laminustacitus: liberty student: laminustacitus:I don't necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread. What else is new? lol Sub sole nihil novi est.
liberty student: laminustacitus:I don't necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread. What else is new? lol
laminustacitus:I don't necessarily believe anything I argued in this entire thread.
What else is new? lol
Sub sole nihil novi est.
Woof, Woof, Grrrrrrrrr, heeem heeem heeem, woof, grrr, Ow Ow owwwwwww. Woof. pant pant pant.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
alimentarius: wilderness: And potential isn't a "so what". Of course it is. Are you anti stem cell research? Anti abortion? Anti condom? Anti everything exept having sex?
wilderness: And potential isn't a "so what".
Of course it is. Are you anti stem cell research? Anti abortion? Anti condom? Anti everything exept having sex?
I'm not readily following your argument.
I'll answer the questions and maybe you can point out what you mean:
a. don't know enough about stem cell research to make an accurate comment
b. i'm not anti-aboration
c. not anti-condom
d. not anti- everything except sex
--
now these are personal questions (not lawful questions cause on another person's property they could be anti- a, b, c, and d.) and I gave personal answers. could you explain what you mean?
I agree with Mises. If animals don't have rights, humans don't either. You cannot recognize something you do not have.
Will an animal walk up onto your property and then ask for consent to stay there? Will an animal rationalize with you before the situation slides into conflict?
Is that your dog? beautiful picture. looks friendly. Is he or she friendly? Could I pet it (assuming I was actually nearby)?
alimentarius: So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?
So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead?
Yes. I would assume that you would have that ability. But I would guess your question goes deeper than that. Are you asking, "if I found a baby in a forest, could I smash it dead, and I not get in trouble if someone found out?" If that is your question, yes you could get in trouble. Someone who loves cute little babies might decide to kill you. What would an arbitrator say? Well, it depends on if anyone claims ownership of the baby. If someone does, then the arbitrator would probably rule that compensation is required. If no one claims ownership, then there would probably not be a case, unless of course the population gets really mad, then there probably would be.
But really, when has this scenario ever happened?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
If you're anti killing babies, how can you be pro choice?
If it'swrong to kill a baby, it must be wrong to kill a fetus. None of them have any concepts of rights. Both of them are potential moral beings.
Growl, Growl, Tail wag Tail Wag, spin in circle, spin in cricle, woof, woof.
The right to dog biscuits
Thanks wilderness, I know that you understand the importance of this. It is frustrating to hear this obsession with "ability to object" again and again.
Even positive legal systems recognize the distinction between 'possession' and 'ownership'. Parental "ownership" must be delineated as "guardianship" or the whole thing falls flat on its face. The "my baby can't object, so I can justifiably rape it" school is lock-step in line with socialist ethics and a "might makes right" property ideology.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
alimentarius: If you're anti killing babies, how can you be pro choice? If it'swrong to kill a baby, it must be wrong to kill a fetus. None of them have any concepts of rights. Both of them are potential moral beings.
I didn't say I would kill a fetus. I said I didn't see a lawful problem with abortion. It's the mother's property and she evicted the fetus. The fetus can not hold a mother hostage in the mother's own property/womb.
wilderness:Is that your dog? beautiful picture. looks friendly. Is he or she friendly? Could I pet it (assuming I was actually nearby)?
It's one of them. They love everybody, unless that guy everybody is trying to harm me, or one of their other dog biscuit giving friends. Then they are not. She will have to sniff your butt first. Then if you don't pet her she will be sad.
alimentarius: Esuric:Animals will have rights when they start to claim them. You mean, claiming them using English language?
Esuric:Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
You mean, claiming them using English language?
Claiming them by using language would definitely be a first step.
Saan: wilderness:Is that your dog? beautiful picture. looks friendly. Is he or she friendly? Could I pet it (assuming I was actually nearby)? It's one of them. They love everybody, unless that guy everybody is trying to harm me, or one of their other dog biscuit giving friends. Then they are not. She will have to sniff your butt first. Then if you don't pet her she will be sad.
She sniff's people's butts? lol.
I was asking cause that's a big dog. I'm thinking that second picture are of your dogs too. That first dog looks like it could take a big chunk of meat out of a person. I guess if I'm nearby you I'd better treat you well or else I'll have to answer to the dog.
There is no "pro choice" nor "pro life", in a free society. There is only dispute resolution. BTW, nothing I wrote implied my stance on killing babies.
alimentarius:Maybe a stupid question, but why is it ok to kill and enslave animals?
Roderick Long has a post on this here.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
zefreak:Still an arbitrary distinction. Of course, assuming the distinction is accurate, you would be incorrect to state the other creatures are purely reflective, unconscious beings. There is ample evidence that some degree of consciousness is to be found in many species; consciousness is not binary.
How so? Consider the comparison of say a rock to an apple tree. Can one say that the rock and the apple tree have exclusive traits? If so, then the claim of arbitrariness of the comparison is invalid. Lets take the basic idea of self. Self literally means an awareness of one's thought(s). Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don't have any sense or capacity of self. Thus, the hyphenated term, self-ownership, isn't applicable. It would be like applying the definition of a fruit tree to the rock in the apple tree rock example. Now, this doesn't mean there aren't animals with self-consciousness. I believe certain dogs, ravens (corvids in general), the great apes, and a couple other species seem to have exhibited for scientific examination self-consciousness. But equally, I would state that rights in this case cannot be solely demarcated on self-consciousness. A child has self-consciousness, but does that child have rights similar to an adult? Most would say no, and the reasoning is simple: rights follow from obligations, in that rights are either afforded or awarded for the [continued] fulfillment of obligations presented by others (I have the right to a paycheck from UPS because I fulfill the obligations in terms for working them and etc). Rights in this context cannot be assumed to have a naturalistic origin, unless one assumes that some where along the way social interactions have a metaphysical bent to them. *shrugs* Thus, I would conclude rights cannot be assumed as in born to the person or animal or agent, thus the entire animal rights argument can be defeated right there by recognizing others 'give' rights (giving in terms of allowing or affording) to others.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
E. R. Olovetto: alimentarius: So if I found a baby in the forest, I could smash it dead? Baby human or squirrel? Baby humans are potential moral agents and their negative rights are on par with your own. Not being able to assert these rights at that very moment is irrelevant.
Baby human or squirrel? Baby humans are potential moral agents and their negative rights are on par with your own. Not being able to assert these rights at that very moment is irrelevant.
If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it. Rights, again, are just legal claims. You have to be able to make a legal claim to have a legal claim. Babies cannot make legal claims and neither can animals.
wilderness:I was asking cause that's a big dog.
115 lbs. Super nice. The others too.
Spideynw: If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it.
If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it.
No. The investigator of the crime will know that it was murder. The way the science of justice operates now a days it is undoubtedly rare that an investigation crew (includes autopsy performed by pathologist) will not be able to know if it was suicide or murder.
Spideynw: Rights, again, are just legal claims. You have to be able to make a legal claim to have a legal claim. Babies cannot make legal claims.
Rights, again, are just legal claims. You have to be able to make a legal claim to have a legal claim. Babies cannot make legal claims.
Somebody in the community, maybe a Sherlock Holmes type, may track down the suspect. The rights are already known to have been violated that much is clear. The person is dead by murder.
good thing you trained them to be nice
That is so awesome. Rights or not, I love dogs
Saan: Growl, Growl, Tail wag Tail Wag, spin in circle, spin in cricle, woof, woof. The right to dog biscuits
Uh oh. My dog just killed and ate a rabbit. I need candidates for Jury selection. Please give this questionare to all suitable canine candidates.
1. Are you a big dog or a little dog?
2. Are you purebred, or Mongrel.
3. Are you a carnivore, hebivore, or opportunivore?
4. Do you think rabbits are tasty?
5. Are you a rabbit chaser?
6. Do you also chase birds?
7. Please indicate your dog ethnicity?
8. Have you been sterilized?
9. Will you follow directions given by a magistrate, if he has dog biscuits?
10. Do you chase cats?
Please give this survey to your canine colleagues , and post the responses, Jury selection begins in 10 minutes.
Note: a dog jury is a jury of seven.
Your cooperation is appreciated. 1000 dog biscuit fine for failing to respond.
good thing humans have the intellect to not live in a, yeah I'm goin'a say it, dog-eat-dog-world:
we enjoy a little dog at our house. she is part russell terrier and part beagle. she's definitely a wild one! we love her. she's very nice and friendly, except once another huge dog came too close to her and our son and she actually went after this dog that was about ten times bigger than her. i never seen her do that before but hey, we're all family here.
Esuric: Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.
If you seriously believe that the 'right' to not be enslaved and killed presupposes the ability to speak our language, you must also believe that I, as an individual who is completely unable to speak Polish but is able to speak English, would not violate the such 'rights' of an individual who is able to speak Polish but is not able to speak English if I were to enslave and then later kill that individual because that individual would "have rights" only "when they start to claim them" in a way which I am currently able to understand.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
wilderness: Spideynw: If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it. No. The investigator of the crime will know that it was murder. The way the science of justice operates now a days it is undoubtedly rare that an investigation crew (includes autopsy performed by pathologist) will not be able to know if it was suicide or murder.
Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.
Spideynw:Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.
I'm pretty sure you have already been marked for termination during the revolution phase. It's just too risky letting someone with no concept of right and wrong loose. Plus, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it.
ladyattis:Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don't have any sense or capacity of self
How do you know?
Spideynw: Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.
well the person that did it and died knew a life was killed. thus a right called life was violated. whether or not justice will be brought to the criminal is moot and has to do with a just investigation.
it's like these rumors I heard some years ago of individuals ejaculating their sperm into people's sandwiches at fast food restaurants. And anybody that thinks that's more sick than murder needs a head check.
wilderness:except once another huge dog came too close to her and our son and she actually went after this dog that was about ten times bigger than her.
There's a little Jack russell/chiuahaha that wanders around the neigborhood sometimes. He follows us on walks. He darts in and out of the pack making sneak attacks on the big dogs. The big dogs have yet to get in a good butt sniff.
wilderness:i never seen her do that before but hey, we're all family here.
She's just returning the favor. ( free shelter, free food, free attention, free protection.) Good dog.
wilderness: Spideynw: Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it. well the person that did it and died knew a life was killed. thus a right called life was violated. whether or not justice will be brought to the criminal is moot and has to do with a just investigation.
Someone was murdered, yes. But a "right" is a "legal claim". Legal claims cannot be "violated".
liberty student: Spideynw:Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it. I'm pretty sure you have already been marked for termination during the revolution phase. It's just too risky letting someone with no concept of right and wrong loose. Plus, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it.
Where in my statement did I make a judgment about whether or not the action was right or wrong?
Spideynw: Someone was murdered, yes. But a "right" is a "legal claim". Legal claims cannot be "violated".
I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to. A right is a principle and these principles are intellectual constructs of facts. Life is. Liberty is. Property is. They are facts and rights are descriptive of the kinds of principles I am referring to, in other words, descriptive of real objects conceptualized and delineated of this world. There is life. There is liberty. There is property. Conceptual boundaries can be drawn and define each of these. When a right is violated it IS a life, liberty, and property being violated. And whoever was being murdered was a living human being, had a life, felt, maybe had a blind first date to look forward to later, and was simply taking a walk looking forward to having such a dinner later in the evening. Now not only somebody's office space will be vacant but a person who laughed and played is also gone. When I talk about rights - I am talking about that person. I am talking about their laughter, heart, breath, and touch.
If you disagree, then no point in going any further with this discussion.
wilderness:I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to.
How is that?
wilderness: zefreak: This is obviously not the usage of "right" we are interested in. Whoever "we" are - the borg? The natural rights interest is in the way Spideynw put this. of course as a skeptic you'll not be able to affirm any knowledge either way - whether you or I is right or wrong. you'll contradict yourself by trying to apply any conviction of knowledge on this subject.
zefreak: This is obviously not the usage of "right" we are interested in.
This is obviously not the usage of "right" we are interested in.
Whoever "we" are - the borg? The natural rights interest is in the way Spideynw put this. of course as a skeptic you'll not be able to affirm any knowledge either way - whether you or I is right or wrong. you'll contradict yourself by trying to apply any conviction of knowledge on this subject.
Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn't this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
wilderness: alimentarius: Potential, so what? They are human. And animals can't claim. Can't petition. Can't recognize rights. They are learned. Of course custom may also instill what rights are as when I was in kindergarden I was taught what "mine and thine" is. Animals can't rationalize what "mine and thine" is. It's the difference between bruteness and reasonableness. And potential isn't a "so what".
alimentarius: Potential, so what?
Potential, so what?
They are human. And animals can't claim. Can't petition. Can't recognize rights. They are learned. Of course custom may also instill what rights are as when I was in kindergarden I was taught what "mine and thine" is. Animals can't rationalize what "mine and thine" is. It's the difference between bruteness and reasonableness. And potential isn't a "so what".
What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the "potential" for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.
zefreak: Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn't this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?
this is old. read the rest of the thread
zefreak: What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the "potential" for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.
old already answered this, but you are a skeptic of the intellect so I can't readily respond to you anyway. and I'm not going to teach you.
but I'll let you know. everything you said - HAS nothing to do with what I'm saying. Some animals might have it - so what? And a rock has the potential of being a rocket scientist too - yeah someday. This is why discussing with a skeptic is to vacate logic. Aristotle and Kant were right about this. I'll stick to science than get stuck talking with a sophist.
ladyattis: zefreak:Still an arbitrary distinction. Of course, assuming the distinction is accurate, you would be incorrect to state the other creatures are purely reflective, unconscious beings. There is ample evidence that some degree of consciousness is to be found in many species; consciousness is not binary. How so? Consider the comparison of say a rock to an apple tree. Can one say that the rock and the apple tree have exclusive traits? If so, then the claim of arbitrariness of the comparison is invalid. Lets take the basic idea of self. Self literally means an awareness of one's thought(s). Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don't have any sense or capacity of self. Thus, the hyphenated term, self-ownership, isn't applicable. It would be like applying the definition of a fruit tree to the rock in the apple tree rock example. Now, this doesn't mean there aren't animals with self-consciousness. I believe certain dogs, ravens (corvids in general), the great apes, and a couple other species seem to have exhibited for scientific examination self-consciousness. But equally, I would state that rights in this case cannot be solely demarcated on self-consciousness. A child has self-consciousness, but does that child have rights similar to an adult? Most would say no, and the reasoning is simple: rights follow from obligations, in that rights are either afforded or awarded for the [continued] fulfillment of obligations presented by others (I have the right to a paycheck from UPS because I fulfill the obligations in terms for working them and etc). Rights in this context cannot be assumed to have a naturalistic origin, unless one assumes that some where along the way social interactions have a metaphysical bent to them. *shrugs* Thus, I would conclude rights cannot be assumed as in born to the person or animal or agent, thus the entire animal rights argument can be defeated right there by recognizing others 'give' rights (giving in terms of allowing or affording) to others.
I think it is an invalid comparison, but it's not worth arguing. Your concept of rights is not Rothbardian, nor natural, and therefor outside of the scope of this argument.