yes we all play a valuable role in the eco-system, and the insects most likely play one of the largest in helping rid of waste produce, yes we are allowed to kill insects and not other furry little animals,
peace.
human rights?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
yes we all play a valuable role in the eco-system, and the insects most likely play one of the largest in helping rid of waste produce, yes we are allowed to kill insects and not other furry little animals,
peace.
Humans have empathy - its a complex brain capability, just like being able to make tools. It's probably just about as important as making tools.
It extends to animals similar to humans, and (by reasoning) principles derived from its role can be applied to quite dissimilar things. Engineers and physicists and such people often reason with it - imagining what it would be like to ride the front of a light wave, for example, or be a blob of hot plastic going through a mold.
Some humans have more of this capability than others. People with brains incapable of empathy are known - it's a form of brain damage. It can be congenital, or acquired through head trauma. People with almost completely defective empathy circuits are sometimes called "autistic".
There is also a form of brain defect in which a person's empathy capability does partially function, but does not involve "caring" or identification. People with this brain malfunction are sometimes called "sociopaths".
Our moral and ethical rules, including those applied to animals, are based on our human nature and its relationship with the world, including that empathy and those animals. Wise and experienced people talking and dealing over thousands of years, people who have seen human nature operate in a wide variety of circumstances and are familiar with its characteristic strenghs and weaknesses, have formulated them.
Some people think that is a joke.
It extends to animals similar to humans, and (by reasoning) principles derived from its role can be applied to quite dissimilar things. Engineers and physicists and such people often reason with it - imagining what it would be like to ride the front of a light wave, for example, or be a blob of hot plastic going through a mold.
Some humans have more of this capability than others. People with brains incapable of empathy are known - it's a form of brain damage. It can be congenital, or acquired through head trauma. People with almost completely defective empathy circuits are sometimes called "autistic".
There is also a form of brain defect in which a person's empathy capability does partially function, but does not involve "caring" or identification. People with this brain malfunction are sometimes called "sociopaths".
Our moral and ethical rules, including those applied to animals, are based on our human nature and its relationship with the world, including that empathy and those animals. Wise and experienced people talking and dealing over thousands of years, people who have seen human nature operate in a wide variety of circumstances and are familiar with its characteristic strenghs and weaknesses, have formulated them.
Some people think that is a joke.
Huh, ....what does all that have to do with "human rights" and the "rights" of any and all other animals?
Did you read the original post in this thread?
Baron Max
If they are protected, they obviously have some value. My point was that they are valuable.
Value is often subjective.
We assign rights. Do cattle and horses assign rights?
Idiot.
We assign right.
I'm not sure why I'm still talking to an idiot...
Yes. If everyone would see value in insects, they would obviously be more protected, right? Althought that would be tough to enforce...
(But of course if everyone valued, chances are they would protect them)
Who, exactly, is "we"? And see, that's what you seem to be struggling with on this issue. You keep making statements as if they're factual, yet you keep using the idiotic term "we" as if everyone knows who that is.
Who, exactly, is "we"?
Baron Max
yeah i see what your saying truth, but how can we justify what has value and what does not. because as far as i knew every single creature on this planet serves a role in the eco system, and nature has done pretty well by itself so far with making sure everything is balenced. humans just come along and say "right its ok to harm this and that creature, but not that other one over there"
the people who write up these protection laws and rights laws surely cant be allowed to speak on behalf of everyone,
i have watched moths and a butterfly before getting burned by candles and it looks like they are in pain, and i am not talking about just twitching of nervs, scientists say moths dont feel pain but i think that its not true, go and test for yourself, get a moth and shove its face in a flame and tell me if it looks in pain to you,
i can almost feel the moths pain when watching it, but people say its ok to kill them because they are not as important, well in my opinion every life form is as important as another. if it has free will to fly about and live its life then its important in my books,
also who are we to say that a pigeon has no value compared to a hedgehog? what is the difference? theres not much ifference between a bird and a hedgehog in a ethical viewpoint to me, (obviously not biological). so i am asking why am i allowed to go kick a pigeon but not a hedgehog? i think its bias and wrong,
peace.
the people who write up these protection laws and rights laws surely cant be allowed to speak on behalf of everyone,
i have watched moths and a butterfly before getting burned by candles and it looks like they are in pain, and i am not talking about just twitching of nervs, scientists say moths dont feel pain but i think that its not true, go and test for yourself, get a moth and shove its face in a flame and tell me if it looks in pain to you,
i can almost feel the moths pain when watching it, but people say its ok to kill them because they are not as important, well in my opinion every life form is as important as another. if it has free will to fly about and live its life then its important in my books,
also who are we to say that a pigeon has no value compared to a hedgehog? what is the difference? theres not much ifference between a bird and a hedgehog in a ethical viewpoint to me, (obviously not biological). so i am asking why am i allowed to go kick a pigeon but not a hedgehog? i think its bias and wrong,
peace.
and oh yeah i forgot to address something, about stepping on bugs by accident, i never said anything about accidents, im talking about doing something on purpose that is pre-meditated almost.
you cant get arrested for falling over and crushing a cat to death can you, because it was a mistake, so if you step on a bug by accident then its not your fault.
but if i go and kick a cat on purpose i can get in trouble. but i can go and kick a bug on purpose and not get in trouble, and i think its because we dont identify with bugs because they are not mammals. we look at them like "eeww" its the same with fish we dont care about them much, we care about mammals because they are related to us and we identify with them, mostly by looking into there eyes i would guess.
humans are idiots lol.
peace.
you cant get arrested for falling over and crushing a cat to death can you, because it was a mistake, so if you step on a bug by accident then its not your fault.
but if i go and kick a cat on purpose i can get in trouble. but i can go and kick a bug on purpose and not get in trouble, and i think its because we dont identify with bugs because they are not mammals. we look at them like "eeww" its the same with fish we dont care about them much, we care about mammals because they are related to us and we identify with them, mostly by looking into there eyes i would guess.
humans are idiots lol.
peace.
Hmm, I never thought of it before, but ...maybe that's actually how we manage all the things that we do, and rule on ...because we're all idiots!
I mean, think about it, would anyone but an idiot try to place a value on every living creature on Earth? ...and then attempt to justify those values?
Baron Max
Hmm, I never thought of it before, but ...maybe that's actually how we manage all the things that we do, and rule on ...because we're all idiots!
I mean, think about it, would anyone but an idiot try to place a value on every living creature on Earth? ...and then attempt to justify those values?
Baron Max
i think that one short sentence explains everything.
we are idiots, we think we are all high and mighty but we are just a bunch of assholes
peace.
Integrating Iceaura's wonderfull post about empathy into my explanation perhaps i can make a more general one (without said exceptions as mentioned)
Now, we create these rights based upon soley our emotional views of how things should be.
We feel stronger towards things that display more humanly traits, and less towards those that exibit less.
We can also see thigns as "everything is chemical reactions", pain and such are simply reactions, nothing real and thus true 'rights' are simply illusions (religiouse people will of course dissagre, saying their god(s) dictated some absolute truth, however in reality we have no idea if there even is an absolute truth of anything, much less what it could be). Thus in our empathy we strongly dont want things that hurt us to happen to other humans, and then decreasing with animals.
Thus, in the case of your spider Chi, one can say that the person who says to put it out of its misery is empathizing with it, and wants to end its 'pain' in order to end their own, it is unclear wheather the spider really does experiance pain.
This can apply, more so, the more complex the creature is.
Now, then, we may kill some things because they create an emotion of anger or something (or perhaps pleasure for some...)
Say a mosquito bite me, or is attempting too, the little empathy I have for it is easily overcome by anger, or at least a desire not to be bitten thus i kill the bugger.
For other things like say mass breeding for food (pig farms, etc...) the desire for meat (at a lower cost) out weighs the empathy towards said animals, especialy if the majority of the buyers dont have to see them (and the corporations want money) of course, for vegaterians, and terrorists (err.. PETA) this may not be the case.
Now as for the legal aspect, to my knowlege one cant kill fish just because (indeed unless you have alicense, catch-and-release is all you can do legaly) Nor could one kill a bird easily unless it were near death, (they fly) unless you had a gun, in which case it would be illegal to discharge it (all subject to where one lives of course, I: in Canada)
As for Dogs and Cats, most belong to a household and thus can be seen as their owners propery (destruction of property is ilegal ofcourse) and the other few strays;
1. corpses are too big that thier decomposition would be horrible if it were legal to kill them
2. There is generaly no need to inflict violence upon said animals, and they can be more easily enforced than others (nightmere to determine if that fish died naturaly, got hit by a boat, or suffered Chi's almighty punch).
Thus birds, fish, insects any other smaller animal; it is too impractical to enforce many laws protecting them, resources are better spent.
Now, The benefits of said species on the ecosystem is a good point, as we want to live and thus must protect our ecosystem; however it is already illegal to kill endangered species, and normaly things that one might kill like, spiders and other bugs, breed so much that killing them in the amounts the average person does would not amount to anything significant. No need to protect them legaly.
Of course the question 'Is this just?' is a good one, and can of course be debated ad nauseam, and I doubt things in the future will improve the situation to quikly (I dont like spiders, so i will kill them, i like bacon, so i will support mass pig farms.)
This is I think how the majority of people see things... not that that makes it moraly 'right' and indeed, the future populace is usualy disgusted with the past's values (slavery is a good example i think, and womens rights.) Someday I do hope the bacon will be grown as simply bacon tissue in factories; if genetic engineering is allowed to advance.
-Andrew
Now, we create these rights based upon soley our emotional views of how things should be.
We feel stronger towards things that display more humanly traits, and less towards those that exibit less.
We can also see thigns as "everything is chemical reactions", pain and such are simply reactions, nothing real and thus true 'rights' are simply illusions (religiouse people will of course dissagre, saying their god(s) dictated some absolute truth, however in reality we have no idea if there even is an absolute truth of anything, much less what it could be). Thus in our empathy we strongly dont want things that hurt us to happen to other humans, and then decreasing with animals.
Thus, in the case of your spider Chi, one can say that the person who says to put it out of its misery is empathizing with it, and wants to end its 'pain' in order to end their own, it is unclear wheather the spider really does experiance pain.
This can apply, more so, the more complex the creature is.
Now, then, we may kill some things because they create an emotion of anger or something (or perhaps pleasure for some...)
Say a mosquito bite me, or is attempting too, the little empathy I have for it is easily overcome by anger, or at least a desire not to be bitten thus i kill the bugger.
For other things like say mass breeding for food (pig farms, etc...) the desire for meat (at a lower cost) out weighs the empathy towards said animals, especialy if the majority of the buyers dont have to see them (and the corporations want money) of course, for vegaterians, and terrorists (err.. PETA) this may not be the case.
Now as for the legal aspect, to my knowlege one cant kill fish just because (indeed unless you have alicense, catch-and-release is all you can do legaly) Nor could one kill a bird easily unless it were near death, (they fly) unless you had a gun, in which case it would be illegal to discharge it (all subject to where one lives of course, I: in Canada)
As for Dogs and Cats, most belong to a household and thus can be seen as their owners propery (destruction of property is ilegal ofcourse) and the other few strays;
1. corpses are too big that thier decomposition would be horrible if it were legal to kill them
2. There is generaly no need to inflict violence upon said animals, and they can be more easily enforced than others (nightmere to determine if that fish died naturaly, got hit by a boat, or suffered Chi's almighty punch).
Thus birds, fish, insects any other smaller animal; it is too impractical to enforce many laws protecting them, resources are better spent.
Now, The benefits of said species on the ecosystem is a good point, as we want to live and thus must protect our ecosystem; however it is already illegal to kill endangered species, and normaly things that one might kill like, spiders and other bugs, breed so much that killing them in the amounts the average person does would not amount to anything significant. No need to protect them legaly.
Of course the question 'Is this just?' is a good one, and can of course be debated ad nauseam, and I doubt things in the future will improve the situation to quikly (I dont like spiders, so i will kill them, i like bacon, so i will support mass pig farms.)
This is I think how the majority of people see things... not that that makes it moraly 'right' and indeed, the future populace is usualy disgusted with the past's values (slavery is a good example i think, and womens rights.) Someday I do hope the bacon will be grown as simply bacon tissue in factories; if genetic engineering is allowed to advance.
-Andrew
Integrating Iceaura's wonderfull post about empathy into my explanation perhaps i can make a more general one (without said exceptions as mentioned)
Now, we create these rights based upon soley our emotional views of how things should be.
We feel stronger towards things that display more humanly traits, and less towards those that exibit less.
We can also see thigns as "everything is chemical reactions", pain and such are simply reactions, nothing real and thus true 'rights' are simply illusions (religiouse people will of course dissagre, saying their god(s) dictated some absolute truth, however in reality we have no idea if there even is an absolute truth of anything, much less what it could be). Thus in our empathy we strongly dont want things that hurt us to happen to other humans, and then decreasing with animals.
Thus, in the case of your spider Chi, one can say that the person who says to put it out of its misery is empathizing with it, and wants to end its 'pain' in order to end their own, it is unclear wheather the spider really does experiance pain.
This can apply, more so, the more complex the creature is.
Now, then, we may kill some things because they create an emotion of anger or something (or perhaps pleasure for some...)
Say a mosquito bite me, or is attempting too, the little empathy I have for it is easily overcome by anger, or at least a desire not to be bitten thus i kill the bugger.
For other things like say mass breeding for food (pig farms, etc...) the desire for meat (at a lower cost) out weighs the empathy towards said animals, especialy if the majority of the buyers dont have to see them (and the corporations want money) of course, for vegaterians, and terrorists (err.. PETA) this may not be the case.
Now as for the legal aspect, to my knowlege one cant kill fish just because (indeed unless you have alicense, catch-and-release is all you can do legaly) Nor could one kill a bird easily unless it were near death, (they fly) unless you had a gun, in which case it would be illegal to discharge it (all subject to where one lives of course, I: in Canada)
As for Dogs and Cats, most belong to a household and thus can be seen as their owners propery (destruction of property is ilegal ofcourse) and the other few strays;
1. corpses are too big that thier decomposition would be horrible if it were legal to kill them
2. There is generaly no need to inflict violence upon said animals, and they can be more easily enforced than others (nightmere to determine if that fish died naturaly, got hit by a boat, or suffered Chi's almighty punch).
Thus birds, fish, insects any other smaller animal; it is too impractical to enforce many laws protecting them, resources are better spent.
Now, The benefits of said species on the ecosystem is a good point, as we want to live and thus must protect our ecosystem; however it is already illegal to kill endangered species, and normaly things that one might kill like, spiders and other bugs, breed so much that killing them in the amounts the average person does would not amount to anything significant. No need to protect them legaly.
Of course the question 'Is this just?' is a good one, and can of course be debated ad nauseam, and I doubt things in the future will improve the situation to quikly (I dont like spiders, so i will kill them, i like bacon, so i will support mass pig farms.)
This is I think how the majority of people see things... not that that makes it moraly 'right' and indeed, the future populace is usualy disgusted with the past's values (slavery is a good example i think, and womens rights.) Someday I do hope the bacon will be grown as simply bacon tissue in factories; if genetic engineering is allowed to advance.
-Andrew
one of the most accurate posts on this thread i think personaly. apart from one minor conflict on my part.
everything you said up untill the laws was most likely 100% correct, if you have a license to kill fish that is just buying a way around ethical standards is it not? like having a license to kill a human. (cop)
in england you are allowed to kill birds without a license, like you are allowed to kill rats without a license, and that applies to rats that are not bothering you and not on your land, you are allowed to go to a public lake and kill any rat you see because they are not liked in society,
there is no law on throwing things in england either, aslong as you dont harm a human or peoples property, so i can throw rocks at a pigeon and kill it if i want, and im sure if i wanted to i could catch a bird and break its neck after a few tries,
and what about the hedgehog and swan? neither are endangered, so why can i not kill either of those wild animals but i can kill birds?
im pretty sure your allowed to kill fish in a public lake in england aswell, just not on private owned land,
peace.
Well thank you
English laws, I'm not too familliar with but lets see...
As far as licenses go, I think the idea is in order to protect them from becoming endangered (somewhat like seasonal hunting, buying tags etc...) and so you are then allowed to have your sport (your enjoyment overpowering the empathy), and thus no need to truly ilegalize it.
edit: as for cops, that is only to protect others, rarely do cops actualy kill, or intend to (ie unless the other guy has a gun/bomb or something highly threatening to one or more other lives; between battons, tasers, pepper spray, and a rubber bullet, difficult situations can be dealt with non-leathaly)
edit 2: so the reason one can kill fish is becasue, no danger to them and wont affect anything else, and its a good sport (catching and releasing or eating that is), overriding most empathetic emotions)
As for the rats and birds, you say that they are not liked in society, thus people have little empathy for them and dont care (or prefer) if they are killed (probably caused by their history of carrying disease), like mosquitos.
About the birds, without the use of the weapon there is not too much threat (it would take a while to catch a bird and brake its neck, and its still hard to hit one even with stones) and it would be fairly hard to determin wheather you killed it, or a cat did (resources can be better spent.)
And ultimately for most creatures it comes down too, who the heck would kill one anyway (except on rare occasion)?!
For swans and hedgehogs... im not sure, perhaps the majority has some odd feeling towards these animals (swans i can see, people tend to think swans are beutifull) Also there bound to be a host of other exceptions, and of course on laws, its tought as they differ greatly from place to place. But in generaly they are made for society's benefit in some manner.
...We are fairly irrational, or idiotic beings as you previously said.
-Andrew
English laws, I'm not too familliar with but lets see...
As far as licenses go, I think the idea is in order to protect them from becoming endangered (somewhat like seasonal hunting, buying tags etc...) and so you are then allowed to have your sport (your enjoyment overpowering the empathy), and thus no need to truly ilegalize it.
edit: as for cops, that is only to protect others, rarely do cops actualy kill, or intend to (ie unless the other guy has a gun/bomb or something highly threatening to one or more other lives; between battons, tasers, pepper spray, and a rubber bullet, difficult situations can be dealt with non-leathaly)
edit 2: so the reason one can kill fish is becasue, no danger to them and wont affect anything else, and its a good sport (catching and releasing or eating that is), overriding most empathetic emotions)
As for the rats and birds, you say that they are not liked in society, thus people have little empathy for them and dont care (or prefer) if they are killed (probably caused by their history of carrying disease), like mosquitos.
About the birds, without the use of the weapon there is not too much threat (it would take a while to catch a bird and brake its neck, and its still hard to hit one even with stones) and it would be fairly hard to determin wheather you killed it, or a cat did (resources can be better spent.)
And ultimately for most creatures it comes down too, who the heck would kill one anyway (except on rare occasion)?!
For swans and hedgehogs... im not sure, perhaps the majority has some odd feeling towards these animals (swans i can see, people tend to think swans are beutifull) Also there bound to be a host of other exceptions, and of course on laws, its tought as they differ greatly from place to place. But in generaly they are made for society's benefit in some manner.
...We are fairly irrational, or idiotic beings as you previously said.
-Andrew
Last edited:
Well thank you
English laws, I'm not too familliar with but lets see...
As far as licenses go, I think the idea is in order to protect them from becoming endangered (somewhat like seasonal hunting, buying tags etc...) and so you are then allowed to have your sport (your enjoyment overpowering the empathy), and thus no need to truly ilegalize it.
edit: as for cops, that is only to protect others, rarely do cops actualy kill, or intend to (ie unless the other guy has a gun/bomb or something highly threatening to one or more other lives; between battons, tasers, pepper spray, and a rubber bullet, difficult situations can be dealt with non-leathaly)
edit 2: so the reason one can kill fish is becasue, no danger to them and wont affect anything else, and its a good sport (catching and releasing or eating that is), overriding most empathetic emotions)
As for the rats and birds, you say that they are not liked in society, thus people have little empathy for them and dont care (or prefer) if they are killed (probably caused by their history of carrying disease), like mosquitos.
About the birds, without the use of the weapon there is not too much threat (it would take a while to catch a bird and brake its neck, and its still hard to hit one even with stones) and it would be fairly hard to determin wheather you killed it, or a cat did (resources can be better spent.)
And ultimately for most creatures it comes down too, who the heck would kill one anyway (except on rare occasion)?!
For swans and hedgehogs... im not sure, perhaps the majority has some odd feeling towards these animals (swans i can see, people tend to think swans are beutifull) Also there bound to be a host of other exceptions, and of course on laws, its tought as they differ greatly from place to place. But in generaly they are made for society's benefit in some manner.
...We are fairly irrational, or idiotic beings as you previously said.
-Andrew
again i pretty-much agree with your entire post. swans are protected because they are the queens favorite bird, and seen as a royal animal. they are actualy protected by the queens gaurd lol, a guy made a point and cooked one for dinner once, and last week he cooked the royal familys favorite dog (a corgie) live and ate on a radio show.
oh and by the way i have caught many wild animals before
i dont usualy go for them with my bare hands though, but i have hit a bird or 2 with an arrow from my bow, i dont usualy hunt birds though i go for big game where the meat will last me longer, and i can possibly smoke some to make it last the week, like a deer or stag. (i hunt purely for food not for sport) although i do enjoy living out in the wild and going on the hunt, there is a certain sense of achievement that goes along with fending for yourself out in the wild, with no society around for miles, catching your own food and knowing that if you dont kill it yourself or forage you will go hungry,
peace.
Queen's bird eh? Well that perfectly explains it. Now eating a dog in spite of monarchy; something iv never heard of before.
Your experiances sound fun, I wouldnt mind spending a while camping (other than in a campsite) Never tried hunting either, though the thought of it is enthrilling (no empathy for food here.)
Anyway, before this thread deraills, il be off for the night, it's been a pleasure talking with you.
-Andrew
Your experiances sound fun, I wouldnt mind spending a while camping (other than in a campsite) Never tried hunting either, though the thought of it is enthrilling (no empathy for food here.)
Anyway, before this thread deraills, il be off for the night, it's been a pleasure talking with you.
-Andrew
Queen's bird eh? Well that perfectly explains it. Now eating a dog in spite of monarchy; something iv never heard of before.
Your experiances sound fun, I wouldnt mind spending a while camping (other than in a campsite) Never tried hunting either, though the thought of it is enthrilling (no empathy for food here.)
Anyway, before this thread deraills, il be off for the night, it's been a pleasure talking with you.
-Andrew
pleasure is mine also.
yeah the swan is the royal bird. i figure the royal family are more like feral pigeons to be honest but who am i to make that claim
.i hate camping in camp sites, it takes the fun out of the whole experience, its like leaving a built up population to go and live in a poor un-developed population. you stil get the nice scenery i guess, but the natural feel is not the same,
there is nothing like living out under the stars miles away from a town or city. if you go alone it can be very weird to get used to. i remember my first time living out alone in nature, i was always getting jumpy hearing the wild animal noises and rustling sounds. you kind of forget what real darkness is like when you live in a city lol, hunting i think teaches a very good lesson. as a society nowdays we take food and water for granted. when you are out in the wild though, in a matter of days it becomes very clear of the true value of nutrition.
going with a friend or some company is always more fun, but going alone puts you to the test, it tests everything about you, your bravery, your survival skills, your mental stability, your speed, your strength, your endurance, and sometimes how long you can fast lol.
you really get to know yourself, it changes you though trust me, when you do it alone for weeks or even months at a time with no human contact, you wont come back the same peson, you become wild and a master of your self, i dont mean wild as in a beast without control. but you actualy see yourself for what you really are,
i wouldent trade the feeling for many things, the strange part is comming back into society again and getting on with your life. you start to think differently, theres one thing that i feel for sure when im out there though, and thats free,
peace.
Hey, Empty, if your Queen gives the swans all those "rights", does that mean that Americans have to abide by that rule in the USA? And if we don't? ...will the Queen sends up to jail if we show up in England? How does that work?
In the USA, for example, you can't kill a grizzly bear unless he attacks you, and to prove that he attacked, you have to have horrendous wounds ...such as one arm ripped off or a leg half eaten. Can you kill grizzly bears in the UK?
Baron Max
In the USA, for example, you can't kill a grizzly bear unless he attacks you, and to prove that he attacked, you have to have horrendous wounds ...such as one arm ripped off or a leg half eaten. Can you kill grizzly bears in the UK?
Baron Max