User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 64

  1. #31
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    I handled it all at once. For example, "Even the concept of responsibility is not entirely factual." Then clarify your concepts. As for, "It's not clear where the animal ends and human starts," that's a personal problem.

    For example, I may say, "It's not clear where Einstein got E=MC^2." However, it is clear to some people.
    Awesome handling!!!

    If your points were any deeper, I'd worry about drowning in your dribble puddle.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    Guardians don't own infants. Are you not aware of this? If it were true, then killing an infant wound have no criminal aspect, but it obviously does. If I kill my cat, I'm a bad guy, but I won't go to jail. If I kill an infant...
    But is certainly possible to make it illegal to kill your cat based on its immorality (assuming it's not already covered under animal cruelty laws).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    I never mentioned funerals,
    "Humans engage in all sorts of ritual behaviors to deal with death..." this statement includes funerals because you stated at the end of the following paragraph, "funerals are but one aspect of that need."

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    but I think they are directly related to the fear of the lose of consciousness. Humans have religion, which in my opinion exists to mitigate the fear of death and dying, specifically the death of consciousness. funerals are but one aspect of that need.
    Grief? No. It has to be fear-based ritualization, right?
    "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. #33
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Awesome handling!!!

    If your points were any deeper, I'd worry about drowning in your dribble puddle.
    There must be some logical fallacy in stating "x isn't clear" when attempting to make the statement an objective fact and not a subjective problem or personal failing.

    I've spent years trying to clarify other people's unclear concepts; but I've learned that they rely on them being unclear. It's part of their argumentation.
    "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.”

  4. #34
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    I think you underestimate the dolphins capacity for justice. I would totally love to see animals getting the Vote and being able to hold positions of power. Because, let's get serious here, considering the bumbling attempts by the current American government system that is in power... how bad could it be were actual animals to be voting? I suspect that 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters would be better lawmakers than what is going on now.

    I also think that there needs to be better protection in regards to creatures for whom power is not innately given such as animals, people with disabilities, and children. A civilization should be judged on how it treats those that are downtrodden by the great cheese wheels of power and corruption. If we cannot give kindness to them, then how are we to govern anyone?

    /thread

  5. #35
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I think you underestimate the dolphins capacity for justice. I would totally love to see animals getting the Vote and being able to hold positions of power. Because, let's get serious here, considering the bumbling attempts by the current American government system that is in power... how bad could it be were actual animals to be voting? I suspect that 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters would be better lawmakers than what is going on now.

    I also think that there needs to be better protection in regards to creatures for whom power is not innately given such as animals, people with disabilities, and children. A civilization should be judged on how it treats those that are downtrodden by the great cheese wheels of power and corruption. If we cannot give kindness to them, then how are we to govern anyone?

    /thread
    "/thread" = another non-debater.

    Of course there should be legal protection - but you can't prevent.

    Animal rights advocates know this.
    "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. #36
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    From what I read here, the answer is to uncloud your mind and to clarify your concepts.

    This doesn't leave me much to respond to, but it is clear for me: if human have innate rights, so should animals.

    Assuming the normal inherent rights, yadda yadda. Shifting the premises or definitions does make it cloudy. That's what I feel is happening in this thread.

  7. #37
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    "/thread" = another non-debater.

    Of course there should be legal protection - but you can't prevent.

    Animal rights advocates know this.
    I like how Ti grasps onto one insignificant fact... a small grain of sand as it were, and proclaims: HEREIN LIES THE KINGDOM OF THE UNIVERSE!! Whilst ignoring the billions of other grains of sand laying everywhere (also thinking of Estonia) abounding and surrounding the mound.

    So if there SHOULD be legal protection then why not rights?

  8. #38
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    But is certainly possible to make it illegal to kill your cat based on its immorality (assuming it's not already covered under animal cruelty laws).



    "Humans engage in all sorts of ritual behaviors to deal with death..." this statement includes funerals because you stated at the end of the following paragraph, "funerals are but one aspect of that need."

    Don't conflate my posts.

    Grief? No. It has to be fear-based ritualization, right?
    Same idea...empathy and connection make us sad that we have lost the consciousness of another...

    You seem to want to define rights in a very ridged way:

    “Are rights contingent upon have the free-will to act upon them?”

    This is an entirely anthropomorphic definition, that must necessarily exclude non-humans. It’s logically consistent, if you accept certain presuppositions.
    Yet we prosecute people who are cruel to animals. Why? If animals are no more than ambulatory vegetables, why worry about cruelty? Why does it matter? It doesn’t and never will, based on the definition you have offered. Killng does not take away any rights, based on your statement, because it’s axiomatically impossible for them to have rights at all.
    But why should our definition be ridged here? We have recent research that points pretty cleary to the idea that some animals possess consciousness, and have complex social structures…things that were formerly only within the purview of homo sapiens. Why should we define the parameters of this new knowledge with ridged, archaic definitions that cannot contain that knowledge?
    People used to argue that the world was flat. Science disproved this.
    People used to vociferously argue that slaves were inferior by nature, and so deserving of base treatment. This view has changed.
    Is it possible that society evolved, to exclude slavery as a rational institution? Yes, and a new definition of what makes one human, was required.
    So too the definition of consciousness, and the rights implied therefrom, and redefined through new technology and research, will supersede outdated ‘flat earth’ definitions.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    This doesn't leave me much to respond to, but it is clear for me: if human have innate rights, so should animals.

    Assuming the normal inherent rights, yadda yadda. Shifting the premises or definitions does make it cloudy. That's what I feel is happening in this thread.
    You've suddenly turned 180 from cloudiness to clarity. Is this an improvement? And is someone shifting premises or definitions? If I did, I would certainly be caught red-handed.

    "Inherent" rights IS a misunderstood, cloudy concept. If they were inherent in the sense of permanence, they couldn't be taken away, but they often are.

    The concept of "rights" was invented to perform a certain function in society. It's an invention, not a discovery. Someone discovered that the human is by nature, inherently rational; but nobody discovered that humans also have rights.
    "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. #40
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I like how Ti grasps onto one insignificant fact... a small grain of sand as it were, and proclaims: HEREIN LIES THE KINGDOM OF THE UNIVERSE!! Whilst ignoring the billions of other grains of sand laying everywhere (also thinking of Estonia) abounding and surrounding the mound.

    So if there SHOULD be legal protection then why not rights?
    I'll start out by stating that the animal rights advocates are correct in that the issue is about basing rights on personhood. But on a functional level, a "person" without a function in human society is not a person.
    "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.”

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