Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

I want to see Rothbardians defend a puppy getting its ears and tail hacked off

This post has 472 Replies | 24 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Mon, Jul 20 2009 12:22 PM

Harry Felker:

Anarchist Cain:
The British are not to be trusted. Stick out tongue

I am still puzzled how they became allies after 1812....

Business and power.

The first big treaty, Jay Treaty, between British and America during the French Revolution had the French at first rid the work Ben Franklin did to ally the two countries during the American Revolution (Franklin had already died at this time).  This Treaty was for trade relations between Britain and American.  Hamiliton was a huge prominent of continuing trade relations with Britain after the American Revolution along with other proto-party factions in Congress that still liked dealing with Britain and wanted a strong federal government.  I know one other person who was involved with the American Revolution from start to finish, was a Continental Congressional delegate and the first American Diplomat (which was to France) after the American Revolution was over.  He who was a huge advocate of applying strong relations with Britain and to not honor relations with France.  His name was Silas Deane.  Thomas Paine would have huge debates with him that created this proto-party structure before the Republican and Federalist parties eventually arose for different reasons.  Eventually the arguments got so heated Paine voluntarily resigned as Secretary of Foreign Affairs.  In time though most turned away from Deane eventually as buisness deals with Deane involved, Congressional members, and Foreign governments (namely insiders in France I don't think other governments were involved but not precisely sure) came to light it was only in the mid-1800's long after all involved died that British records showed that Silas Deane was a British spy working directly under King George III.  America was able to bring their relations (France and American) back together in time even though Napolean still didn't like America at this point.  A business deal, the Lousiana Purchase, brought the French and Americans back to the dialogue table as the French desperately needed the money and Jefferson felt pressure from the then Western citizens to buy the land for safety reasons.  Jefferson would latter write Paine on how he felt the deal was unconstitutional, but it was obviously too late, deal was done, and Paine by the way liked the land purchase for he thought it thereby extended the geographical power of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm pretty sure I have the timelines down pat.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

wilderness:
Business and power.

So it was British dirty pool with a spy, got it...

 

British are indeed not to be trusted LOL!!!!

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Tue, Jul 21 2009 1:40 AM

Man I got buried under this fast moving thread. Stick out tongue

nirgrahamUK:

Ansury:

If we agree that the possession of rights requires responsibilities or duties, which to reference an example is what I think the US founders felt was implied when they specified the rights that citizens have, does this mean that the source of rights comes from the necessity of adhering to certain rules or responsibilities?

I disagree, rights are ascribed to 'things' at the point where those 'things' are recognised as being moral agents, that possess moral agency. if you are using responsibility in this way, ie.e speaking to their moral agency then you are right. otherwise i think not.

No time to say much right now, but I thought this would be the point of contention.

So I already have my question ready: Why?

Why are rights ascribed to 'things' at the point where those 'things' are recognised as being moral agents?  Why can't a society have a say regarding where rights originate?  Animals don't have the ability to determine what is moral and what is not, but their ignorance doesn't negate the responsibility not to do things that society percieves as wrong, just as it doesn't in the case of a mentally retarded person or an insane person.

Sorry if this is a ridiculously basic or stupid question, I've yet to get far into this topic.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

wilderness:

You lack understanding liberty.  Liberty is unbiased.  Non-initiating physical coercion against a person is liberty and thus each person is able to actualize their potential in liberty.

I thought liberty was just the condition of freedom - in mindset and to a lesser extent, for me anyways, in political restraint. 

 

In any case, I don't really care about the "liberty" of the man who beats on smaller animals like this guy. Call me crazy, I think people with such lack of empathy are less of human beings.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Harry Felker:

Anarchist Cain:
I just did explain. You are lacking in definition of what is a right and what is a privilege.

No, I think he is English, in England you have no right to defend yourself, but the social privlilege of curling into a ball and crying for the police to save your sorry ass, as not even other people are allowed to intervene on your ass whooping....

Firstly the country England is a part of the soverign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As it happens I don't live in England, but I do live on the Island of 'Great Britain' which includes England. Secondly, UK law permits individuals to defend themselves, or others, from violence or the threat of violence by employing reasonable force.

If you would like further education in the history, laws and geopolitics of the UK feel free to contact me via private message.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Anarchist Cain:

Lord Shore-Twilly:
I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.

I just did explain. You are lacking in definition of what is a right and what is a privilege.

And I look forward to your correction of my definitions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

JackCuyler:

Lord Shore-Twilly:

Anarchist Cain:

Lord Shore-Twilly:
rights' are defined by the society which grants them. As it happens most western nations, while to extending 'rights' to animals offer them some protection specifically against cruelty. So in the case of animals, no you do not have the 'right' to do what you like with your property.

You confuse rights with privilege

 

I doubt it. But do please feel free to explain where you think i have gone wrong.

Rights are not granted by society.  They may or may not be recognized, but that is beside the point.  Rights are not created; they are discovered.

Ah, rather like the aether then?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

wilderness:
it was only in the mid-1800's long after all involved died that British records showed that Silas Deane was a British spy working directly under King George III.

Source?

But it is interesting you should mention spys. The historian Richard Deacon, who forged a career as a historian of various intelligence communities, alleged in his work A History of the British Secret Service (1969) that Franklin was a British spy. (pp. 112-114)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Lord Shore-Twilly:

wilderness:
it was only in the mid-1800's long after all involved died that British records showed that Silas Deane was a British spy working directly under King George III.

Source?

It was in a biography of Thomas Paine by Craig Nelson called Thomas Paine.

Here's the quote it's interesting from the chapter entitled "The Silas Deane Affair":

"After Silas Deane's death, his heirs sued the American government for compensation, and received $35,000.  When archives of King George's letters were released in 1867, however, it was revealed that Deane had in fact been working as a British informant for the whole of the Revolution, holding regular midnight meetings in France at the Place Vendome with agent Paul Wentworth (who described the American contingent in Paris as 'Dr. Franklin is taciturn, deliberate, and cautious; Mr. Deane is vain, desultory, and subtle; Mr. Arthur Lee, suspicious and indolent').  It is unclear whether or not Deane knew that his secretary, William Bancroft, was also working as a British spy, for four hundred pounds a year."

Lord Shore-Twilly:

But it is interesting you should mention spys. The historian Richard Deacon, who forged a career as a historian of various intelligence communities, alleged in his work A History of the British Secret Service (1969) that Franklin was a British spy. (pp. 112-114)

lol... I don't believe it.  Franklin was too involved with the Americans and never did anything that would seem out of line.  I wonder what proof Richard Deacon has.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Ansury:

No time to say much right now, but I thought this would be the point of contention.

So I already have my question ready: Why?

Why are rights ascribed to 'things' at the point where those 'things' are recognised as being moral agents?  Why can't a society have a say regarding where rights originate?

Natural rights are "of" the individual.  Not "of" society due to that would be the opposite and "for" the individual.  Do you see?  That's also why rights in this sense are natural being naturally "of" the person.

Ansury:

Animals don't have the ability to determine what is moral and what is not, but their ignorance doesn't negate the responsibility not to do things that society percieves as wrong, just as it doesn't in the case of a mentally retarded person or an insane person.

Sorry if this is a ridiculously basic or stupid question, I've yet to get far into this topic.

The mentally retarded person or insane person are "person".  They are potentially fully human, but because they aren't actually fully human, if medical science has concluded this to be correct meaning they don't have the ability to participate in a human society individually, then this is why they have guardians to help them decide on issues.

Animals are not potentially human they are of a different species and outside of Primates of a different genus.  Rights being "of" the individual, first, I don't see animals participating in human society without guardians, and secondly animals are not abstracting these rights "of" themselves and declaring them to us.  Thirdly, rights of humans and to apply them to animals is to blur the applicability of rights which is law.  The deer would be breaking it all the time, but do I really want to put deer on trial for eating anything in my garden (luckily I put fence up, not because they are criminals but because they are animals which a whole differing biology that includes habits, etc... 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Wilmot of Rochester:

wilderness:

You lack understanding liberty.  Liberty is unbiased.  Non-initiating physical coercion against a person is liberty and thus each person is able to actualize their potential in liberty.

I thought liberty was just the condition of freedom - in mindset and to a lesser extent, for me anyways, in political restraint.

Liberty is the absence of initiating physical coercion.

Wilmot of Rochester:

In any case, I don't really care about the "liberty" of the man who beats on smaller animals like this guy. Call me crazy, I think people with such lack of empathy are less of human beings.

I find it horrible that a man would beat a smaller animal too and I agree they are less human in a sense, but I really don't want to set precedence on allowing natural rights to be violated when there are other means of subjecting this particular man to ways that are possibility more long-suffering that would really teach him a lesson and potentially rid his urge to do such a thing.  

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

Lord Shore-Twilly:
If you would like further education in the history, laws and geopolitics of the UK feel free to contact me via private message.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

I have enough here...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

 

Harry Felker:

Lord Shore-Twilly:
If you would like further education in the history, laws and geopolitics of the UK feel free to contact me via private message.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

I have enough here...

Which, is out dated and largely false and tells us that you are far more likely to be murder or raped in the US than you are in the UK. Did you even read it?

I suggest you try again, but this time to some research. I advise you start with the British National Crime Survey, and work from there.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

Lord Shore-Twilly:
I suggest you try again, but this time to some research. I advise you start with the British National Crime Survey, and work from there.

Is that the survey that under reports crimes as accidents until proven otherwise???

I cannot trust a person who is happily in a place where the means of defense are out of his reach....

 

And apparently you did not read the article...

"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent."

"Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police."

"That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law.""

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Harry Felker:
I

 

s that the survey that under reports crimes as accidents until proven otherwise?

A ludicrous question if there ever was one. Perhaps we should proclaim that all accidents are crimes until proven otherwise. Beyond pointing out the irrelevence of your question, I must confess I do not know because I haven't considered it, largely because it is an irrelevent point.

 

Harry Felker:
I cannot trust a person who is happily in a place where the means of defense are out of his reach.

But, as of yet, you have yet to prove that British citizens are without adiquate defence. But let us discuss this issue, presumably fire arms are what you consider to be 'defence'. There are well over 200 million fire arms in the USA, and a murder rate of around 5.6 per 100,000 citizens, while there were less than 800 murders and vertually no legal fire arms in the UK. These are facts, so how do you presume to tell me that the US is safer, with all its guns, than the UK when it quite clearly isn't.

 

Harry Felker:
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954.

 

Which is, of course, nonsense.The crime rate was far higher in the past than it is today. Hell, it was far higher 15 years ago than it is today.

 

Harry Felker:
Violent crime has been climbing ever since.

Which is wrong, like I told you read the National Crime Survey. You could also read the police statistics. Both will tell you that crime significanly reduced after 1996. 1996 saw the Dunblain massacre, and with it the banning of hand guns in 1997. As an educated fellow I realise that corrolation does not equate causation, but it is a fact that disproves your central thesis, that better armed citizens reduce crime. Manifestly, in the case of Britain, after the public had been disarmed crime reduced across the board.

 

What sayeth you?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

Lord Shore-Twilly:
Perhaps we should proclaim that all accidents are crimes until proven otherwise.

It is one of the reasons our crime statistics are higher in the US, we pursue everything as a crime until it is beyond reasonable doubt it is not...

Lord Shore-Twilly:
There are well over 200 million fire arms in the USA, and a murder rate of around 5.6 per 100,000 citizens, while there were less that 800 murders and vertually no legal fire arms in the UK.

And the UK has never had a higher crime rate than the US, even when it was allowed weapons, there must be something else causing it...

 

Lord Shore-Twilly:
The crime rate was far higher in the past than it is today.

That is funny, the article cites English Records that say you are wrong...

Crime has not changed much in England....

Lord Shore-Twilly:
it is a fact that disproves your central thesis

Again, since England has not had as high a crime rate as the US ever, there is something missing from your proof....

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jul 21 2009 6:52 PM

Lord Shore-Twilly:
But, as of yet, you have yet to prove that British citizens are without adiquate defence. But let us discuss this issue, presumably fire arms are what you consider to be 'defence'. There are well over 200 million fire arms in the USA, and a murder rate of around 5.6 per 100,000 citizens, while there were less than 800 murders and vertually no legal fire arms in the UK. These are facts, so how do you presume to tell me that the US is safer, with all its guns, than the UK when it quite clearly isn't.

This is a fallacy of causation.  Who knows why the U.S. has a higher crime rate?  It could be geography for all we know.

On the other hand, if Harry suggested that the U.S. is safer because we have more guns, that would also be a fallacy of causation.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Tue, Jul 21 2009 10:00 PM

Spideynw:
On the other hand, if Harry suggested that the U.S. is safer because we have more guns, that would also be a fallacy of causation.

Not if he was making such a claim ceteris paribus.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

wilderness:

I find it horrible that a man would beat a smaller animal too and I agree they are less human in a sense, but I really don't want to set precedence on allowing natural rights to be violated when there are other means of subjecting this particular man to ways that are possibility more long-suffering that would really teach him a lesson and potentially rid his urge to do such a thing.  

That's a better argument, I think. It's almost impossible for most people to even fathom defending the man, but advocating punishing him in a better and more effective way - though perhaps not violent - seems entirely reasonable. 

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 12:05 AM
It's almost impossible for most people to even fathom defending the man, but advocating punishing him in a better and more effective way - though perhaps not violent - seems entirely reasonable.
I take it you are a vegetarian ?

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 2:16 AM

Juan:
I take it you are a vegetarian ?

No, he's already said that he doesn't care if something, seemingly more brutal than mutilation, is committed against an animal. All that matters to him is the emotional response evoked by the actions. I suppose if the act of cuddling an animal angered him enough, he might justify himself in slaughtering anyone he found doing such a thing.

 

As to the idea that animal-mutilators are sub-human, that's an absolute load of shit. Humanity (in a societal sense) is defined by sentience: the ability to make decisions, and evaluate options. There is nothing about animal mutilation that hampers such an ability, and there's nothing about humanity that requires one to be empathetic to other animals, or value something in some prescribed way.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Harry Felker:
British are indeed not to be trusted LOL!!!!

You know why the sun never sets on the British empire?

 

 

God doesn't trust them in the dark.

 

(I got that from my favorite Marxist, George Galloway)

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Juan:
I take it you are a vegetarian ?

Or a vegetable.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 3:11 AM
Well, a vegetable wouldn't have the sort of opinions that Lord Rochester has...or maybe it would.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

wilderness:
"After Silas Deane's death, his heirs sued the American government for compensation, and received $35,000.  When archives of King George's letters were released in 1867, however, it was revealed that Deane had in fact been working as a British informant for the whole of the Revolution, holding regular midnight meetings in France at the Place Vendome with agent Paul Wentworth (who described the American contingent in Paris as 'Dr. Franklin is taciturn, deliberate, and cautious; Mr. Deane is vain, desultory, and subtle; Mr. Arthur Lee, suspicious and indolent').  It is unclear whether or not Deane knew that his secretary, William Bancroft, was also working as a British spy, for four hundred pounds a year."

 

While not an expert in 18th century espionage, I think this is confused. I have never heard of a William Bancroft, however I have heard of an Edward Bancroft. Edward Bancroft was a spy employed by Ben Franklin while working as a secretary for the American Commission in Paris, however he was also a double agent working for the British.

 

wilderness:
lol... I don't believe it.

I'm not sure I do either.

wilderness:
I wonder what proof Richard Deacon has.

Well Deacon isn't the only one to posit the view, another well respected historian Cecil Curry wrote a book about the possibility. (though the Time article is rather dismissive of the theory)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

Juan:
It's almost impossible for most people to even fathom defending the man, but advocating punishing him in a better and more effective way - though perhaps not violent - seems entirely reasonable.
I take it you are a vegetarian ?

Nope. Just reasonably empathetic and interested in the well being of puppy dogs and kitty cats. 

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

banned:
No, he's already said that he doesn't care if something, seemingly more brutal than mutilation, is committed against an animal. All that matters to him is the emotional response evoked by the actions. I suppose if the act of cuddling an animal angered him enough, he might justify himself in slaughtering anyone he found doing such a thing.

 

Well, yes, most people do tend to justify their actions. 

 

As to the idea that animal-mutilators are sub-human, that's an absolute load of shit. Humanity (in a societal sense) is defined by sentience: the ability to make decisions, and evaluate options. There is nothing about animal mutilation that hampers such an ability, and there's nothing about humanity that requires one to be empathetic to other animals, or value something in some prescribed way.

Well that's not a very good definition for humanity. Animals often evaluate their options and make decisions. After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection. 

 

In all actuality, I think emathy is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings; at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living. 

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

banned:

As to the idea that animal-mutilators are sub-human, that's an absolute load of shit. Humanity (in a societal sense) is defined by sentience: the ability to make decisions, and evaluate options. There is nothing about animal mutilation that hampers such an ability, and there's nothing about humanity that requires one to be empathetic to other animals, or value something in some prescribed way.

I didn't see anybody "prescribe" it.  It's my opinion.  I think the person is horrible.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Lord Shore-Twilly:

wilderness:
"After Silas Deane's death, his heirs sued the American government for compensation, and received $35,000.  When archives of King George's letters were released in 1867, however, it was revealed that Deane had in fact been working as a British informant for the whole of the Revolution, holding regular midnight meetings in France at the Place Vendome with agent Paul Wentworth (who described the American contingent in Paris as 'Dr. Franklin is taciturn, deliberate, and cautious; Mr. Deane is vain, desultory, and subtle; Mr. Arthur Lee, suspicious and indolent').  It is unclear whether or not Deane knew that his secretary, William Bancroft, was also working as a British spy, for four hundred pounds a year."

While not an expert in 18th century espionage, I think this is confused. I have never heard of a William Bancroft, however I have heard of an Edward Bancroft. Edward Bancroft was a spy employed by Ben Franklin while working as a secretary for the American Commission in Paris, however he was also a double agent working for the British.

I don't think it is confused.  Sounds like two people to me.

Lord Shore-Twilly:

wilderness:
I wonder what proof Richard Deacon has.

Well Deacon isn't the only one to posit the view, another well respected historian Cecil Curry wrote a book about the possibility. (though the Time article is rather dismissive of the theory)

"...about the possiblity."  I was talking about King George's letter's as proof in Deane's case.  But this is seemingly more a causal chat.Smile

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795

Wilmot of Rochester:

 

Well that's not a very good definition for humanity. Animals often evaluate their options and make decisions. After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection. 

I think many animals such as all kinds of insects operate with nothing more than instinct. And they're more successful in terms of population size and longevity than nearly any other creature on earth.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Rothbardians, proudly beating animals since 1982, in the name of reason. Seriously, there's few people that piss me off more than animal rights groups and vegetarians. But I can't say I have much patience for people who defend the right to "beat your dog". I wonder though, by Rothbardian standards if children can show they "own themselves" by running away, why can't dogs?

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 8:03 AM

Wilmot of Rochester:
Well, yes, most people do tend to justify their actions. 

The statement held no implication against that. You've ignored the dependent clause so you could address the independent one, verbatim.

Wilmot of Rochester:
After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection. 

This is a supposition, not a proof. It's not a valid demonstration of rational choice within non-homo sapiens.

 

Wilmot of Rochester:
In all actuality, I think emathy is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings.

This failed to address anything. You've just loaded the identity of "kindness towards animals" into the word empathy and asserted that in order to be human, you must respect other animals.

Empathy (emotive drive) is a requirement in humanity and and is also a demonstration of sentience. It is an integral part of human action, while prescribed values are not.

Wilmot of Rochester:
at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living.

So, given this, I suppose Anti-semitism was necessary requirement for human beings in Nazi Germany?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 8:14 AM

GilesStratton:
But I can't say I have much patience for people who defend the right to "beat your dog".

How about the right to eat your dog? Or euthanize your dog? Or cage your dog? Or leash your dog?

Anyways, you don't have a right to do something, you have a right from others initiating force against you.

GilesStratton:
I wonder though, by Rothbardian standards if children can show they "own themselves" by running away, why can't dogs?

Lovely straw man.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

banned:
Lovely straw man.

You're a lovely strawman.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 9:51 AM

Well, you're a beaner straw man.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Harry Felker:
And the UK has never had a higher crime rate than the US, even when it was allowed weapons, there must be something else causing it...

 

Well I would agree it hasn't had such a high murder rate, because even when guns were widely available we lacked the gun cluture enshrined into law that you in the US possess. But this doesn't really matter because correlation does not equate causation so this is all academic, however you argue that British crime figures are high because we lack guns, yet in the case of murder and rape the US with all its guns has a more substancial problem. As I said, your argument doesn't work.

 

Harry Felker:
That is funny, the article cites English Records that say you are wrong...

No, it doesn't. It tells us, misleadingly that hand gun crime has rocketed. What it doesn't tell you is that any increase in gun crime would be, by comparison, massive. All gun crime in the UK, including the most minor incidents, comes only to round 10-11,000 each year. It also doesn't tell you that while gun crime may have increased crime generally, including violent crime generally, has decreased to the lowest it has been for years. Taken from the British Home Office Statistical Bulletin 'Crime in England and Wales 2007-2008: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime', p. 80:

Harry Felker:
Again, since England has not had as high a crime rate as the US ever, there is something missing from your proof....

 

Nope. You claim that more guns = safer society. America has millions of guns, yet is still less safe than Britain which has few guns. Thus guns are obviously not the root of a safe society, as you yourself have admitted "there must be something else causing it".

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

Under reporting admission

And Another

And yet Another

Lord Shore-Twilly:
You claim that more guns = safer society.

No I claimed that I do not trust people are not allowed the implementations for their personal security, I made no such claim about the "Safety" of either society...

And since the consensus I found relayed that you can't even be trusted in reporting facts honestly, I seem to be justified in that claim...

 

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Harry Felker:

I think it fair to conclude that you didn't give these links a lot of thought, these are five flaws I spotted almost as soon as I opened them:

Firstly, two of the 'sources' you provide are Fleet Street papers. They have a vested interest in selling news paper, sensationalism sells papers. So what they say, especially in their headlines, isn't necessarily the way things are, or are reported in a manner designed to evade the full picture. To provide an example, the Independent notes that thirteen police authorities have under-reported crime. It fails to tellus by how much, and also fails to point out that this means that the other thirty two authorities did not under-report crime. The Telegraph's article, more ellusively still tells uinitially that authorities have been under reporting crime, in the very next sentence that certainty implied by 'have' is replaced by the far less decisive 'may have'. Again we are not told by how much this under-reporting has distored figures.

Secondly, the most interesting of your sources, the academic paper, was written a full decade ago, pertains to data long preceeding even that, and discusses only a small portion of crime on the whole, burglary. Hardly that relevent.

Thirdly, all the sources fail to take into account that there are at least two sources of data which offset each other and reduce the impact of flaws in the data. So one source may be in error, and that is what is picked up on in your link, but they then fail to take into account that the data that the home office employs to produce the kind of graph I provided, employs multiple sources limiting potential for a single source to misrepresent the overall picture.

Fourthly, even if we assume that crime is constantly under-reported (via all sources), as your links suggest, then that is hardly going to make a massive difference to a graph like the one I provided which shows massive fluctuation in general crime trends over a period of time. In other words even if in each instance crime has been under reported, and in fact all crime has been around say 20% above the reported figures, the trend would remain largely the same.

Fifthly, this is something of a moot point. We all know that crime statistics are likely to under-represent crime. Not all victims report crimes, not all crimes are discovered and the police may be doctoring their figures to present themselves in a better light. Crime surveys face the dual challenge of A. not being able to survey everyone and under reporting crime. B. they face the possibility of gathering false positives and over reporting crime. This is why you offset the two sources of data against each other in the hope of eliminating problems with the data. But still it is obvious that crime is geneally likely to be under reported. And that is a universal fact. Which is why the graph I provided is important, because it doesn't just represent data in individual years but over a period of time presenting us with trends. So you are positing a repost to an argument nobody has made.

 

With a little more thought, doubtless I could find still more problems.

Harry Felker:
No I claimed that I do not trust people are not allowed the implementations for their personal security, I made no such claim about the "Safety" of either society...

You are quite correct, I apologies. But tell me what correlation is there between the legal status of fire arms and national honesty? What an idiotic thing to suggest.

Secondly, in the UK you are in fact at liberty to use a wide variety of 'impliments' in your defence.

Harry Felker:
And since the consensus I found relayed that you can't even be trusted in reporting facts honestly, I seem to be justified in that claim...

I have reported the facts perfectly honestly, and in doing so provided you with ample aid, and opportunity, to conduct your own independent research to verify my statements.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 12
Points 300

Unfortunately this is the result of Rothbard's rejection of utilitarian ethics. The utilitarian standard for moral culpability rests on the persons causing of pain. If the man had anesthetized the dog first, I would see nothing wrong with the act as dogs are not self aware and therefore the act causes no pain. Had the act been done to an human, then it would always be immoral. The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism. Amoralists and utilitarians have the only real solution to this dilemma. The Kantians certainly don't.

  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

chrisgeorge:

Unfortunately this is the result of Rothbard's rejection of utilitarian ethics. The utilitarian standard for moral culpability rests on the persons causing of pain. If the man had anesthetized the dog first, I would see nothing wrong with the act as dogs are not self aware and therefore the act causes no pain. Had the act been done to an human, then it would always be immoral. The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism. Amoralists and utilitarians have the only real solution to this dilemma. The Kantians certainly don't.

'Spieciesism'? What a ludicrous idea. While certainly I'm not opposed to the notion of protecting animals from unnecessary suffering at the hands of weirdo individuals who get their kicks from mutilating animals, the idea of spieciesm is nonsense. It assumes a level of equality between spiecies that clearly defies reality.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 7 of 12 (473 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > ... Last » | RSS