Should humanity continue behaving as if we were

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

As a basic survival instinct, all societies have acted under the premise that they're basically the only ones who matter and stemming from this notion, (1) the value of everything and everyone outside of said society, to that society, is directly related to that society's demand and (2) the interests of that society trumps those of anyone outside it.

Question: should we, as humans, continue acting as if we were are the masters of the world?

[La Comédie Noire]

As a basic survival instinct, all societies have acted under the premise that they're basically the only ones who matter and stemming from this notion, (1) the value of everything and everyone outside of said society, to that society, is directly related to that society's demand and (2) the interests of that society trumps those of anyone outside it.

Yes that does occur, but that is why socialism calls for internationalism rather then nationalism. Unless your talking about something different?

and yes, I think humans should act as a master species.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not talking about nations, but about human society as a whole.
Should we respect animal's "rights"?

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm not talking about nations, but about human society as a whole.


Should we respect animal's "rights"?

As I said before..


I think humans should act as a master species.

For now atleast. We as a species need to come togeather and recognize our own rights and stop oppression against one another before we even begin to think of other species. Maybe at some point in the future we can begin to think seriously about conservation and ecology. To make a long winded paragraph short : let's not put the cart before the horse.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, to a great extent, environmentalism and conservationalsm are already human concerns, since we rely on an ecosystem suported by biodiversity. In short, we need other animals. That said, I fully agree that we don't owe other animals any protection for the sole reason that they're sentient or cute. If someone wants to kill, abuse, or rape animals, I couldn't care less for the animal, although this seems to be a fairly unpopular view in a society that so clearly and rightfully negates animals' rights. There exists a lot of incinsistency in the law. Animal protection laws seem to only apply to docile mammals and endagered species.

Should we solidify our domination of the planet and deny any animals protection from ourselves and other animals, or is it time change?
When we resolve the issue of class oppression, then would it be the time for said changes?

[Hit The North]

There's no reason why our domination of the planet (which is a material fact not a question of morals or ethics) necessitates the abuse and abjection of other species. Our dominion over the planet should be based on ecological responsibility as this is the only rational relationship to nature because - as you say - we depend upon it for survival.


If someone wants to kill, abuse, or rape animals, I couldn't care less for the animal,

For some reason, something in me does care. I feel empathy and pity. More importantly, there is evidence that people who abuse and torture animals are capable of doing the same to human beings - precisely because they lack a sense of empathy for the suffering of other beings.

I'm not an animal rights activist but I don't have a problem with the idea of animal rights. In fact it seems like a logical extension of our species' historical project of humanizing nature.

[bcbm]

Probably not, but all humanity will be dead soon enough anyway, one way or another, so I guess it doesn't matter terribly much.

But if the pandas die, I am going misanthropic primitivist for sure.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Our priority has to be us; no one else can determine our lives in quite the same way that we can. We can have our best interests at heart, but we still need to take into account other factors. If single-mindedness would leave us stuck (fuel, environment etc) then we must moderate our pursuits, in our own best interests.

Whilst we remain primarily responsible for ourselves, hierarchy and ownership are the two greatest obstacles that we must overcome. So whilst animals can legitimately be used for food and clothing, we do not "own" animals, and we are not higher than them; we just happen to be in a position whereby they can serve us. In terms of application, what was put in the first and second paragraphs may seem similar. However it is the specific relationship between humans and their environment that I am trying to highlight.

[che's long lost daughter]

You said we need animals but you also said that you couldn't care less if other people abuse them. I am no animal rights activist but if only for the reason that we need animals in order for us to "live" then at least we should "take care" of them.

It is true that we are the "center of the universe" because we have dominion over everything but we have to co-exist with other species in the sense that we depend on each other for survival.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Should we respect animal's "rights"?

Yes.


Question: should we, as humans, continue acting as if we were are the masters of the world?

Not masters.

[Demogorgon]

The human races priority should be the human race. We have a vested interest in our own survival after all. However we should bear in mind we do have to be careful about the environment. Not because it has intrinsic vale of it's own but because we depend on it and also we derive aesthetic pleasure from it.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Why, as the dominant species, should we concern ourselves, as a whole, with the rights and problems of a lower species? I firmly believe that most animals are only here to serve a purpose. What other purpose for cattle is there than beef/leather/milk? All they would do if we didnt use them is take up space needlessly. Same goes for pigs, chickens, ect.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 30, 2007 10:54 am
Why, as the dominant species, should we concern ourselves, as a whole, with the rights and problems of a lower species? I firmly believe that most animals are only here to serve a purpose. What other purpose for cattle is there than beef/leather/milk? All they would do if we didnt use them is take up space needlessly. Same goes for pigs, chickens, ect.
Um, no, they would occupy a niche within a naturally formed ecosystem.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

And serve what purpose?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 30, 2007 07:57 pm
And serve what purpose?
Maintaining an ecological balance.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

And how would they do that?

[Vargha Poralli]

And how would they do that?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Nitrogen_Cycle.jpg

Nitrogen Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_Cycle)

IMO every thing has well balanced out by nature. When climatic conditions are perfect there will be a boom in the population of animal life and when conditions somewhat become imperfect(Like a drought) their population dwindles naturally. Those species that survive the those extreme conditions flourish while others become extinct.

We have to acknowledge the our adverse impact on this natural system. We can naturally grow out of this impact but such advancement in science has not been reached by us at the moment.Till that time we can to preserve the thing that supports us i.e the natural ecosystem.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 30, 2007 08:31 pm
And how would they do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology#Funda...ples_of_ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology#Fundamental_principles_of_ecology)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 30, 2007 04:54 pm
Why, as the dominant species, should we concern ourselves, as a whole, with the rights and problems of a lower species? I firmly believe that most animals are only here to serve a purpose. What other purpose for cattle is there than beef/leather/milk? All they would do if we didnt use them is take up space needlessly. Same goes for pigs, chickens, ect.
Dominant, perhaps...however I don't know whether or not you are implying natural hierarchy or not. Such a view is imposed, not necessarily natural. Another species is not higher or lower than humans, it just is.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not talking about natural order. I'm talking about the natural instinct of every community or society to place itself ahead of others outside of said society. However, the concept of "animal rights" kind of goes against this. Really, it's just the protection of private and public property. It's anything but "rights". If anything, it undermines the importance and urgency of protection real rights for members of our society who have thus far been denied them.

[RedLenin]

As others have said, humans are of primary concern. As humans we have a far greater interest in looking out for ourselves. It is also a fact that humans, by their very nature, dominate and manipulate nature for their own purposes. All of this is well and good. However, it does not mean that we must treat other animals like shit. Animals should be treated as humanely as possible and should be subjected to as little suffering as possible. Animals can still be used for food until such a time as factory-grown meat or something like that develops. They can also be used for important medical research, as that benefits us. But just because we use animals for our own purposes does not mean we have to torture them like we do today.

I oppose animal rights as a reactionary and semi-misanthropic ideology. However, animal welfare should be a concern for every moral human being. Though we have our own interests as humans we do hold empathy toward animals and, therefore, we should inflict as little suffering as possible on them. We do and should continue to dominate nature, but let us do so rationally and morally.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 30, 2007 04:58 am


Question: should we, as humans, continue acting as if we were are the masters of the world?

No, I think it is egocentric and leads to more harms than solutions. The world needs no masters. The world is it is own master.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:51 pm
by their very nature, dominate and manipulate nature for their own purposes.



Domination of nature and animals by humans, leads to domination of human by human.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How far do you take the negation of animal's rights though? It's all very well to deicde that we should sort out our own problems rather than try and help animals, but surely a slippery slope argument is valid here?

What about, say, a few hundred years ago, a major source of public entertainment was Cat Burning, i.e. Gathering up stray cats, putting them into a net, lowering the net onto a bonfire, and laughing hysterically at their screams and struggles to get away until they were dead, and eventually carbonized. By your logic, doesn't matter, the cats are serving our 'master' species as a source of entertainment. Why should we care about the cats?

-Alex

[BreadBros]

As a basic survival instinct, all societies have acted under the premise that they're basically the only ones who matter and stemming from this notion, (1) the value of everything and everyone outside of said society, to that society, is directly related to that society's demand and (2) the interests of that society trumps those of anyone outside it.

Question: should we, as humans, continue acting as if we were are the masters of the world?

Your premise is logically inconsistant on many fronts.

First and foremost, I would doubt your two initial points that you "make", I would advise that you read some actual scientific books on the mind before making assertions about "basic survival instincts" that have very little basis in reality. In general, empathy, curiosity and an interest in widening one's "horizons" beyond one's society have always been integral features of nearly every human society.

Regardless, you overlook the fact that animals have been an integral facet of human society for several millenia. The harnessing of animal power for agricultural and transport reasons (not to mention the basic function of providing meat) is likely the most important facet that contributed to the rise of complex human societies, human ingenuity alone could never have accomplished that without the material factor. Co-existance between animals and humans has also been integral in the spread and subsequent development of immunities to several diseases that are endemic in urban society. So your initial "us vs. them" species-based differentiation of society is quite simply false as "our" interests are more often than not completely intertwined with "their" interests.

However, more to the point this is all pointless speculation. Ultimately the formation and structure of a future classless society will be up to those that form it. Ultimately the reasoning behind the abolition of class-based society and capitalism is the creation of an egalitarian society free from many of the miseries of class society (warfare, exploitation, poverty, etc. etc.) and therefore moving towards maximizing enjoyability and pleasure for all. As others have pointed out, the majority of human beings generally have a deep sense of empathy with animals, recognize them as fellow sentient beings and enjoy their companionship. Even those who don't particularly like them generally dont commit acts of violence against them. This has been recognized for awhile and has been hypothized first by philosophers (such as Rosseau) and later by some neurobiologists as a form of basic empathy wired into us for survival. I suspect that most people will therefore choose to protect and respect animals. Obviously not in regards towards eating meat, until that no longer becomes a necessity, but generally I don't think people will stand for the needless abuse, exploitation or acts of violence against animals. As for people that get enjoyment out of violence against animals, that is generally considered a psychological pathology and as has been pointed out, is almost always evident in those that commit emotionless/sadistic violence against other humans, so there is no reason to tolerate it. Once again, reality > you.


Why, as the dominant species, should we concern ourselves, as a whole, with the rights and problems of a lower species? I firmly believe that most animals are only here to serve a purpose. What other purpose for cattle is there than beef/leather/milk? All they would do if we didnt use them is take up space needlessly. Same goes for pigs, chickens, ect.

Nothing has a inherent "purpose" or reason for existing. Our existence is a matter of physical phenomenon that resulted in our existence, without any purpose or end "in mind". Of course this is assuming that you don't believe in God or some creator (in which case, it is incredibly hypocritical to have a Marx avatar) for which there exists no evidence or proof. We create meaning for ourselves through our actions. Ultimately human beings serve no real teleological purpose and I could very well argue under your logic that enslaving an entire group of people and having them work 20 hours a day in my factory producing such-and-such product would be far more useful than having them "take up space needlessly". We have the choice and freedom to structure our relationship with animals as we see fit within biological necessity.

Your viewpoint is really no different than the Christian one that sees humans as means towards serving "god" and animals as tools for that service. Its also not very different from the viewpoint Vanguard1917 and other Leninists take which posits human beings as means towards increased (and endless?) industrialization and refinement of production, instead of seeing technology and production as means towards human happiness.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 31, 2007 07:17 pm
I'm not talking about natural order. I'm talking about the natural instinct of every community or society to place itself ahead of others outside of said society. However, the concept of "animal rights" kind of goes against this. Really, it's just the protection of private and public property. It's anything but "rights". If anything, it undermines the importance and urgency of protection real rights for members of our society who have thus far been denied them.
That I do not disagree with, indeed I support the use of animals in our lives. I also accept that human problems must take the majority of our focus...

However the discussion was broader than animal rights, and I assumed that this was a hypothetical soceity rather than a more contemporary discussion; reading the title I appologise for confusion, although I tried to clarify things in my first post :)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:33 pm
Your premise is logically inconsistant on many fronts.

First and foremost, I would doubt your two initial points that you "make", I would advise that you read some actual scientific books on the mind before making assertions about "basic survival instincts" that have very little basis in reality. In general, empathy, curiosity and an interest in widening one's "horizons" beyond one's society have always been integral features of nearly every human society.

Regardless, you overlook the fact that animals have been an integral facet of human society for several millenia. The harnessing of animal power for agricultural and transport reasons (not to mention the basic function of providing meat) is likely the most important facet that contributed to the rise of complex human societies, human ingenuity alone could never have accomplished that without the material factor. Co-existance between animals and humans has also been integral in the spread and subsequent development of immunities to several diseases that are endemic in urban society. So your initial "us vs. them" species-based differentiation of society is quite simply false as "our" interests are more often than not completely intertwined with "their" interests.
Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:17 am
How far do you take the negation of animal's rights though? It's all very well to deicde that we should sort out our own problems rather than try and help animals, but surely a slippery slope argument is valid here?

What about, say, a few hundred years ago, a major source of public entertainment was Cat Burning, i.e. Gathering up stray cats, putting them into a net, lowering the net onto a bonfire, and laughing hysterically at their screams and struggles to get away until they were dead, and eventually carbonized. By your logic, doesn't matter, the cats are serving our 'master' species as a source of entertainment. Why should we care about the cats?

-Alex
The whole point of this thread is just that: If we don't grant other animals rights, which we most certainly don't, why should we give a fuck if cats are burned. I personally don't care how many domestic cats you burn. I guarantee it won't affect me and I have no loyalty to cats as I do for humanity.

Again, note that any attampts at establishing "animal rights" are in actuality the establishment of animal protection. Rights involve equal status and are a radically different concept altogether. Read the other posts in this thread for further exaplanations of this fact.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You missed my point, Penis. I wasn't suggesting we give domestic animals rights and not others. Here is my hypothetical proposal then:

I propose we do not burn any sentient being, capable of conscious thought, for our own entertainment.

Rights, protection, whatever you call it amounts to the same thing for the purposes of this debate, let's not get bogged down in semantics shall we?

Seems to me you're taking a capitalist mentality, actually. "If it doesn't affect me, I don't mind if you burn it in a net".

-Alex

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 02, 2007 04:18 am

Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.
They have a value insofar as they have a use.

[BreadBros]

Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.

Lets break that down ... Human society has a need and use of society ... yet they present no intrinsic value to society? How on earth are you defining "instrinsic value" if not by providing fulfillment of a vital need? Your sentence is a contradiction. You've also ignored everything else I wrote.


The whole point of this thread is just that: If we don't grant other animals rights, which we most certainly don't, why should we give a fuck if cats are burned. I personally don't care how many domestic cats you burn. I guarantee it won't affect me and I have no loyalty to cats as I do for humanity.

Did you actually read anything that was posted after your last post? The value that human beings give to anything, including their relationships with animals, derives itself from interaction. Obviously the average person has much more interaction with animals that have been bred to be companions in the home, domestic dogs and cats, and would likely place special personal value upon these species instead of some other one that they may have never encountered. Furthermore the fact that a cat is a mammal and therefore can socially interact with humans and communicate emotion to some degree (unlike, say, a fish) would especially create a relationship with human beings.

As for your second question, there is no inherent reason you specifically should give a fuck if cats are burned. For all we know you could have some form of psychological pathology that circumvents empathy (more likely though you're just a middle-class teenager trying to rabble-rouse). The point is great multitudes of human beings, nearly all of the industrialized world as far as I can tell, do place great value upon the protection of animals from non-necessary harm. Ultimately your personal opinion plays little part in the way people actually interact.


Again, note that any attampts at establishing "animal rights" are in actuality the establishment of animal protection. Rights involve equal status and are a radically different concept altogether. Read the other posts in this thread for further exaplanations of this fact.

Where exactly are you drawing your definition of rights from? You must realize that creating a standardized definition for such a vague highly-debated metaphysical concept is nearly impossible. However, if your problem is with terminology, fine, call it what you will, it doesn't change any of the other aspects of this "debate".

[Vanguard1917]

I propose we do not burn any sentient being, capable of conscious thought, for our own entertainment.

Cats are capable of 'conscious thought'? Who told you that?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:24 pm

I propose we do not burn any sentient being, capable of conscious thought, for our own entertainment.

Cats are capable of 'conscious thought'? Who told you that?
I talk to my cat all the time... you don't?

[benjaminbarker]

If humans wish to behave as earth's "masters", then they must behave as benevolent masters. We have a responsibility to take care of the earth, mainly because of what we have and are continuing to do to it, but also because we have the ability to protect it. We can't be so caught up in our own sentience that we forget that we're only part of a large complex ecosystem that would gladly go on without us since it wouldn't have us around to fuck it up. If we claim superiority, we must also behave as if we were superior. And a superior race would not allow or practice any sort of injustice: that goes for squandering of resources and violations of the rights of animals or humans.

[encephalon]

uhhh... on a side note, cows are not naturally occuring parts of a "natural" ecosystem. They are dumbed down, docile and engineered creatures that have grown co-dependent upon humanity. Cows haven't followed any sort of "survival of the fittest" since the agricultural revolution; in fact, they've experienced the opposite in order for humans to effectively manage a large population thereof.

Introducing them into the wild with no predators would quickly destabilize the ecosystem; introducing them into the wild with not-so-smart predators would quickly lead to the end of cows.

But as for "animal rights": if you want to ascribe rights to non-human entities, then great; but when those rights come into conflict with human rights or interests, you go with humanity.

[dannthraxxx]

"Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society. "



in my opinion humyns dont have much value to "society." we're disgusting and we destroy the planet, fuck society.



I think the way we treat animals says a lot about us as a whole. The way most people view animal rights disgusts me. The way we treat animals and view animals as "weaker" beings is one of the main problems in the mindset of humyns today. Thats like justifying that since third world countries are poverty stricken and dont contribute to our "society" we should forget about them and exploit them to our advantage. Should we maybe eat some ethiopians because they cant "help our" supposed master race? Ridiculous. Animals in my opinion and many others opinions, have as much right as we have to be here. Animals arent destroying the planet and causing wars, we are.


Humyns by nature are animals. The only way we differ really is that we care what "society" thinks about us.



Fuck this thought that we are superior beings. If we were superior beings, we would live peacefully and stop destroying the planet. Most people tend to follow example, and the way the world works right now, we're giving a pretty fucking shitty example.


I hope the world ends soon. Cannibalism should become the new Vegan thing to do. haha.

[dannthraxxx]

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philo...gRevolution.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/RethinkingRevolution.htm)


---


http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philo...nimalsPlace.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/AnAnimalsPlace.htm)


---
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philo...tMakesRight.htm (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/BeyondMightMakesRight.htm)





i think those are all worthwhile articles on this subject.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 30, 2007 06:27 am
Should we respect animal's "rights"?
Of course not, animals have no rights.

We should respect our own right to a healthy environment, just this.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 03, 2007 01:30 am
I talk to my cat all the time... you don't?
I do, but I notice she never talks back to me.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+February 02, 2007 12:58 pm--> (Hegemonicretribution @ February 02, 2007 12:58 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 02, 2007 04:18 am

Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.
They have a value insofar as they have a use. [/b]

Exactly... and to prove that, we only protect animals which have a use: endangered animals, domestic animals, livestock.

So under what premise can you protect cats from being burned?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 03, 2007 10:05 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 03, 2007 10:05 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:58 pm

Dr. [email protected] 02, 2007 04:18 am

Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.
They have a value insofar as they have a use.

Exactly... and to prove that, we only protect animals which have a use: endangered animals, domestic animals, livestock.

So under what premise can you protect cats from being burned? [/b]
Er, because they're domestic animals!

Anyway, comrade Penis, your abstract argument aside, isn't there something in you which reacts against such needless cruelty? Or are you some kind of psychopath?

[BreadBros]

uhhh... on a side note, cows are not naturally occuring parts of a "natural" ecosystem. They are dumbed down, docile and engineered creatures that have grown co-dependent upon humanity. Cows haven't followed any sort of "survival of the fittest" since the agricultural revolution; in fact, they've experienced the opposite in order for humans to effectively manage a large population thereof.

Introducing them into the wild with no predators would quickly destabilize the ecosystem; introducing them into the wild with not-so-smart predators would quickly lead to the end of cows.


I'm sorry, but arguing that the biological ramifications of complex human society are somehow a departure or distinct from the "natural" ecosystem is complete pseudo-scientific bullshit. Interaction between species and types of life and ensuing "domestication" (i.e. changing the survival parameters of a type of life by creating a co-dependent relationship with it) is not "un-natural" nor is it human-specific. Look into the relationship between acorns and squirrels and human attempts to domesticate Oaks, or also into the development of the strawberry plant in relationship to finches and the attempts to domesticate it prior to the invention of greenhouses. You'll see that these relationships are completely natural and the animals are still following a "survival of the fittest", except the parameters of what would constitute "the fittest" has changed through co-development. Its sort of like saying that humans haven't followed natural selection because if you dropped a human in the middle of the ocean with no recourse he would eventaully die. Obviously different species are specialized towards survival in the particular niche that they end up in, geographically and biologically. The only difference from a hypothetical "original state of nature" is that the relationship between humans society and certain animals has grown even greater.


Exactly... and to prove that, we only protect animals which have a use: endangered animals, domestic animals, livestock.

So under what premise can you protect cats from being burned?

A cat is a domesticated animal, its co-relationship with humans developed due to the fact that by living near human grain and waste producing centers it can feed off pests in order to satisfy its hunger, which is at the same time a valuable service to humans. Cats played an incredibly integral part as a sort of primitive form of waste management in rural communities and proto urban centers, where by controlling the pest population they also kept down rates of infectious diseases and general health problems such as lung ailments.

However, your statement in general is demonstratably false. While livestock and endangered animals are incredibly important to the ecosystem and society (in reality all animals are incredibly important to the ecosystem, these just happen to be the ones most at risk of dissapearing and thus are especially looked after) they receive far less conscious physical protection than domesticated animals. Ever heard of the ASPCA/RSPCA, the Humane Society, etc? Those organizations in general receive much more funding and have more capability in protecting animals (keep in mind theyre generally funded by donors and organizations) than do state-run protection enterprises like the Parks Service or even OSHA and other government groups that are responsible for overseeing conditions at meat factories. Thats because most of the recent (as in this past century) focus by the public on greater animal good arises not out of a teleological look at raw productive numbers and the maximization of production (as you would look at it) but in general from empathy and sense of protection for what in general are companions, ergo the focus on domestic animals. As common knowledge of the condition of animal welfare in other parts of life has arosen you've also seen movements by people to help those animals too, as they familiarize with them, ergo the decision by a lot of people to only eat chicken that was grown on a free-roaming range instead of in growth cages.

Also, you're comment is specious. While the animals you listed do provide some use, you overlook the fact that if you consider ecosystem balances to be a use, then all animals provide a use. What really differentiates the animals you list from others is that they're the ones who in general face threats. Endangered animals face the threat of extinction and the other two types you listed (domestic and livestock) are the ones in constant contact with human society and thus face the most possibility of violence from humans. Its generally not faily common for humans to go into the depths of wilderness areas and attack un-suspecting field mice or some such thing, therefore the necessity for their defense is less. Thats just common sense.


Er, because they're domestic animals!

Anyway, comrade Penis, your abstract argument aside, isn't there something in you which reacts against such needless cruelty? Or are you some kind of psychopath?

Hes likely just a middle-class teenager who fashions himself a tough Leninist liberator and he wants to show up all you pussy tree-hugging anarchists. :P Then again, I have seen Leninists place dogma above reality quite a many times, and they seem to sincerely have brainwashed themselves to the point where they could no longer realize it, so....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:34 pm
Lets break that down ... Human society has a need and use of society ... yet they present no intrinsic value to society? How on earth are you defining "instrinsic value" if not by providing fulfillment of a vital need? Your sentence is a contradiction.
Our reliance on some animals, doesn't grant all animals intrinsic value. I realize how my statements may have been ambiguous, but really it's quite straight foreward. Luíz Henrique put it very well.


Did you actually read anything that was posted after your last post? The value that human beings give to anything, including their relationships with animals, derives itself from interaction. Obviously the average person has much more interaction with animals that have been bred to be companions in the home, domestic dogs and cats, and would likely place special personal value upon these species instead of some other one that they may have never encountered. Furthermore the fact that a cat is a mammal and therefore can socially interact with humans and communicate emotion to some degree (unlike, say, a fish) would especially create a relationship with human beings.

So what are you trying to prove to me here?


As for your second question, there is no inherent reason you specifically should give a fuck if cats are burned. For all we know you could have some form of psychological pathology that circumvents empathy (more likely though you're just a middle-class teenager trying to rabble-rouse). The point is great multitudes of human beings, nearly all of the industrialized world as far as I can tell, do place great value upon the protection of animals from non-necessary harm. Ultimately your personal opinion plays little part in the way people actually interact.

They place importance upon the protection of some animals. Regardless, this doesn't refute anything that I've said.


Where exactly are you drawing your definition of rights from? You must realize that creating a standardized definition for such a vague highly-debated metaphysical concept is nearly impossible. However, if your problem is with terminology, fine, call it what you will, it doesn't change any of the other aspects of this "debate".

A right is a prerogative established and defended by someone or collectively by a society. For humans to defend the rights of something clearly outside of our society is nonsense. Like I said before, human society protects certain animals because they're important to us, not because they have intrinsic value. Intrinsic value means that they're valuebale in and of themselves. No animal is instrinsically valuable in human society. They're only worth something to us so long as we have a use for them. Even cats and dogs we only protect if they're somebody's property. Otherwise they're eaten, killed, abandoned, deemed pests, etc.

You need to just settle down, man.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+February 03, 2007 09:45 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ February 03, 2007 09:45 pm)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 03, 2007 10:05 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:58 pm

Dr. [email protected] 02, 2007 04:18 am

Our need and use of animals doesn't refute the fact that animals have absolutely no intrinsic value to human society.
They have a value insofar as they have a use.

Exactly... and to prove that, we only protect animals which have a use: endangered animals, domestic animals, livestock.

So under what premise can you protect cats from being burned?
Er, because they're domestic animals!

Anyway, comrade Penis, your abstract argument aside, isn't there something in you which reacts against such needless cruelty? Or are you some kind of psychopath? [/b]
The cats that were burned en masse in the middle ages for entertainment most certainly didn't belong to anyone.

I wouldn't misstreat animals because I have no reason to. But if for some reason somebody wants to misstreat or kill an animal, I don't really see the logic in human society reprimanding one of its own in favor of a cat. Unless that cat happens to be somebody's property. Then it would be a case of protecting private property, not animal rights.

[Hit The North]

You're all heart :rolleyes:

[Guerrilla22]

I think that we should respect animals to a point. That point is to use them only as needed for our survival. Hunting is okay just so long as it is used to keep a particualr animal population in check, where a problem would occur otherwise or for food. Burning animals alvie for entertainment is barbaric and should not be toleraated.

[encephalon]

I'm sorry, but arguing that the biological ramifications of complex human society are somehow a departure or distinct from the "natural" ecosystem is complete pseudo-scientific bullshit. Interaction between species and types of life and ensuing "domestication" (i.e. changing the survival parameters of a type of life by creating a co-dependent relationship with it) is not "un-natural" nor is it human-specific. Look into the relationship between acorns and squirrels and human attempts to domesticate Oaks, or also into the development of the strawberry plant in relationship to finches and the attempts to domesticate it prior to the invention of greenhouses. You'll see that these relationships are completely natural and the animals are still following a "survival of the fittest", except the parameters of what would constitute "the fittest" has changed through co-development. Its sort of like saying that humans haven't followed natural selection because if you dropped a human in the middle of the ocean with no recourse he would eventaully die. Obviously different species are specialized towards survival in the particular niche that they end up in, geographically and biologically. The only difference from a hypothetical "original state of nature" is that the relationship between humans society and certain animals has grown even greater.

PSSSSSSS.. note the quotation marks around the word "natural."

My only point was that introducing a cow "back into nature" as some people would suggest is about as sensible as introducing an orangutan to quantum physics. Cows have evolved, yes--but the bounds of evolution--ie survival of the fittest--has become survival of the fattest, calmest and most obedient. Domestication is the process of changing the definition of survival of the fittest for the subject, and usually to its detriment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 am
I think that we should respect animals to a point. That point is to use them only as needed for our survival. Hunting is okay just so long as it is used to keep a particualr animal population in check, where a problem would occur otherwise or for food. Burning animals alvie for entertainment is barbaric and should not be toleraated.
Can you exaplain why?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 04, 2007 06:09 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 04, 2007 06:09 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 am
I think that we should respect animals to a point. That point is to use them only as needed for our survival. Hunting is okay just so long as it is used to keep a particualr animal population in check, where a problem would occur otherwise or for food. Burning animals alvie for entertainment is barbaric and should not be toleraated.
Can you exaplain why? [/b]
Because there's a paper-thin divide between enjoying the suffering of a sentient animal and enjoying the suffering of a sentient human being.

You seem to be calling for some species loyalty which would demand I have more sympathy for the bourgeoisie than I do for my cat. Well, my cat exploits no one and, as as far as I can deduce, is not my class enemy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, my loyalties lie with the international proletariat, but we cannot deny the bourgeoisie human rights, even though thye are guilty of oppression. Likewise, we cannot grant your cat human rights, because it's not human. Should we grant all animals human rights? Only some animals? On what grounds?

Your cat is protected under private property laws. What more do you want?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Nobody is saying they should have human rights man. Just some recognition of them as sentient, living creatures, that can experience suffering. Not this utter dismissal that you appear to have, to the point where you feel no moral indignation at the thought of burning them alive, slowly, for entertainment.

-Alex

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 04, 2007 07:25 pm
we cannot deny the bourgeoisie human rights, even though thye are guilty of oppression.
So you don't want to deny them of their right to speak and act, or kill them in a proletarian revolution any more?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Perhaps, but they must be condemned through the proper channels, and not denied rights to a just trial of some kind. In a scenario of violent conflict, of course, that doesn't apply. The point is they're still humans.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:44 am
Nobody is saying they should have human rights man. Just some recognition of them as sentient, living creatures, that can experience suffering. Not this utter dismissal that you appear to have, to the point where you feel no moral indignation at the thought of burning them alive, slowly, for entertainment.

-Alex
Okay, then explain to me, please, which animals should be protected and on what grounds? Other than animals which are someone else's property or legally preserved for environmental reasons.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Okay, then explain to me, please, which animals should be protected and on what grounds? Other than animals which are someone else's property or legally preserved for environmental reasons.

Well, that's a whole other debate. The more urgent point is that you need to drop this bullshit "species loyalty" concept and not just shut down normal ethical practice when the situation doesn't concern humans.

However, I'll have a stab at your question. Bear in mind that I'm talking hypothetically, it might well be that there's no practical way to ascertain which creatures have which attributes etc, but I'm just going to assume for now that there is.

Basically I think that anything able to experience a reasonable degree of happiness, and equally is able to experience pain and suffering, and that has memory and self-awareness should not be arbitrarily abused for entertainment, or indeed for anything that isn't necessary. There will always be cases where the good implications of a given action outweigh the bad, but as a rule, this is what we should go with.

The grounds on which they should be protected are self-evident, so long as you accept that suffering is bad and happiness is good.



How's that?

-Alex

[Z[ ] Sputnik]

Althought animals do not have rights in a human society, as sentient creatures they deserve consideration as to their needs.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 06, 2007 06:51 pm
The point is they're still humans.
Yeah, but the question is do I really care?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:35 pm

Okay, then explain to me, please, which animals should be protected and on what grounds? Other than animals which are someone else's property or legally preserved for environmental reasons.

Well, that's a whole other debate. The more urgent point is that you need to drop this bullshit "species loyalty" concept and not just shut down normal ethical practice when the situation doesn't concern humans.

However, I'll have a stab at your question. Bear in mind that I'm talking hypothetically, it might well be that there's no practical way to ascertain which creatures have which attributes etc, but I'm just going to assume for now that there is.

Basically I think that anything able to experience a reasonable degree of happiness, and equally is able to experience pain and suffering, and that has memory and self-awareness should not be arbitrarily abused for entertainment, or indeed for anything that isn't necessary. There will always be cases where the good implications of a given action outweigh the bad, but as a rule, this is what we should go with.

The grounds on which they should be protected are self-evident, so long as you accept that suffering is bad and happiness is good.



How's that?

-Alex
Human society has never and will never care about the suffering or happiness of other animals. That's why we eat them all the time. I mean, this "arbitrary purposes" business is ridiculous. If we really ethically respected something's feelings, it wouldn't matter at all whether the pain we inflicted upon them was arbitrary or not. We kill millions of animals every day as a matter of routine, because their suffering means nothing to us. Deal with it.

As for only harming other animals when it's "necessary"... why? Well, to begin with, you just proved my point in a way. Which was that human interests always trump those of other animals, because they have no intrinsic value in our society.

It's cute that you don't wanna hurt animals, but at least face the fact that there is no logic or consistency behind that position.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Human society has never and will never care about the suffering or happiness of other animals.

Come off it. Quick example, just finished a history lesson about the plains indians, who's way of life was centred on respect for all nature, and especially animals. Granted they used the buffalo for survival, but that's what it was - survival. This is the distinction between an arbitrary abuse like cat burning and a sadly necessary abuse like slaughtering the buffalo.


We kill millions of animals every day as a matter of routine, because their suffering means nothing to us.

Don't project your callous indifference to the rest of humanity please. I'm a vegetarian, which is a small step towards genuine care, but to say it means nothing to us is just an utter fallacy. Yes, I wear leather shoes, but it troubles me greatly that I do.


Which was that human interests always trump

Obvious misrepresentation of what I was saying. If our interest is to watch the agony of a cat burning for our entertainment, then it definitely shouldn't, and thankfully these days doesn't, 'trump'. If we must rely on them for food and any other vitals, then it should. And I think you already understand this, so that's deliberate distortion.


It's cute that you don't wanna hurt animals

It's cute that you need to resort to belittling me. :)

-Alex

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Come off it. Quick example, just finished a history lesson about the plains indians, who's way of life was centred on respect for all nature, and especially animals. Granted they used the buffalo for survival, but that's what it was - survival. This is the distinction between an arbitrary abuse like cat burning and a sadly necessary abuse like slaughtering the buffalo.

Contemporary Western humans have the choice to never slaughter another domestic animal again and continue surviving. So it's clearly not a matter of survival. We kill because we like to. Deal with it.


Don't project your callous indifference to the rest of humanity please. I'm a vegetarian, which is a small step towards genuine care, but to say it means nothing to us is just an utter fallacy. Yes, I wear leather shoes, but it troubles me greatly that I do.

You support the slaughter of cows as a matter of choice. This is what people do. We place our comfort and appearance before the well being of cows. If somebody payed you to kill a cute little puppy and guranteed you no legal repercussion for the misstreatment of animals, you know you would do it.


Obvious misrepresentation of what I was saying. If our interest is to watch the agony of a cat burning for our entertainment, then it definitely shouldn't, and thankfully these days doesn't, 'trump'. If we must rely on them for food and any other vitals, then it should. And I think you already understand this, so that's deliberate distortion.

Have you ever roasted marshmallows? Was it entertaining? Marshmallows are made with gelatin made from slaughtered animals. I find it tremendously entertaining.

Entertainment or gluttony, it doesn't matter. My point, which is self-evident and which I sadly have to argue to prove to you fools, is that to human society animals have no value in and of themselves. They only matter to us as property and as an essential part of the maintence of our ecosystem. Following this, it makes no sense to protect essentially worthless animals from ourselves. Like domestic cats that some folks collectively choose to burn for fun. Or killing puppies for money. Actually, I brought this up after having a brief discussion on another message board about how much money it would take for you to kill a puppy.

[RevMARKSman]

Hes likely just a middle-class teenager who fashions himself a tough Leninist liberator and he wants to show up all you pussy tree-hugging anarchists.

Stop generalizing please. Most anarchists do not base their politics on any kind of morals at all.

@rosenpenis

Exactly. The only reason not to kill an animal besides the ones you outlined is if someone has some sort of empathic attachment which would cause significant psychological harm (not just feelings of sadness or indignation) if the animal was killed.

[Hit The North]

Contemporary Western humans have the choice to never slaughter another domestic animal again and continue surviving. So it's clearly not a matter of survival. We kill because we like to. Deal with it.


Think you'll find that profit is at the bottom of that, not 'like'.

[apathy maybe]

Just a quick follow up to the above post, most people don't like killing animals and seeing blood and so on. This is why they get someone else to do it for them. The conditions in slaughter houses are often quite terrible, which makes the job even harder for the individuals working there.

The reason the animals are killed is profit sure though.

(I might have a proper response to this thread, but I'm getting food now so latter.)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 08, 2007 02:52 pm

Contemporary Western humans have the choice to never slaughter another domestic animal again and continue surviving. So it's clearly not a matter of survival. We kill because we like to. Deal with it.


Think you'll find that profit is at the bottom of that, not 'like'.
Or folks could just stop eating animals, if they truly cared. But we don't.

[bcbm]

Come off it. Quick example, just finished a history lesson about the plains indians, who's way of life was centred on respect for all nature, and especially animals. Granted they used the buffalo for survival, but that's what it was - survival. This is the distinction between an arbitrary abuse like cat burning and a sadly necessary abuse like slaughtering the buffalo.

So when they'd run a herd of buffalo off a cliff to kill tons of the fuckers and then take home as much as they could carry, while still leaving plenty, they were doing what exactly...?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Apologies for the delayed reply, my computer has been misbehaving.


Contemporary Western humans have the choice to never slaughter another domestic animal again and continue surviving. So it's clearly not a matter of survival. We kill because we like to. Deal with it.

Well, it's good that you've conceded your insane point that human society never has and never will care about animal welfare. :) Note that I don't think you're a fool though, which seems to be your opinion of me.

Now, it's an entirely valid point about contemporary westerners, yes, we can survive and thrive without animals, hence my vegetarianism. Yes, for us, it's not a matter of survival, and given this i'd class being a carnivore as an arbitrary abuse of animals, when in an affluent society such as ours.

However, I don't agree that meat-eaters in the west take any pleasure in the actual act of killing an animal, as long as we're speaking generally. I've just asked two meat-eaters either side of me in my class, and they were both surprised that you'd even suggest this. It's a matter of being brought up eating meat, not knowing any different, etc. In short, meat eating in the west is not evidence of humankind taking pleasure in slaughtering animals, it's more a kind of moral apathy, or reluctance.


You support the slaughter of cows as a matter of choice. This is what people do. We place our comfort and appearance before the well being of cows. .

No, of course not. The main reason I wear leather shoes is simply the lack of alternatives. Yes, they exist, but they are so rare and usually poor quality... However, this is still primarily a personal fault. I've accepted this. If I can find a place that does decent shoes that aren't leather, i'll jump at the chance.



If somebody payed you to kill a cute little puppy and guranteed you no legal repercussion for the misstreatment of animals, you know you would do it.

Fuck off. I'm offended that you could even hypothesise my murdering a puppy for money... Ridiculous argument.


Have you ever roasted marshmallows? Was it entertaining? Marshmallows are made with gelatin made from slaughtered animals. I find it tremendously entertaining.

I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat anything with gelatin in, remember?


My point, which is self-evident and which I sadly have to argue to prove to you fools,

Clearly it isn't, because you have been attesting for it for 3 pages. Something's only self-evident if it requires no back up beyond the original statement. Your point definitely does.



Entertainment or gluttony, it doesn't matter

Of course it does. This is the distinction you keep missing. When it's entertainment, it's sick. No animal should be tortured to death so that us humans can have a good laugh about it. Gluttony is much more to do with moral apathy, and consequently more forgivable, people are stuck in a societal norm, unfortunately. Still, I think we'll get there in the end.


So when they'd run a herd of buffalo off a cliff to kill tons of the fuckers and then take home as much as they could carry, while still leaving plenty, they were doing what exactly...?

Well, this isn't a history debate. However, unless you have a very good source for them running buffalo off the cliffs, I'm sceptical. They relied on them for all of their needs, literally, and they believed very strongly that nature was sacred and that men were equal to animals, etc, nature's great circle. Running them off the cliff seems contrary to everything in their nature. However, there is a possibility that you're thinking of the Pawnee tribe, who were basically mental vicious nutcases, and would in all likelihood do that. It's sad that they're focused on so much, because they really aren't representative for the plains indians as a whole at all.

-Alex

[Hit The North]

Burn:


The main reason I wear leather shoes is simply the lack of alternatives. Yes, they exist, but they are so rare and usually poor quality... However, this is still primarily a personal fault. I've accepted this. If I can find a place that does decent shoes that aren't leather, i'll jump at the chance.

Check this out: Ethical Shoes (http://www.beyondskin.co.uk/html/home.php)

Not sure how good you are in heels though :D

[bcbm]

Well, this isn't a history debate. However, unless you have a very good source for them running buffalo off the cliffs, I'm sceptical. They relied on them for all of their needs, literally, and they believed very strongly that nature was sacred and that men were equal to animals, etc, nature's great circle. Running them off the cliff seems contrary to everything in their nature. However, there is a possibility that you're thinking of the Pawnee tribe, who were basically mental vicious nutcases, and would in all likelihood do that. It's sad that they're focused on so much, because they really aren't representative for the plains indians as a whole at all.


I think you hold an overly romantic view of American plains Indians. I'll look it up later.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, it's good that you've conceded your insane point that human society never has and never will care about animal welfare. smile.gif Note that I don't think you're a fool though, which seems to be your opinion of me.

Now, it's an entirely valid point about contemporary westerners, yes, we can survive and thrive without animals, hence my vegetarianism. Yes, for us, it's not a matter of survival, and given this i'd class being a carnivore as an arbitrary abuse of animals, when in an affluent society such as ours.

However, I don't agree that meat-eaters in the west take any pleasure in the actual act of killing an animal, as long as we're speaking generally. I've just asked two meat-eaters either side of me in my class, and they were both surprised that you'd even suggest this. It's a matter of being brought up eating meat, not knowing any different, etc. In short, meat eating in the west is not evidence of humankind taking pleasure in slaughtering animals, it's more a kind of moral apathy, or reluctance.

We may not "kill because we like to", but we certainly kill because we like dead animals... which is basically the same thing as killing because we like to. As is the very point of this discussion, we kill animals because in our society, our desire to eat tasty food, gluttony, entertainment, money, etc is far more important than the lives of other animals. i.e. the lives of other animals are worthless. That is the point of this thread. While many animals are important to us, as I have said, the lives of animals at large have no inherent value to us. The role served by some animals is essential, but they have no "intrinsic value." Their lives are worthless to us. That's why we have always and will always continue to kill them at the expsenof our entertainment, or gluttony, or whatevevr whim.


No, of course not. The main reason I wear leather shoes is simply the lack of alternatives. Yes, they exist, but they are so rare and usually poor quality... However, this is still primarily a personal fault. I've accepted this. If I can find a place that does decent shoes that aren't leather, i'll jump at the chance.

lol


Fuck off. I'm offended that you could even hypothesise my murdering a puppy for money... Ridiculous argument.

It's not exactly an "argument", but you know it's true.


I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat anything with gelatin in, remember?

You cleatly don't represent humanity and our collective values.


Of course it does. This is the distinction you keep missing. When it's entertainment, it's sick. No animal should be tortured to death so that us humans can have a good laugh about it. Gluttony is much more to do with moral apathy, and consequently more forgivable, people are stuck in a societal norm, unfortunately. Still, I think we'll get there in the end.

You know, people continue to kill animals for fun... see hunting.

[sailing to byzantium]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 30, 2007 04:58 am
As a basic survival instinct, all societies have acted under the premise that they're basically the only ones who matter and stemming from this notion, (1) the value of everything and everyone outside of said society, to that society, is directly related to that society's demand and (2) the interests of that society trumps those of anyone outside it.

Question: should we, as humans, continue acting as if we were are the masters of the world?
Humans definately need to stop thinking in terms of what utility/emotional value the world has to us.
Our whole outlook needs to regain some realistic context. we'd do anything to protect the 'rights' of humans to a few materialistic trifles (turn ourselves into wage slaves, turn the environment to concrete uniformity, make thousands of species extinct), because we think what we want is more important than anything else.

We can undo the mess we've made without thinking of ourselves as gods. Actually, I'd say we won't make any serious improvements until we stop seeing our own interests as more important than the welfare of the whole.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosen - You're just flatly re-stating your original point now, I don't think I need to comment further.

But you're wrong about the puppy, seriously. I would be tempted towards violence to someone who offered me money to do that.

-Alex