Political Crossfire Forums

[Mr. Jaggers]

edited

[grim]

Yes we must protect the good looking animals. Cute is good. No puppy mills. No kitten burgers. Let's eat and/or wear every other animal. Sorry, you're not cute enough to spare but we think you'd make a heck of a pair of shoes. What about if one of those killer asteroids comes along and takes out every species on the whole planet. Gone. Everone. You. Me. Bambi. All gone. It's not because it is a BAD asteroid. Like many asteroids it just never really listened to Paul McCartney's music. 11 a.m.??? I'm getting a hankerin' for some critters.

[Infinite911911]

Mr. Jaggers wrote: “We need another and wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken a form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth."

- Henry Beston, The Outermost House (1928)

:tu:

[StrangerWitCandy]

grim wrote: Yes we must protect the good looking animals. Cute is good. No puppy mills. No kitten burgers. Let's eat and/or wear every other animal. Sorry, you're not cute enough to spare but we think you'd make a heck of a pair of shoes. What about if one of those killer asteroids comes along and takes out every species on the whole planet. Gone. Everone. You. Me. Bambi. All gone. It's not because it is a BAD asteroid. Like many asteroids it just never really listened to Paul McCartney's music. 11 a.m.??? I'm getting a hankerin' for some critters.



If you read you might see that this isn't about being cute. Its about cruel methods of killing for shallow and unnecessary reasons. And I don't see what an asteroid has to do with humans clubbing baby seals to make coats for rich people who don't need them.

[chris_mthomas]

Someone that cares more about the rights of an animal than the well being of their fellow man is a fool.

It's one of the luxuries of the well off to complain about the well being of fluffy creatures. Environmentalism is important, but the insipid, useless, selective environmentalism of animal rights activists accomplishes nothing.

Do I care about what happens to some seals in Canada? It seems to me that many people care more about saving cute little animals than they do about third world poverty. "Oh no! A man's clubbing a baby seal!" But where's the outrage over Darfur? Where was the outrage over Rwanda?

Open your eyes and take a look around the world for a second. People are starving to death every minute. And you're telling me that I need to worry about what some hunters do to some seals in Canada?

[Infinite911911]

chris_mthomas wrote:
But where's the outrage over Darfur? Where was the outrage over Rwanda?


In other Threads. You want to talk about that go there.

[StrangerWitCandy]

chris_mthomas wrote: Someone that cares more about the rights of an animal than the well being of their fellow man is a fool.

It's one of the luxuries of the well off to complain about the well being of fluffy creatures. Environmentalism is important, but the insipid, useless, selective environmentalism of animal rights activists accomplishes nothing.

Do I care about what happens to some seals in Canada? It seems to me that many people care more about saving cute little animals than they do about third world poverty. "Oh no! A man's clubbing a baby seal!" But where's the outrage over Darfur? Where was the outrage over Rwanda?

Open your eyes and take a look around the world for a second. People are starving to death every minute. And you're telling me that I need to worry about what some hunters do to some seals in Canada?

Someone who assumes that one who cares about the rights of an animal automatically doesn't care or cares less about the rights of humans is a fool.

There are other threads for other topics. How many times must this be said?

[chris_mthomas]

Maybe I directed that more toward animal rights activists and less toward you.

People have a tendency to humanize animals and dehumanize humans.

[Carly]

chris_mthomas wrote: Someone that cares more about the rights of an animal than the well being of their fellow man is a fool.

It's one of the luxuries of the well off to complain about the well being of fluffy creatures. Environmentalism is important, but the insipid, useless, selective environmentalism of animal rights activists accomplishes nothing.

Do I care about what happens to some seals in Canada? It seems to me that many people care more about saving cute little animals than they do about third world poverty. "Oh no! A man's clubbing a baby seal!" But where's the outrage over Darfur? Where was the outrage over Rwanda?

Open your eyes and take a look around the world for a second. People are starving to death every minute. And you're telling me that I need to worry about what some hunters do to some seals in Canada?

It's all relative. It's all greed. That's why all these beings are dying.

[grim]

chris_mthomas wrote: Open your eyes and take a look around the world for a second. People are starving to death every minute. And you're telling me that I need to worry about what some hunters do to some seals in Canada?

Yes. Watch Keith Richards discuss the poor quails tonight on Larry King. It will all become clear.

[thefranzkafkafront]

social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Seals may look fluffy, they however lack rights.


:gdgf: How does a seal lack rights? Does it not tremble before violence? Was it not born with the same rights to life as you were? All things fear death and all things love life thefranzkafkafront. See yourself in others for a change. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?

Rights require a concious, you cannot philosophically state that a seal exists as a seperate entitiy from our own minds unless it has the ability to doubt.

Ability to feal pain dose not equate rights in a entity.

The main flaw in your argument is that conscious is not held by all Humans. You state that only Humans have rights because only they are conscious, when in fact you are very wrong. Children, the mentally disable and people in comas have no conscious or awareness of their environment and own existence. So are you saying those people lack rights? thefranzkafkafront, the basic right of life is given to everything at birth.

Then i shall draw my argument out futher.

When i say concious, i mean quite spesifically a nervous system capable of receiveing processing and most important systhesising emperical data and concepts to a level which allows the mechanism of doubt and thus allowing the entitity to justfy its own extance.
Thus to be meta-physically an entity and thus in possession of rights the organism must be able to invoke cartesan doubt.

You've just illustrated one of the main examples about innate knowledge, how can children idiots and the comatose doubt there own existance and thus be provided rights.

Indeed this raises a problem, however the affordatory element is not the use of the carteasan mechanism but instead the existance of the mechanism.

A man may go through his entire life never invoke any form of philosophical sceptisism, however he exists as an entity as should he so choose to at any time he can do so.

As for the comatose again not an easy obsicle, we must take that the person did at one time possess a working mechanism of doubt, being comatose there is no way its repair can be accurately predicted, so you should never repess this mans rights as you can never be sure that at any moment he would not awake and again be the posessor of them.

For the right of life being given to eveything at birth, if eveything 'alive' (a uselessly romatic term refering to nothing more than organic mollecules utilising bio-chemical pathways) has a right to life, how can you then justfy bleeching a toilet or eating a stake.

Rights are non-inferatory, if eveything has a right to life, how can we justfy the destruction or consumption of organic matter?


Egro, for something to be in possession of rights it must posses itself a concious capable of the mechanism of doubt.

It makes me laugh when people like you construct these wonderfully intricate theories to justify stupid assertions like 'only concious beings have rights'. I don't care for Locke, or Rand, or any other proponent of this argument, since I think it leads (and you should be aware of this) to the type of inhumane, immoral and unetheical treatment of beings, which you claim don't have rights.

What then do rights derive from?
At what point dose an organism become developed enough to be afforded rights, internal cell organelles, a nervous system, light sesitive cells, a frontal lobe?

Quote:
Moreover, it's absurd in the extreme, since it creates a stupid, useless, and unneccesary hierachy of animals, which is based on a thing - consciousness - that we don't even yet understand. While neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists are only beggining to understand the brain vis-a-vis counciousness, we have people like you and Locke, and morons like Rand, claiming to 'understand' conciousness, for an elitist and ultimately selfish end.
I concede i should have used rationality. There is a diffrence as it were between having a light on in a room and that room being able to forumlute ideas.
Idiots like Locke and rand. Oh dear. I suppose your not an idiot. When your an internalionaly reconised intelectual, get back to me ok. Then you call start to call Locke and Rand idiots.



Quote:
Try lifting the veil that philosophy has drawn over your eyes and consider this issue without the question of 'rights', so-called.
Viel that philosophy has lifted over my eyes. ho ho. What are you arguing from ebonics?

[Gremlin]

15 pages of seal clubbin...

woudlnt it be great to see our government put this much effort into running the natrion each week.

[Kt]

Infinite911911 wrote: Once again on the ice packs off its Atlantic coast Canada is preparing to begin another season of reckless killing of innocent life. The season of brutally clubbing baby seals less then 3 months old is about to start once again, unfortunately. Around a million seal pups were killed for their fur in the last three years, and there is no indication that the pace is about to let up. This government-sanctioned eradication of hundreds of thousands of seal pups jeopardizes a species already facing an uncertain future as their habitat melts out from underneath them. This must be stopped! What right does a Human have to eradicate another species. Not for food or survival, but for fashion. Canada's new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper promised to make his government "more accountable and effective." Let's see if he is a man of his word and stop this government-sanctioned killing.










Infinate911911, I didn't expect you of all people to care about this kind of stuff, ask yourself Infinate911911, Do you have the right to b**** about the canadians killing baby seals, whilst you eat your veal?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Gremlin wrote: 15 pages of seal clubbin...

woudlnt it be great to see our government put this much effort into running the natrion each week.

Seals are fluffy, egro they deserve more attention.

[grim]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: grim wrote: Yes we must protect the good looking animals. Cute is good. No puppy mills. No kitten burgers. Let's eat and/or wear every other animal. Sorry, you're not cute enough to spare but we think you'd make a heck of a pair of shoes. What about if one of those killer asteroids comes along and takes out every species on the whole planet. Gone. Everone. You. Me. Bambi. All gone. It's not because it is a BAD asteroid. Like many asteroids it just never really listened to Paul McCartney's music. 11 a.m.??? I'm getting a hankerin' for some critters.



If you read you might see that this isn't about being cute. Its about cruel methods of killing for shallow and unnecessary reasons. And I don't see what an asteroid has to do with humans clubbing baby seals to make coats for rich people who don't need them.

It totally is about being cute. Seals are cute. Quail are not cute. And what if the asteroids have a preemptive strike doctrine?

[StrangerWitCandy]

grim wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: grim wrote: Yes we must protect the good looking animals. Cute is good. No puppy mills. No kitten burgers. Let's eat and/or wear every other animal. Sorry, you're not cute enough to spare but we think you'd make a heck of a pair of shoes. What about if one of those killer asteroids comes along and takes out every species on the whole planet. Gone. Everone. You. Me. Bambi. All gone. It's not because it is a BAD asteroid. Like many asteroids it just never really listened to Paul McCartney's music. 11 a.m.??? I'm getting a hankerin' for some critters.



If you read you might see that this isn't about being cute. Its about cruel methods of killing for shallow and unnecessary reasons. And I don't see what an asteroid has to do with humans clubbing baby seals to make coats for rich people who don't need them.

It totally is about being cute. Seals are cute. Quail are not cute. And what if the asteroids have a preemptive strike doctrine?

I'm not in favor of hunting anything unless the animal is being utilized for survival in some way, for instance being eaten. And do you want to have this discussion over elephants and ivory? Because its the exact same thing. Definately not about being cute to me. Asteroids are not alive, they do not conciously kill other beings and certainly not for shallow reasons like fashion statements for Paris Hilton. I don't know what point you're trying to make here really.

[Canadian_Patriot]

Criticize Canada eh when the USA has killed 2.5 million people in a country they illegaly occupy and plunged into civil war.

I lived on the east coast for years you have no idea how many seals their are they get into your garbage mess up your yard from New Brunswick to the North Pole.

Then Paul McCartney has the balls to tell hunters to stop he is not even from Canada.

To all you Animal Rights activists:
Really 100k seals is not alot no matter what anyone told you it is a freakin lie if they say they will become endangered. We have strict rules and regulations up hear for hunting and seal hunting has been going on for over a 150 years.
Everybody needs to make a living so stop smearing our country. the WWF is on our governments side and said our water is clean, seal population is up fish aren't to bad and with millions of seals and rising they are only hunting a small fraction. Do you realize how big Canada is up north.

[Infinite911911]

Helena` wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: Once again on the ice packs off its Atlantic coast Canada is preparing to begin another season of reckless killing of innocent life. The season of brutally clubbing baby seals less then 3 months old is about to start once again, unfortunately. Around a million seal pups were killed for their fur in the last three years, and there is no indication that the pace is about to let up. This government-sanctioned eradication of hundreds of thousands of seal pups jeopardizes a species already facing an uncertain future as their habitat melts out from underneath them. This must be stopped! What right does a Human have to eradicate another species. Not for food or survival, but for fashion. Canada's new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper promised to make his government "more accountable and effective." Let's see if he is a man of his word and stop this government-sanctioned killing.










Infinate911911, I didn't expect you of all people to care about this kind of stuff, ask yourself Infinate911911, Do you have the right to b**** about the canadians killing baby seals, whilst you eat your veal?

I don't eat veal. This thread isn't about eating anything. It's about the cruel inhumane killed of hundreds of thousand baby seals so some idiot can walk around in a fur coat.

[social]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: What then do rights derive from?
At what point dose an organism become developed enough to be afforded rights, internal cell organelles, a nervous system, light sesitive cells, a frontal lobe?

Rights are a social construct. I would therefore avoid applying them to things that exist outside society...

Quote: Quote: Moreover, it's absurd in the extreme, since it creates a stupid, useless, and unneccesary hierachy of animals, which is based on a thing - consciousness - that we don't even yet understand. While neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists are only beggining to understand the brain vis-a-vis counciousness, we have people like you and Locke, and morons like Rand, claiming to 'understand' conciousness, for an elitist and ultimately selfish end.
I concede i should have used rationality. There is a diffrence as it were between having a light on in a room and that room being able to forumlute ideas.
Idiots like Locke and rand. Oh dear. I suppose your not an idiot. When your an internalionaly reconised intelectual, get back to me ok. Then you call start to call Locke and Rand idiots.

Note that I didn't call Locke an idiot, only Rand. If I called Locke an idiot, I'd be an idiot, but Rand...well, she was and still is an idiot, given the stupidity of some of her ideas..She is by no means an 'internationally renowned' intellectual.

Quote: Quote: Try lifting the veil that philosophy has drawn over your eyes and consider this issue without the question of 'rights', so-called.
Viel that philosophy has lifted over my eyes. ho ho. What are you arguing from ebonics?

Arguing from Ebonics? And what exactly does that mean?...Confused abut the meaning of veil? Need a dictionary? I'll give you a helping hand....

Quote: veil
n.

1. A length of cloth worn by women over the head, shoulders, and often the face.
2. A length of netting attached to a woman's hat or habit, worn for decoration or to protect the head and face.
3.
1. The part of a nun's headdress that frames the face and falls over the shoulders.
2. The life or vows of a nun.
4.
1. A piece of light fabric hung to separate or conceal what is behind it; a curtain.
2. Something that conceals, separates, or screens like a curtain: a veil of secrecy.
5. Biology. A membranous covering or part, as that on the developing fruiting body of certain mushrooms; a velum.

And I said drawn over your eyes, as in drawn "to move or pull so as to cover or uncover something."

[grim]

Infinite911911 wrote: I don't eat veal. This thread isn't about eating anything. It's about the cruel inhumane killed of hundreds of thousand baby seals so some idiot can walk around in a fur coat.

Oh man.... I love veal. So cute ..... and delicious. That's it. I'm having veal for supper.