U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2008, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,487,344 times
Reputation: 4104

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie View Post
Vick has been brought up numerous times in this thread unfortunately. The thought of the guy sickens me. He is where he belongs no matter what anyone says.

I am glad you treat your animals well because it benifits the animal and us, especially when we are talking about the food supply which is an issue I am sensitive too. I saw a tape from a yr ago from a slaughterhouse where the cows were sick and being treated absolutely terribly. They do feel pain and to do that to another animal shows a disregard for all life. I dont think its too much to ask for a humane death. The same one I would want if the option of living was no longer mine.

It was a good attempt at humor but its 3 Am here so my apologies...lol
I do have to agree with that point there, inflicting pain on other creatures for no reason shows a pretty undeveloped empathy circuit in the brain. It's one thing to not give animals voting rights, they have no idea what that would mean...let alone how to use it. However most animals can feel pain and trauma, inflicting it unnecessarily on something that really can't fight back may not be against it's rights (of something that can't fight for it) but it's just cruelty without reason/logic/an end to me.

It's one thing to not do positive things for an animal that you would do for a human because it doesn't have the rights, then to do something really negative to an animal because it doesn't have the rights. It's not really rational, it's emotive, but it's something important enough that I think it should be a consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 4,366,654 times
Reputation: 1418
Mr. Libman, your "free-market cures all" argument might have had some teeth until a few months ago. Do you read the news much? Our economy is in shambles thanks to deregulation and/or the negligence of regulators.

The lawless utopia you describe is great in theory, but would never work. The only private enterprise in effect would be a handful of conglomerated monopolies governing by way of economic force - a privatized government with only its own interest in mind. Totalitarianism.

And "institutionalized vigilantism" is an oxymoron.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2008, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Back in New York
1,104 posts, read 3,321,597 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I do have to agree with that point there, inflicting pain on other creatures for no reason shows a pretty undeveloped empathy circuit in the brain. It's one thing to not give animals voting rights, they have no idea what that would mean...let alone how to use it. However most animals can feel pain and trauma, inflicting it unnecessarily on something that really can't fight back may not be against it's rights (of something that can't fight for it) but it's just cruelty without reason/logic/an end to me.

It's one thing to not do positive things for an animal that you would do for a human because it doesn't have the rights, then to do something really negative to an animal because it doesn't have the rights. It's not really rational, it's emotive, but it's something important enough that I think it should be a consideration.




I do positive things for all living creatures. Both humans and other animals. Its just in a different ways of course :-) Its very hard to try and help other living creatures when we as humans can't take care of each other or our earth.

Animals can do and feel things we never thought they did. They do use tools. they do have emotions (not as complex as ours of course), they do have their own form of communication (birds,higher mammals), and as I stated do feel pain/fear. Of course a person who lacks empathy and emotion won't care about these things anyway. While I don't like hunting, at least a respectable hunter shoots and kills the animal in one shot.

We aren't all that bright either, after all DUBYa got two terms in the White House and there are still ppl that think Sarah Palin would make a good president...lmao. Unbelievable!

While being rational is good we should not let it stop us from doing what we know in our heart is right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2008, 02:03 AM
 
Location: Back in New York
1,104 posts, read 3,321,597 times
Reputation: 843
I suppose it should also be pointed out we are not the only animals which exhibit sadistic behavior. Chimps do by killing rival chimps and smaller monkeys just for fun. Orcas also come to mind who "play" with seals and kill porposises just for the hell of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2008, 02:59 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,533,242 times
Reputation: 20965
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie View Post
I suppose it should also be pointed out we are not the only animals which exhibit sadistic behavior. Chimps do by killing rival chimps and smaller monkeys just for fun. Orcas also come to mind who "play" with seals and kill porposises just for the hell of it.
Have either of those animals told you there was no 'survival instinct' reason for doing so?That they just did it 'for fun'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2008, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Back in New York
1,104 posts, read 3,321,597 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Have either of those animals told you there was no 'survival instinct' reason for doing so?That they just did it 'for fun'?
I am no scientist , but the scientists that have observed behavior in these animals said they saw no other explanation. For example Chimps, our closes relatives have killed groups of monkeys, not for food but just for the hell of it. Same with Orcas who bat seals around but then return them to shore after they are done. It makes sense to me since just about every human behavior we thought was unique has been exhibited by other species, esp higher mammals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2008, 01:22 AM
 
3,277 posts, read 4,493,145 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
Thanks. The "making sure that animals aren't mistreated" phrase could be interpreted in a number of ways: my argument is that people have a right to "mistreat" their animals. The proper way to discourage it is through exposure and free-market ostracism. Would you buy a car from someone who beats his dog?
Most would. People buy animal products from producers known to mistreat their animals. People buy clothing from chains known to use child labour. People buy food from sources known to use child slavery.

Time and time again we see that as long as people get theirs, many of them don't care how much was lost along the way. That's why I don't understand this incomprehensible idea that there can exist any mass altruism in the market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2009, 11:55 AM
BMG
 
6 posts, read 10,272 times
Reputation: 10
Default Food Chain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer View Post
Animal and human rights come from nature. We, by our cunning intellect, are at the top of the food chain. Our choice to be merciful on animals lower on the chain is based on their usefullness to us, our current moral standard that we should minimize unnecessary violence, and our many motivations to maintain a diverse ecosystem.

No offense, but I think the rest is just commentary.

Hello.

Would you mind explaining what "Animal and human rights come from nature" means?

Secondly, vieiwing the world and the living organisms that reside in it via "food chains" is a bit archaic. Perhaps if you looked at it as "food web", as it is currently viewed by ecologists,etc. may alter your worldview a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2009, 12:06 PM
BMG
 
6 posts, read 10,272 times
Reputation: 10
Default Two -wrongs fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie View Post
I suppose it should also be pointed out we are not the only animals which exhibit sadistic behavior. Chimps do by killing rival chimps and smaller monkeys just for fun. Orcas also come to mind who "play" with seals and kill porposises just for the hell of it.
Two-wrongs fallacy.

Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2009, 12:44 PM
BMG
 
6 posts, read 10,272 times
Reputation: 10
Default Not animal rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I do have to agree with that point there, inflicting pain on other creatures for no reason shows a pretty undeveloped empathy circuit in the brain. It's one thing to not give animals voting rights, they have no idea what that would mean...let alone how to use it. However most animals can feel pain and trauma, inflicting it unnecessarily on something that really can't fight back may not be against it's rights (of something that can't fight for it) but it's just cruelty without reason/logic/an end to me.

It's one thing to not do positive things for an animal that you would do for a human because it doesn't have the rights, then to do something really negative to an animal because it doesn't have the rights. It's not really rational, it's emotive, but it's something important enough that I think it should be a consideration.

I again agree with Peter Singer on this. It's not "animal rights", for, as many a poster has already shown, they cannot consent to a contract; rather, it's the equal consideration of their needs and interests.

And with regard to pain, and especially considering feed animals - birds and other mammals - they feel pain very much as we do, if not more intensely. You may have heard, as I have, that some believe human-animals feel more pain than other animals because we have a larger, more complex brain. This, according to Singer, isn't true.

Human-animals have larger, more complex brains, yes, but this is seen in the cerebral cortex. But the cerebral cortex deals with thinking functions - problem-solving,etc- and it doesn't sense, interpret pain. The diencephalon, which deals with basic processes, emotions,etc. also interprets pain signals from nerve endings, and it's this part of the brain that in human-animals is very similar, if not more developed, in non-human animals.

However, I must admit that I didn't fact check this book all that well, and assumed the validity and soundness of his arguments because it agrees with my preconceptions about non-human animals, a big no-no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top