Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Cousin marriage banned in NH, marijuana banned in NH, some exotic pets banned NH  (Read 46924 times)

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

I find the idea of thinking of us all as animals and then creating laws to grant 'rights' to these groups of varying animals on the planet as kind of a ridiculous idea. What's the point of 'government' or 'society' if we're all just animals? It's hypocritical to say we're just another form of animal so we need to create laws to change our status down to meet that of animals and enforce those laws...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 08:11:20 am by crossonscout »
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Other species have their own society and governance.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

The way the laws are written right now, that is true -- animals are just viewed as property. But people are trying to change that, to create a new category called "living property" -- they are trying to rewrite the laws so that non-human animals are on the same level as humans, with the same rights as humans. And it has already somewhat been done in the form of animal cruelty laws -- a person who destroys a person's dog is far more likely to get in trouble than a person who destroys a person's pillow, because the pillow is a non-living thing and a dog is a sentient being just like a human. A lot of it has to do with whether the thing in question can feel pain and suffering, and so far courts across the country (with regard to animal cruelty cases) do agree that non-human animals like dogs are capable of pain and suffering just like humans.

Part of the desire to change the law is to make things less anthropocentric and to view humans as just another animal species -- this view has taken hold in the environmentalism movement, in which people say they are not the best things ever created and realize they are just one part of the planet. The notion that humans are superior to all other animals (and thus have more rights than animals) is known by some professionals as "speciesism" -- a bias in favor of one species over another. This may explain why laws (as they are written now) give humans more rights than animals and treat humans as being unequal to other animals.

I'm aware that there are nonsensical laws on the matter, and individuals who hold nonsensical opinions.

I was referring to actual reality.  Regardless of sentience, animals are not sapient and, therefore, are not persons, and have no rights.  Rights are an all-or-nothing proposition; you can't have "some rights."  People (of any species) each have the same rights as each other - no one has more or less.  Animals (of any species) have none whatsoever.  Species is irrelevant - show me an ape that has attained sapience, and I will assert that it is a person, and has all the same rights as any other person.

And, of course, those who have rights, also have the responsibility to respect the rights of others.  If a dog bites you, is he charged with assault?  If a bear kills you, is he a murderer?  If a dolphin splashes you, can you send him your dry-cleaning bill?

Actually it is possible for an animal (whether that animal is a human or a non-human) to have some but not all rights. Since we live in a very anthropocentric society, humans have been granted more rights than any other animal (because humans are the ones granted themselves those rights). It this sense, humans are selfish and speciesist because they give themselves more rights than other animals.

There are several examples of how non-human animals do have some rights. A dolphin in the wild (in U.S. waters at least) has a right to not be killed because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A cat in Oregon has a right to not be killed because of that state's animal cruelty law. A seeing-eye dog has a right to go into a Walmart if the human he/she is with is blind. These are rights that were granted to non-human animals by humans.

Also, the definition of "sapient" is having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.  While it may be true that humans are the most intelligent animals (except perhaps for dolphins and gorillas), who's to say that intelligence is the #1 criteria by which to judge something? Non-human animals are better than humans in many other ways; dolphins can echo-locate, sharks can sense bio-electric fields with their bodies, snakes can see in infrared -- these are all things humans cannot do (though humans have created technology which can do it for them). When it comes to "rights", high intelligence alone does not determine whether an entity has rights or not. A pet dog and a pet cat have the same rights even though one might be more intelligent than the other. Similarly, a human baby and a 5-year-old child have the same rights even though the baby is less intelligent than the 5-year-old.

The new goal being proposed (in this century) is to treat non-human animals as "persons" (even if they cannot think in the same way humans can), and to give non-human animals the same rights that humans have. The rights in this case would mainly have to do with reduction of suffering, prevention of the premature death of animals, respect and/or compassion for animals, and treating non-human animals as being equal to humans (differences in brain structures and/or cognition would be disregarded).

Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

I find the idea of thinking of us all as animals and then creating laws to grant 'rights' to these groups of varying animals on the planet as kind of a ridiculous idea. What's the point of 'government' or 'society' if we're all just animals? It's hypocritical to say we're just another form of animal so we need to create laws to change our status down to meet that of animals and enforce those laws...

Your use of the word "down" is misleading. Humans were never "above" other animals to begin with. The idea that humans are "above" animals is an anthropocentric idea which was invented by humans. Humans may have built cities and gone to the moon, but in the end humans are animals just like any other species -- humans are born, eat, sleep, reproduce and die just like every other animal species.

The reason why it is not ridiculous to grant non-human animals rights is because humans are clearly in a position of power right now -- they potentially have the power to wipe out entire species. Humans as a species have gone kind of out-of-control in the past 50 years, now with a population of 7 billion. If laws are not made to grant non-human animals rights, then humans will be free to abuse, kill, torture them etc. And has been proven, non-human animals have the same capability to feel pain and suffering that humans do. Laws granting non-human animals rights would ensure that people within human society would not abuse their power by killing and beating non-human animals.

The proposed goal of giving non-human animals rights would not be bringing humans "down" to the "level" of other animals (since humans were never "above" other animals to begin with); if anything, it would be bringing non-human animals "up" to the same level as humans. Calling humans animals does not mean people should disregard government; government just happens to be one of many characteristics of our species, just as beaver dams are a characteristic of beavers.
Logged

jsChicago

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

The way the laws are written right now, that is true -- animals are just viewed as property. But people are trying to change that, to create a new category called "living property" -- they are trying to rewrite the laws so that non-human animals are on the same level as humans, with the same rights as humans. And it has already somewhat been done in the form of animal cruelty laws -- a person who destroys a person's dog is far more likely to get in trouble than a person who destroys a person's pillow, because the pillow is a non-living thing and a dog is a sentient being just like a human. A lot of it has to do with whether the thing in question can feel pain and suffering, and so far courts across the country (with regard to animal cruelty cases) do agree that non-human animals like dogs are capable of pain and suffering just like humans.

Part of the desire to change the law is to make things less anthropocentric and to view humans as just another animal species -- this view has taken hold in the environmentalism movement, in which people say they are not the best things ever created and realize they are just one part of the planet. The notion that humans are superior to all other animals (and thus have more rights than animals) is known by some professionals as "speciesism" -- a bias in favor of one species over another. This may explain why laws (as they are written now) give humans more rights than animals and treat humans as being unequal to other animals.

I'm aware that there are nonsensical laws on the matter, and individuals who hold nonsensical opinions.

I was referring to actual reality.  Regardless of sentience, animals are not sapient and, therefore, are not persons, and have no rights.  Rights are an all-or-nothing proposition; you can't have "some rights."  People (of any species) each have the same rights as each other - no one has more or less.  Animals (of any species) have none whatsoever.  Species is irrelevant - show me an ape that has attained sapience, and I will assert that it is a person, and has all the same rights as any other person.

And, of course, those who have rights, also have the responsibility to respect the rights of others.  If a dog bites you, is he charged with assault?  If a bear kills you, is he a murderer?  If a dolphin splashes you, can you send him your dry-cleaning bill?
.... <snip>... It this sense, humans are selfish and speciesist because they give themselves more rights than other animals. .....


Ok, now you're just screwing with me, right? Because if I get sent to sensitivity training for being 'speciesist' the gloves are going to be on the ice.

Quote
<snip>  and treating non-human animals as being equal to humans (differences in brain structures and/or cognition would be disregarded).

You would have to disregard brain structure and cognition because humans and animals are most assuredly not equal.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Humans are granted any more rights than animals. Do you think a pack of wolves is debating what rights they should grant a human?
Logged

TJames

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 626

I was hoping I would be able to keep Pudú for meat in New Hampshire.
Logged

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

Yeah, this conversation veered into a ditch...

I'm sorry - I don't agree with the idea that animals are equal to humans, nor do I agree that humans are animals.

I will not agree to any kind of statist who wants to use governmental force to ensure that animals are treated the 'same' as humans in their 'rights'...

Good luck trying to bring this kind of message to the masses, I'm a very open person and glad to hear anyone's point of view... But liberty for people from governments is something I can work with and something I think will work well over time through education and reformation... Putting animals on equal ground with humans is something that will simply never work, in my humble opinion.

I do wish you the best of luck in that endeavour though.

I will say, if I ever wake up to the Planet of the Apes happening in real life, I'll know who to blame... ;-)
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044

Actually it is possible for an animal (whether that animal is a human or a non-human) to have some but not all rights. Since we live in a very anthropocentric society, humans have been granted more rights than any other animal (because humans are the ones granted themselves those rights). It this sense, humans are selfish and speciesist because they give themselves more rights than other animals.

Rights are not "granted."

There are several examples of how non-human animals do have some rights. A dolphin in the wild (in U.S. waters at least) has a right to not be killed because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A cat in Oregon has a right to not be killed because of that state's animal cruelty law. A seeing-eye dog has a right to go into a Walmart if the human he/she is with is blind. These are rights that were granted to non-human animals by humans.

You're listing legal privileges, not rights.  Slavery was legal; that doesn't mean anyone actually has a right to own slaves.  Basically, what you've listed, are cases in which a totalitarian government has granted some individuals the privilege of violently oppressing other individuals, without suffering consequences for those acts.  It wasn't just when it was done to keep slaves under the thumbs of their "masters," and it's not just when it's done to keep others under the thumbs of those who have some fetish for pretending that animals are people.

Also, the definition of "sapient" is having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.

"The" definition?  I don't think you understand how definitions work.  You might say, "the definition given by [source]," but there is no single definition for any word.

Regardless, dictionary definitions are not relevant to a technical discussion of consciousness.  If you don't even grasp that "sapience" has a particular meaning in that field, you really aren't competent to participate in such a discussion.

While it may be true that humans are the most intelligent animals (except perhaps for dolphins and gorillas), who's to say that intelligence is the #1 criteria by which to judge something?

Sapience is not intelligence.  Sapience is a complex property based upon reason.

Non-human animals are better than humans in many other ways; dolphins can echo-locate, sharks can sense bio-electric fields with their bodies, snakes can see in infrared -- these are all things humans cannot do (though humans have created technology which can do it for them).

Thanks for proving my point.  Animals use what evolution has given them, and interact with the world within those limitations.  Persons modify the world to suit their needs, because they can reason out complex plans for the future.

A pet dog and a pet cat have the same rights even though one might be more intelligent than the other.

Indeed.  Zero always equals zero.

Similarly, a human baby and a 5-year-old child have the same rights even though the baby is less intelligent than the 5-year-old.

Indeed.  One always equals one.

The new goal being proposed (in this century) is to treat non-human animals as "persons" (even if they cannot think in the same way humans can), and to give non-human animals the same rights that humans have. The rights in this case would mainly have to do with reduction of suffering, prevention of the premature death of animals, respect and/or compassion for animals, and treating non-human animals as being equal to humans (differences in brain structures and/or cognition would be disregarded).

If they have the same rights, they have the same responsibilities.  When's the bear going to stand trial for murder?  When's the dolphin going to pay the dry cleaning bill?

Humans were never "above" other animals to begin with. The idea that humans are "above" animals is an anthropocentric idea which was invented by humans. Humans may have built cities and gone to the moon, but in the end humans are animals just like any other species -- humans are born, eat, sleep, reproduce and die just like every other animal species.

Personhood has nothing to do with species.  A non-sapient member of homo sapiens is not a person.  A sapient rat, if such existed, would be a person.

The reason why it is not ridiculous to grant non-human animals rights is because humans are clearly in a position of power right now -- they potentially have the power to wipe out entire species.

The idea that rights can be "granted" is automatically ridiculous.  If they can be created and destroyed, they are not rights; they are privileges.

Humans as a species have gone kind of out-of-control in the past 50 years, now with a population of 7 billion.

Sounds like they've been successful.  Kudos to them.

If laws are not made to grant non-human animals rights, then humans will be free to abuse, kill, torture them etc.

And?  I can take a blow-torch to my truck, if I feel like it.  What's your point?

And has been proven, non-human animals have the same capability to feel pain and suffering that humans do.

Proven?  By whom?  Cite some sources.

And which ones, exactly?  If I step on ant, does it suffer agonies untold?  Is boiling a lobster a torture worthy of the Spanish Inquisition?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Actually it is possible for an animal (whether that animal is a human or a non-human) to have some but not all rights. Since we live in a very anthropocentric society, humans have been granted more rights than any other animal (because humans are the ones granted themselves those rights). It this sense, humans are selfish and speciesist because they give themselves more rights than other animals.

Rights are not "granted."

Actually, what you're saying is incorrect. Animals DO have rights, regardless of what the government says. A government can treat non-human animals as property, or they can treat them as beings on the same level as humans -- it doesn't matter. Regardless of the government's stance, non-human animals are intrinsically the same as humans and have the same rights as humans. This is true even if a government doesn't recognize it.

And the idea that non-human animals must have a responsibility (like your example "when's the bear going to stand trial for murder") doesn't make sense. Of course non-human animals aren't going to stand trial for murder -- but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. It is worth noting that the definition of murder is "a human who kills another human" -- thus, by that definition, it does not make sense to say a non-human animal committed a "murder", since that is something which can only be done by a person. And excluding non-human animals from that category does not automatically mean they are non equal to humans; it just means that within that legal framework, non-human animals aren't responsible.

Similarly, since money is an entirely human-centric concept, it doesn't make sense to apply it to a non-human animal. Just because a non-human animal can't use money the way humans do doesn't mean it is not in the same category as humans. It just means that there is a behavior humans engage in that non-human animals do not.

Quote from: MaineShark
Indeed.  One always equals one.

Your "one equals one" analogy is incorrect. Humans and other animal species are both equal to "one". The notion that non-human animals are "zero" and humans are "one" is a speciesist and anthropocentric concept.

Ultimately, there should be a small government with a large emphasis on the freedom and liberty of individuals, and the "individuals" whose rights are being protected should include humans as well as non-human animals (since humans are themselves animals). So for example, if a human has a right to live his/her entire lifespan, then a dog should be allowed to live his/her entire lifespan. Personal freedoms would exist for humans and non-human animals (simple personal freedoms like the right to not be killed, injured, etc) but that would be it.

Quote from: MainShark
and it's not just when it's done to keep others under the thumbs of those who have some fetish for pretending that animals are people.

Those people who are trying to establish that humans are equal to other animals don't have a "fetish" and aren't "pretending" that animals are people -- they are asserting the fact that humans are intrinsically equal to non-human animals. And the point here is to ensure that non-human animals are not being put "under the thumb" of humans.

While it is true that non-human animals are not humans, that is an anthropocentric point-of-view. One could also argue that cats are not dolphins, or that dogs are not pigs. Establishing what something is "not" is not the right way to establish what something is. A human and a non-human animal can still be considered part of the same category even if each of them has differences. After all, a dog and a squirrel have lots of differences, yet every day we lump them into the same "animal" category. So just because humans have characteristics which differ from other animals doesn't make them "above" or "separate" from other animals.

The source of "sapient" I got was from dictionary.com. If one were to use the "sapient" definition you provided ("sapience is a complex property based on reason"), one could argue that many animals like dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, pigs, elephants etc have "sapience" because they have the ability to reason -- the same ability to reason that humans have. Your argument that "sapience" only applies to humans is speciesist and anthropocentric, in the sense that it is a bias in favor of humans.

Quote from: MaineShark
Proven?  By whom?  Cite some sources.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone that most non-human animals have the ability to feel pain and suffering, but since you don't believe me here is a link:

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/pain.html
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/animals-feel-fear-and-pain
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

The animals which are most capable of feeling pain are not ants -- they are larger animals such as dogs, cats, lions, tigers, elephants, dolphins, apes, alligators, etc.

Quote from: MaineShark
The idea that rights can be "granted" is automatically ridiculous.  If they can be created and destroyed, they are not rights; they are privileges.

Non-human animals have always had the same rights as humans, but when the word "granted" is used, it is not referring to actual rights but to what humans will allow others to do. In your slavery example, the slaves always had rights, but in order for the legal framework of society to recognize those rights they had to be granted laws which protected them. The same is true for non-human animals: they have always had rights, but in order for society to recognize those rights, people must make laws to protect them, hence where the term "granted" comes in.


Quote from: MaineShark
Sounds like they've been successful.  Kudos to them.

Humans weren't just successful, they were lucky. Humans have opposable thumbs which allow them to modify their surroundings; this is something dolphins don't have, even though dolphins are just as intelligent (and possibly more intelligent). If humans didn't have opposable thumbs, humans may not have been able to to take control of the Earth. Ultimately humans (as an animal species) are an abnormality which has exploited the Earth.

Quote from: MaineShark
And?  I can take a blow-torch to my truck, if I feel like it.  What's your point?

My point is that a truck and an animal (such as a dog) are intrinsically different from each other. A dog has a nervous system and can feel pain, a truck cannot. A dog has intelligence and can modify its surroundings and reproduce, a truck cannot. A dog is a sentient living being with consciousness, a truck is not. The reason why a human is more important than a truck is the same reason why any other animal (like a dog) is more important than a truck.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 09:03:17 pm by ZR3 »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044

Actually, what you're saying is incorrect. Animals DO have rights, regardless of what the government says. A government can treat non-human animals as property, or they can treat them as beings on the same level as humans -- it doesn't matter. Regardless of the government's stance, non-human animals are intrinsically the same as humans and have the same rights as humans. This is true even if a government doesn't recognize it.

You're arguing against yourself.  You've claimed that animals have rights because those rights were granted by the government, and now you're claiming that they have rights intrinsically.  You cannot have it both ways.

And the idea that non-human animals must have a responsibility (like your example "when's the bear going to stand trial for murder") doesn't make sense. Of course non-human animals aren't going to stand trial for murder -- but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. It is worth noting that the definition of murder is "a human who kills another human" -- thus, by that definition, it does not make sense to say a non-human animal committed a "murder", since that is something which can only be done by a person. And excluding non-human animals from that category does not automatically mean they are non equal to humans; it just means that within that legal framework, non-human animals aren't responsible.

Claiming that some entity has rights (which protect it) and does not have the commensurate responsibility to respect the rights of others (which protects them) is to argue that the entity in question is superior to other entities.  So, now you're claiming that animals are superior to people.  Great.

Similarly, since money is an entirely human-centric concept, it doesn't make sense to apply it to a non-human animal. Just because a non-human animal can't use money the way humans do doesn't mean it is not in the same category as humans. It just means that there is a behavior humans engage in that non-human animals do not.

I have a right to flap my arms and fly.  My inability to do so is irrelevant to having the right to do so.

Quote from: MaineShark
Indeed.  One always equals one.
Your "one equals one" analogy is incorrect. Humans and other animal species are both equal to "one". The notion that non-human animals are "zero" and humans are "one" is a speciesist and anthropocentric concept.

A) Your conflation of my arguments regarding people with humans is ridiculously dishonest.  If your next reply contains the same nonsense, I'm likely just going to reply that I don't have discussions with folks who cannot speak honestly.

B) It's impossible to label my argument as "speciesist" or "anthropocentric."  As I've noted, if a rat attains sapience, I will immediately respect its rights, as I would the rights of any other person.  I don't care what species a person is.  Nor to I even think that all members of homo sapiens are people (there are simply such a large percentage of people among that species that I will give them the benefit of the doubt upon meeting them, because I prefer to err on the side of caution).

Those people who are trying to establish that humans are equal to other animals don't have a "fetish" and aren't "pretending" that animals are people -- they are asserting the fact that humans are intrinsically equal to non-human animals.

If that's a "fact," you should have no trouble proving it.  Go ahead...

While it is true that non-human animals are not humans
...
them "above" or "separate" from other animals.

As this is based upon your false representation of what I said, I don't think a reply makes sense.

If one were to use the "sapient" definition you provided ("sapience is a complex property based on reason"), one could argue that many animals like dolphins, apes, dogs, cats, pigs, elephants etc have "sapience" because they have the ability to reason -- the same ability to reason that humans have.

Except for the minor fact that they don't have sapience.  They are sentient - they can feel - but they are not sapient - they do not reason.

Your argument that "sapience" only applies to humans is speciesist and anthropocentric, in the sense that it is a bias in favor of humans.

I never made such an argument.  In fact, I quite clearly said that sapience is not limited by species.  But it does not automatically apply to any creature which you happen to desire to protect.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone that most non-human animals have the ability to feel pain and suffering, but since you don't believe me here is a link:

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/pain.html

A philosopher is not a source of proof on a question of biology.  His comments on that page indicate a lack of understanding of science, and his references are not valid scientific sources.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/animals-feel-fear-and-pain

Sourcing a propagandist like Singer makes this an immediate fail.  Let's try some science, next time, eh?

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

The animals which are most capable of feeling pain are not ants -- they are larger animals such as dogs, cats, lions, tigers, elephants, dolphins, apes, alligators, etc.

Oh, so now it's only some animals, not all animals?

Non-human animals have always had the same rights as humans, but when the word "granted" is used, it is not referring to actual rights but to what humans will allow others to do. In your slavery example, the slaves always had rights, but in order for the legal framework of society to recognize those rights they had to be granted laws which protected them. The same is true for non-human animals: they have always had rights, but in order for society to recognize those rights, people must make laws to protect them, hence where the term "granted" comes in.

Again, you're arguing against yourself.  You stated that animals have rights solely because the government granted them to those animals.  Now you're claiming that those rights were always inherent.  But from what source do those rights derive?  People have rights because they are sapient.  From whence do these supposed rights of non-sapient creatures appear?

Quote from: MaineShark
Sounds like they've been successful.  Kudos to them.
Humans weren't just successful, they were lucky. Humans have opposable thumbs which allow them to modify their surroundings; this is something dolphins don't have, even though dolphins are just as intelligent (and possibly more intelligent). If humans didn't have opposable thumbs, humans may not have been able to to take control of the Earth. Ultimately humans (as an animal species) are an abnormality which has exploited the Earth.

Arguing against yourself, yet again.  If human are just another animal species, they cannot "exploit the Earth," any more than any other animal species.  If you want to assign them some greater level of responsibility, then you are inherently admitting that they have a greater form of intellect, allowing a greater level of responsibility to be theirs.  If there's no inherent difference between people and animals, then people (who are primarily human) are just animals, doing their natural, animal thing, and their works are no more exploitative than a beaver dam or a termite mound.

You can't have it both ways.

My point is that a truck and an animal (such as a dog) are intrinsically different from each other. A dog has a nervous system and can feel pain, a truck cannot. A dog has intelligence and can modify its surroundings and reproduce, a truck cannot. A dog is a sentient living being with consciousness, a truck is not. The reason why a human is more important than a truck is the same reason why any other animal (like a dog) is more important than a truck.

You've identified differences between a truck and a dog.  Congratulations.

You know what?  There are some major, intrinsic differences between a truck and a tree.  Or between a truck and the desk at which I am sitting.  Or between a truck and a house.  Or between a truck and the computer on which I am typing this response.  Or between a truck and a woodstove.

If I program a computer to display, "ouch, that hurt" on its screen, every time you press the "G" key, does that mean it now has rights?
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

It is worth noting that the definition of murder is "a human who kills another human" -- thus, by that definition, it does not make sense to say a non-human animal committed a "murder", since that is something which can only be done by a person.

I think MaineShark was right, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what 'definition' means.
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

Ultimately, there should be a small government with a large emphasis on the freedom and liberty of individuals, and the "individuals" whose rights are being protected should include humans as well as non-human animals (since humans are themselves animals). So for example, if a human has a right to live his/her entire lifespan, then a dog should be allowed to live his/her entire lifespan. Personal freedoms would exist for humans and non-human animals (simple personal freedoms like the right to not be killed, injured, etc) but that would be it.

So, ultimately, you're a statist in wolf's clothing?
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization

crossonscout

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815

I think he's mixing up 'intelligence' with 'sapience' MaineShark...

Dolphins, elephants, dogs, etc. - yes, they are intelligent... They can choose a blue ball instead of a red one when commanded and prompted with treats/rewards, etc. - that is intelligence.

They cannot reason (sapience) that they shouldn't choose the red ball because it's their captor doing the commanding of it to them, they cannot use their reason to decide if they eat animal XXXX they're removing another animal's parent/brother/child and reason against such an act. They are animals that have a level of intelligence but they do not have the sapience and ability to reason that humans do.

A human looks at a log and sees in his mind the ability to use tools to transform that log into a spear, an animal looks at a log and sees a place to pee or knows that it should dodge said log if it falls from a tree... They cannot use reason to create something they dreamed / imagined the way humans can.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 11:25:48 pm by crossonscout »
Logged
"When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act." - Why The Gun is Civilization
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 10   Go Up