DescentBB

ccb056 wrote:You have confused rights with responsibilities

No, in fact I have not. And just for future reference, if you want to retain any shred of credibility don't try to quote a wiki as a reference. Wiki is a joke. Consult http://www.m-w.com/ or some other more credible dictionary for definitions.

Now, you think the dog is only protecting it's territory because it's being coerced? Clearly you don't understand dogs. Granted, some dogs may need to be encouraged, dogs are quite diverse. Many however.. most in fact.. need no coercion or even encouragement to protect their territory. It's instinct.

You seem to feel that animals are incapable of taking action without our intervention. They are not.

ccb wrote:The same logic applies to the other scenarios you used in your post.

Really? Let's see.. I recall saying (among other things) "When left to their own devices, they will frequently form social structures with their own set of rules...". Tell me please, how does your logic apply to that scenario?

Nowhere in my posts have I ever indicated that I believe that animals do not have instincts. In fact, I believe that animals have instincts. I believe that it is common knowledge that animals have instincts. However, that is all animals have. That is what seperates animals from humans. Humans have something more than instinct. But, I digress, this thread is not about the differences between humans and animals, this thread is about the existence of 'animal rights'.

You have confused responsibilities and rights.

RIGHT
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... ht&x=0&y=0

RESPONSIBILITY
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=responsibility
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... ty&x=0&y=0

ccb056 wrote:Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.
Such concepts = concepts of animal rights.

Quote: "Animals don't have the capacity to create the concept of animal rights" ???

That's gibberish. Please clarify. What animal rights? The rights granted to animals by whom? Other animals? Humans? What?

Rights are a social concept. We need at least two parties. These "animals" are one party. So tell me please, who's the other party in this case?

Ah, and now we move to semantics.

A right is:

A just or legal claim or title.

Rights are not a social concept.

You think laws exist in a vacuum? Hello! Who do you think defines what is "just"? Of course it's a social concept.

Wiki is neither a dictionary nor a joke. Nor would anyone here consider it a source for solid definition quotes. So holster your "source attacking" until it's at least relevant scottris.

back to regular programming...

ccb056 wrote:Nowhere in my posts have I ever indicated that I believe that animals do not have instincts.

Dude. I never claimed you thought animals don't have instincts. I'm telling you that because they have instincts they have a sense of good and bad, right and wrong, and they will act on it. Animals also form social groups, and social groups that share common concepts of right and wrong are the foundation for the concept of rights. Hence the name.

Again, another semantics debate, although this one is completely irrelevent, I will answer it anyway, just for you

You think laws exist in a vacuum?

No, by definition of vacuum, nothing exists within it, it is empty.

Who do you think defines what is "just"?

It doesn't matter what is 'defined' as just. It matters what 'is' just.
Before the 13th amendment, it was 'just' to treat black people as property. After the 13th amendment, it was not 'just' to treat black people as property.

Of course it's a social concept.

The definition is a social concept, the actual thing is not.

I'm sorry if I offended you, roid. But I'm standing by my judgement of all things wiki. Ranks right up there with professional wrestling, Microsoft Windows, and text messaging on cell phones.

ccb056 wrote:It doesn't matter what is 'defined' as just. It matters what 'is' just.

There is no such thing as "is" just. Just is what we say it is.

Before the 13th amendment, it was 'just' to treat black people as property. After the 13th amendment, it was not 'just' to treat black people as property.

Exactly my point.

*shakes fist in defiance*

scottris wrote: I'm telling you that because they have instincts they have a sense of good and bad, right and wrong, and they will act on it. Animals also form social groups, and social groups that share common concepts of right and wrong are the foundation for the concept of rights. Hence the name.

Ok, that has nothing to do with animal rights.
Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Helium atoms have instincts, or natural tendencies. They follow certain rules, PV=nRT. They form groups, called molecules. Air molecules follow rules of what is right and what is wrong. An air molecule will speed up when energy is applied because it is the right thing to do.

Air molecules do not have rights.

Social groups that share common concepts of right and wrong are not the foundation for the concept of rights.

scottris wrote:

ccb056 wrote:It doesn't matter what is 'defined' as just. It matters what 'is' just.

There is no such thing as "is" just. Just is what we say it is.

Before the 13th amendment, it was 'just' to treat black people as property. After the 13th amendment, it was not 'just' to treat black people as property.

Exactly my point.

No, it was never just to treat a black person as property. I digress, this thread isnt about slavery, it is about 'animal rights'.

Regarding ccb056's view on Hitler being a humane person is absolutely correct. By putting all those jews in the ovens, Hitler was doing them a kindness by removing them from a horrid existance in the concentration camps.

As to animals living their lives entirely based on their instincts is fallacious, at least for the higher species. Monkeys and apes live in social groups and interact much as humans do. Rights are defined as to being male/female, social standing and small group association. Human rights are defined in similar context and the main difference between higher animals and humans is that humanity has lawyers. Nice try ccb056.

Monkeys and apes live in social groups and interact much as humans do.

I agree, however, it is not how something acts that determines if it has a right. Monkies, people, computer programs, and various collections of atoms that are not alive all act in the same way. They all act according to mathematical laws. These laws don't change simply because the thing that they apply to changes. If you say that humans have rights because of the way they act, then you are also saying gases have rights because of the way gases act; gases and humans follow the same mathematical laws and act according to those laws.

As to animals living their lives entirely based on their instincts is fallacious

Nowhere in your post do you make a clear argument for this, do you have any sources or have I misunderstood your argument?

Rights are defined as to being male/female, social standing and small group association.

I am interested in the source of that statement.
The shape of the earth was defined as being flat before it was discovered it was spherical.

Oh to be young, cocky, and absolutely assured of your own correctness.

Yeah... good times

Subterfuge aside, I agree with ccb056. As I said in my very first post, I believe that animals do not have rights.

ccb . . . what time zone are you in? I was catching up on this thread, and noticed you've been posting straight through the night. That's just plain wierd.

Ferno wrote:your line of thinking is absurd and borderline psychotic.

I think Ferno hit the nail on the head. Take your meds.

Scroll down to bottom for Discussion as the main thrust of the presentation is anylitical graphing of certain criteria:

http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/article ... Faust.html

Or try this:

"Humans organize their knowledge of social relationships into a hierarchical structure, and they also make use of hierarchical structures when deducing relationships between words in language," said Robert Seyfarth, a professor in Penn Department of Psychology of the School of Arts and Sciences and one of the study authors. "The existence of such complex social classifications in baboons, a species without language, suggests that the social pressures imposed by life in complex groups may have been one factor leading to the evolution of sophisticated cognition and language in our pre-human ancestors."

"Rank reversals within families are surprising, but rank-reversals between families are of potentially much greater importance and we see that the baboons recognize the significance of these events," Seyfarth said. "To do so, they must be astute observers, watching animals interact and deducing a social structure on the basis of what they've seen."


http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=561

Dedman, you are confused. "Rights" are backed up by a means to enforce them. Take away the trial lawyers, courts, law enforcement and military...just what rights do you think you have? On the other hand if I was to take you and drop you naked near a pride of hungry lions do you suppose your human rights would have precedence over the non animal rights of the lions?
I suggest you re-examine the word "rights".

Lastly, to put the misconception that animals have no rights, by human law they do. Try going out and shooting a Bald Eagle in the front of your local conservation officer. Try catching and selling any animal on the CITES list. Go downtown and take that old mangy alley cat and start beating it to death. Do any of the above and come back here and tell me animals have no rights. Sorry to so quickly end this discussion.

woodchip wrote:Dedman, you are confused. "Rights" are backed up by a means to enforce them. Take away the trial lawyers, courts, law enforcement and military...just what rights do you think you have?

I am not confused at all. If, as you suggest, the court system were to disappear tomorrow I would argue that I would retain the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. However, with out the trial lawyers, courts, law enforcement and military I would not realistically expect those rights to stay secured for long. That is I would still have them, but enforcing them would be problematic at best.

The existence of a right and having it recognized and honored by those who are in a position to violate it are two separate issues, neither of which is the subject of this thread, at least as they relate to humans.

woodchip wrote:On the other hand if I was to take you and drop you naked near a pride of hungry lions do you suppose your human rights would have precedence over the non animal rights of the lions?

Again, this thread isn't about human rights and other than my response to your statement above, I am not going to discuss human rights.

As for the non-animal rights of the lions, I am not sure what rights you are referring to. I guess maybe a distinction needs to be made between the rights animals have when they are in our environment and we are in control of the situation, and the rights they have when we are in their environment and they have control of the situation. I must admit I have never thought of it in those terms before.

I would maintain that when they are in our environment and we are in control, animals have no rights.

When the situation is reversed and we are in their environment, such as the scenario you present, they definitely have something. They have the ability to control the situation. Either the lions can kill me for any number of reasons or they can ignore me. That is a fact of nature, the law of nature, lion nature, what ever you want to call it. Is it a "right" as we apply the meaning of the word to humans? I don't know. It is certainly an ability to act that we can't easily take away with in the context on the situation described.

What do you think? Is that a right or something else entirely?

woodchip wrote:Lastly, to put the misconception that animals have no rights, by human law they do. Try going out and shooting a Bald Eagle in the front of your local conservation officer. Try catching and selling any animal on the CITES list. Go downtown and take that old mangy alley cat and start beating it to death. Do any of the above and come back here and tell me animals have no rights. Sorry to so quickly end this discussion.

Those animals are protected by law in those situations. There is no question about that. But what "rights" do they have? Does the Eagle have the "right" to not be shot? Does the cat have the "right" to not be beaten? If I shoot that eagle, I am not sure what "right" of the eagle's I am violating.

Dedman wrote: I am not confused at all. If, as you suggest, the court system were to disappear tomorrow I would argue that I would retain the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. However, with out the trial lawyers, courts, law enforcement and military I would not realistically expect those rights to stay secured for long. That is I would still have them, but enforcing them would be problematic at best.

Unalienable was a term coined in the founding of our country. Look around the world and I suspect you'll find "unalienable rights" a non sequitur.

Dedman wrote:The existence of a right and having it recognized and honored by those who are in a position to violate it are two separate issues, neither of which is the subject of this thread, at least as they relate to humans.

It is in the broad context of establishing rights as pertaining to any organism. I did not read the thread as establishing human rights to animals but rather animals having rights in a human controlled world. One has to get down to the very basic definition of "rights" before we can ascribe where they may apply.

Dedman wrote:

woodchip wrote:On the other hand if I was to take you and drop you naked near a pride of hungry lions do you suppose your human rights would have precedence over the non animal rights of the lions?

I guess maybe a distinction needs to be made between the rights animals have when they are in our environment and we are in control of the situation, and the rights they have when we are in their environment and they have control of the situation.

Very good Dedman, you are zoning in to the bone of contention in this thread.

Dedman wrote:I would maintain that when they are in our environment and we are in control, animals have no rights.

See my examples of eagles and alley cats

Dedman wrote:When the situation is reversed and we are in their environment, such as the scenario you present, they definitely have something. They have the ability to control the situation.

Bingo! He who controls the situation determines the "rights". The old adage "Might makes Right" is truely applicable here. In human terms the idea of establishing who or what has rights engenders who has the most muscle. Not literally but as in the case of womens sufferage, a coherant public demonstration plan (and of course a little bedside manipulation)put the females of our species on par with the males by winning the right to vote. Unlike Maos's maxim, power coming from the barrel of a gun, is not a absolute. Power also comes from peer pressure as can be seen anywhere from the U.N. down to junior high school. So rights being unalienable has come about through a long trial and error period of human history. Strip away all our defensive measure protecting this coin of our empire and you could very well see the term "Unalienable" go the way of the Edsel.

Dedman wrote:

woodchip wrote:Lastly, to put the misconception that animals have no rights, by human law they do. Try going out and shooting a Bald Eagle in the front of your local conservation officer. Try catching and selling any animal on the CITES list. Go downtown and take that old mangy alley cat and start beating it to death. Do any of the above and come back here and tell me animals have no rights. Sorry to so quickly end this discussion.

Those animals are protected by law in those situations. There is no question about that. But what "rights" do they have? Does the Eagle have the "right" to not be shot? Does the cat have the "right" to not be beaten? If I shoot that eagle, I am not sure what "right" of the eagle's I am violating.

I am surprised you do not see this more clear. Any right we as humans may have is based on codified law. Thus it is your "right" to pursue "Life Liberty and Happiness" only to the point where it does not infringe upon anothers. Your right to walk the streets unmolested are allowed only because there are laws proscribing punishment if someone infringes your right. Take away those laws and you no longer have the right to go merrily down the street unperturbed. So it is with animals. Rights are assigned to them not because the animal has unalienable rights though I'm sure PETA is trying to assign them such. In the case of the eagle, they have the same right as you to move through their element unmolested. The only difference may be the punishment to those's who infringe upon their rights.

woodchip wrote:I am surprised you do not see this more clear. Any right we as humans may have is based on codified law.

I understand it very clearly. I am just not sure that I agree with you. I maintain that you either have a right or not. To go back to the DoI example again, unalienable means just that. It can't be taken away. You have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Period! Now, in a lot of countires those rights are not recognized and are not enforceable. Granted, a right that is not recognized is next to useless, but it is still a right. Even if you can't take advantage of it.

I view animal rights the same way. I don't believe they have any. We grant them certain protections under the law, but that those aren't rights. But in the end the effect is the same. The eagles get to fly unmolested.

I molested an eagle once ...

Iceman wrote:I molested an eagle once ...

Female no doubt...

In theory, I'd like to believe that rights exist whenever a creature is capable of feeling pleasure or pain , those being basic biological signals indicating what's good or bad from the creature's point of view, and when the creature is capable of recognizing behaviors or situations which will likely result in pleasure or pain. Thus giving the creature the basis for a sense of right and wrong.

In practice however, what matters most are those rights which we can enforce, or which will be enforced for us. Note that I don't believe written law and a court system are required, merely the power to enforce a notion of what is right. In the absence of judges and lawyers, guns and pitchforks may be employed. Or teeth and claws, whatever works.

Rights we cannot enforce are still relevant however, since they represent "desired rights" which we would like to enforce, if only we could.

ccb056 wrote:atoms have instincts, or natural tendencies...

Yikes. Any meaningful debate is going to be impossible here if you continue to abuse the English language like that.

Atoms don't have instincts. They have properties. The term "instinct" only applies to living creatures capable of acting independently.

This: "An air molecule will speed up when energy is applied because it is the right thing to do."

is incorrect. It should read: "An air molecule will speed up because energy was applied."

ccb056 wrote:

As to animals living their lives entirely based on their instincts is fallacious

Nowhere in your post do you make a clear argument for this

Yeah, genius. He does. Read the rest of the sentence:

... at least for the higher species. Monkeys and apes live in social groups and interact much as humans do.

Hey wadayaknow, there's the argument you were looking for, and it only required reading 19 more words.

DAMN!!! Feel the love

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4949445

Just thought Iâ??d provide a link to a great interview. Animals don't have rights because humans decided that they donâ??t. Itâ??s the arrogance and delusion of domination.

I mean look at the disasters in last few years. 1,000 people die in hurricane katrina and it's a "government conspiracy". 60,000+ die in an earthquake in pakistan and no one gives a ★■◆●... animals?

Humans ARE animals. We can't be above the animal kingdom because we are IN the animal kingdom.

This subject is at the heart of why I think the Judeo-Christian culture I live in is just a joke. Iâ??m not trying to be inflammatory but that's just how I feelâ?¦ perpetuating these complete lies to serve your fatarse lifestyles. Itâ??s sickening.

I liked you better when you were writting poetry about caulk

TheCope wrote:Humans ARE animals. We can't be above the animal kingdom because we are IN the animal kingdom.

Agreed.

We need to define the "rights" you are talking about ccb.
Is it individual rights? Rights the individual has for themselves that has nothing to do with laws, what one feels is right (some my say instincts).
Is it man made rights? Rights the government feels each individual should have.

Then people can maybe debate on the same subject.
Because....

Either way an animal has rights.

ccb056 wrote:I am saying your argument is not valid.

Huh? You're contradicting yourself here ccb. You just said your own arguement is invalid.

Your own post:

animals do not have rights
we have rights to protect animals

Here you clearly established that you believe that animals don't have "rights" and that "we" (as a whole) have rights to protect animals. We have done so by establishing groups like the Humane Society and animal cruelty laws. Therefore "we" have given them rights. Therefore they have them.

Of course, you're just going to sit there going "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" with your fingers firmly implanted in your ears.

Oh, fyi wiki is not a solid source of information to base an arguement off of in a debate. See, *anyone* can edit the content of anything on wiki. I suggest you stick to actual encyclopedias. This is why its a good thing to use MULTIPLE sources.

ccb056 wrote:

But I am curious...Since you said that my statement was entirely false I'd love to see your evidence. Got any links?

I am surprised the statement I am going to make is not entirely obvious to you.

A being cannot think it has a right if it does not have the ability/capacity to think it has a right.

Translation: I don't have any sources, so I'm going to spout more bull★■◆●.

In response to the posts that occured during my nap (the point in time between my last post and this post)

Rights are not determined by people
Right are not determine by animals
People are animals, but in this discussion, I clearly removed people from the set.

Just because something has control over you in any situation does not mean it has the right to control you
Just because people have control over animals does not mean they have rights
Just because animals can eat people does not mean they have rights
The notion that something has a right because it can do something is ludacris
The notion that something has a right because it moves in a certain way is ludacris
You can call that thing's actions and movements anything you want, the truth is, thngs that are not alive act and move in the exact same way

A female does not choose to be female, she is a female
A mentally retarded child does not choose to be mentally retarded, they are mentally retarded
A carbon atom does not choose to be a carbon atom, it is a carbon atom

Animals cannot choose to have rights, they either have them or they don't
People cannot choose to have rights, they either have them or they don't

All of your arguments say that animals have rights simply because either A. humans say they have rights, or B. animals move and act in a certain way so therefore they must have rights

I am a human, I say that rocks have rights, do they? [rhetorical]
I am a human, I say that humans have rights, do they?[rhetorical]
I am a human, I say that animals have rights, do they?
I see a carbon atom, when submitted to stimuli, it acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does it have a right?[rhetorical]
I see a human, he acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does he have a right?[rhetorical]
I see an animal, it acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does it have a right?

Do you have your head up your a$$? [rhetorical]

How very nice of you to inflate your post of utter nonsense after my one-line zinger, yet you fail to actually say anything, nor respond to my rebuttal. How very efficient of you! Here's a novel idea. Instead of grasping at straws, why don't you actually try rubuttals, and *gasp* using actual sources when asked for them!

ccb056 wrote:In response to the posts that occured during my nap (the point in time between my last post and this post)

Rights are not determined by people
Right are not determine by animals
People are animals, but in this discussion, I clearly removed people from the set.

Really? You're contradicting yourself here yet AGAIN.

ccb056 wrote:animals do not have rights
we have rights to protect animals

Those are your very own words. Suddenly we don't have the right to do anything? Make up your mind already! Sheesh, you're worse than John Kerry.

Just because something has control over you in any situation does not mean it has the right to control you

Huh? If I own an animal, I damn well have every right to control it. By your logic, I have no right to control my pet in any way. I'll be sure to remember that if you decide to walk down my street and then my dog decides to chase you. And you can't do anything about it because according to your very own post, you have no rights at all.

Say, does that also mean that burglars have nothing to stop them from breaking in? After all, we have no rights.

Just because people have control over animals does not mean they have rights

Since when? They have the right to live, eat, treated humanely, and be protected by us. WE GAVE THEM THOSE RIGHTS.

Just because animals can eat people does not mean they have rights
The notion that something has a right because it can do something is ludacris
The notion that something has a right because it moves in a certain way is ludacris
You can call that thing's actions and movements anything you want, the truth is, thngs that are not alive act and move in the exact same way

Boy, you must be hitting the hard stuff now. This is just hilarious! Animals can walk, run, defocate, urinate, mate, etc. We can do those very same things. However, suddenly we don't have the right to do so just because you say so?

A female does not choose to be female, she is a female

Because she was born that way stupid! Knock! Knock! Anyone in there?

Animals cannot choose to have rights, they either have them or they don't
People cannot choose to have rights, they either have them or they don't

Heh! Oh really? Smack someone's puppy infront of their owner and see what happens. I guarantee that you'll end up face first in the dirt and missing a few teeth.

I am a human, I say that rocks have rights, do they? [rhetorical]

No, because they aren't alive and cannot think for themselves.

[quote[I am a human, I say that humans have rights, do they?[rhetorical]
I am a human, I say that animals have rights, do they?[/quote]

Well duh!

I see a carbon atom, when submitted to stimuli, it acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does it have a right?[rhetorical]

Carbon atoms are not living beings, so no. You apparently never had any physics.

I see a human, he acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does he have a right?[rhetorical]
I see an animal, it acts in ways that are mathematically defined, does it have a right?

I see you tied to a treadmill running your ass off. Do you have rights? After all, you're moving in a predictable manner.