User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 64

  1. #11
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I wonder if the same arguments were made when slavery was the issue before us, over 200 years ago.
    Doubtful, since such arguments were made on the basis that some humans are animals. And I have never made such a claim.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #12
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Did I make these arguments?

    http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #13
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Did I make these arguments?

    http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
    I think you were heading towards the legality one, the rest Im still waiting for

    Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for making this thread, and I do think it is an issue that *should* be debated and discussed, in Ti-style, as you are doing. The thing is that for me and the way my Fi works this is an open and shut case. There is no debate needed. And I also realise that my Fi isn't going to be useful to debating this Ti style, so thats why I decided to back off.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  4. #14
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I think you were heading towards the legality one, the rest Im still waiting for

    Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for making this thread, and I do think it is an issue that *should* be debated and discussed, in Ti-style, as you are doing. The thing is that for me and the way my Fi works this is an open and shut case. There is no debate needed. And I also realise that my Fi isn't going to be useful to debating this Ti style, so thats why I decided to back off.
    Can I be frank, Amar? Don't back out. I know you tend to do this, when, what you feel are the sharp (DRY) edges of Ti comes out in a debate, but there is value, especially in this debate, for your perspective, as Fi as it may be.

    The question, in its barest form, in the OP, is "SHOULD animals have rights?", not "CAN animals have rights?"

    Go at it, forget letting the OP dictate the parameters of the debate - that it's strictly from a legal perspective. Introduce your own.

    I am interested to hear your ideas on this topic. But, of course, I'm not forcing you, it's your choice - just didn't want you to feel like you're shut out of contributing your thoughts to something you feel passionate about (and have thought a lot about this topic, I'm sure), simply because of the angle the discourse is taking. It's a dialogue, change the angle.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I think you were heading towards the legality one, the rest Im still waiting for
    You mean this? - "Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders' rights to their property."

    The statement doesn't make sense - since not all blacks were property - therefore I wouldn't say it.

    Yes, those who were slaves were property or chattel. Any thing or being can be property. But that doesn't make it right. And it certainly doesn't mean that those who were black were inherently property, which is the idea that the legal slavery argument depends upon. Nor does it mean that animals are inherently property. NOTHING is inherently property, but the legal slavery argument implies that blacks are inherently property, that is, property by the very nature of being black.

    ("Inherent" means: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. But 'property' can never be an inherent characteristic of things or beings, property is contingent upon the fact of being owned, not of being born a certain skin color.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for making this thread, and I do think it is an issue that *should* be debated and discussed, in Ti-style, as you are doing. The thing is that for me and the way my Fi works this is an open and shut case. There is no debate needed. And I also realise that my Fi isn't going to be useful to debating this Ti style, so thats why I decided to back off.
    What do you call that part of you that decided it needs to be debated despite the Fi part of you doesn't believe debate is necessary?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #16
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Can I be frank, Amar? Don't back out. I know you tend to do this, when, what you feel are the sharp (DRY) edges of Ti comes out in a debate, but there is value, especially in this debate, for your perspective, as Fi as it may be.

    The question, in its barest form, in the OP, is "SHOULD animals have rights?", not "CAN animals have rights?"

    Go at it, forget letting the OP dictate the parameters of the debate - that it's strictly from a legal perspective. Introduce your own.

    I am interested to hear your ideas on this topic. But, of course, I'm not forcing you, it's your choice - just didn't want you to feel like you're shut out of contributing your thoughts to something you feel passionate about (and have thought a lot about this topic, I'm sure), simply because of the angle the discourse is taking. It's a dialogue, change the angle.
    You can always be frank, you know that.

    I would but...tbh, I'm still reeling from other topics, and this is...a soapbox issue for me. I'm unlikely to be as reasonable as I should be, not to mention that Fi and Ti work from different axioms. And this topic...I mean, to me this is an axiom. There..isn't anything to discuss. I wouldn't even know where to start, for that matter. It's like...breathing.

    A living being is a living being. An object is an object. And you do not harm another living being unless it's out of self-defence or self-preservation. At the very least, you don't cause it any suffering and you treat it with the respect it deserves. It's just..I dunno how else to express this. Meanwhile I realise I come off as a horrendously judgemental bitch for drawing that harsh a line in the sand.

    It's what my world is built on. The core element. It's like asking me to prove a mathematical axiom. We assume certain things are true because they are the building blocks of life. This is the ultimate building block of how Fi sees the world, at least to me.

    Meanwhile however, I'm fully aware that Ti starts from a very different axiom. And Im hardly equipped to play at your level on that turf. It would be suicide to try and employ Ti for me to bridge the gap. Im wiling to try a lot but...bridging the gap between my own blindspot, as well as that of Ti-dom and aux's and all the while also somehow getting them to try and overcome their Fi blindspot....I'm sorry, but even I aint that idealistic.

    Tl;dr: I think I'll sit this one out and let Ti-users pick it apart. It'll give me a chance to study up on Ti-argumentation on a topic I care vehemently about, while staying out of the way of the flow of the discussion instead of needlessly ramming my head- and that of others -against the wall. Iow: I'm out of my league, sorry.


    Edit: @Mal Coz I recognise that my world view aint the end-all of world views. I realise that you guys have just as much need to come to your own conclusions, and build your own worldview in your own way, without me forcing mine down your throat. In fact, you're more likely to get to the same conclusion I did, via a very different road, if I just don't interrupt your process.

    /derail.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  7. #17
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    You can always be frank, you know that.

    I would but...tbh, I'm still reeling from other topics, and this is...a soapbox issue for me. I'm unlikely to be as reasonable as I should be, not to mention that Fi and Ti work from different axioms. And this topic...I mean, to me this is an axiom. There..isn't anything to discuss. I wouldn't even know where to start, for that matter.

    A living being is a living being. An object is an object. And you do not harm another living being unless it's out of self-defence or self-preservation. At the very least, you don't cause it any suffering and you treat it with the respect it deserves. It's just..I dunno how else to express this. Meanwhile I realise I come off as a horrendously judgemental bitch for drawing that harsh a line in the sand.

    It's what my world is built on. The core element. It's like asking me to prove a mathematical axiom. We assume certain things are true because they are the building blocks of life. This is the ultimate building block of how Fi sees the world, at least to me.

    Meanwhile however, I'm fully aware that Ti starts from a very different axiom. And Im hardly equipped to play at your level on that turf. It would be suicide to try and employ Ti for me to bridge the gap. Im wiling to try a lot but...bridging the gap between my own blindspot, as well as that of Ti-dom and aux's and all the while also somehow getting them to try and overcome their Fi blindspot....I'm sorry, but even I aint that idealistic.

    Tl;dr: I think I'll sit this one out and let Ti-users pick it apart. It'll give me a chance to study up on Ti-argumentation on a topic I care vehemently about, while staying out of the way of the flow of the discussion instead of needlessly ramming my head- and that of others -against the wall. Iow: I'm out of my league, sorry.


    Edit: @Mal Coz I recognise that my world view aint the end-all of world views. I realise that you guys have just as much need to come to your own conclusions, and build your own worldview in your own way, without me forcing mine down your throat. In fact, you're more likely to get to the same conclusion I did, via a very different road, if I just don't interrupt your process.

    /derail.
    Animal rights advocates don't want debaters, they want followers. But I don't even consider you radical. As far as I can tell, your idea is to consider a pet a companion. Some people already do that. I just don't think it should be a law that pets are considered companions.

    The main reason I don't believe that is if you start legislating all morality then a government becomes medieval and the laws become draconian. I don't want to go backward, I want us to go forward.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #18
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-an...d-legal-rights

    'This week, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a series of lawsuits in New York courts in an attempt to get judges to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons. The move is just the first step in a nationwide campaign to grant chimps, dolphins, elephants, and other cognitively advanced creatures rights and free them from captivity, whether it be a zoo or a research lab. Should animals have rights? What impact would “legal personhood” have on scientific research? And can researchers and animal rights advocates find common ground?'

    No no and no.

    Of course it's possible to legally render rights onto animals. But this is possible only when the concept of "right" is considered in a free-floating way - i.e., as separate from the concept of "responsibility." It's possible only when the concept of "right," in other words, is taken out of its purely human context of morality and considered arbitrarily.

    As arbitrary, the concept of "right" retains at least a remnant of its former valor. It simply means, "You can't morally or legally stop me, as an individual person, from doing such and such." But as a citizen with rights, it is incumbent upon me to practice certain responsibilities inherent to a social system, the most basic of those being to obey the laws of the land. If I don't obey those laws, then I lose my rights.

    Champions of animal rights advocate natural freedom, that is, freedom without responsibility. A right without a social responsibility to go along with it is no longer a right, it is simply freedom to do whatever nature, and not society, requires of us. The concepts of "nature" and "responsibility" are totally antithetical because to be responsible is to be morally accountable, and nature cannot be held accountable.

    If a chimp, a dolphin, or an elephant cannot be held accountable for its actions, then it cannot be granted rights.
    Corporate Personhood. Same protection under the Constitution in the USA as humans. Boggles my mind, that they got there faster than animals. This whole debate hinges on word: power.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    It is because we are civilized that we don't do uncivilized things.

    Civilized society should not be doing uncivilized things? That's highly subjective. As mass murdering of animals, treating them like accessories, their forced responses as our entertainment, their deaths as entertainment - this is our civilization, thus far.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Corporate Personhood. Same protection under the Constitution in the USA as humans. Boggles my mind, that they got there faster than animals. This whole debate hinges on word: power.




    Civilized society should not be doing uncivilized things? That's highly subjective. As mass murdering of animals, treating them like accessories, their forced responses as our entertainment, their deaths as entertainment - this is our civilization, thus far.
    Corporations have the right to keep and bear arms?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #20
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Corporations have the right to keep and bear arms?
    Yes. Fun times, right?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven..._b_435619.html

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 166
    Last Post: 09-08-2015, 02:27 PM
  2. Do animals have types?
    By Royal Xavier in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 03:29 PM
  3. What should everyone be doing right now?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 02:05 AM
  4. Animals have personality right?
    By Vicki in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-26-2007, 05:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO