of "person" is, literally, "a human being."

link [dictionary.reference.com]

Cows, sheep, fish, birds, amoebae, plankton, whales, and spiders are not human beings. Homo sapiens are human beings.

I don't dispute what you say - but did you see my reference to change? As sociologists tell us, the world is not a static thing - attitudes alter and develop.

Thus, we are talking cutting-edge ethical debates here: link [www.cep.unt.edu]

rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:30:55

#71

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

adrinachrome said:
screw it I am still eating meat and dairy products and wearing leather, hell I may even go buy a minx scarf! nah i wont do that, but you gotta at least give me meat, didn't I hear somewhere that the reason our brain developed as big as it has was thanks to eating meat? I mean would you trade your brainpower for an animals sake?

Given what we do to our home - as in Planet Earth - we might want to rething that theory!!: link [www.animalperson.net]

rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:34:38

#72

jonnythan

Twinky
90553 points

27/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005

rogy said:
I don't dispute what you say - but did you see my reference to change? As sociologists tell us, the world is not a static thing - attitudes alter and develop.

Thus, we are talking cutting-edge ethical debates here: link [www.cep.unt.edu]

rogy

Words are not static, but "person" shows no indication of changing to mean "any animal" as opposed to "living human being" any time soon.

Suffice to say, cows are still not people, and therefore they are not slaves.

Baby cows are not people either, and therefore they are not children.

"So buying a PC is now, for me, almost a kind of masturbation, or some elaborate tool for masturbation, the sort of terrifying thing you might see after you've mistyped a URL." -Tycho

May 09, 2008 @ 00:37:30

#73

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

alexkidd said:
rogy this argument has no resolution.

first of all you have to show people that an animal deserves the same rights as a person.
this is a conclusion you obviously come to naturally, most don't.

so first convince people that animals should be regarded as equal to humans and then to stop farming them due to this.

you can't say 'you shouldn't eat animals because they deserve the same rights as us' most people don't believe that they do.
thats the harsh reality of it.

No, no. I have not said nonhuman animals deverse the same rights as human ones. In fact, I pointed out that there are NO animal rights philosophies that suggest this.

I suggest that all animals have rights - human animals too of course.

Indeed, I would argue that we build our (positive) human rights on our basic (negative) animal rights.

In animal rights thinking, all sentient animals have interests that can be protected by rights - that is what rights are designed to do, protect interests (particularly negative rights).

No-one talks of nonhuman animals' right to vote or to have ballet lessons: link [www.youtube.com]

rogy

May 09, 2008 @ 00:39:52

#74

doubtingthomas

Debater
6605 points

32/M/monterey, California
Join Date: Mar 2008

rogy said:
But you would not advocate that 'smart' humans can exploit less smart ones as some sort of right - or would you?

rogy

Isn't that the basis of a "class" system. Doctors get more than garbage men. ?

Teeter-tottering between brilliance and insanity

doubtingthomas last visited August 29, 2008

May 09, 2008 @ 00:40:26

#75

rogy

Meister
1071 points

51/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

jonnythan said:
Words are not static, but "person" shows no indication of changing to mean "any animal" as opposed to "living human being" any time soon.

Suffice to say, cows are still not people, and therefore they are not slaves.

Baby cows are not people either, and therefore they are not children.

As you can tell from what I have said, I am speaking from the position of animal rights philosophy. This phlosophy sees nonhuman individuals as persons and advocates that.

I am advocating that on this "Animal Rights" forum.

rogy

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...9 10 11 · >>

Top