pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
btw... in the choices you gave in your poll you mention protection.. protection and rights are two separate things.
Animal rights?
- Thread starter ndrs
- Start date
I think it's a matter of consciousness... apes, chimps and dolphins are all highly intelligent, they even have the capacity for language. Chimps at least have the ability to plan ahead, once thought a uniquely human gift. The higher the state of consciousness, that is compared to us since we are the only available benchmark... the higher the ethical violation of hurting the animal? Just trying this out. Hehe, not like there aren't a lot of humans who don't mind hurting other humans.
The food chain however, is the food chain. I am accustomed to eating pigs and cows and well, I've got enough shit I'm supposed to change about me, cows and pigs must die to feed me. *shrug*
I'll openly admit that I don't kill them myself nor would I. I can't stand the idea of killing stuff. I do realize though, that it will be done and frankly... I like to eat meat... a lot. I hate the murder, but love the food.
Welcome to life.
The food chain however, is the food chain. I am accustomed to eating pigs and cows and well, I've got enough shit I'm supposed to change about me, cows and pigs must die to feed me. *shrug*
I'll openly admit that I don't kill them myself nor would I. I can't stand the idea of killing stuff. I do realize though, that it will be done and frankly... I like to eat meat... a lot. I hate the murder, but love the food.
Welcome to life.
I think most people seem to be against hurting of any animal irrespectable of intelligence.
Soon, we will be protecting insects as well?
It's bound to degenerate into something incredibly stupid..
I think I would directly link this to people valuing something as "good", not knowing why, not requiring reason, just "faith"... Example:
James:
There is a reason why morals are like that. Morals are supposed to brainwash people not to commit crime, be good to each other. (This helps everyone to survive and helped the king to contain order) Animal compassion is just a perverted leftover by people who haven't got a clue...
Morals have always been there to control the masses. Now that in democracy masses have the control, these morals gained some kind of independent existance. Compassion is good without a reason, helping each other is nearly a requirement for you to be a social person. The reason why I chose the topic, is because it displays this objective existance of morals, maybe better than anything else, and it's most perverted side.
ndrs:
<i>Morals are supposed to brainwash people not to commit crime, be good to each other.</i>
You're confusing morals with morality tales or moral injunctions like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everybody has their own moral sense, regardless of what they are told is right and wrong. On top of that comes what they pick up from authority figures, which they can either accept or question. The point is: everybody has some kind of morals regardless of any "brainwashing".
<i>Animal compassion is just a perverted leftover by people who haven't got a clue...</i>
Leftover from what?
Why is compassion for animals <b>increasing</b> rather than decreasing, if it is an outdated concept?
<i>Morals have always been there to control the masses.</i>
No, it is social expectations which are attempts to control the masses. Morals are out there for individuals to accept or reject.
<i>Compassion is good without a reason, helping each other is nearly a requirement for you to be a social person.</i>
Why is compassion good without a reason?
I think you're a little mixed up about moral issues.
<i>Morals are supposed to brainwash people not to commit crime, be good to each other.</i>
You're confusing morals with morality tales or moral injunctions like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everybody has their own moral sense, regardless of what they are told is right and wrong. On top of that comes what they pick up from authority figures, which they can either accept or question. The point is: everybody has some kind of morals regardless of any "brainwashing".
<i>Animal compassion is just a perverted leftover by people who haven't got a clue...</i>
Leftover from what?
Why is compassion for animals <b>increasing</b> rather than decreasing, if it is an outdated concept?
<i>Morals have always been there to control the masses.</i>
No, it is social expectations which are attempts to control the masses. Morals are out there for individuals to accept or reject.
<i>Compassion is good without a reason, helping each other is nearly a requirement for you to be a social person.</i>
Why is compassion good without a reason?
I think you're a little mixed up about moral issues.
I am talking about the morals that are accepted by majority of people. Since it is those morals that are relevant in relation to animal rights, as in most law cases.
It is a leftover from compassion for other humans - the only suffering that innately matters to us is our own. But by caring of others suffering, we help each other. Animal rights is just a leftover from this and has no real value to us (human race).
Because compassion is increasing for other humans, and compassion for animals is linked to it. I didn't say outdated (I should have used 'side-effect' rather than 'leftover').
Most people out there are not individuals. They accept whatever values their buddies and/or family have. Thus we have general western morals, which are affirmed by the media.
I was meaning to say, most people don't look at the reason why compassion exists. They take it for granted. So it is good enough for them to accept it without questioning.
Oh.. I have moral issues?
My expression powers are a bit limited whit this bottle of wine!
ndrs:
<i>the only suffering that innately matters to us is our own. But by caring of others suffering, we help each other.</i>
Would you help an old lady cross the street? Why? Her suffering surely is irrelevant to you, and you'll get nothing out of helping her.
Do you think it is good to send food aid to famine-stricken countries? Why? Surely their suffering means nothing to you, and you will never get anything back from them if you help.
<i>Animal rights is just a leftover from this and has no real value to us (human race).</i>
Do you have any pets? Are they valueless to you? Do you care if they get run over, or set on fire? Why?
Let's look at the bigger picture. Do you care if tigers become extinct? Or pandas? Or polar bears? There's no value in having those animals around, is there? Or is there?
<i>the only suffering that innately matters to us is our own. But by caring of others suffering, we help each other.</i>
Would you help an old lady cross the street? Why? Her suffering surely is irrelevant to you, and you'll get nothing out of helping her.
Do you think it is good to send food aid to famine-stricken countries? Why? Surely their suffering means nothing to you, and you will never get anything back from them if you help.
<i>Animal rights is just a leftover from this and has no real value to us (human race).</i>
Do you have any pets? Are they valueless to you? Do you care if they get run over, or set on fire? Why?
Let's look at the bigger picture. Do you care if tigers become extinct? Or pandas? Or polar bears? There's no value in having those animals around, is there? Or is there?
No.. I wouldn't.. I never did either.
The only reason you would, is because you were told to respect the elders.
Besides, this point is nothing related to animal rights. You help an old person expecting that you will be helped when you are old. These kind of moral values formed over long times. I doubt they exist in other animal kingdoms, since this respect for elders rests on self-consciuosness (though I am not sure).
I don't have any pets. A lot of times there is a reason why people keep pets (eg dogs for protection, dogs, cats for company for old people, etc).
Not really.. There is so many species getting extinct every day, caring about them is difficult. Surely it is sad, there is a loss of variety in wildlife. Besides, we don't want disrupt the food chain, otherwise nature is threatened.
Anyways, this is a different topic. I was more refering to domestic animal rights.
Originally posted by ndrs
No.. I wouldn't.. I never did either.
The only reason you would, is because you were told to respect the elders.
Oh, hell no, ndrs. I would, on the few occasions I see them, in gleeful anticipation of the one who smacks me with her cane for being so stupid as to think she was helpless.
Besides, this point is nothing related to animal rights.
true *subsides*
No.. I wouldn't.. I never did either.
The only reason you would, is because you were told to respect the elders.
Oh, hell no, ndrs. I would, on the few occasions I see them, in gleeful anticipation of the one who smacks me with her cane for being so stupid as to think she was helpless.
Besides, this point is nothing related to animal rights.
true *subsides*
Yeah, but that's only 'cause you'd be there to rape her when she was unconscious.
See, there are three types of people in the world:
Those who knock old women unconscious with their canes.
Those that rape the unconscious old women.
Those that rob the unconscious old woman.
/Is totally shitfaced