User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 64

  1. #41
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    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.
    One could argue that our definition of human society should be updated and expanded to 'the planet' considering our fates on that big ball of dirt are sort of...all tied together. Within that framework I'd say that the function of the honey bee is way more vital to 'human society' than the CEO of some big company making the big bucks on selling insurance.


    /slinks back into the shadows
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  2. #42
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    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.
    What is your definition of consciousness?
    "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. #43
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    One could argue that our definition of human society should be updated and expanded to 'the planet' considering our fates on that big ball of dirt are sort of...all tied together. Within that framework I'd say that the function of the honey bee is way more vital to 'human society' than the CEO of some big company making the big bucks on selling insurance.


    /slinks back into the shadows
    In other words, our definition of human CIVILIZATION should be updated to include the non-civilized parts of the earth.

    So animals killing other animals should be considered part of civilization.

    /reductio ad absurdum
    "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. #44
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    In other words, our definition of human CIVILIZATION should be updated to include the non-civilized parts of the earth.

    So animals killing other animals should be considered part of civilization.

    /reductio ad absurdum
    Well..Im not sure i would call it civilisation, but very well:

    What non-civilised parts? We've invaded everything there is to invade on this planet. It is de facto a part of our civilisation, whether we want to or not.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  5. #45
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Well..Im not sure i would call it civilisation, but very well:

    What non-civilised parts? We've invaded everything there is to invade on this planet. It is de facto a part of our civilisation, whether we want to or not.
    Civil law rules over society, or else there would be chaos, the rule of nature, or call it the life-and-death struggle. We still say "you're welcome" and "how are you" and even "sorry."
    "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. #46
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Civil law rules over society, or else there would be chaos, the rule of nature, or call it the life-and-death struggle. We still say "you're welcome" and "how are you" and even "sorry."
    And those laws, customs and traditions change as the needs of the community changes. We once were congregated into tribes, which had different traditions and laws than the villages they grew into, who again differed from the city state they became, who differed from the countries they formed, which again differs from the international community we are attempting at building right now.

    Each time laws had to be adjusted, customs were widened, flexed, to allow for more diversity. Why should this be any different? Why should accommodating different species in their needs be any different from accommodating different religions, different nationalities, different...perspectives on life due to your upbringing?

    It seems only bizarre now because it isn't part of our culture...yet.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  7. #47
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    And those laws, customs and traditions change as the needs of the community changes. We once were congregated into tribes, which had different traditions and laws than the villages they grew into, who again differed from the city state they became, who differed from the countries they formed, which again differs from the international community we are attempting at building right now.

    Each time laws had to be adjusted, customs were widened, flexed, to allow for more diversity. Why should this be any different? Why should accommodating different species in their needs be any different from accommodating different religions, different nationalities, different...perspectives on life due to your upbringing?

    It seems only bizarre now because it isn't part of our culture...yet.
    Because, as I said above, reducing all morality to laws creates a medievalistic government with draconian laws. I'm looking for a balance, and investing animals with rights is not part of that balance because it only opens the door to more and more legal control over human behavior. This entails less freedom of will yet with more personal accountability, and the eventual erosion of human rights in favor of animals which can't even be considered civilized persons with personhood.
    "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. #48
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Because, as I said above, reducing all morality to laws creates a medievalistic government with draconian laws. I'm looking for a balance, and investing animals with rights is not part of that balance because it only opens the door to more and more legal control over human behavior. This entails less freedom of will with more accountability, and the eventual erosion of human rights in favor of animals whch can't even be considered civilized persons with personhood.
    So you suggest keeping animal land a wild wild west country with animals being on the receiving end of the anarchy it fosters? This isn't about restricting people more, it's about venturing further out into the world as a species and creating order in the part we venture out into. Clashes between the human species and the other ones on this planet are going up due to territory invasion - situations we never used to encounter because we could avoid them by simply avoiding their territory are now in desperate need of handling.

    The only thing we'd have to hand over is our dominion over animals that we've grown so accustomed to. Much like men were accustomed to having dominion over their wife not too long ago. And yes, some men do experience that as an infringement on their rights, and we're still experiencing the backlash of that. But we still encourage other cultures who haven't made this shift yet to take the plunge, don't we?

    All it requires is for us to extend our natural tendency as a social species to empathise with our tribesmen - whatever species they are. It isn't about people losing rights, it's about giving them the tools to handle that cooperation with other species in a way that is beneficial for both sides.

    Anyway, bedtime for me *yawns*
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  9. #49
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    So you suggest keeping animal land a wild wild west country with animals being on the receiving end of the anarchy it fosters? This isn't about restricting people more, it's about venturing further out into the world as a species and creating order in the part we venture out into. Clashes between the human species and the other ones on this planet are going up due to territory invasion - situations we never used to encounter because we could avoid them by simply avoiding their territory are now in desperate need of handling.

    The only thing we'd have to hand over is our dominion over animals that we've grown so accustomed to. Much like men were accustomed to having dominion over their wife not too long ago. And yes, some men do experience that as an infringement on their rights, and we're still experiencing the backlash of that. But we still encourage other cultures who haven't made this shift yet to take the plunge, don't we?

    All it requires is for us to extend our natural tendency as a social species to empathise with our tribesmen - whatever species they are. It isn't about people losing rights, it's about giving them the tools to handle that cooperation with other species in a way that is beneficial for both sides.

    Anyway, bedtime for me *yawns*
    (Why always compare one thing to another here? Proof by comparison just doesn't work. Argument that contain "just like" are rarely meaningful.)

    The way to "save the lions" in Africa is to take the profit out of it. This is accomplished through the careful management of wildlife in Africa, not through granting lions 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. #50
    amateur cartographer kquirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    593 sp/so
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Hm, I haven't read this entire thread.

    We should probably treat a lot of animals better than we do. I would be OK with certain laws in this direction.

    However, no animal should get the same rights as a fucking human being.
    5w6 - 9w8 - 3w2

    Words are wind.

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