We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Legal rights for animals? (5 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
... However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.


I agree that aces probably didn't think this one through and that the statement is a bit silly. Not quite as silly as Tony's statement that "I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves", but in the same ballpark. Of course, instead of ridiculing Tony for such a silly statement, Bob instead gave him a +2 thumbs up for that one.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Rockwall, we welcome all great apes, gay, straight, American, Canadian, British - our doors are open. I hope you have a wonderful time here. We are a great ape friendly country. They even tolerate me.

What part are you visiting, or are you touring?


Tony, I don't blame you at all for wanting to dodge the question.

But, as to your question, we will be vacationing there for about 10 days. We fly into and out of Shannon and will travel through much of Southern Ireland on a self-guided tour. We'll be going to Clifden, Galway, Killarney, Kilkenny, Dublin and Limerick. Packing as much in as we can for our short time there.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.


Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
.



When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.


Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
.



When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming.


What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
TonyB2009
View Profile
Inner circle
5006 Posts

Profile of TonyB2009
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Rockwall, we welcome all great apes, gay, straight, American, Canadian, British - our doors are open. I hope you have a wonderful time here. We are a great ape friendly country. They even tolerate me.

What part are you visiting, or are you touring?


Tony, I don't blame you at all for wanting to dodge the question.

But, as to your question, we will be vacationing there for about 10 days. We fly into and out of Shannon and will travel through much of Southern Ireland on a self-guided tour. We'll be going to Clifden, Galway, Killarney, Kilkenny, Dublin and Limerick. Packing as much in as we can for our short time there.

In fairness, I did clarify what rights I meant. And I will be the one laughing in twenty years time when this argument has been won and other great apes are given some rights that set them well apart from other animals.

As for Ireland, I grew up near Shannon. When you fly in you should visit the Cliffs of Moher and the Burren on your way to Galway. They are on your route if you take the scenic road, and they are the best scenery Ireland has to offer. The cliffs are a 700 foot sheer drop to the sea, and the Burren is a unique lunar landscape of exposed limestone, rare fauna, and prehistoric remains. Both just an hour from the airport.

Wear a bulletproof jacket for Limerick. Only a few years ago it was the murder capital of Europe. Nice city now though.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Cliffs of Moher and the Burren are already high on my list of things to see.

And to be fair, you didn't claim the rights you listed were comprehensive. I was just looking for further clarification. The right I questioned fell in line with the others you supported and was nothing like the ones you didn't support.

And you won't be the only one laughing. If you recall, I mentioned earlier that I had no doubt that your prediction would prove true.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Image
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
Animal Rights have more rights than you and there is also a lot of dough in the game.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.


Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
.



When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming.


What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again.



Do SEVERLY BRAIN DAMAGED people have rights? The question should be. Which rights do they have? Do they have rights to purchase a firearm? Do they have the right to drive a car? Do they have the right to vote? Do they have the right to get a pilot's license and fly a plane? And on and on. Not everyone has the same rights just as the child etc. while they have certain rights. They mostly have rights that have to be respected rather the right to do certain things. They gain the right to do things as they mature. The animals will never mature to a point that they can have these same rights.

So there are different kind of rights. Those that must be respected by others and not infringed on by others and those that let you do certain things.

Animals may, and I say may have the rights that should not be infringed upon. But not so much the rights to do things. Apples and oranges again. Also those rights are bestowed upon them by intelligent individuals who can reason. So while some animals have certain rights. They have no idea that they have them. They are not that intelligent. However most children will attain the level of intelligence to understand their rights. Same goes for the severly mentally challenged...they have rights that others should abide by but have no idea of such rights and definitely do not have the right to do many things that competent individuals are allowed to do.

It is not so much me moving the goal posts as you bringing up what is not the norm, and trying to make it the norm. While a mentally challanged person has certain rights, it is very possible they do not know or are not capable of knowing they have them. Again they have the right to many things but not necessarily the right to do many things that others can do. The only reason they do not have the same rights is because of their mental capacity and in many instances are not aware of the rights they do have.

Let me ask you this. Do you have rights if you do not know you have them? It is like the age old question. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall. Does it make a noise? The only rights you have, if you do not know you have them, are the ones people respect and give you. So my answer while you may debate is a cop out is that if you do not know you have rights, then you do not have them. The rights you supposedly have, but do not know you have, simply means that they are written down somewhere for those intelligent enough to understand and know them.

It is unfortunate but the only rights that many of these individuals have is the rights we give them. Often times they deserve more.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
Yes you have rights if you do not know you have them, even if you are a new born sucker.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On May 30, 2015, tommy wrote:
Yes you have rights if you do not know you have them, even if you are a new born sucker.



Eloquent as expected.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Starrpower
View Profile
Inner circle
4070 Posts

Profile of Starrpower
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty.


Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights.
Starrpower
View Profile
Inner circle
4070 Posts

Profile of Starrpower
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally.


What is verbal? Does it differ significantly from vocal communication? I have known and worked with plenty of students who were non-verbal and yet they could certainly communicate vocally (yells, screeches, grunts, etc.). Should any communication coming from the mouth be considered verbal? Does it HAVE to be words as humans verbalize?

Perhaps my cat can communicate verbally. So might a chipmunk.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2771 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Factually, chimps can speak. They can be trained to use sign language, and can communicate with us.

I have no issue at all with the rest of the great apes being given the same legal status as ourselves. There is little difference between them and us. Other branches of the evolutionary tree I am happy to consider animals (I don't believe that dolphins, for instance, are the brightest creatures on the planet). But the great apes are different. They are intelligent, self-aware, and can communicate with us. That is good enough for me.

I think self-awareness is a critical thing. All us great apes seem to have it, as do elephants. Other animals (with a few possible exceptions) don't seem to have it. Maybe self-awareness could be the dividing line. But I am in favour of all great apes sharing the same rights.


"Man had always considered himself more intelligent than the dolphins because he had created so much; the wheel, New York City, thermo-nuclear war, whereas all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. Oddly enough the dolphins believed exactly the opposite for exactly the same reasons! The dolphins had known of the upcoming desctruction of the Earth for many years and had spent countless hours trying to warn the humans. Unfortunately, these messages were misinterpreted as clever attempts to bat balls or ring bells. The dolphins arranged to leave the Earth shortly before the Vogons arrived. The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a particularly clever attempt to do a backwards somersault while whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner," but it actually was this; 'So long, and thanks for all the fish!' " -- Douglas Adams; "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"

If you have doubt that dolphins are intelligent... here's a negative example;

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On May 30, 2015, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, acesover wrote:
Again I am all for not torturing any animal. However I feel that when one has a right, one must understand that right and I do not feel that any animal has that capability.


Glad to see that you agree that animals have the right not to be tortured. But your statement that one must understand a right in order to have it is nonsense. It's also rather surprising coming from a strident "right to life" advocate like yourself. I'm pretty sure that zygotes and fetuses don't understand the rights that you claim they have.

At least TRY to be consistent.
.



When I posted this I knew this would come into play and I also knew who would play it.

There is a phrase, "age of reason". Not necessarily applicable to this scenario but definitely brings to mind what the words mean. A child, infant, fetus, zygote obviously has not reached this age. However if one murders a child one is deemed a murderer whether the child has reached the age of reasoning or not because it is logical and morally acceptable that taking the life of a child that one should be deemed a murderer and punished. An animal will NEVER reach this so called age of reason. They are not capable mentally of such reasoning, and animals do not and never will "understand" reasoning.

Again we eat animals. Also in the wild many may kill us including the great apes. Not because they are bad. But simply because they are animals and are not on the same plain of intelligence of humans nor will they ever be. However a zygote, fetus, child will reach that plain in years to come.

Your logic is that of a lawyer defending a juvenile who has committetd a heinous crime and your defense is that the person should not be tried as an adult. As the saying goes these matters are apples and oragnes and the same logic does not apply here.

So as far as your comment as me being inconsistent, it is totally unwarranted because there is no comparison in the two instances of an animal compared to a child, fetus, or zygote. Sorry your argument does not hold water and my thinking is totally consistent.

I owe myself a night out and a steak dinner with cocktails because I bet myself this would come and it would come from you. I was correct in both instances. So I won myself a night out. Wish you lived close. I would treat you also. it would definitely be memorable. Thanks for the evening out that I have coming.


What about a human being with irreversible brain damage? You may be congratulating yourself for predicting Bob's response, but the fact is, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that understanding is necessary for rights, but now it's the expectation of future understanding. So you agree that one doesn't need to understand rights to have them. I have no doubt that you think that severely brain damaged human beings have rights without even the expectation of future understanding of those rights, so the goalposts will have to move again.



Do SEVERLY BRAIN DAMAGED people have rights? The question should be. Which rights do they have? Do they have rights to purchase a firearm? Do they have the right to drive a car? Do they have the right to vote? Do they have the right to get a pilot's license and fly a plane? And on and on. Not everyone has the same rights just as the child etc. while they have certain rights. They mostly have rights that have to be respected rather the right to do certain things. They gain the right to do things as they mature. The animals will never mature to a point that they can have these same rights.

So there are different kind of rights. Those that must be respected by others and not infringed on by others and those that let you do certain things.

Animals may, and I say may have the rights that should not be infringed upon. But not so much the rights to do things. Apples and oranges again. Also those rights are bestowed upon them by intelligent individuals who can reason. So while some animals have certain rights. They have no idea that they have them. They are not that intelligent. However most children will attain the level of intelligence to understand their rights. Same goes for the severly mentally challenged...they have rights that others should abide by but have no idea of such rights and definitely do not have the right to do many things that competent individuals are allowed to do.

It is not so much me moving the goal posts as you bringing up what is not the norm, and trying to make it the norm. While a mentally challanged person has certain rights, it is very possible they do not know or are not capable of knowing they have them. Again they have the right to many things but not necessarily the right to do many things that others can do. The only reason they do not have the same rights is because of their mental capacity and in many instances are not aware of the rights they do have.

Let me ask you this. Do you have rights if you do not know you have them? It is like the age old question. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall. Does it make a noise? The only rights you have, if you do not know you have them, are the ones people respect and give you. So my answer while you may debate is a cop out is that if you do not know you have rights, then you do not have them. The rights you supposedly have, but do not know you have, simply means that they are written down somewhere for those intelligent enough to understand and know them.

It is unfortunate but the only rights that many of these individuals have is the rights we give them. Often times they deserve more.


Thanks for that explanation, Aces. I do agree that certain types of rights do require a level of understanding.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty.


Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights.


Not really.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Starrpower
View Profile
Inner circle
4070 Posts

Profile of Starrpower
The only rights ANYONE has are the rights we (by "we" I means governments) give them, unless of course you include "inalienable rights" (thank you Ben Franklin). I'm guessing the anti-God brigade here will not recognize those. The only real rights anyone has is survival of the fittest. Beyond that, we assign "rights".
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
300 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On May 29, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let's start with the right not to be tortured. See, we agree on a first step.


Animals have that through laws for humans. Do animals have the right to torture other animals like my cat does mice? Or, the lion and the Gazelle? Can animals torture humans? I think we are confusing human restrictions vs animal rights.
TonyB2009
View Profile
Inner circle
5006 Posts

Profile of TonyB2009
Quote:
On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Hermit, great apes can communicate verbally.


What is verbal? Does it differ significantly from vocal communication? I have known and worked with plenty of students who were non-verbal and yet they could certainly communicate vocally (yells, screeches, grunts, etc.). Should any communication coming from the mouth be considered verbal? Does it HAVE to be words as humans verbalize?

Perhaps my cat can communicate verbally. So might a chipmunk.

By verbally I mean with words. They can't vocalise the words but can use sign language instead. This ability has been established beyond debate by researchers.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On May 30, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
Quote:
On May 27, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that, at a minimum, animals have a right not to be tortured or abused. It seems that right is implicit in laws against animal cruelty.


Nope. People are expected to conduct themselves in specific way. That is a huge leap from animals having rights.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Can't you accept the simple and non-controversial notion that animal cruelty laws obviously recognize that animals at least have a right not to be abused?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Legal rights for animals? (5 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.34 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL