Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Cousin marriage banned in NH, marijuana banned in NH, some exotic pets banned NH  (Read 46927 times)

crossonscout

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

I don't mean to come off as aggressive, and I hope I don't seem that way...

I like to hear other peoples' viewpoints and debate the issues, I just have a very hard time with this line of belief that animals are equal to humans and that we must use human intelligence and reasoning to come to the logic that we need to protect animals' 'rights' using government force/coercion to the point where we would then deprive ourselves of our 'right' to life by depriving ourselves of the very food and nutrients that keep us alive... it makes no logical or rational sense to me, the entire premise. (Ourselves being, well you and me and every other human being out there intended to be persuaded by this line of thought)
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

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.
I was not arguing against myself -- I was saying that beings have intrinsic rights, and that governments do not always recognize those rights.

Shall we go back and re-read what you said?
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.

Yup, you most specifically said that you believe animals have rights because those rights were granted by the government.  No ambiguity there; that's exactly what you actually said.

No, I was arguing that humans and non-human animals are equals; the characteristics you want non-human animals to demonstrate are distinctly human characteristics (hence why it is anthropocentric). "The responsibility to respect the rights of others" is exactly what humans should abide by -- respecting rights of other humans AND non-human animals. Though non-human animals may not be aware of their rights, they still have them.

So, again, you want to set animals above humans.  It quickly becomes apparent that you don't love animals, so much as you hate humanity.

This makes no sense. If using money is analogous to flapping one's arms to fly, then why did you bring up money in the first place? (The thing about the dolphin doing dry cleaning)

I didn't say they were analogous.  You argued that different species do different things and, therefore, have different rights.  I refuted your claim by demonstrating that, even if what you said was true, it has no impact on the rights possessed by any entity that has rights.

What you said was, in fact, false: if a dolphin has rights, it has responsibilities, and it can pay me in fish.  A Communist may not use money, either, but if he damages my property, I will expect compensation in some form.

Firstly, stop calling what I'm saying "nonsense".

No.  If you are being dishonest, then what you are saying is nonsense.

Secondly, there was no conflation because "people" and "humans" are terms which can be used interchangeably.

A) No, they are not.  They have distinct definitions.  Buy a dictionary.
B) Regardless of that, I made it clear that I was using them in particular ways, so your repeated insistence on pretending that I was speaking of species rather than a property which may (theoretically) be possessed by any species, is grossly dishonest.  You cannot even claim a mistake, there, because I explicitly declared that was not what I meant.

If you are not anthropocentric and not speciesist, then you will acknowledge that non-human animals have the same basic rights that humans have -- the right to eat, the right to have adequate shelter, the right to live out one's life, etc; if this is your position, then you will also acknowledge that humans are equal to other animals.

You really need to learn a bit about logic.  Those who are obsessed with species are probably speciesist, just like those who are obsessed with race are probably speciesist.  I don't see race, and I don't see species - a person of any species is a person.  A non-person of any species is a non-person.  That is the only position which is not "speciesist."

Your belief that what rights some entity has are based upon its species is a blatantly-speciesist position.  Show me a sapient rat, and I will calmly state that it is a person, and has the same rights as myself or any other person.  You, on the other hand, will go off on your "separate but equal" rant and try to institute Jim Crow laws to set up two separate classes of people.  Would you insist that rats go to different schools, drink from separate water fountains, ride at the back of the bus?


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...
I'm going to use the same source LoveAndPeace used:

http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/animals/mammals/are-humans-considered-animals[/quote]

"Discovery Kids" is not a valid source.  I think there's a good chance that LoveAndPeace was actually joking when he posted that.

Actually, they do have sapience, if one's definition of sapience is the ability to reason. The ability to reason is what enables animals in the wild to find food and it is what enables dolphins to socialize with one another.

No, intelligence and instinct do those things, not reason.  Deep Blue beat Kasparov; if the machine could out-think a human then, by your standards, it must be a person with rights, and when IBM dismantled it, they committed murder, eh?  Automated vehicles have gotten to the point that they drive better than many humans.

Animals are able to find food because they are programmed to find food.  Even possession of complex programming, is not the same as having reason.

Earlier, you said "except for the minor fact that they don't have sapience" (referring to non-human animals). But here, you're saying that sapience is not limited by species, which contradicts your previous statement. Perhaps you mean that some animals (such as humans, dogs, dolphins etc) should have rights and some should not.

I've explained this many times.  I presume you are just being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest.  Any sapient creature, no matter what species, is a person.  Any non-sapient creature, no matter what species, is an animal.

If you find me a dog or dolphin which has attained sapience, I will happily accept it as a person, and defend it against anyone who asserts that it is a mere animal.  "Humanity" is irrelevant to personhood.  A sapient is a person; a non-sapient is an animal.

Actually, philosophers are perfectly good proof. Who's to say that a scientist is more qualified to determine something than a philosopher? Science itself is founded on philosophical principles. The scientific method is one such philosophy.

The "scientific method" is a method, not a philosophy.  It's not even the only method by which science can be performed.  The defining attribute of science is falsifiability.  The statement, "gravity pulls objects at sea level on Earth towards the center of mass of the planet with a force equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration 9.8 meters per second per second" is a falsifiable statement: all you need to do is find an object or location where that does not hold true, and demonstrate that discrepancy.  A falsifiable statement is a statement which could be proven wrong.  The scientific method is one well-thought-out way of identifying falsifiable statements, and testing them.  But I could just rattle off a falsifiable statement, test it by whatever method I like, and publish the results.

Philosophical statements, not backed by science, are not falsifiable.  "Animals have rights, because I say so" is no more valid than "animals have no rights, because I say so."  There's no way to test which is true, because neither admits the possibility that there is any way it could be false.

Pain and suffering can be discussed by philosophers because they are metaphysical properties.

Pain is psychological, not metaphysical.  I think you need to pick up a text on metaphysics.
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..

MaineShark

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

If I wanted to discuss whether an animal has a specific genetic defect or whether an animal can contract a virus, I would seek a scientist for that question. But these are philosophical issues we discussing, so philosophical positions cannot just be ruled out "because they're not science". So long as something is logical and rational, it should be considered.

A non-falsifiable position is neither logical or rational.

Peter Singer is not a propagandist, he is an accredited professor and author of the book "Animal Liberation", a book which helped start that particular movement. The notion that Singer is an "immediate fail" is your opinion, because you don't think he's legitimate. But I and a lot of other people thing he's legitimate; Princeton also thinks he's legitimate.

He's not legitimate, because he's a propagandist.  He presents his opinions as fact, which means he is not a valid source.  While I'm not religious, I could still decide to source "God" as the author of "the Bible," which says that humans are superior to every other creature, and mention that "Jews, Christians, and Muslims also thing He's legitimate," and that would (apparently) be an instant win, by your standards.

Sorry, but ex cathedra assertions are not valid in any debate.

Not all Wikipedia articles are "invalid". Some are, some aren't. The one I linked to ("Pain in animals") has 50 citations to 50 different references.

If you believe some of those references are valid, then cite them.  Wikipedia is not a valid source.

It should be fairly obvious that a dolphin is more likely to feel pain and suffering than an ant, simply because of the fact that dolphins have a more sophisticated nervous system and anatomy. At the very least, the degree to which they are capable of feeling pain and suffering is greater. Still, because all animals are equal, one should never intentionally try to kill an ant in the same way one should never try to intentionally kill a dolphin.

"Because all animals are equal" is not a valid way to prove that "all animals are equal."  You are attempting to prove your point by simply asserting it.  Since you enjoy Wikipedia, please read this article before continuing.

Giving one's priority to thousands of animals (which may or may not be inclusive of insects) is better than a position which only considers human values.

Now you're saying that insects may not be included?  What other animals are you going to arbitrarily exclude?  I think we need an actual list, before we can move forward.

What I was saying is that animals (whether those animals are human or non-human) have inherent, intrinsic rights, but those rights are not always recognized by a given government. That is where the word "grant" comes in -- when a government decides it wants to recognize a right (like women's right to vote), it will "grant" that "right", even though women always had the right to vote in the first place.

I) as demonstrated above, that's not what you said - you specifically said that rights were created by particular laws.
II) voting is not a right; it is a privilege.
III) if voting were a right, then your assertion regarding animal rights either means that:
IIIa - animals have the right to vote, or
IIIb - animals do not have the same rights as humans, in which case one could just as validly assert that women don't actually have the same rights as men.

I wasn't having it "both ways". I was saying that despite the fact that humans have done some pretty bizarre things to the Earth, they are still animals. That is not a contradiction.

If they are animals, then everything they do is merely a part of nature.

If humans do in fact have more responsibility than other animals, then it should be their responsibility to protect the rights of humans AND non-human animals and to treat non-human animals as being equal to humans.

Rights and responsibilities are inherently-linked.  You cannot argue that humans have more responsibility, without simultaneously making the speciesist argument that humans have more rights.

I would agree with you on the beaver dam/termite mound argument, except for the fact that beaver dams and termite mounds are exponentially smaller than what humans have done.

Oh, so now it's size that defines it?  What's the exact cut-off?  Is it the volume of an animal's works which makes then "un-natural," or is it measured in mass?

It can be argued that a beaver dam is similar to a skyscraper because they are both animal habitats. However, beavers have not dominated the Earth the way humans have. All this means is that humans are an animal which has gone abnormally out-of-control. It does not make humans at a higher "level" than beavers (even if human intellect allows them to see things more clearly).

How can their actions be "abnormally out-of-control," if they are part of nature?  That makes no sense.  If they are mere animals, then their actions are just what evolution has made them, and are no more "abnormal" than the acts of any other animal.

Quote from: MaineShark
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?
No, a computer would not have rights if it said "ouch that hurt" because the kind of computer people use in everyday life is not a living, sentient, conscious, self-aware being.

Prove it.  I assert that computers are more complex than many other living creatures, and they are self-aware, sentient, alive, and feel pain.  I know that because every time I press the "G" key on my computer, it displays, "ouch, that hurt" on its screen.  Shutting a computer down and replacing a component is the equivalent of performing vivisection on an animal, or a sociopath drugging someone's drink and then maiming them while they are unconscious.  If you argue that such things cannot apply because computers are silicon-based, then you are just a carbonist displaying your neurocentric biases against other forms of processing.
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..

MaineShark

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

Also, the slaughtering of animals is unjustifiable because the pain and suffering it causes to the animals in unnecessary...

I can flat-out guarantee you that, when I slaughter a rabbit, it feels no "pain and suffering."  A quick strike to the back of the skull separates the brain stem.  The level of trauma to the brain induces an instant comatose state and, even if you believe that pain still matters while unconscious, it has also separated the brain-body connection, so no pain can possibly be felt (the brain, itself, is incapable of feeling pain, which is fortunate since so many forms of neurosurgery require the patient to be conscious).  Nerve propagation is quite slow, and even the closest nerves cannot possibly transmit any pain signal to the brain in the few milliseconds between initial impact and full separation.

And that is why science is important.  It allows us to know things, rather than just making arbitrary assertions with no basis in reality.
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..

MaineShark

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

No - you're incorrect in your knowledge of Libertarianism versus libertarianism. You believe in government (statism) therefore you'd be considered a Libertarian, at best, with the things you've stated here.

A big L Libertarian believes in government (minimal though it may be).

A small L libertarian believes in no government (essentially anarchy without the bad notions).

Essentially, us small L libertarians (best described as Rothbardians, inspired by the libertarian manifesto written by Murray Rothbard) believe in Non-Aggression Principle and the right to self ownership.

Actually, he's neither.  A "big L" Libertarian doesn't just believe in small government - a "big L" Libertarian is a member of the LP.  Last I checked, the LP did not have "animal rights" as part of its platform, so he cannot be that.

The NAP specifically applies only to persons.  His argument that animals have rights but not responsibilities means that this cannot simply be a case of definitional confusion; libertarian morality specifies that rights and responsibilities are inherently linked (that's what the NAP says - that everyone must respect your rights, unless you violate the rights of another, in which case you have failed in your responsibility to respect their rights, and are subject to defensive force).  Further, the NAP is based upon the principle of self-ownership, and self-ownership cannot support any notion of rights other than "all or nothing," because there is only one right under self-ownership (ie, the princple, itself).  You either own yourself, and therefore have all the rights of any other person, or you do not own yourself, and therefore have no rights whatsoever.

Both "big L" and "small l" libertarians believe in the NAP (libertarians just take it to its logical conclusion, whereas Libertarians believe that it will fail at some point before getting there).  So, he cannot possibly be either, since his position is contrary to the LP's platform, and libertarianism does not accept the ridiculous notion that rights may separated from responsibilities, nor that rights may be acquired piecemeal.
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..

Eric Freerock

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Moving Summer 2013

You're free to believe whatever you want but as it goes it's called a food chain.  Animals eat other animals to survive.  That is how life works.  Are you going to punish lions for hunting zebra?  Or what about a komodo dragon for hunting a water buffalo?  Komodo dragon kills are brutal and can take days of suffering until its prey dies.  Just because we have the ability to decide what to kill or not for food doesn't negate millions of years of evolution. 

I don't eat kosher meats for the sole reason of the torturous process on which the animal must be killed but that's a market decision that I make.  If other people are content with eating kosher slaughtered meat I can't stop them since I can only choose for myself.  You can convince people to not eat meat, you can't force them.

crossonscout

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

No - you're incorrect in your knowledge of Libertarianism versus libertarianism. You believe in government (statism) therefore you'd be considered a Libertarian, at best, with the things you've stated here.

A big L Libertarian believes in government (minimal though it may be).

A small L libertarian believes in no government (essentially anarchy without the bad notions).

Essentially, us small L libertarians (best described as Rothbardians, inspired by the libertarian manifesto written by Murray Rothbard) believe in Non-Aggression Principle and the right to self ownership.

Actually, he's neither.  A "big L" Libertarian doesn't just believe in small government - a "big L" Libertarian is a member of the LP.  Last I checked, the LP did not have "animal rights" as part of its platform, so he cannot be that.

The NAP specifically applies only to persons.  His argument that animals have rights but not responsibilities means that this cannot simply be a case of definitional confusion; libertarian morality specifies that rights and responsibilities are inherently linked (that's what the NAP says - that everyone must respect your rights, unless you violate the rights of another, in which case you have failed in your responsibility to respect their rights, and are subject to defensive force).  Further, the NAP is based upon the principle of self-ownership, and self-ownership cannot support any notion of rights other than "all or nothing," because there is only one right under self-ownership (ie, the princple, itself).  You either own yourself, and therefore have all the rights of any other person, or you do not own yourself, and therefore have no rights whatsoever.

Both "big L" and "small l" libertarians believe in the NAP (libertarians just take it to its logical conclusion, whereas Libertarians believe that it will fail at some point before getting there).  So, he cannot possibly be either, since his position is contrary to the LP's platform, and libertarianism does not accept the ridiculous notion that rights may separated from responsibilities, nor that rights may be acquired piecemeal.

There ya go, you explained it better than I could.

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

You're free to believe whatever you want but as it goes it's called a food chain.  Animals eat other animals to survive.  That is how life works.  Are you going to punish lions for hunting zebra?  Or what about a komodo dragon for hunting a water buffalo?  Komodo dragon kills are brutal and can take days of suffering until its prey dies.  Just because we have the ability to decide what to kill or not for food doesn't negate millions of years of evolution.  

I don't eat kosher meats for the sole reason of the torturous process on which the animal must be killed but that's a market decision that I make.  If other people are content with eating kosher slaughtered meat I can't stop them since I can only choose for myself.  You can convince people to not eat meat, you can't force them.

Exactly. This is precisely why I have such a difficult time with the conversation here... I feel like his (or hers) feeling that animals are equal to humans is an opinion or spiritual type of belief of his (or hers) that can be forced onto others through government coercion / aggression... And then that brings up the discussion - why claim to be a libertarian (or Libertarian) if your beliefs clearly violate the very principles you say you espouse?

Seems to me this is more of an animalist type of belief system, claiming to wear libertarian clothes/costume and trying to use libertarianism to reason the belief that animals are equal to human beings and need equal treatment "under the law" ...
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:19:39 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

John Edward Mercier

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

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?

If that action involves depriving another living being of its right to live, then yes I would not approve of it. I might approve of catch-and-release fishing though, so long as no significant pain and/or suffering were inflicted on the animal.

But hunting and killing a deer is clearly (and more importantly, intentionally) depriving a deer of its right to live -- and it is an unnecessary action. A person does not need to hunt a deer to survive.

People shouldn't kill deer in the same way that people shouldn't kill other people. All animal life is valuable, regardless of whether that animal is a human or a non-human.
So what do you do when the deer begins eating all of your fruits and veggies?
Logged

crossonscout

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

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?

If that action involves depriving another living being of its right to live, then yes I would not approve of it. I might approve of catch-and-release fishing though, so long as no significant pain and/or suffering were inflicted on the animal.

But hunting and killing a deer is clearly (and more importantly, intentionally) depriving a deer of its right to live -- and it is an unnecessary action. A person does not need to hunt a deer to survive.

People shouldn't kill deer in the same way that people shouldn't kill other people. All animal life is valuable, regardless of whether that animal is a human or a non-human.
So what do you do when the deer begins eating all of your fruits and veggies?

Touche' John... wish I had thought of asking this question...
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

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

So you think there should literally be no rules whatsoever?

You can say whatever you want to say, but I'm still a libertarian.

Okay, how about this...

Do you believe in my right to shoot, kill, clean and eat a deer?

If that action involves depriving another living being of its right to live, then yes I would not approve of it. I might approve of catch-and-release fishing though, so long as no significant pain and/or suffering were inflicted on the animal.

But hunting and killing a deer is clearly (and more importantly, intentionally) depriving a deer of its right to live -- and it is an unnecessary action. A person does not need to hunt a deer to survive.

People shouldn't kill deer in the same way that people shouldn't kill other people. All animal life is valuable, regardless of whether that animal is a human or a non-human.

Then you're not a libertarian. If you don't believe in my right to my own life, my life being contingent upon eating the necessary proteins in that deer to sustain myself.

You also clearly don't believe in my right to choose if I want to eat deer or vegetables. You want to force me, by government coercion, into your lifestyle choices of NOT eating meat. That is clearly a violation of both of the very foundations of libertarian principles, regardless if it's big L or little L.

I don't understand how you can purport to be a libertarian and argue for the things you're arguing for.

I could make the argument, I know you likely don't believe this, but I could make the argument that plants are living and sapient and therefore it's just as immoral to kill (eat) plants as it is to kill (eat) non-human animals...

At this point, you're making it impossible for a human being to sustain its own life (including yourself), so your entire argument is fundamentally flawed.

You are not correct. Prohibiting people from kill deer is the same as prohibiting people from killing other people -- it is not an infringement on a person's rights because it is protecting life. Plants don't count because they don't have a nervous system.

Quote from: MaineShark

Yup, you most specifically said that you believe animals have rights because those rights were granted by the government.  No ambiguity there; that's exactly what you actually said.

No, I have the position that rights are inherent, regardless of whether a government "enables" those rights to their fullest potential.

Quote from: MaineShark

So, again, you want to set animals above humans.  It quickly becomes apparent that you don't love animals, so much as you hate humanity.

Once again, you are falsifying my positions. My view is that humans and non-human animals are equal -- even the thing I said which you quoted said: "[humans should] respect rights of other humans AND non-human animals".

Quote from: MaineShark

What you said was, in fact, false: if a dolphin has rights, it has responsibilities, and it can pay me in fish.

As I said before, you cannot take that position because it doesn't make sense (using money is an anthropocentric concept which does not apply to dolphins). In other words, just because one is ascribing rights to dolphins doesn't mean one should "expect" them to use "money" the way humans do.

Quote from: MaineShark

No.  If you are being dishonest, then what you are saying is nonsense.

As I already said, what I was saying was not dishonest, therefore it was not "nonsense".

Quote from: MaineShark

No, they are not.  They have distinct definitions.  Buy a dictionary.

Dictionary.com definition of "person": "a human being, whether man, woman, or child"
Dictionary.com definition of "human": "Of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people"

The first definitions of each word are interchangeable. You may have been referring to the 4th definition of "person" which is: a self-conscious or rational being.

Quote from: MaineShark

You cannot even claim a mistake, there, because I explicitly declared that was not what I meant.

Still have no idea what you mean. You said "one is equal to one", I'm just going to leave it at that.

Quote from: MaineShark

Those who are obsessed with species are probably speciesist, just like those who are obsessed with race are probably speciesist.  I don't see race, and I don't see species - a person of any species is a person.

If you don't see species (and are "species-blind" / anti-specieist), you shouldn't have a problem accepting the notion that humans are equal to non-human animals and have the same basic rights.

Quote from: MaineShark
Your belief that what rights some entity has are based upon its species is a blatantly-speciesist position.  Show me a sapient rat, and I will calmly state that it is a person, and has the same rights as myself or any other person.

You keep bringing up this "sapient rat" issue, even though rats are capable of sapience. Even if you argue that rats are not sapient, that still doesn't mean rats aren't entitled to rights. A lack of sapience does not equal "no rights at all".

Quote from: MaineShark

You, on the other hand, will go off on your "separate but equal" rant and try to institute Jim Crow laws to set up two separate classes of people.  Would you insist that rats go to different schools, drink from separate water fountains, ride at the back of the bus?

Now you're just inventing things about me -- I never said I supported a "separate but equal" position on anything. "Separate" is not part of the equation.

Quote from: MaineShark

"Discovery Kids" is not a valid source

OK, here is another source:

www.positivelypositive.com/2012/09/06/scientists-declare-animals-are-as-conscious-as-humans-and-the-pictures-to-prove-it/
http://jefferson.library.millersville.edu/reserve/PHIL345_Ward_Evolution1.pdf

The 2nd source above says "humans are animals" on p. 314. I don't know why I need to supply sources for something which is so obvious.

Quote from: MaineShark

No, intelligence and instinct do those things, not reason.  Deep Blue beat Kasparov; if the machine could out-think a human then, by your standards, it must be a person with rights, and when IBM dismantled it, they committed murder, eh?  Automated vehicles have gotten to the point that they drive better than many humans.

You are totally ignoring the fact that computers and vehicles don't have consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, or an ability to feel pain.

Quote from: MaineShark

I've explained this many times.  I presume you are just being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest

I was not being "dishonest"

Quote from: MaineShark

Any sapient creature, no matter what species, is a person.  Any non-sapient creature, no matter what species, is an animal.

Since you asked me to provide sources, why don't you provide sources for your above statement? I disagree that "sapience" is the end-all-be-all of whether something is a "person" or an "animal". You're forgetting the fact that it is possible for a non-human animal to be a "person" (using the 4th definition of person).

Quote from: MaineShark

The "scientific method" is a method, not a philosophy.

Dictionary.com definition of "scientific method": "method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."

Dictionary.com definition of "hypothesis": "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis)  or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Dictionary.com definition of "proposition": "the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done. "

These are all definitions that are related to philosophy.

Quote from: MaineShark

Philosophical statements, not backed by science, are not falsifiable.  "Animals have rights, because I say so" is no more valid than "animals have no rights, because I say so."  There's no way to test which is true, because neither admits the possibility that there is any way it could be false.

That's not true: philosophical arguments can be proven or disproved based on whether their logic is sound or unsound. Through deductive reasoning, one can figure out whether an argument has any "holes" in it. An argument is not merely an "opinion" as you claim.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 06:54:27 pm by ZR3 »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest

Then you're not a libertarian. If you don't believe in my right to my own life, my life being contingent upon eating the necessary proteins in that deer to sustain myself.

There are multiple definitions of what it means to be libertarian. The most common definition, IMO, is the World's Smallest Political Quiz definition. That definition is anyone who takes the Quiz and falls in the libertarian section of the diamond, 1/5 of the diamond.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: MaineShark

Pain is psychological, not metaphysical.  I think you need to pick up a text on metaphysics.

Dictionary.com definition of "metaphysics": "the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology."
Dictionary.com definition of "ontology": "the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such"
World English Dictionary definition of "epistemology": "the theory of knowledge, esp the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope"

While pain itself (as a biological function) is not directly "metaphysical", it causes properties (such as suffering) which are within the realm of the above definitions.

Quote from: MaineShark
A non-falsifiable position is neither logical or rational.

You're forgetting the fact that philosophical arguments can be proved or disproved with proofs.

Quote from: MaineShark
He's not legitimate, because he's a propagandist.  He presents his opinions as fact, which means he is not a valid source.  While I'm not religious, I could still decide to source "God" as the author of "the Bible," which says that humans are superior to every other creature, and mention that "Jews, Christians, and Muslims also thing He's legitimate," and that would (apparently) be an instant win, by your standards.

Not true. Unlike religion, Peter Singer uses valid arguments based on rational philosophical principles -- this is something that religion does not do. Religion only does things based on faith, not rationality. Peter singer is legitimate because he's not a propagandist.

Quote from: MaineShark

Sorry, but ex cathedra assertions are not valid in any debate.

Well then I don't know what will satisfy you. If no authority can persuade you that something is true, how can you believe that something is true? If I say that a scientific report from [fill-in-the-blank university] says something, are you going to refute it just because it came from a university?

Quote from: MaineShark

If you believe some of those references are valid, then cite them.  Wikipedia is not a valid source.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. All you have to do is go to that article and look at the sources. And Wikipedia as a whole cannot be automatically discredited. Only certain parts of it can be discredited.

Quote from: MaineShark
"Because all animals are equal" is not a valid way to prove that "all animals are equal."  You are attempting to prove your point by simply asserting it.  Since you enjoy Wikipedia, please read this article before continuing.

I don't need to read your list of "logical fallacies" because I know that what I said was not a logical fallacy. Again, you are falsifying what I said. I said that "because all animals are equal, one shouldn't intentionally try to kill [an animal such as] an ant [or a] dolphin". I did not say "because all animal are equal, all animals are equal".

Quote from: MaineShark
Now you're saying that insects may not be included?  What other animals are you going to arbitrarily exclude?  I think we need an actual list, before we can move forward.

Now you're just splitting hairs. I'm not going to create a comprehensive list because the lower "edge" of what one considers "sentient" is a blur. There is no definitive point at which an animal ceases to have sentience/consciousness. Therefore, the animals which should be included are the vast majority of animals that we know are capable of pain, suffering, consciousness etc like dolphins, dogs, elephants etc. You're missing the point: being inclusive of 1000+ species (in terms of rights) is better than a position which is inclusive of only one species (humans) having rights.

Quote from: MaineShark

Voting is not a right; it is a privilege.

Voting is a right with regard to humans -- it is another human peculiarity like money.

Quote from: MaineShark

If they are animals, then everything they do is merely a part of nature.

Yes, but their abnormalities (like altering the climate of the Earth) deserve scrutiny, since no single species has even been this out-of-control.

Quote from: MaineShark

Rights and responsibilities are inherently-linked.  You cannot argue that humans have more responsibility, without simultaneously making the speciesist argument that humans have more rights.

Not true. If a human or non-human animal is not aware of the concept of "responsibilities", then that doesn't mean that entity has no rights. A dolphin has a right to live, regardless of whether it is aware of the concept of "responsibilities".

I also want to point out that I am anti-speciesist, which means inclusiveness of multiple species (and not putting one on a "pedestal" above others). I never said that humans have more rights than non-human animals.

Quote from: MaineShark
Oh, so now it's size that defines it?  What's the exact cut-off?  Is it the volume of an animal's works which makes then "un-natural," or is it measured in mass?

Once again you are splitting hairs and missing the point. There is no "cut-off" -- everything is natural, from beaver dams to space shuttles. What I'm saying is that humans as a species have been far more detrimental to the environment than beavers.

Quote from: MaineShark
How can their actions be "abnormally out-of-control," if they are part of nature?  That makes no sense.  If they are mere animals, then their actions are just what evolution has made them, and are no more "abnormal" than the acts of any other animal.

Actually, it does make sense. Just because humans are "mere" animals (as you put it) doesn't mean they cannot perform abnormal actions. The fact that there are 7 billion humans and only about 10,000 African elephants in the wild is proof that even though both underwent evolution, humans (because of their opposable thumbs) were able to take advantage of and exploit their environment. Humans are essentially an "evolutionary fluke".

Quote from: MaineShark

Prove it. I assert that computers are more complex than many other living creatures, and they are self-aware, sentient, alive, and feel pain.

You have the burden of proving it because you're the one making the claim. The computer argument is a red herring.
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35

Quote from: MaineShark
I can flat-out guarantee you that, when I slaughter a rabbit, it feels no "pain and suffering.

Even if a rabbit doesn't feel any pain and suffering when you kill it, does that make it morally OK? In my opinion, it is unethical to kill a rabbit regardless of whether it can feel pain and suffering. Pain and suffering are simply elements which have the potential to manifest themselves in such situations. Even if a rabbit is killed with no pain or suffering, the fact that it was killed in the first place is ITSELF unethical. If a person maliciously kills another person and the person who was killed didn't feel any pain or suffering while he was killed, the act ITSELF is still unethical. In the event that an animal is killed (either human or non-human) and that animal doesn't feel any pain or suffering, the fact that the animal was killed in the first place is unethical (because the being was deprived of his/her life).

Quote from: MaineShark

That's what the NAP says - that everyone must respect your rights, unless you violate the rights of another, in which case you have failed in your responsibility to respect their rights

Killing an animal like a deer or a rabbit IS "violating the rights of another". By killing the deer or rabbit, the human has violated his/her responsibility to respect the life of the rabbit or deer.

Quote from: Eric Freerock

You're free to believe whatever you want but as it goes it's called a food chain.  Animals eat other animals to survive.  That is how life works.  Are you going to punish lions for hunting zebra?  Or what about a komodo dragon for hunting a water buffalo?  Komodo dragon kills are brutal and can take days of suffering until its prey dies.  Just because we have the ability to decide what to kill or not for food doesn't negate millions of years of evolution.

This is true except for the fact that humans now (potentially) have the ability to control what their genetic future will be. Though humans are intrinsically equal to komodo dragons (and thus the lives of the human AND komodo dragon should be protected), humans have a knowledge that komodo dragons lack. This knowledge that humans have enable them to decide whether something is ethical or unethical. When humans come to the conclusion that killing a non-human animal is unethical (which it is), they can then decide not to do it -- because komodo dragons lack this ability, one cannot argue that humans can kill whatever they want because they are doing what lions do.

In this sense, humans are punishable because they have that knowledge of ethics, but lions are NOT punishable because they do NOT have that knowledge of ethics.

Quote from: crossonscout

Why claim to be a libertarian (or Libertarian) if your beliefs clearly violate the very principles you say you espouse?

I believe in many of the things libertarians believe in: low or no taxes, legalization of gay marriage, legalization of cousin marriage, legalization of marijuana, legalization of prostitution, one's right to self-defense, little or no government interference, etc. But in order for things to not turn into total anarchy, there need to be a few basic rules -- and one of those basic rules is to prohibit life from being destroyed (whether that life is human or non-human). I guess I am not a "pure" libertarian, but I am mostly libertarian.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier

So what do you do when the deer begins eating all of your fruits and veggies?

Figure out a way to stop the deer from eating them, or find food at a different location.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 07:10:24 pm by ZR3 »
Logged

ZR3

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35


There are multiple definitions of what it means to be libertarian. The most common definition, IMO, is the World's Smallest Political Quiz definition. That definition is anyone who takes the Quiz and falls in the libertarian section of the diamond, 1/5 of the diamond.

Thank you for acknowledging the fact that libertarianism encompasses multiple perspectives and does not follow a single rigid view. I took one of those online quizzes and I was in the libertarian part of it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Up