William White said:My instinct is to distrust anybody that can either be cruel to an animal, or think it is okay to be cruel to an animal.Only scumbags can treat an animal badly.
Only scumbags will travel around the world to kill an animal for fun.
The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.
micromass said:Do you eat meat? Do you think people eating meat are immoral?
That is a movement to recognize something that is NOT currently recognized.William White said:
Because corporations are (groups of) people!We give person hood to corporations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Indeed it is. More importantly, it is the fact of what both the law and the prevailing personal morality is in the vast majority of the world -- and even for people who are internally conflicted and just don't recognize it.Your distinction between what entities deserves rights and those that do not is just as artificial as any other.
Has he been charged with this crime? What is the maximum punishment for poaching in zimbabwae?Poaching...
Its recognized in some countries.russ_watters said:That is a movement to recognize something that is NOT currently recognized.
Yes, rights can be extended to an entity that is a group of people. My town is a group of people, but it does not have the rights of a person.russ_watters said:Because corporations are (groups of) people!
No, it would not.micromass said:So if I find a cat or any other animal and I torture it for weeks in the most painful way possible, that would be ok for you?
I think most people would be right.zoobyshoe said:I think most people believe that the way someone treats animals is indicative of the way they treat (or would treat if allowed) people.
russ_watters said:Certainly: another unspoken assumption the others are using is that those disabled people have done nothing wrong. The same assumption is being applied to the lion. There is no reason for me to restate those assumptions because I agree with them: the relevant difference here is only what I said: the people are people. The lion is not.
Perhaps someone is misunderstanding that someone else is arguing that lions SHOULD be killed BECAUSE they have no value. I am not/would not make that argument: only that they CAN be killed because they have no (insufficient) value.
In case anyone might think it matters, I ate part of a cow about an hour ago. I'm not expecting to be arrested for murder.
why?russ_watters said:No, it would not.
russ_watters said:No, it would not.
russ_watters said:More importantly, it is the fact of what both the law and the prevailing personal morality is in the vast majority of the world -- and even for people who are internally conflicted and just don't recognize it.
I'm not.Lisa! said:I always thought that you're not against death penalty or war!
russ_watters said:I'm not.
It gives me emotional pain to see animals suffer. I'm not a psychologist, but that is probably due to anthropomorphism.micromass said:Why not? You said that morality does not apply to animals, so what's your reason for not liking this?
Correct.William White said:So there are conditions when it is okay to revoke the human right to life?
(executions in particular)
I disagree, but in either case, you are now arguing against your point.These human rights you go on about are on very shaky foundations!
micromass said:Why not? You said that morality does not apply to animals, so what's your reason for not liking this?
russ_watters said:Correct.
jobyts said:Humans have evolved to have secondary pain. Brain scans shows that it is the same part of the brain gets stimulated when we have primary pain or secondary pain. We learned to ignore the secondary pain, if the outcome gives us an evolutionary/sociological advantage.
Killing an animal for food/survival have evolutionary advantage over secondary pain. Torturing an animal has no evolutionary/sociological advantage. So secondary pain gets precedence.
That's ridiculous. I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not inclined to explain the entire concept of human right to you(and not relevant anyway), but again, you are arguing against your own point now.William White said:So you don't believe in human rights then?
If a right can be granted and removed (often wrongly) on the whim of a greater power, what sort of right is it?
russ_watters said:It gives me emotional pain to see animals suffer. I'm not a psychologist, but that is probably due to anthropomorphism.
William White said:yes
humans hunt other humans for fun (or money - how much was a redskin?), and torture other humans too.
they tend to be the same type that torture animals
zoobyshoe said:I think most people believe that the way someone treats animals is indicative of the way they treat (or would treat if allowed) people.
Oy. I don't know why we keep going down this rabbit hole. We are moving further and further away from the issue of the thread. Perhaps you guys are hoping to find a contradiction in my acceptance of morality for humans. I assure you, you will not, but even if you did, you would only prove that humans shouldn't be protected either! I'm not inclined to indulge this tangent much further, but briefly:micromass said:Why would "it pains me to see animals suffer" not be a good basis for morality? Isn't that what morality comes from?
russ_watters said:Oy. I don't know why we keep going down this rabbit hole.
There are lots of sources for morality. The most common I can think of off the top of my head are:
1. Genetics/evolution
2. Religion
3. Logic
4. Emotion
5. Law
6. Negotiation
Successfully arguing that humans should not have rights will not grant rights to animals.William White said:How am I arguing against my point.
Nonsense.You say that human rights exist because people are people (ie they are special and separate from animals);
but you are happy for human rights to be extinguished, removed, revoked on a whim
What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!If the most important human right is the right to life, then you cannot defend your position on human rights if you KNOW there are situations where you KNOW innocents will be killed needlessly.
So says your morality. Not mine.Your country wrongly executes its citizens. There is no justification whatsoever in this, IF you believe that human rights should be honoured.
"Shouldn not" is not up for debate: it is up to you. What I am stating here are the facts of what the current generally accepted moral code IS.micromass said:OK, and which one of those implies that morality should not apply to animals?
Also, I personally only accept 1, 3 and 4 as bases of my personal morality.
russ_watters said:What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!
So? Lions are lions. If you are looking for another tautology. The OP asks to disregard morality completely. Killing the disabled would save resources on health care and space. What purpose does killing lions serve?russ_watters said:Disabled people are people.
Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by neutering and the abandonment of former household pets has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, requiring population control.[8] This has contributed, along with habitat destruction and other factors, to extinction of many bird species. Cats have been known to extirpate a bird species within a specific region and may have contributed to extinction of isolated island populations.[9] Cats are thought to be primarily, though not solely responsible, for the extinction of 33 species of birds and the presence of feral and free ranging cats makes some locations unsuitable for attempted species reestablishment in otherwise suitable locations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
http://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-ecosystems-collapse.htmlPrimary or apex predators can actually benefit prey populations by suppressing smaller predators, and failure to consider this mechanism has triggered collapses of entire ecosystems.
Cascading negative effects of surging mesopredator populations have been documented for birds, sea turtles, lizards, rodents, marsupials, rabbits, fish, scallops, insects and ungulates.
The economic cost of controlling mesopredators may be very high, and sometimes could be accomplished more effectively at less cost by returning apex predators to the ecosystem.
Human intervention cannot easily replace the role of apex predators, in part because the constant fear of predation alters not only populations but behavior of mesopredators.
Large predators are usually carnivores, but mesopredators are often omnivores and can cause significant plant and crop damage.
The effects of exploding mesopredator populations can be found in oceans, rivers, forests and grasslands around the world.
Reversing and preventing mesopredator release is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive as the world's top predators continue to edge toward obliteration.
"These problems resist simple solutions," Ripple said. "I've read that when Gen. George Armstrong Custer came into the Black Hills in 1874, he noticed a scarcity of coyotes and the abundance of wolves. Now the wolves are gone in many places and coyotes are killing thousands of sheep all over the West."
"We are just barely beginning to appreciate the impact of losing our top predators," he said.
russ_watters said:"Shouldn not" is not up for debate: it is up to you. What I am stating here are the facts of what the current generally accepted moral code IS.
you support the death penaltyruss_watters said:What?! I would never support the needless killing of humans!