Welcome to PetForumz.com!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen

 
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights RSS
Next:  FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed)  
Author Message
usual suspect

External


Since: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 354



(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen
Archived from groups: alt>animals>ethics>vegetarian, others (more info?)

Lesley wrote:
"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto
him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in
running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that
soweth discord among brethren." - Proverbs 6: 16-19

Allow me to break these down piecemeal for you so you can see that it applies to
Karen and her ilk.

1. PROUD LOOK: Karen routinely sets herself up as a moral example. Yet we know,
by her own admission, that she abandoned her own son. She has also shared with
us her dislike for her son "as a person." She calls her son a "weird fascist."

2. A LYING TONGUE: Karen claims to have been an anarchist and libertarian. She
claims she did the best for her son by abandoning him. She passes the buck to
farmers when it comes to CDs. She makes claims about the US military de-funding
birth control without supporting it. She engages in sleazy sophistry, divorcing
"post-1970s AR" from every philosophical precedent in that pseudo-philosophy. I
could go on and on with her hypocrisy and lies.

3. HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD: Karen reflexively supports abortion on demand
and lives with a very nasty child-hater. Karen's support of abortion is so
extreme that she rejects laws that require informed consent and notification of
a minor's parents before such an invasive surgery is performed. She has also
compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire -- which goes to point 2 in her complicity
in spreading filthy and unfounded lies.

4. HEART THAT DEVISETH WICKED IMAGINATIONS: Karen embraces, endorses, and
promotes the peculiar notions of heretics like Andrew Linzey. She engages in
convoluted sophistry and says the Bible means something than what it actually
says, and that it doesn't mean what it clearly says.

5. FEET THAT BE SWIFT TO RUNNING TO MISCHIEF: Karen is an ungrounded person.
She's run from marriage to marriage, abandoning her family along the way. She
chose to wash stray cats for minimum wage rather than find work which her
education suited her so she could take care of her son. She has led the life of
an activist -- a hypocritical one who wants the state to do for others what she
failed to do for herself and her son.

6. A FALSE WITNESS THAT SPEAKETH LIES: See points 2 and 3. On the basis of no
evidence, she has willfully promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories to cast aspersions
on others. You have done the same.

7. SOWETH DISCORD AMONG BRETHREN: Karen openly promotes schismatic activities
within her church and within the broader culture. She approves of the ordination
of a bishop who divorced his wife to engage in an openly homosexual lifestyle.
She doesn't engage in the ministry of reconcilation, but rather wants MORE
division. She scoffs at the faithful as "fundies" and wants them to leave the
church.

You really should chastise her for these things, not to mention her support of
bestiality and pedophilia.

 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rubystars

External


Since: Nov 15, 2003
Posts: 268



(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"usual suspect" <support.DeleteThis@our.troops> wrote in message
<snip>
> You really should chastise her for these things, not to mention her
support of
> bestiality and pedophilia.

I remember the whole NAMBLA conversation but what's this about bestiality?

-Rubystars

 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rat & Swan

External


Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313



(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

usual suspect wrote:

> Rubystars wrote:

>>> You really should chastise her for these things, not to mention her
>> support of
>>> bestiality and pedophilia.

>> I remember the whole NAMBLA conversation but what's this about
>> bestiality?

> Karen endorses bestiality and thinks it is pro-AR.

As usual, Usual, you state things in black and white which
I stated in shades of gray. I said that I thought zoophilia
(not simply bestiality) COULD BE compatible with a pro-AR
attitude, because it CAN grant more sense of personhood and
equality to a non-human partner than the usual one in our
culture. I just don't think sexual activity is inherently
evil or suspect; I think HARM is evil, and therefore ANY
activity -- sexual, social, religious, or whatever -- has to
be considered in terms of any HARM it causes. I haven't
seen any convincing evidence that loving sexual activity, in
private, with a non-human MUST be inherently harmful to either
partner.

<snip>

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rat & Swan

External


Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313



(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

usual suspect wrote:


<snip>

> "Harmful" is a good word to discuss. Sexual relations between warped,
> perverted humans and helpless animals -- conditioned to such depraved
> relations -- is unhealthy for the human participant and for the captive
> animal put through such abuse.

So -- I ask again -- how is this type of "conditioning" any different
in its nature from the conditioning which humans use to house-train
a dog or train a horse to pull a cart?

<snip>

>> Can you see any RATIONAL fault in my speculative analysis of
>> the cultural (or biological) origins of prohibition of cross-species
>> mating?

> Yes.

So -- what is it? You haven't said what it is.

>> Other than emotional reaction, what logical error is there,
>> and why is reason and logic "yucky"?

> Strawman, as noted above.

Why?

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
pearl

External


Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 632



(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:43 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? - it's only too obvious [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"usual suspect" <support.DeleteThis@our.troops> wrote in message news:Vo06c.280$1r6.51@fe2.texas.rr.com...

You lie about me and my beliefs, -- it's a given that you
also lie about others and their beliefs. So, I'm not going
to accept your account of others' beliefs/actions, twister.

<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
usual suspect

External


Since: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 354



(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:43 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? - it's only too [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

pearl wrote:
> You lie about me and my beliefs, --

No, I don't.

> it's a given that you
> also lie about others and their beliefs.

I don't do that.

> So, I'm not going
> to accept your account of others' beliefs/actions, twister.

Can you prove your smears against me?
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
pearl

External


Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 632



(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:40 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? - it's only tooobvious [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"usual suspect" <support RemoveThis @our.troops> wrote in message news:PZ06c.292$1r6.51@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > You lie about me and my beliefs, --
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, liar, you do.

> > it's a given that you
> > also lie about others and their beliefs.
>
> I don't do that.

You most certainly do.

> > So, I'm not going
> > to accept your account of others' beliefs/actions, twister.
>
> Can you prove your smears against me?

Not 'smears' - fact.
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
usual suspect

External


Since: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 354



(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:04 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? - it's only tooobvious [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Lying Lesley O'Footrot wrote:
>>>You lie about me and my beliefs, --
>>
>>No, I don't.
>
> Yes, liar, you do.

When have I lied about you and your beliefs? You agreed that nearly every point
on that list is accurate. I changed the ones which you objected when you told me
otherwise.

>>>it's a given that you
>>>also lie about others and their beliefs.
>>
>>I don't do that.
>
> You most certainly do.

Prove it.

>>>So, I'm not going
>>>to accept your account of others' beliefs/actions, twister.
>>
>>Can you prove your smears against me?
>
> Not 'smears' -

They are smears. They are entirely unsupported accusations.

<...>
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rat & Swan

External


Since: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 313



(Msg. 9) Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:54 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>
> I'd think simply from an AR point of view that you'd understand that it's a
> disservice to teach a companion animal that sort of behavior because if the
> animal ever has to be transferred to another owner, that's not going to make
> them very adoptable.

Well, the point for the real zoophile is that no one teaches the animal
the behavior -- no one "conditions" the animal. Zoophiles look for
animals who volunteer when the opportunity presents itself. And
zoophiles don't expect the animal to ever go to another partner.

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
farrell77

External


Since: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 21



(Msg. 10) Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:43 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? - it's only too obvious [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:c3ag1j$u5i$1@kermit.esat.net...
> Lying "usual suspect" <support RemoveThis @our.troops> wrote in message
news:V336c.5313$Mm2.2636@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > >>>You lie about me and my beliefs, --
> > >>
> > >>No, I don't.
> > >
> > > Yes, liar, you do.
> >
> > When have I lied about you and your beliefs? ...

For starters, you lied in your phony list of her beliefs. And then
you kept doing it and doing it and doing it.... That's not proper
behavior for a Christian.


> ...You agreed that nearly
every point
> > on that list is accurate. I changed the ones which you objected when you
told me
> > otherwise.

Please provide the URL to the post in which you did this.

Thanks in advance.

[...]
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rubystars

External


Since: Nov 15, 2003
Posts: 268



(Msg. 11) Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:39 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote
<snip>
>I believe animals have the right not to be abused by humans.
>
> Why?

I just think it's the wrong thing to do. Maybe I should restate that in that
I believe that humans don't have the right to abuse animals. You could turn
this around and say that gives the animals a certain amount of "Right" not
to suffer abuse. I don't think they have rights against us any more than
they would other species though, except that we're capable of making
conscious decisions not to cause unecessary pain.

> >I'm not an ARA
>
> You have just advocated that animals hold a right against us
> not to be abused, albeit according to your definition of abuse.
> Isn't that exactly what ARA do?

ARAs are against both use and abuse.

> >because I don't think that animal use (including humane
> >slaughter) is necessarily abusive.
>
> What is abuse if not the taking of a sentient being's life?
> Abuse doesn't have to be something vicious. Take what
> Hume says, for example;
>
> "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for
> instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that
> matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In
> which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions,
> motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter
> of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long
> as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you
> turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a
> sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
> from the contemplation of it."
>
> From that we may well ask why the action of murder
> is vicious, and then state that to condemn murderers
> as immoral is simply to express the constitution of our
> nature. But we don't. We condemn murderers because
> we understand that what they do is fundamentally wrong
> on the basis that they are violating the rights of their
> victims. If you believe animals hold the right against us
> not to abuse them, why don't they hold an even mightier
> right against us not to kill them? What rule do you use
> that allows one rights violation and prohibits another?

We have the same *rights* as other predators to meet our nutritional needs
and to prey on other animals. It's unecessary pain that I disagree with.

-Rubystars
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
ipse dixit

External


Since: Mar 13, 2004
Posts: 11



(Msg. 12) Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:34 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:39:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <windstorm DeleteThis @swbell.net> wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote
><snip>
>>I believe animals have the right not to be abused by humans.
>>
>> Why?
>
>I just think it's the wrong thing to do.

Petitio principii. All you're doing here is repeating
your belief in that you think animals have the right
not to be abused, and that's not good enough. The
question was "why". I already know you think it's
the wrong thing to do, so you now need to explain
why.

>Maybe I should restate that in that
>I believe that humans don't have the right to abuse animals.

I gave you plenty of warning to think about your
comments by writing;

"Careful, Rubystars, or I'll count you in as an ARA if
you're willing to agree with "everything" I've just said. ;-)"

but you went straight ahead and blurted;

"I believe animals have the right not to be abused by
humans."

Your requests to restate what you meant after being
warned look like back-pedalling to me.

>You could turn this around and say that gives the
>animals a certain amount of "Right" not to suffer
>abuse.

I don't need to "turn this around and say" something
other than what's before us because I have your own
uncoerced statement conceding a belief where "animals
have the right not to be abused by humans."

>I don't think they have rights against us any more than
>they would other species though

Why? You said you "believe animals have the right not
to be abused by humans.", not that they hold any rights
against other animals, so why do you include this after-
thought when it's completely unnecessary to whether
they hold rights against humans?

> , except that we're capable of making
>conscious decisions not to cause unecessary pain.

No one believes animals hold rights against each other.
Rights can only be held against moral agents on the basis
that they are autonomous moral agents capable of
enduring the consequences of their wrong actions. We
don't expect animals to act in certain ways toward us
or each other.

>> >I'm not an ARA
>>
>> You have just advocated that animals hold a right against us
>> not to be abused, albeit according to your definition of abuse.
>> Isn't that exactly what ARA do?
>
>ARAs are against both use and abuse.

And does your stance against only one of these AR
standards make you any less of an ARA? You advocate
that animals hold a right against humans not to be abused.
If some uses are found to be abuses you would have to
conclude animals hold a right against us for both treatments.

>> >because I don't think that animal use (including humane
>> >slaughter) is necessarily abusive.
>>
>> What is abuse if not the taking of a sentient being's life?
>> Abuse doesn't have to be something vicious. Take what
>> Hume says, for example;
>>
>> "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for
>> instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that
>> matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In
>> which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions,
>> motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter
>> of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long
>> as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you
>> turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a
>> sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
>> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
>> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
>> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
>> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
>> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
>> from the contemplation of it."
>>
>> From that we may well ask why the action of murder
>> is vicious, and then state that to condemn murderers
>> as immoral is simply to express the constitution of our
>> nature. But we don't. We condemn murderers because
>> we understand that what they do is fundamentally wrong
>> on the basis that they are violating the rights of their
>> victims. If you believe animals hold the right against us
>> not to abuse them, why don't they hold an even mightier
>> right against us not to kill them? What rule do you use
>> that allows one rights violation and prohibits another?
>
>We have the same *rights* as other predators to meet our
>nutritional needs and to prey on other animals.

I'm sorry, but neither we or the animals have such rights. We
have the freedom to and hold rights against those who would
impede our freedoms to. There's a huge distinction between
the two that you ought to take note of when discussing rights.

>It's unecessary pain that I disagree with.

Why?
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 13) Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:34 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote

That munge would be easily detected by most spam bots.

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:39:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <windstorm.RemoveThis@swbell.net>
wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote
> ><snip>
> >>I believe animals have the right not to be abused by humans.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >I just think it's the wrong thing to do.
>
> Petitio principii. All you're doing here is repeating
> your belief in that you think animals have the right
> not to be abused, and that's not good enough.

She didn't just repeat it, first she stated that animals have the right not
to be abused, then on clarification she stated that "it's the wrong thing to
do". The clarification reveals her belief that human behaviour (i.e. right
or wrong) is what is at issue. In fact I have explained to you more than
once that "animals have the right not to be abused by humans" is a common
shorthand for the pervasive belief that it's wrong for humans to cause
gratuitous pain and suffering to animals. It has very little to do with
"Animal Rights" in the in extremist sense, and you know it.

> The
> question was "why". I already know you think it's
> the wrong thing to do, so you now need to explain
> why.

It's wrong because the term "abuse" by definition implies wrong. If she
simply meant "harm" then that would be a much broader statement.

> >Maybe I should restate that in that
> >I believe that humans don't have the right to abuse animals.
>
> I gave you plenty of warning to think about your
> comments by writing;
>
> "Careful, Rubystars, or I'll count you in as an ARA if
> you're willing to agree with "everything" I've just said. ;-)"
>
> but you went straight ahead and blurted;
>
> "I believe animals have the right not to be abused by
> humans."
>
> Your requests to restate what you meant after being
> warned look like back-pedalling to me.

No it doesn't look like backpedalling one bit, your interrogation of her is
sophistry.

> >You could turn this around and say that gives the
> >animals a certain amount of "Right" not to suffer
> >abuse.
>
> I don't need to "turn this around and say" something
> other than what's before us because I have your own
> uncoerced statement conceding a belief where "animals
> have the right not to be abused by humans."

No you don't, she clarified her statement perfectly well, you're being
deliberately obtuse.

> >I don't think they have rights against us any more than
> >they would other species though
>
> Why? You said you "believe animals have the right not
> to be abused by humans.", not that they hold any rights
> against other animals, so why do you include this after-
> thought when it's completely unnecessary to whether
> they hold rights against humans?
>
> > , except that we're capable of making
> >conscious decisions not to cause unecessary pain.
>
> No one believes animals hold rights against each other.
> Rights can only be held against moral agents on the basis
> that they are autonomous moral agents capable of
> enduring the consequences of their wrong actions. We
> don't expect animals to act in certain ways toward us
> or each other.

That's false, we frequently expect animals to act (or not act) in very
specific ways or else they receive sanctions. Dogs that bite repeatedly are
usually killed.

> >> >I'm not an ARA
> >>
> >> You have just advocated that animals hold a right against us
> >> not to be abused, albeit according to your definition of abuse.
> >> Isn't that exactly what ARA do?
> >
> >ARAs are against both use and abuse.
>
> And does your stance against only one of these AR
> standards make you any less of an ARA? You advocate
> that animals hold a right against humans not to be abused.
> If some uses are found to be abuses you would have to
> conclude animals hold a right against us for both treatments.

Abuse is abuse, use in and of itself is not abuse.

> >> >because I don't think that animal use (including humane
> >> >slaughter) is necessarily abusive.
> >>
> >> What is abuse if not the taking of a sentient being's life?
> >> Abuse doesn't have to be something vicious. Take what
> >> Hume says, for example;
> >>
> >> "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for
> >> instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that
> >> matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In
> >> which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions,
> >> motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter
> >> of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long
> >> as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you
> >> turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a
> >> sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
> >> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
> >> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
> >> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
> >> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
> >> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
> >> from the contemplation of it."
> >>
> >> From that we may well ask why the action of murder
> >> is vicious, and then state that to condemn murderers
> >> as immoral is simply to express the constitution of our
> >> nature. But we don't. We condemn murderers because
> >> we understand that what they do is fundamentally wrong
> >> on the basis that they are violating the rights of their
> >> victims. If you believe animals hold the right against us
> >> not to abuse them, why don't they hold an even mightier
> >> right against us not to kill them? What rule do you use
> >> that allows one rights violation and prohibits another?
> >
> >We have the same *rights* as other predators to meet our
> >nutritional needs and to prey on other animals.
>
> I'm sorry, but neither we or the animals have such rights.

Yes we do, you fail to grasp another nuance of the word "right" that AR
apologists like you refuse to acknowledge in your sophistic attempts.

> We
> have the freedom to and hold rights against those who would
> impede our freedoms to. There's a huge distinction between
> the two that you ought to take note of when discussing rights.

It's you that is failing (deliberately) to take note of the meaning of what
she is saying. You're being ingenuous.

> >It's unecessary pain that I disagree with.
>
> Why?

Because she is compassionate, a common human trait you need to cultivate.
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rubystars

External


Since: Nov 15, 2003
Posts: 268



(Msg. 14) Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:47 pm
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- jonnie [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:nsfm50p11cd344ilpbdl44oeferqvlgp18@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:39:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <windstorm RemoveThis @swbell.net>
wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <ipse_dixit@SPAMTRAPbtinternet.com> wrote
> ><snip>
> >>I believe animals have the right not to be abused by humans.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >I just think it's the wrong thing to do.
>
> Petitio principii. All you're doing here is repeating
> your belief in that you think animals have the right
> not to be abused, and that's not good enough. The
> question was "why". I already know you think it's
> the wrong thing to do, so you now need to explain
> why.

Cruelty is something that humans are capable of because we're capable of
knowing better. I think we should avoid cruelty because pain and suffering
are by definition unpleasant and shouldn't be inflicted on others without a
very good reason.

> >Maybe I should restate that in that
> >I believe that humans don't have the right to abuse animals.
>
> I gave you plenty of warning to think about your
> comments by writing;
>
> "Careful, Rubystars, or I'll count you in as an ARA if
> you're willing to agree with "everything" I've just said. ;-)"
>
> but you went straight ahead and blurted;
>
> "I believe animals have the right not to be abused by
> humans."
>
> Your requests to restate what you meant after being
> warned look like back-pedalling to me.

You can take it how you like. I agreed with your statements in regard to
bestiality/zoophilia being abusive, and you're nitpicking. I've said the
same things in other posts before, it seems you only now decided to notice.

> >You could turn this around and say that gives the
> >animals a certain amount of "Right" not to suffer
> >abuse.
>
> I don't need to "turn this around and say" something
> other than what's before us because I have your own
> uncoerced statement conceding a belief where "animals
> have the right not to be abused by humans."

And your point is?

> >I don't think they have rights against us any more than
> >they would other species though
>
> Why? You said you "believe animals have the right not
> to be abused by humans.", not that they hold any rights
> against other animals, so why do you include this after-
> thought when it's completely unnecessary to whether
> they hold rights against humans?

Just trying to clarify things, but I should have known it would lead to more
confusion.

> > , except that we're capable of making
> >conscious decisions not to cause unecessary pain.
>
> No one believes animals hold rights against each other.
> Rights can only be held against moral agents on the basis
> that they are autonomous moral agents capable of
> enduring the consequences of their wrong actions. We
> don't expect animals to act in certain ways toward us
> or each other.

You're right I don't.

> >> >I'm not an ARA
> >>
> >> You have just advocated that animals hold a right against us
> >> not to be abused, albeit according to your definition of abuse.
> >> Isn't that exactly what ARA do?
> >
> >ARAs are against both use and abuse.
>
> And does your stance against only one of these AR
> standards make you any less of an ARA? You advocate
> that animals hold a right against humans not to be abused.
> If some uses are found to be abuses you would have to
> conclude animals hold a right against us for both treatments.

I think that some uses (such as bullfighting, or bestiality) are abusive by
nature and shouldn't happen at all, but most uses I don't oppose.

<snip>
> >We have the same *rights* as other predators to meet our
> >nutritional needs and to prey on other animals.
>
> I'm sorry, but neither we or the animals have such rights. We
> have the freedom to and hold rights against those who would
> impede our freedoms to. There's a huge distinction between
> the two that you ought to take note of when discussing rights.
<Snip>

Ok that makes sense.

-Rubystars
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:06 am
Post subject: Re: who's the one sowing discord -- Karen [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote

> Humans can take moral obligations upon themselves
> without conferring "rights" on animals. As you note,
> although not in so many words, noting that animals have
> a "right" not to be abused is a shorthand way of noting
> that we have undertaken an obligation, not based on any
> animal "right", not to abuse them.

You could say that people don't actually have a right not to be assaulted or
robbed, just that other humans have undertaken moral obligations not to do
it.

> It's unfortunate
> that the usage developed, but there it is.

I don't find it unfortunate. In my view the basis for the concept "animals
have a right not to be abused" is the same as the basis for the idea that
humans have the rights that they have, although much less complex. Human
society develops a set of rules, laws, social sanctions, prohibitions to
protect humans from certain harms, subsequently when we look at people in
society we perceive they have these rights we call "human" rights.
Similiarly we have set up laws, social sanctions, and so on, prohibiting
certain behaviour towards animals, the result is, or another way of looking
at this state of affairs is, that those animals hold those particular rights
against humans corresponding to those laws, rules and sanctions. I
acknowledge no slippery slope, rather plateaus, classes, or levels of rights
which are appropriate to the situation.

[..]
> > That's false, we frequently expect animals to act (or not act) in very
> > specific ways or else they receive sanctions. Dogs that bite repeatedly
are
> > usually killed.
>
> Rather a harsh sanction!

Yes, but highly effective ;^)
 >> Stay informed about: who's the one sowing discord among brethren? Karen 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 1 of 4

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]