Zoo's

[DaRk-OnE]

I would like to hear your opinions about zoo's and wether they should be allowed,are they cruel?,are they fair?

[Pawn Power]

It depends. Zoos which go out and specifically capture animals from the wild to desplay for profite are obviously wronge. However, some zoos rescue endagered species of animals or animals whos natural habitate has been distroied. The later seems to be a vital in preserving various species in the evey growing distruction on rain forests and other natural areas around the world.

['Discourse Unlimited']

I agree (with 'Revolution is the Solution').

I also think that zoos can aid in the "education" of the human race. I mean, learning more about the world we live in, not just assuming that Mother Earth is there for us to rape every time we think we need something! Many zoos also act as a "hospital" for injured animals, who'd simply die if they were left in the wild. This is another positive role. (Though no zoo can act as a substitute for the burning of the rainforests!)

[redstar2000]

As I understand it, there are "new zoos" and "old zoos".

Old zoos are really horrible...tiny cages where animals "go crazy" from confinement.

New zoos attempt to recreate conditions similar to the natural conditions in which animals live in the wild.

Naturally, new zoos take up a lot of space and are more expensive to operate...so there are not many of them.

All things considered, it would be better to close all the old zoos and only allow the new style zoos to be built.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[codyvo]

Hopefully, if their is to be a revolution, than after it, we can improve the enviroment enough so that we can eventually get rid of all zoos entirely, although I will admit, they are very enjoyable, I feel bad for the animals though.

[Clarksist]

Zoo's are HORRIBLE lapses of humane treatment. It is basically jailing animals for no reason other than for your own entertainment.

Aquariums are just as bad. Every animal needs FREEDOM.

Oppression of animals and exploitation of them for the benefit of yourself is just as bad as exploiting a human.

However, wildlife shelters are a different story.

[FatFreeMilk]

Zoo's are HORRIBLE lapses of humane treatment. It is basically jailing animals for no reason other than for your own entertainment. So what if they're entertaning? At the same time they're educational. A place where people can learn about the creatures of this world without being eaten is a good place.


Aquariums are just as bad. Every animal needs FREEDOM. No they're not...
How much "freedom" do animals really need? Please don't personify animals okay. As long as they're being treated humanely then it's all good. I'm sure there are various organizations around to keep the zoos and zoo keepers on check.


Oppression of animals and exploitation of them for the benefit of yourself is just as bad as exploiting a human. No it's not.

[LSD]

Zoo's are HORRIBLE lapses of humane treatment.

Some are, some aren't.

Obviously, we should try to have more that are not and less that are.


It is basically jailing animals for no reason other than for your own entertainment.

Entertainment and education, yes.

So what?


Every animal needs FREEDOM.

Why?


Oppression of animals and exploitation of them for the benefit of yourself is just as bad as exploiting a human.

:rolleyes:

I am so sick of this total animal liberation PeTA ALF crap.

Animals are not human, they are not part of human society, and they do not have human rights.

[Clarksist]

No they're not...
How much "freedom" do animals really need? Please don't personify animals okay. As long as they're being treated humanely then it's all good. I'm sure there are various organizations around to keep the zoos and zoo keepers on check.


Animals need freedom for full development of their mind. As far as "being sure" most watchdog organization are more alienating then anything else.


I am so sick of this total animal liberation PeTA ALF crap.

Animals are not human, they are not part of human society, and they do not have human rights.


Why shouldn't animals have the same rights as humans? They are living creatures, they think, feel, and live. Why shouldn't they have rights? Why shouldn't they have equal rights?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More useful than zoos, I feel that a genetic databank containing effectively the blueprints of animals, plants, fungi and other living creatures from which we could basically recreate any creature we wanted from scratch.

We've mapped the human genome, and the mouse genome. Let's start on the others.

[SupportTheALF]

Zoo's are nothing more than prisons.

Rehabilitation is the key.

[RedAnarchist]

We do not need zoos to learn about animals. Just because they cannot tell us their feelings, doesnt mean that they have none. Free all the prisoners of these jails, in my opinion.

['Discourse Unlimited']

Free all the prisoners of these jails...

Zoo's are nothing more than prisons...

Zoo's are HORRIBLE lapses of humane treatment...


(Etc. etc.)
I don't quite know where this idea has come from! I have visited several zoos in this country (the UK), one in Spain, and one in America. In each case, the cages were large enough, the animals looked healthy, and the zoo performed a "social function" - the education that I mentioned; school trips; and some of them funded animal rescue operations.

Of course, there are "bad" zoos too. But by no means all of them!

Plus, one of my friends works at a zoo - she took the job because she loves caring for animals, not because she wants to mistreat them!

[LSD]

Why shouldn't animals have the same rights as humans?

Because human rights are creations of human society and only afforded to those who are capable of participating in that society.


They are living creatures, they think, feel, and live.

So what?


Why shouldn't they have rights? Why shouldn't they have equal rights?

Because they are not "equal"!

Creatures that are genetically incapable of understanding rights cannot be afforded said rights.

Animals are not even able to comprehend the idea of society, let alone societal rights. They are fundmanetally unable to participate in human society or to bear responsibility for their actions and so cannot be considered as members of society.

[violencia.Proletariat]

lad, just shut hte fuck up already. your no better than any animals in a zoo, all you do is criticize people over what they think about animals. if your not worried about total animal liberation happening then shut up about it. just because you have a bigger brain doesnt make you the master of all things and you can kill and use other living things as you please. suffering is suffering.

[LSD]

if your not worried about total animal liberation happening then shut up about it.

:lol:

What kind of fucked up logic is that?


just because you have a bigger brain doesnt make you the master of all things

No, of course not. But being capable or precapable of participating in human society is a prerequisite for human societal rights.


suffering is suffering.

NO!

Suffering is not suffering. There are no absolutes, everything is contextual. Human suffering is more important to human society than squirl suffering. Likewise, squirl suffering would be more important than human suffering to squirl socity, if such a thing existed.


lad, just shut hte fuck up already.

your no better than any animals in a zoo

Not exactly captain of the debate team, were you?

['Discourse Unlimited']

Hey, 'L.A.D.', chill! :)

If "there are no absolutes", on what authority do you base the assertion:



Human suffering is more important to human society than squirl suffering.


That's only your view. I happen to agree (though I do feel that the suffering of small furry rodents is rather tragic...) - but others won't! Nice spelling of "squirrel", by the way. ;)

[LSD]

If "there are no absolutes", on what authority do you base the assertion:

That isn't an absolute!

I'm saying that a society values it's members above its nonmembers, that's the basis of a society. Therefore, relative to human society, human suffering is more important.

An absolute would be human suffering is more important without contextualizing that importance. That implies that human suffering is more important in the abstract. That's making an absolute statement. My statement was definitively relative, however.


Hey, 'L.A.D.', chill!

Who, me?

I think you should be talking to the fellow who wrote:

lad, just shut hte fuck up already.


Nice spelling of "squirrel", by the way.

:D

I don't like 'em, I can't spell 'em! :lol:

[Clarksist]

Because human rights are creations of human society and only afforded to those who are capable of participating in that society.


That doesn't mean animals shouldn't be equal.


Because they are not "equal"!

Creatures that are genetically incapable of understanding rights cannot be afforded said rights.

Animals are not even able to comprehend the idea of society, let alone societal rights. They are fundmanetally unable to participate in human society or to bear responsibility for their actions and so cannot be considered as members of society.


Well what about mentally handicapped people whod on't understand society? Should they not have rights? You logic is stating that if you can't comprehend society of societal rights you should not have rights, yet there a humans who can't bear the responsibility of their actions... so should strongly mentally handicapped people have no rights? Should we cage them and charge people to watch them live behind bars?

Also, animals do have culture and society. The have hierarchies, "jobs", and inventors. At least that's what they say in Cultural Anthropology.

['Discourse Unlimited']

That...

["Human suffering is more important to human society than squirl suffering."]

... isn't an absolute!


Well, it sounds like one to me. You've effectively TOLD people that this is the case, unequivocally, absolutely, with no exceptions! But as I said, there are probably people who would disagree. The statement was only relative to you! :P



I don't like 'em [squirls], I can't spell 'em! :lol:


Awww, you don't like squirrels? They rock!

[Urban Guerrilla]

A squirrel society... Animals do deserve some respect, whether you eat them or want to put them in a new age zoo. There should be no torturing of any animals, including squirrels :che:

['Discourse Unlimited']

Wow, that's a BIG picture! :P
So 'cute'...
(Yet historically, a disease-ridden pest!)

[LSD]

Well, it sounds like one to me. You've effectively TOLD people that this is the case, unequivocally, absolutely, with no exceptions!

hmmm... I guess it depends on the meaning of "absolute".

What I meant was that moral and ethical principles only exist within contexts. Clearly, however, facts are absolute.

The speed of light in a vaccum, for instance, is "absolutely"" true.

So you're right. In a way, I am making an "absolute" statement; I am saying that something is true. But then by that logic, any contention of truth is an "absolute" statement.


That doesn't mean animals shouldn't be equal.

It means they shouldn't be equal within human society.

Beyond that, "equality" is a meaningless concept.


Well what about mentally handicapped people whod on't understand society? Should they not have rights? You logic is stating that if you can't comprehend society of societal rights you should not have rights, yet there a humans who can't bear the responsibility of their actions... so should strongly mentally handicapped people have no rights? Should we cage them and charge people to watch them live behind bars?

*sigh*

Haven't we covered this already?

Humans are capable of higher thought. The mentally challanged are prevented from doing so due to a condition, but they are still genetically capable of doing so.

Look at it this way, the time might well come when we can treat the mentally challanged: regrow neurons, fix damaged pathways, reverse brain damage, etc...

The time will never come when we can make a ferret capable of understanding "rights". It won't. They are simply genetically and physologically incapable of doing so.


Also, animals do have culture and society.

To a very limited degree and depending on the animal in question.

But, fine! Let's say, for the sake of argument, that animals do have rudimentary socities. Within those societies, humans have no rights!

That is, wolf "society" does not give humans the rights that it does to wolves.

Likewise, human society can not give to wolves the rights that it gives to humans.


There should be no torturing of any animals, including squirrels

I agree!

No living thing should be needlessly tortured or abused. But that's a long way from saying that squirrels should be accorded human rights!

[Clarksist]

It means they shouldn't be equal within human society.


Society is a changable concept, it isn't like the fact that they don't participate in human society should mean that the society should exploit them.


Look at it this way, the time might well come when we can treat the mentally challanged: regrow neurons, fix damaged pathways, reverse brain damage, etc...

The time will never come when we can make a ferret capable of understanding "rights". It won't. They are simply genetically and physologically incapable of doing so.


But we can't right now! So the mentally handicapped are in the same boat with other animals because they can't grasp the idea of "rights" and "society". Just because we may be able to somehow, someday, does not have anything to do with the here and now.

As for this poor ferret, I'm sure the ferret would love not to be poked, prodded, evacuated from its living space, burned, eaten, shot at, and caged for human enjoyment. But alas, it wouldn't know that those were rights given to it by society so it shouldn't be given those rights. Hmmm... not following the logic.


But, fine! Let's say, for the sake of argument, that animals do have rudimentary socities. Within those societies, humans have no rights!

That is, wolf "society" does not give humans the rights that it does to wolves.

Likewise, human society can not give to wolves the rights that it gives to humans.


So because they don't, we shouldn't? Some countries still practice slavery. That is where living beings are raised to work for their owner no questions asked, and where the owner can buy and sell the living breathing people. So because they don't afford those people rights (a lot of times based on race), we shouldn't? It is the same logic, just applied to a new situation. Think about it.


No living thing should be needlessly tortured or abused. But that's a long way from saying that squirrels should be accorded human rights!


You said "needlessly tortured of abused"... hmm... well seeing as the human race could feed itself if we applied the processed grain we give to livestock to humans then slaughtering cattle is needlesly torturing and abusing them.

Animals deserve the same basic rights as humans.

Should we jail every wolf that kills some hens? Perhaps not, because wolves are much more instinctual than humans who can make choices out of the evolutionary stream. So maybe we shouldn't punish the animals for having a lower thought level, but raise our standards of behavior because we have a higher thought level.

[LSD]

But we can't right now! So the mentally handicapped are in the same boat with other animals because they can't grasp the idea of "rights" and "society". Just because we may be able to somehow, someday, does not have anything to do with the here and now.

It isn't the fact that they might someday be treated that's the issue, that was just a relevent example.

The point is that there is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.

And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is.

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights. They are afforded protections.

Humans who are so mentally damaged as to be unable to make even marginal rational thought are typically so damaged that they can barely even move. These people are not granted full human rights, they are granted human protection. And they are granted this protection, because no matter their current state, they are still members of human society. They are likewise potential rational agents and actual members of moral society, even if they are conditionaly unable to excersize their participation in that society.


Society is a changable concept, it isn't like the fact that they don't participate in human society should mean that the society should exploit them

The fact that they don't participate in human society means that human society has no obligtation to them.

It doesn't mean that it should "exploit" them, it just means that it has no reason not to.

If you don't want to eat meat, have pets, wear leather, eat Jello, use glue, etc... fine. But that is a personal moral decision. If you want all of society to do likewise you need to provide logical reasons why human society should protect nonhumans.


As for this poor ferret, I'm sure the ferret would love not to be poked, prodded, evacuated from its living space, burned, eaten, shot at, and caged for human enjoyment. But alas, it wouldn't know that those were rights given to it by society so it shouldn't be given those rights.

It shouldn't be given those rights by human society, yes.

The claim "it would prefer to live" is a nonargument. That has absolutely no relevence to what human society should do. I'm sure that bacterial meningitis would "prefer to live", but human society has an obligation to eradicate it.


Hmmm... not following the logic.

That's because you're substituting logic with emotionalism.

You don't like the idea of animals being hurt. You emotionally feel for animals that are vivisected or killed or eaten.

But that emotional reaction is not sufficient to justify affording creatures the protection of human-invented human rights.


You said "needlessly tortured of abused"... hmm... well seeing as the human race could feed itself if we applied the processed grain we give to livestock to humans then slaughtering cattle is needlesly torturing and abusing them.

No it isn't, it's killing them.

Torture implies prolonged suffering inflicted for the purpose of causing pain.

I agree that that describes a good deal of current slaughtering techniques and I agree that that should be changed.


Should we jail every wolf that kills some hens? Perhaps not, because wolves are much more instinctual than humans who can make choices out of the evolutionary stream.

:lol:

Don't you see that abject bizzareness of this?

You want to give animals full human rights, but not any of the responsiblities that come with them! You want to make them protected by human liberties but not protect us from them!

How the fuck does Total Animal Liberation work anyways?

How can we have animals that are fundamentally incapable of even understanding that society exists being given equal standing in society?

Humans are moral beings and live in complex societal interrelationships. The granting of rights by society directly accompanies the according of responsibilities. No animal can fulfill these responsiblites. No animal can even be relied upon to obey even the most basic prohibitions of human society.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal rights and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone. Those creatures which are not part of society are, by definition, not members of it.

It stetches credulity to even imagine that ferrets can be relied upon to equally participate in society. They simply can't.


So maybe we shouldn't punish the animals for having a lower thought level, but raise our standards of behavior because we have a higher thought level.

If we do so, it is a personal choice. One that must not be restrained or forced.


Animals deserve the same basic rights as humans.

No they don't, and you have not shown that they do.

[Clarksist]

The point is that there is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.


If that's the point it is only saying that the mentally retarded could its just that they... well can't. So the outcome is the same.

As for animals having no morals, animals have sympathy and experience grief and even embarassment.


If you don't want to eat meat, have pets, wear leather, eat Jello, use glue, etc... fine. But that is a personal moral decision. If you want all of society to do likewise you need to provide logical reasons why human society should protect nonhumans.


Protecting humans is justified by nothing more than arbitrary set definitions that we all must accept. It is generally accepted that people who go around with an axe killing people isn't doing the morally "right" thing to do.

So why should we let animals get their heads chopped off with an axe? Can I give some sensible argument other than morals? Perhaps the fact that our processed grain could better feed the starving humans, and that the animals could be lowered gradullay to unprocessed natural grain which they must be eased back into eating.


No it isn't, it's killing them.

Torture implies prolonged suffering inflicted for the purpose of causing pain.


Non-issue as eslavement of a species is inherently going to cause lapses in "comfort".


Don't you see that abject bizzareness of this?

You want to give animals full human rights, but not any of the responsiblities that come with them! You want to make them protected by human liberties but not protect us from them!


Do they have a right to a lawyer? No. But they have the right to not be exploited or oppressed by the "ruling class" in the animal kingdom.


No they don't, and you have not shown that they do.


As you have not shown why we should be able to exploit and oppress them. By denying them the rights to not be oppressed and exploited, you are in the end, saying that the exploitation and oppression should be allowed.

Our obligation to the rest of animals is also an obligation to ourselves. We could much easier feed the peoples of the earth if we backed off the meat and replaced our diets with healthy vegan diets.

And if it comes down to the moral decision that human rights are based out of, an animal is a living being and should not be exploited or oppressed just as a human should not be exploited or oppressed.

[LSD]

If that's the point it is only saying that the mentally retarded could its just that they... well can't. So the outcome is the same.

No it isn't.

The difference between the incapacitated moral agent and the nonmoral agent is vast. Neither are afforded full human rights, but the former is given far greater protections than the later. Despite the condition in question, this person is still part of human society due to his humanness. He is a member of a species that is capable of rational thought and so his species contracts his protection.

Furthermore, because mental incapacitation is often temporary (children, the comatose) or potential (senility, the comatose), by protecting such people, we are protecting ourselves and our fellow members of society by assuring our protection should we be so afflicted.

And remember, 99% of the "mentally retarded" are still capable of rational and moral thought.

It's called an argument from marginal cases for a reason!


As for animals having no morals, animals have sympathy and experience grief and even embarassment.

That is a far cry from a moral conception of right and wrong.


Protecting humans is justified by nothing more than arbitrary set definitions that we all must accept.

No it isn't, and perhaps that is where you are failing to understand the nature of rights.

Society do not give rights because it "feels good". It does so because it is the obligation of any society to maximize the bennefits of its members. Society must give its members all freedoms such that those freedoms do not harm other members of society. It is the tacit agreement fundamental to human society, that we agree to respect the recognized rights of our fellow members. In this, all members of society are generally protected while they protect everyone else. This obligation is iron-bound with rights themselves. Rights and the obligation to respect rights cannot be seperated.

Once again, creatures which are specially physiologically incapable of participating in society cannot be protected by society.


Non-issue as eslavement of a species is inherently going to cause lapses in "comfort".

Animals are not capable of comphrehending "oppression" or "enslavement" and so using such words to describe their treatment are misnomers.

Society should grant limited protections to animals out of compassion, but those protections are severely controlled. Pain and suffering should be minimized, but only so far as is reasonable and does not in any way seriously negatively impact human living.

Torture, abuse, etc... clearly must go.


Do they have a right to a lawyer? No. But they have the right to not be exploited or oppressed by the "ruling class" in the animal kingdom.

Again, such concepts are meaningless in regards to animals.

Furthermore, it demeans the working class to compare them to animals. The reason that it is wrong to oppress the proletariat is not because they "feel pain", it is because they are rational moral actors.

I notice that you ignored most of my reply, not that I'm really surprised. It is to be expected since your defending an utterly ludcrious proposition.

But I'll ask again, what does animal liberation look like, practically? What does it mean? How can all animals be afforded human rights when they are not able to respect those of others?


And if it comes down to the moral decision that human rights are based out of, an animal is a living being and should not be exploited or oppressed just as a human should not be exploited or oppressed.

But that is not the "moral decision" that human rights are based out of.

Human rights are based out of human society, out of the premise that a society protect its members.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i have no idea why i said lad, typo haha.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have many animals done this?:

Autism Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights_movement)

Just to refute the notion that most autistic people have no conception of rights & society.

[Clarksist]

On the issue of mental retardation, yes most handicapped people can tell right from wrong. Embarrassment found in animals is obviously them showing that they knew they did something "wrong".

The severely mentally handicapped recieve human protections you say. So why shouldn't animals receive protections from humans because they are such lower thinkers?


Society do not give rights because it "feels good". It does so because it is the obligation of any society to maximize the bennefits of its members. Society must give its members all freedoms such that those freedoms do not harm other members of society. It is the tacit agreement fundamental to human society, that we agree to respect the recognized rights of our fellow members. In this, all members of society are generally protected while they protect everyone else. This obligation is iron-bound with rights themselves. Rights and the obligation to respect rights cannot be seperated.


Hahahahaha. Okay, they don't do it to "feel good" they do it to maximize the benefits for its members. What about slavery? It was good for those who weren't slaves. It was benefiting the members of society (in the case I'm mostly thinking of is American slavery... but that's mostly because I'm an American) because the slaves weren't considered members of society.

In America they were emancipated solely on grounds of what was morally right. In most cases slavery has ended due to what is "morally right". Society has no over ruling obligation to animals, say there was a strong food shortage the food chain would have to commence to save the human race, but that is a last resort.

BTW, you do realize that almost all our laws are based in religious grounds don't you? Everyday the laws are based mainly in judeo-christian "morals". So for the most part, yeah, society has been doing stuff to "feel good".


Animals are not capable of comphrehending "oppression" or "enslavement" and so using such words to describe their treatment are misnomers.


They may not be able to understand the concepts, but they damn sure understand the pain. The truth is we don't truly know what is going on in their minds. To think that they don't know that they are basically in a prison is pure opinion. Now I don't think they realize they are being raised to be slaughtered, but they may. Just something to think about.


Torture, abuse, etc... clearly must go.


Wait... is this... is this something we agree on!? :lol:

BTW, agreed.


Furthermore, it demeans the working class to compare them to animals. The reason that it is wrong to oppress the proletariat is not because they "feel pain", it is because they are rational moral actors.


Only if the person saying it think animals are lowly creatures. I consider animals and humans all equal lifeforms... so there is no demeaning meant. If someone considers it demeaning, they should really toughen up.

You say that humans can be liberated because they are moral actors and animals shouldn't even though they are living creatures. And you justify human rights and limited rights for animals because humans are the ones "benefiting" society.

What I am saying is that humans need to be liberated because we are living beings who should not endure exploitation and unfair treatment. But I equate that to all living beings, as I know I wouldn't want to be locked up and breed to be killed.

Just wanted to help point out our differences.


But I'll ask again, what does animal liberation look like, practically? What does it mean? How can all animals be afforded human rights when they are not able to respect those of others?


Animal liberation, to me, is the ending of all the capture and abuse to animals. No meat markets, no dairy products, all animals should go live their own lives. If they impede the rights of a human, it is okay to then deal with them. We can exterminate insects because they impede on our health, we can kill rabid dogs which are about to attack someone. But we shouldn't just cage and breed animals to die.


But that is not the "moral decision" that human rights are based out of.

Human rights are based out of human society, out of the premise that a society protect its members.


In my last post I gave two justifications. The societal obligation, and the moral decision.

Thank for not reading what I wrote. :rolleyes:

note: 300th post!

[Vallegrande]

Zoos, in my opinion, are foreshadowing our nostalgia for the way things used to be. I mean, in the future these zoos will display the remnants of what species used to live here.

They have no more places to live, their existence in a zoo is unnatural. The real zoo should be the wild, which is vanishing. Anyway, if we have zoos for the endangered animals, and no environment is left from where they came, then what's the point in us trying to preserve them?

[LSD]

On the issue of mental retardation, yes most handicapped people can tell right from wrong. Embarrassment found in animals is obviously them showing that they knew they did something "wrong".

No it isn't.

It's showing that they think they've done something which is likely to be socially condemned, that's a very different thing.

A dog feeling embarassed because it thinks it's dissapointed is not an examle of an internal moral code. Humans are not merely capable of understanding social expectations, they are able to make independent moral judgements,


The severely mentally handicapped recieve human protections you say. So why shouldn't animals receive protections from humans because they are such lower thinkers?

We've covered this several times now.

The mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human, and as such members of a community which is composed of rational actors, secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity, and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).


Hahahahaha. Okay, they don't do it to "feel good" they do it to maximize the benefits for its members. What about slavery? It was good for those who weren't slaves. It was benefiting the members of society

No it wasn't, because the slaves were members of society, and they weren't bennefiting!

Again, human society is composed of all rational moral agents, regardless of their social "class" or "caste" or "position". Slaves were still independent morally self-aware rational beings capable of advanced-level thought and so regardless of their "social status" were definitely members of society.

That much is obvious, in fact! Slaves would interact with "masters", they would speak, they would understand one another on complex levels. Slaves would write music, tell stories, often raise the children of "masters", often have children with "masters". They were as much a part of society as anyone.


BTW, you do realize that almost all our laws are based in religious grounds don't you? Everyday the laws are based mainly in judeo-christian "morals". So for the most part, yeah, society has been doing stuff to "feel good".

Again, not really.

Yes, Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings are at the foundation of a lot of our laws, but look at which laws are kept and which are not.

Why doesn't the US still burn witches? Why doesn't the UK still expell Jews?

The point is that while many laws are based on ancient religious teachings, the laws which remain, for the most part, are those which have been shown to fulfill societal responsibility.

Now, this isn't always true, of course. Look at the fuss in the US over gay marriage, for instance. But regardless of whether or not there is still a vestigal religious overtone in Western jurisprudence, my point is that there shouldn't be one.

Certainly communism is about eliminating superstitious influences and making society do what it should do: help it's members!


What I am saying is that humans need to be liberated because we are living beings who should not endure exploitation and unfair treatment.

Yes, obviously, but on what do you base this?

Why does being a "living being" qualify one for societal protection? What's the logic basis for this rather expansive contention?


But I equate that to all living beings, as I know I wouldn't want to be locked up and breed to be killed.

Of course not, but by projecting this desire for emanicapation to nonhuman animals, your engaging in rather blatant anthropomorphising. Animals are not aware of the concept of encarceration or freedom. They're not able to understand "exploitation" or "oppression".

Sure, a cow doesn't like not being able to move and would like to be in open pastures. But do you really think that a "free range" cow knows that she's being "exploited"? That when shes grazing in open fields she's thinking about her "oppression" at the hands of the "rulling class of the animal kindgom"?


Animal liberation, to me, is the ending of all the capture and abuse to animals. No meat markets, no dairy products, all animals should go live their own lives. If they impede the rights of a human, it is okay to then deal with them. We can exterminate insects because they impede on our health, we can kill rabid dogs which are about to attack someone.

Can we kill a lion that's about to attack a elk?

If so, then you, effectively, kill all lions and seriously disrupt the ecosystem. If not, then you are permitting the "capture and abuse of animals", the use of animals for food.

And what happens if the lion doesn't finish eating the elk? A coyote will probably come along eventually and eat the rest. What if a human comes by first? Can he cook it and eat it? I mean, if it's already dead....

Look, what you're doing is trying to give animals human protections without any of the responsibilities that come with them. All humans must refrain from killing any living being, but this same prohibition does not apply to the living beings we're refraining from killing!

You're trying to create a two-tiered society in which humans, as the upper tier, are responsible self-actors with societal rights accompanying those rather hefty obligations, and animals, as the lower tier, with no ogligations but identical social protections.

Firstly, such a system dramatically cheapens rights by seperating them from their social context, but secondly, such a systm does something very similar to the present system, namely it concedes that humans are socially and morally suprerior.

You're proposing a model in which not only is more required of humans than other animals (which classifies them as higher moral agents), but in which the killing of a human by an animal is considered a much more serious crime than the killing of another animals by an animal.

Now, all of this makes sense! It makes sense because humans are intelligent moral actors capable of participating in society and making independent rational determinations within society. Hence their killing is more serious to society than the death of a chipmunk. Furthermore more must be required of humans, since we are the only ones capable of fulfilling such responsibilities.

Let's be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you're just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don't think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I!

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it's members. You've conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you've conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)! Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[Clarksist]

A dog feeling embarassed because it thinks it's dissapointed is not an examle of an internal moral code. Humans are not merely capable of understanding social expectations, they are able to make independent moral judgements,


Embarasment to an extent is moral code. It has the same basis as moral code. But we have killed this issue.


Again, human society is composed of all rational moral agents, regardless of their social "class" or "caste" or "position". Slaves were still independent morally self-aware rational beings capable of advanced-level thought and so regardless of their "social status" were definitely members of society.


Hahahahahaha. Slaves weren't considered people. The white majority freed the slaves because of moral outrage. It would be easier for them all to get their wants (which you comment on later) if slavery had stayed, they decided against it based on moral outrage, or in some cases because the other side had them.

Not because society benefited with them coming into freedom.


Certainly communism is about eliminating superstitious influences and making society do what it should do: help it's members!


Definately. I would say (as you probably would too) that communism is the liberation of the oppressed and exploited. It is that we differ on who exactly is being oppressed and exploited.


Why does being a "living being" qualify one for societal protection? What's the logic basis for this rather expansive contention?


Humans (for the most part) run from something that they feel will kill it. In the first moments this is instinct.

Animals (for the most part) run from something that they feel will kill it. In the first moments this is instinct.

Eventually, in humans, instinct is overtaken by the fear of dying. That they wish to be alive. Why wouldn't animals long to live? Do dogs not often run out of fences? Don't birds fly from their cages?

Pets often come back, but it shows they wish to have an expansive and lush life. They have a will to live. And it is the want of life that should keep them from being caged.

And if you need the societal obligations actual read some of my earlier posts.


Sure, a cow doesn't like not being able to move and would like to be in open pastures. But do you really think that a "free range" cow knows that she's being "exploited"? That when shes grazing in open fields she's thinking about her "oppression" at the hands of the "rulling class of the animal kindgom"?


Do most Americans living in a 9 to 5 middle management hell? Sure they talk about depression, pop Zoloft like pez, and goto therapist. Yet they are still unhappy. They can't seem to point to the cause... hmm...


Can we kill a lion that's about to attack a elk?

If so, then you, effectively, kill all lions and seriously disrupt the ecosystem. If not, then you are permitting the "capture and abuse of animals", the use of animals for food.

And what happens if the lion doesn't finish eating the elk? A coyote will probably come along eventually and eat the rest. What if a human comes by first? Can he cook it and eat it? I mean, if it's already dead....


Ughh... isn't this explained everytime vegetarianism is argued over? Yes the lion can eat the elk, yes the coyotes can, and yes we can.

I don't think humans should massively EXPLOIT them. Hunting is fine if that is what a human so wishes. But to gather the deer they hunt into confined spaces and mass breeding them for slaughter is not fine by me.


You're trying to create a two-tiered society in which humans, as the upper tier, are responsible self-actors with societal rights accompanying those rather hefty obligations, and animals, as the lower tier, with no ogligations but identical social protections.


I want no exploitation or oppression for the animals. We disagree on the line to put where exploitation and oppression fall. I could just as easily say that your creating a two-tiered soceity in which humans as the upper tier are responisble self actors with societal rights accompanying societal obligations, and animals, the lower tier, deserve the least amount of protection as possible... maybe a little bit just to sleep at night.

Over-simplifying is fun.



Look, what you're doing is trying to give animals human protections without any of the responsibilities that come with them. All humans must refrain from killing any living being, but this same prohibition does not apply to the living beings we're refraining from killing!



Now, all of this makes sense! It makes sense because humans are intelligent moral actors capable of participating in society and making independent rational determinations within society. Hence their killing is more serious to society than the death of a chipmunk. Furthermore more must be required of humans, since we are the only ones capable of fulfilling such responsibilities.




We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.


Read my former posts. I'm serious, please read my posts, those answers all in their, but i am tired of writing it out over and over.


If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)! Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.



QUOTE
On the issue of mental retardation, yes most handicapped people can tell right from wrong. Embarrassment found in animals is obviously them showing that they knew they did something "wrong".


No it isn't.

It's showing that they think they've done something which is likely to be socially condemned, that's a very different thing.

A dog feeling embarassed because it thinks it's dissapointed is not an examle of an internal moral code. Humans are not merely capable of understanding social expectations, they are able to make independent moral judgements,

QUOTE
The severely mentally handicapped recieve human protections you say. So why shouldn't animals receive protections from humans because they are such lower thinkers?


We've covered this several times now.

The mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human, and as such members of a community which is composed of rational actors, secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity, and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

QUOTE
Hahahahaha. Okay, they don't do it to "feel good" they do it to maximize the benefits for its members. What about slavery? It was good for those who weren't slaves. It was benefiting the members of society


No it wasn't, because the slaves were members of society, and they weren't bennefiting!

Again, human society is composed of all rational moral agents, regardless of their social "class" or "caste" or "position". Slaves were still independent morally self-aware rational beings capable of advanced-level thought and so regardless of their "social status" were definitely members of society.

That much is obvious, in fact! Slaves would interact with "masters", they would speak, they would understand one another on complex levels. Slaves would write music, tell stories, often raise the children of "masters", often have children with "masters". They were as much a part of society as anyone.

QUOTE
BTW, you do realize that almost all our laws are based in religious grounds don't you? Everyday the laws are based mainly in judeo-christian "morals". So for the most part, yeah, society has been doing stuff to "feel good".


Again, not really.

Yes, Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings are at the foundation of a lot of our laws, but look at which laws are kept and which are not.

Why doesn't the US still burn witches? Why doesn't the UK still expell Jews?

The point is that while many laws are based on ancient religious teachings, the laws which remain, for the most part, are those which have been shown to fulfill societal responsibility.

Now, this isn't always true, of course. Look at the fuss in the US over gay marriage, for instance. But regardless of whether or not there is still a vestigal religious overtone in Western jurisprudence, my point is that there shouldn't be one.

Certainly communism is about eliminating superstitious influences and making society do what it should do: help it's members!

QUOTE
What I am saying is that humans need to be liberated because we are living beings who should not endure exploitation and unfair treatment.


Yes, obviously, but on what do you base this?

Why does being a "living being" qualify one for societal protection? What's the logic basis for this rather expansive contention?

QUOTE
But I equate that to all living beings, as I know I wouldn't want to be locked up and breed to be killed.


Of course not, but by projecting this desire for emanicapation to nonhuman animals, your engaging in rather blatant anthropomorphising. Animals are not aware of the concept of encarceration or freedom. They're not able to understand "exploitation" or "oppression".

Sure, a cow doesn't like not being able to move and would like to be in open pastures. But do you really think that a "free range" cow knows that she's being "exploited"? That when shes grazing in open fields she's thinking about her "oppression" at the hands of the "rulling class of the animal kindgom"?

QUOTE
Animal liberation, to me, is the ending of all the capture and abuse to animals. No meat markets, no dairy products, all animals should go live their own lives. If they impede the rights of a human, it is okay to then deal with them. We can exterminate insects because they impede on our health, we can kill rabid dogs which are about to attack someone.


Can we kill a lion that's about to attack a elk?

If so, then you, effectively, kill all lions and seriously disrupt the ecosystem. If not, then you are permitting the "capture and abuse of animals", the use of animals for food.

And what happens if the lion doesn't finish eating the elk? A coyote will probably come along eventually and eat the rest. What if a human comes by first? Can he cook it and eat it? I mean, if it's already dead....

Look, what you're doing is trying to give animals human protections without any of the responsibilities that come with them. All humans must refrain from killing any living being, but this same prohibition does not apply to the living beings we're refraining from killing!

You're trying to create a two-tiered society in which humans, as the upper tier, are responsible self-actors with societal rights accompanying those rather hefty obligations, and animals, as the lower tier, with no ogligations but identical social protections.

Firstly, such a system dramatically cheapens rights by seperating them from their social context, but secondly, such a systm does something very similar to the present system, namely it concedes that humans are socially and morally suprerior.

You're proposing a model in which not only is more required of humans than other animals (which classifies them as higher moral agents), but in which the killing of a human by an animal is considered a much more serious crime than the killing of another animals by an animal.

Now, all of this makes sense! It makes sense because humans are intelligent moral actors capable of participating in society and making independent rational determinations within society. Hence their killing is more serious to society than the death of a chipmunk. Furthermore more must be required of humans, since we are the only ones capable of fulfilling such responsibilities.

Let's be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you're just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don't think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I!

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it's members. You've conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you've conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)! Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.


What!? As I have already said, if we used the purified grain on humans we could feed SO MANY MORE HUMANS. I am much more fore a few humans not having their reasonable wants, if everyone has their needs.

So I guess society would be protecting itself by letting animals eat the natural grain and we could eat the share we've been giving to animals.

It is absolutely frustrating when entire segments of my argument are ripped out.

[LSD]

Embarasment to an extent is moral code. It has the same basis as moral code.

No it doesn't. Animals are embarassed when they percieve that they have violated expectations, not violated internal moral judgements.


Hahahahahaha. Slaves weren't considered people.

Irrelevent, they were still part of society as I've already outlined.

Animals are not part of society not because we "say so", but because they are physiologically incapable of participating in society. Slaves, however, were active participants of society and so were indeed members of it.


Not because society benefited with them coming into freedom.

Of course it did, because, again, slaves are part of society.


They have a will to live. And it is the want of life that should keep them from being caged.

Why?

What does their desire to live have to do with human society?


Do most Americans living in a 9 to 5 middle management hell? Sure they talk about depression, pop Zoloft like pez, and goto therapist. Yet they are still unhappy. They can't seem to point to the cause... hmm...

Right, but if explained to them, they are capable of undertstanding.

That's the point. The proletariat is a revolutionary class, it is capable of self-liberation. Animals are not.


I don't think humans should massively EXPLOIT them. Hunting is fine if that is what a human so wishes.

Don't say that as if it's a given!

Many animal activists vehemently oppose hunting, PeTA and the ALF among them.

If you support hunting, then does that mean that you support "free range" meat? Cows, chickens, pigs, etc.. that live "good" lives in open pasteurs before being humanely slaughtered?


I want no exploitation or oppression for the animals. We disagree on the line to put where exploitation and oppression fall. I could just as easily say that your creating a two-tiered soceity in which humans as the upper tier are responisble self actors with societal rights accompanying societal obligations, and animals, the lower tier, deserve the least amount of protection as possible... maybe a little bit just to sleep at night.

Yes!

I've aleady said I am indeed advocating that! That's pretty much what we have right now. Human society offers certain protections for animals, namely against cruelty, torture, etc...

Animals are not part of society, but we afford them basic protections so long as those protections do not infringe on the needs or legitimate wants of members of society.

You want to move the line way up and give animals greater protections, my point, however, is that doing so is still not granting these animals full liberation, it's just giving them more protection.

You are still putting human interests ahead of animal interests.


And if you need the societal obligations actual read some of my earlier posts.

You mean this?

Our obligation to the rest of animals is also an obligation to ourselves. We could much easier feed the peoples of the earth if we backed off the meat and replaced our diets with healthy vegan diets.

What!? As I have already said, if we used the purified grain on humans we could feed SO MANY MORE HUMANS. I am much more fore a few humans not having their reasonable wants, if everyone has their needs.

Haven't we already covered this?

Firstly, this is a nonissue, because if this was really your prime concern, then you wouldn't mind animal "exploitation" if every human was fed. But that's not what you're saying is it...

Secondly, there is not a food supply problem! There is a food distribution problem. The solution is not to abandon meat but to abandon capitalism.

Let's put it this way. If every human was fed and hunger was no longer a problem (communism), then would you support meat eating?


It is absolutely frustrating when entire segments of my argument are ripped out.

Ironic since that&#39;s exactly what you did. <_<

I adressed both your "social obligation" and your "moral decision", you, however have failed to respond to my point:

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

[Clarksist]

Animals are not part of society, but we afford them basic protections so long as those protections do not infringe on the needs or legitimate wants of members of society.

You want to move the line way up and give animals greater protections, my point, however, is that doing so is still not granting these animals full liberation, it&#39;s just giving them more protection.

You are still putting human interests ahead of animal interests.


Look, we partly agree. Let&#39;s narrow the debate to wha tthe debate is about. This should help us both out as less write [ quote] [/ quote] copy & paste nonsense. ^_^

Ok, so basically, I would like to move the line up myself because this "torture" that they are preventing is still going on. Livestock get frozen to the side of trucks and are basically skinned alive instead of being heated out, animals are confined to spaces which are intensely uncomfortable and unnecessary, etc. etc. etc.

So you say that humans have no obligation to them being freer. I&#39;m saying that we could much more easily feed the world with the grain and end the torture. By sacrificing some of our wants, we could feed the entire population.

And as most arguments like this do, it comes down to how you&#39;ve been raised, influences, shocking images, life changing experiences, etc.

I am tired of this as all we are doing is outraging each other, so let&#39;s just leave it at that man.

[LSD]

Ok, so basically, I would like to move the line up myself because this "torture" that they are preventing is still going on. Livestock get frozen to the side of trucks and are basically skinned alive instead of being heated out, animals are confined to spaces which are intensely uncomfortable and unnecessary, etc. etc. etc.

I know and I agree that it&#39;s awful.

I think you&#39;re right in that we actually agree on a lot here. Certainly we both believe that current animal processing techniques need to improve dramatically.

I&#39;m of the firm conviction that one of the best ways to do that is to abolish capitalism. That as long as there are "profits" to be made, people will never stop.


So you say that humans have no obligation to them being freer. I&#39;m saying that we could much more easily feed the world with the grain and end the torture. By sacrificing some of our wants, we could feed the entire population.

Again, there really isn&#39;t a lack of available food in the world.

The problem isn&#39;t that animals are eating all the grain, the problem is that animals eaten in the first world are eating all the grain in the third world.

Once again, the problem is capitalism.


I am tired of this as all we are doing is outraging each other, so let&#39;s just leave it at that man.

No problem.

[MoParMan1968]

I&#39;d like to point out that although communism in theory is kinda cool, however, have any of you heard of the USSR? Ya know, Stalin and his cronies. Yeah, sure, humans and animals had equal rights, yeah, but um, lemme see: they both had NO rights&#33; That&#39;s still technically equal, isn&#39;t? At least, by definition it is.

While I agree that animals should be given protection from poaching, torture, abuse, and the like, I still think we have every right to hunt them and use them for medical research. After all, we are animals too, and if it&#39;s ok for &#39;normal" animals to hunt and eat each other, why isn&#39;t it okay for us? The same applies to research. But you might say, "but they [normal animals] don&#39;t do medical experiments&#33;" Sure. That&#39;s becuase they lack both the mental capacity and opposable thumbs.

IMHO

[MoParMan1968]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:53 AM
I&#39;d like to point out that although communism in theory is kinda cool, however, have any of you heard of the USSR? Ya know, Stalin and his cronies. Yeah, sure, humans and animals had equal rights, yeah, but um, lemme see: they both had NO rights&#33; That&#39;s still technically equal, isn&#39;t? At least, by definition it is.

While I agree that animals should be given protection from poaching, torture, abuse, and the like, I still think we have every right to hunt them and use them for medical research. After all, we are animals too, and if it&#39;s ok for &#39;normal" animals to hunt and eat each other, why isn&#39;t it okay for us? The same applies to research. But you might say, "but they [normal animals] don&#39;t do medical experiments&#33;" Sure. That&#39;s becuase they lack both the mental capacity and opposable thumbs.

IMHO
I&#39;d like to add that if animals were smarter and more dexterous then us, I would not be angry at them for hunting and killing us. I mean, I certainly wouldn&#39;t like to, and I certainly wouldn&#39;t want it to happen to me or my loved ones, but oh well. That&#39;s life. You have to learn to deal with it.

[LSD]

I&#39;d like to point out that although communism in theory is kinda cool, however, have any of you heard of the USSR? Ya know, Stalin and his cronies.

*sigh*

The USSR was not communist.

[Xvall]

I don&#39;t really care for Zoos. I think they&#39;re a waste of time and money, and that people would just be better off leaving the animals alone. I can see the usefulness of zoos and facilities that help endangered species, but other than that, they serve no applicable person other than to amuse people. I personally find it somewhat amusing when someone does something incredibly stupid and gets eaten by an animal. (Education is usually done with books, the studying of the animal occurs within it&#39;s natural habitat. People don&#39;t really go to the zoo to learn; they go to watch bears lounge around because they have too much fucking free time.)

Then again, I hate pretty much everything.

[Vallegrande]

Yeah I saw footage of a man getting pinned down by a lion in the zoo. He was harrassing the lion and went into its den. I saw how the lion had him like a cat had a little toy, except it didn&#39;t attack the man, just sat there holding him down having a little fun. It was amusing to see the lion give him a chance to run and then pull him back again. Finally it just let him go and he ran his ass off&#33;