Maybe I am not understanding how you, MD-2389, come to find that something has a right. The way I understand that you, MD-2389, find something to have a right is if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. It is alive
2. It forms a social structure
3. It acts according to established rules
Is that correct, or have I misunderstood you?
Animal Rights
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
Ok then ccb, what are "rights"? Since you must have a definition that we all don't know about.
The dictionary doesn't have what you are asking about in this post. All I see is defintions about politics in the way you're using the word "rights".
Politics is what WE have been talking about. So please explain your definition.
The dictionary doesn't have what you are asking about in this post. All I see is defintions about politics in the way you're using the word "rights".
Politics is what WE have been talking about. So please explain your definition.
The definition of 'rights' is not as relevent to this thread compared to the process by which such rights are discovered.
What is of relevence is the process of how one determines the existence of 'rights' in a being.
An interesting trend that I have seen is this:
Most of the people who argue that animals have rights have animals. Most of the people who argue that animals do not have rights do not have animals.
Most of the people that argued that slaves had rights were not slaveowners, most of the people that argued that slaves did not have rights were slaveowners.
Women have always had the right to vote.
It took an amendment to allow society to enfore this right, but the right has always existed.
People should not harm pets not because pets have rights, but because that pet is the property of the owner and by harming a pet it would be akin to bashing a windscreen in with a baseball bat.
It is wrong to own something that has rights.
It is wrong to sell or buy something that has rights.
Is it wrong to own, sell, or buy animals? No, they don't have rights.
Do animals have rights because people say they do, no.
Do I hurt animals because I say I can, no.
What is of relevence is the process of how one determines the existence of 'rights' in a being.
An interesting trend that I have seen is this:
Most of the people who argue that animals have rights have animals. Most of the people who argue that animals do not have rights do not have animals.
Most of the people that argued that slaves had rights were not slaveowners, most of the people that argued that slaves did not have rights were slaveowners.
Women have always had the right to vote.
It took an amendment to allow society to enfore this right, but the right has always existed.
People should not harm pets not because pets have rights, but because that pet is the property of the owner and by harming a pet it would be akin to bashing a windscreen in with a baseball bat.
It is wrong to own something that has rights.
It is wrong to sell or buy something that has rights.
Is it wrong to own, sell, or buy animals? No, they don't have rights.
Do animals have rights because people say they do, no.
Do I hurt animals because I say I can, no.
You can't just throw statements around like that without backing them up with some sort of overarching definition of what exactly a "right" is or how those rights are determined or something of that nature.ccb056 wrote:Women have always had the right to vote.
It took an amendment to allow society to enfore this right, but the right has always existed.
Using your argument style I can just as easily say something like "rights are there so that people who do not have the physical or mental capability to defend these rights are protected by society as a whole. Just like women and slaves, animals don't have the ability to protect their rights, but society has given these creatures rights and legal protection thereof."
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
Re: Animal Rights
ccb056 wrote:Do animals (excluding humans) have rights? (Not should they have rights)
Explain.
If the definition of "rights" has nothing to do with this than why put the word in the original question?
Oh...and what about the wildlife. We don't own them or sell them do they have rights?
Apparently because the definition of the question has no bearing on the answer. Suddenly, it all makes sense! ccb was trying to mislead us with the yes/no poll. The correct answer to the question "Do animals have rights" is in fact "shredded wheat".Muffalicious wrote:If the definition of "rights" has nothing to do with this than why put the word in the original question?
The world makes so much more sense when you free yourself of rational thought.
Hell, using his argument style, I could say "Birds don't have rights because their ★■◆● is white". You can say anything when your argument style consists of random and uncoordinated assertions with no supporting evidence.Tetrad wrote:Using your argument style...
Wow, you guys have a gross misinterpretation of my argument strategy.
When you say animals have rights, I say what leads you to belive they have rights.
When you explain your method for 'discovering animal rights' I apply that same method to find rights of things such as air molecules.
I then proceed to prove that using your method that air molecules have rights.
You realize that air molecules do not have rights, and instead of changing your method for 'discovering animal right' you say that my method is argument stragey is faulty.
How bold of you.
When you say animals have rights, I say what leads you to belive they have rights.
When you explain your method for 'discovering animal rights' I apply that same method to find rights of things such as air molecules.
I then proceed to prove that using your method that air molecules have rights.
You realize that air molecules do not have rights, and instead of changing your method for 'discovering animal right' you say that my method is argument stragey is faulty.
How bold of you.
So, if I explained to you my method for changing the oil in my car, you would apply that method to grilling a hamburger, and criticize me when it doesn't work?ccb056 wrote:When you explain your method for 'discovering animal rights' I apply that same method to find rights of things such as air molecules.
Maybe that's 'cause.... you don't have one. Dude, you're all over the map. Develop a strategy that contains a rational framework for this topic and get back to us.ccb056 wrote:Wow, you guys have a gross misinterpretation of my argument strategy.
To say that the definition of rights has no bearing on this topic is beyond nuts. How can you have a rational conversation on a topic unless all parties involved are in agreement as to what the topic actually is. You are starting to sound a bit like W.J. Clinton during the now infamous "what is the meaning of is" snafu.
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
ccb honey, you are very confused. There are no facts on your type of rights. They're only beliefs. You believe that animals have no rights in their minds, yes, but people believe different. You're looking for facts, and trying to make up facts, but there are none. So stop with these off the wall, unrelated scenarios, and get to why you as a person feel this way.ccb056 wrote:Obviously no, both methods do not have the same objective. One method is for the chaging of oil in a car, the other method is for grilling a hamburger.
The method that is applicable in this thread has the objective of determination of the existence of rights specific to things such as animals.
Where did I say:To say that the definition of rights has no bearing on this topic is beyond nuts. How can you have a rational conversation on a topic unless all parties involved are in agreement as to what the topic actually is. You are starting to sound a bit like W.J. Clinton during the now infamous "what is the meaning of is" snafu.
the definition of rights has no bearing on this topic
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
ccb056 wrote:The definition of 'rights' is not as relevent to this thread compared to the process by which such rights are discovered.
What is of relevence is the process of how one determines the existence of 'rights' in a being.
An interesting trend that I have seen is this:
Most of the people who argue that animals have rights have animals. Most of the people who argue that animals do not have rights do not have animals.
Most of the people that argued that slaves had rights were not slaveowners, most of the people that argued that slaves did not have rights were slaveowners.
Women have always had the right to vote.
It took an amendment to allow society to enfore this right, but the right has always existed.
People should not harm pets not because pets have rights, but because that pet is the property of the owner and by harming a pet it would be akin to bashing a windscreen in with a baseball bat.
It is wrong to own something that has rights.
It is wrong to sell or buy something that has rights.
Is it wrong to own, sell, or buy animals? No, they don't have rights.
Do animals have rights because people say they do, no.
Do I hurt animals because I say I can, no.
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
-
SuperSheep
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Illinois
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
lol@ccb. Dude, give it up you are a laughing stock.
I have to give high marks to everyone else who has posted in this thread. You've all been much more civil and rational than I would have been. My mind was actually opened on both sides of this argument. My initial reaction was "animals have no rights" but then you all showed me that the definition of rights was the pivot point of the entire debate, and I would answer yes or no depending on that definition.
I have to give high marks to everyone else who has posted in this thread. You've all been much more civil and rational than I would have been. My mind was actually opened on both sides of this argument. My initial reaction was "animals have no rights" but then you all showed me that the definition of rights was the pivot point of the entire debate, and I would answer yes or no depending on that definition.
Of course it hasn't been refuted. You haven't offered up proof either, though.ccb056 wrote:In order to keep this argument progressing, I am going to say that even if you did not edit the screenshot (which, in reality you did), it makes no difference. My statemement has not been refuted nor proved wrong.
Your own answer to the question (which I asked a while ago) was this:
Now when I try to ask more information on what exactly you mean, you accused me several times of throwing out red herrings and didn't answer my questions. How are we supposed to refute "because we say we do" when it comes to determining how humans themselves determine how they have rights in relation to how we may or may not determine that animals themselves have righs?ccb056 wrote:My answer is because we say we do.
Animals haven't communicated this to us in an adequate way.
Anyone can say they have a Right to do anything. But that Right has to be respected and recognised by other people for it to make any difference.
Therefore Rights or as i'll call them "Limited Rights" (as opposed to Unlimited Rights which i'll touch on later) are constructs of a society. Society being defined simply as "other people". There is no point in making laws or rules concerning how people interact with one another if there are no people to interact with, as you'd just simply have unlimited rights, easy!
The word "Rights" as we use it would have no definition unless you have a society to respect/recognise them (otherwise rights are assumed to be unlimited, and why would you bother defining that if it's all you know). As such... Limited Rights are a construct of society.
i see what you are asking for when you say:
"Unlimited Rights" with unlimited power.
This would be limitless God-like powers over time and space and all dimensions.
Every want and whim is possible, and there is nothing to stop you but yourself, no morals. The possabilitys are endless. You could create, modify and destroy your own dimentions, you would dictate the very laws of physics themselves - perhaps even nullifying the very concept of dimensions if you wished. You can even create, change and destroy yourself. Frankly it boggles my mind.
now that that concept is introduced, i'll go on.
Every individual ENTITY alone in the universe has every Right imaginable when it is on it's own, solitary, a God unto itself. Unlimited Rights. It's only when that entity encounters another seperate entity equal in power that some of those Rights are conflicted. One entity's previous Right to "do whatever he wants to anything he wants, and have nothing done to anything in the universe that he doesn't want done" is disputed by the other entitys exact same Right. It's the old addage of "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an impenetrable barrier?"
Therefore instead of trying to dominate over eachother with eachother's (now conflicting) Rights - the 2 entitys may come to a concensus. They will both relinquish some of their previous Rights, and label these as "anti-social". eg: they will no longer have the right to do anything they want to anyone they want, and they will have to relinquish absolute control over their universe and accept that other entitys may modify segments of the universe without their permission.
This is the natural basis of Limited Rights. It's simply the Limits that have to be placed on Unlimited Rights so that society can function without "unstoppable forces meeting impenetrable barriers" conflicts. (Which would be like 2 brat kids screaming at eachother over who gets to have the last lollypop, uncompromising, getting nowhere. Both equally and unwaveringly believing that "THEY have the right to the lollypop, and the other kid does not")
Now those 2 entitys may have come to a different concensus, perhaps the consensus they came to may have involved one entity having domination over the other. But either way their previous collective "Rights" had to be changed as soon as there was more than one of them. Otherwise you are stuck with an unstoppable force meeting an impenetrable barrier. One or both of them had to change. Already by the existance of the 2nd entity, the previous Right to "always be by myself in the universe and never be disturbed by the presence of another being" has been violated.
OK, so what i've written in this post is summarised as:
Every entity starts off with assumed Unlimited Rights.
The mere presence of other entitys (which i will define as "Society") dictates ways in which those Rights are Limited.
If you have Unlimited Rights without unlimited power, some of those rights are already being violated by the laws of physics. If i have Unlimited Rights and i can't fly, then my rights to being able to fly are being violated. It's a dumb way for someone to think about their rights but as the ultimate extreme it has to be included.
One can have one of 2 assumptions:
(1) their Rights are limited, or
(2) their Unlimited Rights will be forever violated.
whadya recon? does that seem like a solid base to start from?
Therefore Rights or as i'll call them "Limited Rights" (as opposed to Unlimited Rights which i'll touch on later) are constructs of a society. Society being defined simply as "other people". There is no point in making laws or rules concerning how people interact with one another if there are no people to interact with, as you'd just simply have unlimited rights, easy!
The word "Rights" as we use it would have no definition unless you have a society to respect/recognise them (otherwise rights are assumed to be unlimited, and why would you bother defining that if it's all you know). As such... Limited Rights are a construct of society.
i see what you are asking for when you say:
and i'll try answer that:ccb056 wrote:The definition of 'rights' is not as relevent to this thread compared to the process by which such rights are discovered.
What is of relevence is the process of how one determines the existence of 'rights' in a being.
"Unlimited Rights" with unlimited power.
This would be limitless God-like powers over time and space and all dimensions.
Every want and whim is possible, and there is nothing to stop you but yourself, no morals. The possabilitys are endless. You could create, modify and destroy your own dimentions, you would dictate the very laws of physics themselves - perhaps even nullifying the very concept of dimensions if you wished. You can even create, change and destroy yourself. Frankly it boggles my mind.
now that that concept is introduced, i'll go on.
Every individual ENTITY alone in the universe has every Right imaginable when it is on it's own, solitary, a God unto itself. Unlimited Rights. It's only when that entity encounters another seperate entity equal in power that some of those Rights are conflicted. One entity's previous Right to "do whatever he wants to anything he wants, and have nothing done to anything in the universe that he doesn't want done" is disputed by the other entitys exact same Right. It's the old addage of "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an impenetrable barrier?"
Therefore instead of trying to dominate over eachother with eachother's (now conflicting) Rights - the 2 entitys may come to a concensus. They will both relinquish some of their previous Rights, and label these as "anti-social". eg: they will no longer have the right to do anything they want to anyone they want, and they will have to relinquish absolute control over their universe and accept that other entitys may modify segments of the universe without their permission.
This is the natural basis of Limited Rights. It's simply the Limits that have to be placed on Unlimited Rights so that society can function without "unstoppable forces meeting impenetrable barriers" conflicts. (Which would be like 2 brat kids screaming at eachother over who gets to have the last lollypop, uncompromising, getting nowhere. Both equally and unwaveringly believing that "THEY have the right to the lollypop, and the other kid does not")
Now those 2 entitys may have come to a different concensus, perhaps the consensus they came to may have involved one entity having domination over the other. But either way their previous collective "Rights" had to be changed as soon as there was more than one of them. Otherwise you are stuck with an unstoppable force meeting an impenetrable barrier. One or both of them had to change. Already by the existance of the 2nd entity, the previous Right to "always be by myself in the universe and never be disturbed by the presence of another being" has been violated.
OK, so what i've written in this post is summarised as:
Every entity starts off with assumed Unlimited Rights.
The mere presence of other entitys (which i will define as "Society") dictates ways in which those Rights are Limited.
If you have Unlimited Rights without unlimited power, some of those rights are already being violated by the laws of physics. If i have Unlimited Rights and i can't fly, then my rights to being able to fly are being violated. It's a dumb way for someone to think about their rights but as the ultimate extreme it has to be included.
One can have one of 2 assumptions:
(1) their Rights are limited, or
(2) their Unlimited Rights will be forever violated.
whadya recon? does that seem like a solid base to start from?
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
My inability to fly without the help of machinery is not a limit on my rights, but a limit on my ability. Only things I'm (possibly) capable of should be considered under "unlimited rights". When rights are limited, that means at least one entity is legally, morally, or ethically limited in activity, either due to an agreement with another entity, or due to a voluntary limit.
This means, among other things, that rights are contextual / situational. If something is not physically possible in a particular situation, there's no right to do it OR right not to do it, it simply isn't possible. (This won't stop politicians from trying to define "rights" that aren't physically possible, but hey, since when are politicians credible?)
On the topic of animal rights, determining an animal's *legal* rights is easy, provided you know all of the applicable laws. What makes the question tricky is that most of us agree there's some sort of "higher" system of rights than simple legal rights. That is, for the most part, we believe certain entities are entitled to certain rights regardless of whether or not society agrees. This is tricky because we don't have a unified framework from which to determine precisely what rights or limits on rights should be placed on each entity. We (excluding, perhaps, Tetrad and a few others) agree there are rights beyond legal or social contracts, but we don't agree on what they are or how to get them.
That's what the whole debate really comes down to. What's our baseline? Does it come down to "might makes right", wherein the strongest entity or coalition of entities makes the rules, and everyone else gets beat into submission? Does God define it? Is there an underlying "correct" moral or ethical system that we should all try to follow? Does it differ for each entity, and if so, is there a straightforward measure of how it differs (for example, by IQ)? This is, of course, a far bigger question than just animal rights.
This means, among other things, that rights are contextual / situational. If something is not physically possible in a particular situation, there's no right to do it OR right not to do it, it simply isn't possible. (This won't stop politicians from trying to define "rights" that aren't physically possible, but hey, since when are politicians credible?)
On the topic of animal rights, determining an animal's *legal* rights is easy, provided you know all of the applicable laws. What makes the question tricky is that most of us agree there's some sort of "higher" system of rights than simple legal rights. That is, for the most part, we believe certain entities are entitled to certain rights regardless of whether or not society agrees. This is tricky because we don't have a unified framework from which to determine precisely what rights or limits on rights should be placed on each entity. We (excluding, perhaps, Tetrad and a few others) agree there are rights beyond legal or social contracts, but we don't agree on what they are or how to get them.
That's what the whole debate really comes down to. What's our baseline? Does it come down to "might makes right", wherein the strongest entity or coalition of entities makes the rules, and everyone else gets beat into submission? Does God define it? Is there an underlying "correct" moral or ethical system that we should all try to follow? Does it differ for each entity, and if so, is there a straightforward measure of how it differs (for example, by IQ)? This is, of course, a far bigger question than just animal rights.
ccb, not only are you irrational, but in addition, you're a liar. EDIT(not Muff) Scottris didn't alter the text of your post, I remember reading it too.
I can't stand liars. Deliberate deception REALLY pisses me off. You have the opportunity to own up to what you did. Don't be a putz.
I see two possible scenarios here. First, you may have some mental health issues. If that's the case, I hope you get help. Your ramblings are reminiscent of patients I've known who suffered from schizophrenia.
Second possible scenario, you're just plain worthless.
I can't stand liars. Deliberate deception REALLY pisses me off. You have the opportunity to own up to what you did. Don't be a putz.
I see two possible scenarios here. First, you may have some mental health issues. If that's the case, I hope you get help. Your ramblings are reminiscent of patients I've known who suffered from schizophrenia.
Second possible scenario, you're just plain worthless.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
You people have kicked him around like a soccer ball with off-the-wall replies to the point where he can no longer make a cohesive reply.
I think ccb's question should have been posed as
"Do animals have rights in Nature"
Animals have no rights by nature. Humans have no rights by nature. Animals have privileges given to them by humans, who call them 'rights'. Humans have privileges given to them by other humans who call them 'rights'.
None of the Bill of rights are natural rights. No animal has the 'right' to not get killed by another animal. We made that ★■◆● up.
I think ccb's question should have been posed as
"Do animals have rights in Nature"
Animals have no rights by nature. Humans have no rights by nature. Animals have privileges given to them by humans, who call them 'rights'. Humans have privileges given to them by other humans who call them 'rights'.
None of the Bill of rights are natural rights. No animal has the 'right' to not get killed by another animal. We made that ★■◆● up.
-
MD-2389
- Defender of the Night
- Posts: 13477
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Olathe, KS
- Contact:
Prove it sonny jim! Burden of proof is on YOU! You made the allegation, now back it up with evidence. You have been ousted as the filthy liar that you are. Not only are you a filthy liar, but a spineless coward as well. You got your ass kicked, and now you're running like the little baby that you are.ccb056 wrote:In order to keep this argument progressing, I am going to say that even if you did not edit the screenshot (which, in reality you did),
Yes it has, many times. You, on the other hand, have yet to back up ANY of your arguements with actual factual evidence. You made the claim that animals have no rights, PROVE IT! Cite the specific law that states this. We're waiting.My statemement has not been refuted nor proved wrong.
[edit, insert: "Have I been"] Too harsh? The guy spent an entire page defending his misuse of the word "humane", and then has the nerve to suggest that Muff should think before posting? I admit, I had little respect for him by the time I got involved. I tried to curb my disdain, but I realize I was still far from polite, and for that I do apologize. What can I say? It's difficult to have any meaningful discussion with a guy who thinks humans act like gas and atoms have instincts. To be fair, I suspect his problem is not so much a misunderstanding of the universe as a misunderstanding of many English words. Still makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion.Testiculese wrote:You people have kicked him around like a soccer ball with off-the-wall replies to the point where he can no longer make a cohesive reply.
Do not animals also have privileges given to them by other animals? They do not call them 'rights', obviously, because they do not speak English. I believe however, that the principle is the same. I submit then that even in the absence of humans, animals still have what we would call 'rights'.Testiculese wrote:Animals have no rights by nature. Humans have no rights by nature. Animals have privileges given to them by humans, who call them 'rights'. Humans have privileges given to them by other humans who call them 'rights'.
edit: Which reminds me, I never voted. I wonder what the poll results look like...
edit: Here's another question (for a poll?): Does one have all rights not specifically denied? Or does one have only those rights specifically granted?
Legally, I'm pretty sure most societies accept that you have all rights not specifically denied. But what about "moral rights"? or rights that exist absent a codified legal system?
-
Muffalicious
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:42 pm
Thank you Testiculese!
Finally someone who has a different opinion but is staying in the topic. Now if ccb was staying on the topic he would have never been put on the spot. His way of putting people down for not understanding his original question is very rude.
Also just because I don't agree doesn't make me wrong, so why talk to me like a child. I would loved to have heard a real answer from him on his opinion on the topic and not putting me down for mine.
Thats all I have to say so....have fun.
And you guys are awsome.
Finally someone who has a different opinion but is staying in the topic. Now if ccb was staying on the topic he would have never been put on the spot. His way of putting people down for not understanding his original question is very rude.
Also just because I don't agree doesn't make me wrong, so why talk to me like a child. I would loved to have heard a real answer from him on his opinion on the topic and not putting me down for mine.
Thats all I have to say so....have fun.
And you guys are awsome.
i'm so glad someone has said this. i entirely agree.Testiculese wrote:You people have kicked him around like a soccer ball with off-the-wall replies to the point where he can no longer make a cohesive reply.
this thread has been way more personal and ugly than it should have. the end result is nothing to be happy about.
winning an argument by destroying the debate, by keeping the original poster always feeling that he has to defend himself before his points.
it's wholely no-one's fault. but this could have been nipped in the bud early on with a little RESPECT.
invalidation is a hell of a drug.