2nd Chances

If it's not illegal to torture and kill your own dog, then we can legally treat our own animals however we want. And you agree that it should not be illegal.

Did that just twist your words?

Quote: FinsRule

If it's not illegal to torture and kill your own dog, then we can legally treat our own animals however we want.

No. It's legal to get drunk. Do you get drunk every day? It's legal to climb Mount Everest. Have you climbed it? It's legal to smoke. Do you smoke? It's legal to eat nothing but sugar. Do you eat anything other than sugar? I could go on, but I trust you get the point that just because somethign is legal it doesn't mean you should do it, or even that most people would do it.

Quote:

Did that just twist your words?

Absolutely.

You are unreal. All I am saying is that you think that it should be legal to brutally murder your own dog. I think that is terrible, and I think anyone who thinks that is terrible.

I'm not saying that you think people should brutally murder their own dogs. I'm saying you think that humans have the right to torture their own pets/animals and that it should not be illegal.

I don't know how you can possibly say this is twisting your words. This is what you keep saying!

I feel like I'm arguing with MKL here...

Just in case you two want to argue the facts.

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf

Quote: FinsRule

I don't know how you can possibly say this is twisting your words. This is what you keep saying!

I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote. All I can plead is posting from work with half a mind on the boss not seeing what I'm doing :) But you did previously say I claimed such nefarious actions were ok.

Anyway, I feel an explanation is warranted. We need animals for lots of things, many of which involve abusing them in some way. I'm in the food industry and I know a thing or two about feed lots and slaughterhouses. If that's not abuse, I don't know what is. I also know a little about medical and scientific experiments on animals, that's worse than raising them for food. Not to mention we expose dogs to dangers they lack the ability to understand (rescue dogs and bomb sniffing dogs in particular). In the past horses died in war in numbers as great as men, or thereabouts.

But all of that is necessary and in some respects crucial. Medicine wouldn't advance as fast without animal experiments, for example. And meat is a great source of needed fats and proteins, not to mention we are omnivorous by nature.

If we start regarding animals as more than property, in a legal sense, and start instituting protections for them and rights, we will legislate their services out of existence. This is partly a slippery slope argument, to be sure, one which I do not favor much. But it is also the stated goal of several animal "rights" groups.

So I'm more willing to tolerate heinous acts like bullfighting and the atrocities Vick and his friends committed, than I am to see animal experiments outlawed and meat production reduced or stopped.

If you think that's terrible and horrifying, that's your lookout.

I think what Nareed's saying (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that animals DESERVE to be treated with respect and dignity, but granting them "rights" as the majority of population understands them, would open the doors to all sorts of crazy-assed laws that would challenge life as we know it, from simple pets, to work animals, to food animals, to research animals. Saying they have no rights (by this definition) by no means implies "hit them with hammers for fun".

This is kind of what I was asking in another post in this thread, basically questioning whether "rights" were synonymous to "laws". As I stated, I believe (insert any living thing here) has a "right" to live. I would not say that it should be a law that I MUST allow life to that same being, in the way we do to humans. In other words, the definition of "right", I suppose, defines my answer to the question. I looked at a "right" the way the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does (which I quoted), which I loosely interpreted as "a concept developed by humans to define what is right and just, and what is wrong and immoral". In this definition, I believe (insert living thing here) has rights. If "rights" mean "laws", then my belief isn't necessarily the same.

I don't think animals have rights in the same sense that humans have, but I do trust that justice exists, which means that I think humans will be judged. And, one of the things we will be judged on is how we treat beings we are more powerful than, including animals.

I think it's the sense of judgment, in the several forms taken in this debate, that separates humans and supports the point that evolution is something more than scientific.

I also think that, if you believe in evolution as the all-in-and-only aspect of human existence and the human condition, then in order to be philosophically consistent, you should not give a shit about how animals - or any other weaker being (women, whatever) - are treated, as the caring instinct is often contrary to survival instinct and yet still "wins" (see also firemen running into the World Trade Center on 9/11).

In other words, if you care about the treatment of animals, you betray a true belief of something outside of evolution whether you admit it or not.

It also explains why, when we see a dead animal on the road, we think "oh, that's too bad," but when we see a dead human, we drop what were doing, call the authorities, and an investigation is launched.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I also think that, if you believe in evolution as the all-in-and-only aspect of human existence and the human condition, then in order to be philosophically consistent, you should not give a shit about how animals - or any other weaker being (women, whatever) - are treated, as the caring instinct is often contrary to survival instinct and yet still "wins" (see also firemen running into the World Trade Center on 9/11).

In other words, if you care about the treatment of animals, you betray a true belief of something outside of evolution whether you admit it or not.

Strange way of looking at things, methinks. That is, if I understand correctly - one cannot be both void of God AND have caring, compassionate, and just morals. Seems a reach, to put it mildly.

But to look at your post deeper, without prejudice, I think I get what your saying. I think the difference is that we are in a way seperate from nature. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us as it does an animal. No one here is killing other's children to advance their own genes. No one here is leaving the old, sick and weak to die for the betterment of their herd. We are afforded the chance to ignore the "survival instinct", and allowed the opportunity to care. To turn around your example, if we came to a catastophe, some world destroying event that you see in the movies, where all tech is lost, agriculture is lost, all sort of order is lost, would the religious stoop to stealing, to hurting, to murdering another person, if it meant their or their families survival? Would anyone here put "thou shalt not ..." above watching your child starve to death before their eyes? I wouldn't think so, nor would I then state that their religious philosophy is a sham as a result of their transgressions.

I care about the treatment of animals. I've pretty much given my whole stance on the subject in this thread. Yet I have repeatedly stated my athiest beliefs. Are they mutually exclusive? I like to think I'm proof that they're not. Can I fully explain it? Not really. I guess the closest I could come would be to paraphrase ME's post and say just because something wasn't created, just because it's a random occurance, a mistake, even, doesn't mean it is not something to behold and treasure. For any example that that doesn't cover refer to my other post in the "Does God Exist" thread about my actions "echoing through time". I will have an after life, it just has nothing to do with religion or spirituality as it is normal defined.

Quote: Nareed

I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote. All I can plead is posting from work with half a mind on the boss not seeing what I'm doing :) But you did previously say I claimed such nefarious actions were ok.

Anyway, I feel an explanation is warranted. We need animals for lots of things, many of which involve abusing them in some way. I'm in the food industry and I know a thing or two about feed lots and slaughterhouses. If that's not abuse, I don't know what is. I also know a little about medical and scientific experiments on animals, that's worse than raising them for food. Not to mention we expose dogs to dangers they lack the ability to understand (rescue dogs and bomb sniffing dogs in particular). In the past horses died in war in numbers as great as men, or thereabouts.

But all of that is necessary and in some respects crucial. Medicine wouldn't advance as fast without animal experiments, for example. And meat is a great source of needed fats and proteins, not to mention we are omnivorous by nature.

If we start regarding animals as more than property, in a legal sense, and start instituting protections for them and rights, we will legislate their services out of existence. This is partly a slippery slope argument, to be sure, one which I do not favor much. But it is also the stated goal of several animal "rights" groups.

So I'm more willing to tolerate heinous acts like bullfighting and the atrocities Vick and his friends committed, than I am to see animal experiments outlawed and meat production reduced or stopped.

If you think that's terrible and horrifying, that's your lookout.

See, that's a much better answer.

I still disagree with you, pretty much because of the slippery slope fallacy which you acknowledged. I think there needs to be more protections of animals regarding the food we eat, and the experiments we conduct. And if that does slowly legislate their services out of existence, then so be it. Trust me, it will be slow.

I think this ends the argument at least on my end. You didn't convince me that you should be able to legally torture and murder your own dog, but, eh, I'll just leave it at that.

And to the poster who wants us to "argue the facts" How do you argue facts? We both knew there were laws protecting the senseless murder/torture of your pets, Nareed just thought there shouldn't be.

And this thread is dead to me.

Quote: Face

This is kind of what I was asking in another post in this thread, basically questioning whether "rights" were synonymous to "laws".

Not at all. Laws exist to protect rights.

It's all spelled out right near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Quote:

I looked at a "right" the way the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does (which I quoted), which I loosely interpreted as "a concept developed by humans to define what is right and just, and what is wrong and immoral".

That's as wrong as calling color a concept developed by people to define some characteristics of an object. A green object reflects light of certain wavelengths, whether or not you call it "green" or even acknowledge "color."

The problem is that once a government departs from using the law to protect rights, and starts using it to grant people privileges and calling them rights, such as giving everyone the "right" to have an education, the concept of "rights" begins to lose all meaning. Also when a guiding document, such as the constitution, lists some rights and people come to believe those are the only real "rights" that should exist.

On one hand you are expanding the concept of rights way beyond its natural scope, on the other you are limiting it.