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.
OK, so it looks like I finally got unbanned for expressing an opinion the mods disagreed with. Since the mods ignore their own rules, I don't see myself spending much more time on this forum, and perhaps neither should you. There are plenty of forums out there where you can post in greater confidence that your hard work will not end up in the bit basket!
(The mods haven't been giving me as much grief lately, perhaps I should revive this thread.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie
Other animals are not on this earth for the sole purpose of being a food source for US. Certain animals are farmed or hunted for food which is just part of life. I eat meat too. However there is no reason for someone to mistreat animals even if they are just for food. Treating the "food" animals well not only benifits the animal but also benifits us. Feeding cows fattening grain, giving them fina prior to being slaughtered is bad for us too.
Who gets to define the purpose of life on earth? When you say "there is no reason for someone to mistreat animals", that's a personal opinion, but what this thread is about is government interventionism - should billions of dollars be spent to punish people like Michael Vick? And I am making the case that there is no ethical grounds for this, and strong ethical grounds against this - human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie
Sadistic fettish? Hardly. I just find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly think Mike Vick does not belong in jail. You gotta be kidding me. If you kill anything for fun you are a person who is not needed out in society. The only exception being a liscensed hunter.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly think a human being belongs in jail over what he does with his property. And there's no such thing as "society", which seems to be a religious deity you people worship - there are individual human beings cooperating on (ideally) mutually-beneficial basis.
(Please try to answer objectively, further irrational appeals to pity will be ignored.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound
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.
Ah, here comes the Hitleresque brain circuitry police... Vick didn't "inflict pain for no reason", he used animals for entertainment, like they are used by millions of people, and which is no different from using them for food or clothing. Who gets to draw the moral line between playing fetch and playing "fight the other doggie, possibly to death"? The latter is far more rational when you take the natural canine instincts into account!
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound
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.
Pain doesn't grant an entity rights, as I've addressed above. The entertainment value is not a reason to do something? Are you going to outlaw television, sports, etc as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer
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.
You have it precisely backwards: it is over-regulation, government interventionism (including Bush's "ownership society" forcing bad lawns), and bad monetary policy that are responsible for the current economic slump. This, however, is not the thread to go into details on this important subject matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer
The lawless utopia you describe is great in theory, but would never work.
I never said "lawless" - the only lawlessness you have in the world is when you have corruption within a government that monopolizes all legal functions. A free society is a society built on natural law, that is a modern simplified understanding thereof, principally built on the axiom of non-aggression. But that's subject matter for an other thread - this one is about government thuggery pertaining to so-called "animal rights".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer
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.
You use the term "monopoly" incorrectly, in reality the only monopoly that ever existed in the world is the regional monopoly of government. An individual or a group of individuals (i.e. corporation) do not have a recognized "divine right" to initiate violence, only the government has been able to brainwash people into believing that it does. But that's subject matter for an other thread.
(Further off-topic points will be ignored.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie
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'?
"Survival instinct" - great word to use in Michael Vick's defense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost
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.
In part this is because of the silly belief that government should do all the thinking for us: if the government doesn't forcefully keep something off the store shelves then it must be good. And in part this is because people don't really care about "animal rights" as much as they pretend to - which is yet another point in my favor.
Girls have an evolutionary instinct for compassion, to show to prospective mates that they would make good mothers for their own future children, but unfortunately in modern society this is hijacked and turned into Hello Kitty and all that. Guys have an evolutionary instinct to play along, you know, to get laid. That's where much of this "protect cute and fuzzy things" hysteria comes from - emotional projection of feelings that were meant to go towards one's children.
Some people will let those emotions influence their buying power, which would have an economic impact and create specialty "cruelty free" higher-price market segments. Some people won't. I won't speculate which fraction of the population will or won't.
(Quick off-topic interjection: "child labor" in manufacturing is better than child labor in subsistence agriculture, which would have been the alternative. It allows for the initial economic development that makes education and further economic advancement possible in the future. If people stopped buying things produced in "sweat shops", it would be devastating for the world's poor!)
Last edited by Alex Libman; 01-19-2009 at 07:32 PM..
I have seen some hugely irreational and completly emotionally driven views on the subject of "animal rights". Some seem to think that it is cruel and even criminal to have cats in the barn for the purpose of keeping down the vermin, or to utilize the talents of dogs for, say, herding cattle. Oh lol, I forgot, raising cattle for meat is considered cruel and criminal, by some, in it's own right. I don't know when and where views like this got started, I mean how long have humans prcticed animal husbandry? A few thousand years or so? Some folks seem to think that it would be practical to just let all our domestic livestock and even household pets loose to be "wild and free". Irrational indeed! These are the same folks that think that predatory animals can be taught to go vegan? What happens when they are tossed into the wild then? Ah well, let them eat tofu
I have seen some hugely irreational and completly emotionally driven views on the subject of "animal rights". Some seem to think that it is cruel and even criminal to have cats in the barn for the purpose of keeping down the vermin, or to utilize the talents of dogs for, say, herding cattle. Oh lol, I forgot, raising cattle for meat is considered cruel and criminal, by some, in it's own right. I don't know when and where views like this got started, I mean how long have humans prcticed animal husbandry? A few thousand years or so? Some folks seem to think that it would be practical to just let all our domestic livestock and even household pets loose to be "wild and free". Irrational indeed! These are the same folks that think that predatory animals can be taught to go vegan? What happens when they are tossed into the wild then? Ah well, let them eat tofu
I look at it this way with people in the east who think they know what is best for the rest of the USA. let us take 3-5 real life wolves and let them loose in central park, and lets see how long it will take for them to be screaming for their deaths.
microchipping is also wrong, no goverment or anyone else needs to know anything about your pet except for their shots. go to the owners vet to get that info, but keep your hands off my pets otherwise.
(The mods haven't been giving me as much grief lately, perhaps I should revive this thread.)
Who gets to define the purpose of life on earth? When you say "there is no reason for someone to mistreat animals", that's a personal opinion, but what this thread is about is government interventionism - should billions of dollars be spent to punish people like Michael Vick? And I am making the case that there is no ethical grounds for this, and strong ethical grounds against this - human rights.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly think a human being belongs in jail over what he does with his property. And there's no such thing as "society", which seems to be a religious deity you people worship - there are individual human beings cooperating on (ideally) mutually-beneficial basis.
(Please try to answer objectively, further irrational appeals to pity will be ignored.)
Ah, here comes the Hitleresque brain circuitry police... Vick didn't "inflict pain for no reason", he used animals for entertainment, like they are used by millions of people, and which is no different from using them for food or clothing. Who gets to draw the moral line between playing fetch and playing "fight the other doggie, possibly to death"? The latter is far more rational when you take the natural canine instincts into account!
Pain doesn't grant an entity rights, as I've addressed above. The entertainment value is not a reason to do something? Are you going to outlaw television, sports, etc as well?
You have it precisely backwards: it is over-regulation, government interventionism (including Bush's "ownership society" forcing bad lawns), and bad monetary policy that are responsible for the current economic slump. This, however, is not the thread to go into details on this important subject matter.
I never said "lawless" - the only lawlessness you have in the world is when you have corruption within a government that monopolizes all legal functions. A free society is a society built on natural law, that is a modern simplified understanding thereof, principally built on the axiom of non-aggression. But that's subject matter for an other thread - this one is about government thuggery pertaining to so-called "animal rights".
You use the term "monopoly" incorrectly, in reality the only monopoly that ever existed in the world is the regional monopoly of government. An individual or a group of individuals (i.e. corporation) do not have a recognized "divine right" to initiate violence, only the government has been able to brainwash people into believing that it does. But that's subject matter for an other thread.
(Further off-topic points will be ignored.)
"Survival instinct" - great word to use in Michael Vick's defense...
In part this is because of the silly belief that government should do all the thinking for us: if the government doesn't forcefully keep something off the store shelves then it must be good. And in part this is because people don't really care about "animal rights" as much as they pretend to - which is yet another point in my favor.
Girls have an evolutionary instinct for compassion, to show to prospective mates that they would make good mothers for their own future children, but unfortunately in modern society this is hijacked and turned into Hello Kitty and all that. Guys have an evolutionary instinct to play along, you know, to get laid. That's where much of this "protect cute and fuzzy things" hysteria comes from - emotional projection of feelings that were meant to go towards one's children.
Some people will let those emotions influence their buying power, which would have an economic impact and create specialty "cruelty free" higher-price market segments. Some people won't. I won't speculate which fraction of the population will or won't.
(Quick off-topic interjection: "child labor" in manufacturing is better than child labor in subsistence agriculture, which would have been the alternative. It allows for the initial economic development that makes education and further economic advancement possible in the future. If people stopped buying things produced in "sweat shops", it would be devastating for the world's poor!)
Punishing a person like Micheal Vick who would be in jail anyway if he wasnt playing football seems perfectly logical to me...lol. There are much bigger amounts of money being wasted on less important things such as the Bush "War on Islam", and the war on drugs. Both to me are less important then senseless abuse. There are ppl that think abusing children is fun too but its absolutely disgusting and wrong any way you look at it.
A professor (of all people) made a comment to the effect of "why raise money to help animals when there are so many humans in need."
I agree that humans are generally more important than animals; I would save a child from a burning building before thinking about the puppy. But should we not bother working to stop animal abuse until all the suffering of mankind has been cured?
I have heard that argument too and it is usually from people who do neither. I happen to fight fiercely for the rights of animals AND humans. And yep, I am one of the ARA people but no Peta member. Can't stand them. I believe in kindness to ALL living creatures, I don't eat, wear or use animals for entertainment and if you ever saw videos of slaughterhouses, factory "farms" and circus animal abuse you might get a twinge. But cruelty to people affects me also and I donate an equal amount of my money to that as well.
I have heard that argument too and it is usually from people who do neither. I happen to fight fiercely for the rights of animals AND humans. And yep, I am one of the ARA people but no Peta member. Can't stand them. I believe in kindness to ALL living creatures, I don't eat, wear or use animals for entertainment and if you ever saw videos of slaughterhouses, factory "farms" and circus animal abuse you might get a twinge. But cruelty to people affects me also and I donate an equal amount of my money to that as well.
Good for you dude. Thats what I like to hear. I don't like to see anybody or anything suffer. After all we are just animals, even if we do reside at the "top" of the food chain. Except for rednecks who reside beneath a slug slime....
I don't like PETA either. They are wrong for ruining others peoples property and as a result cause a great deal of backlash to a worthwhile cause. The other problem is they all look geeky/wierd and thats another factor as to why no one likes them. They are the types who are rejected by other humans so they gravitate toward other animals which is fine but no one will take them seriously. Hopefully more "normal" people will help out the causes to better this world instead of being so self centered which has engulfed western civilization.
Last edited by CleanCutHippie; 03-22-2009 at 04:03 PM..
I have heard that argument too and it is usually from people who do neither. I happen to fight fiercely for the rights of animals AND humans. And yep, I am one of the ARA people but no Peta member. Can't stand them. I believe in kindness to ALL living creatures, I don't eat, wear or use animals for entertainment and if you ever saw videos of slaughterhouses, factory "farms" and circus animal abuse you might get a twinge. But cruelty to people affects me also and I donate an equal amount of my money to that as well.
I live in a cattle ranching area, and have run cattle myself. We always did our own butchering, but I have spent some time in the local slaughter houses. The experience did not leave me scarred for life, or my son either. The process was really no different than what we do at home come killing time. If one chooses to not partake of this way of life, thats fine. But it is our way of life and the same rule applies from the other end of the spectrum. Our meat animals are not mistreated in any way. Doing so is counterproductive to the process. This is the sole reaason for animals like cattle to exist. This cannot be reversed. Are we to just turn all the meat animals loose on the range and leave them be then? What is your solution to the "problem"?
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.
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.
