# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

## RonPaulFanInGA

Inspired from this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274044

----------


## MRoCkEd

Decriminalized, yes. 

Animals don't have rights.

----------


## ctnjason

whatever 2 dudes do in their bedroom is their business..........

Some countries they will be decapitated and stuff but if they wanna slap meatsticks, go for it.....

----------


## t0rnado

> whatever 2 dudes do in their bedroom is their business..........
> 
> Some countries they will be decapitated and stuff but if they wanna slap meatsticks, go for it.....


Yes, as long as it is voluntary and both men consent, it should be legal.

----------


## cindy25

decriminalized-yes, but legalized , no

I think it is legal in Oklahoma

it would end up on TV, just as bullfighting is in Spain.

chickens are different than dogs; dogs are pets, not food. but it should not be encouraged.  

what about two consenting adults fighting to the death? winner get a share of the pay per view

----------


## ctnjason

> Yes, as long as it is voluntary and both men consent, it should be legal.


i would much rather watch a catfight than a cockfight....... from consenting parties of course.

----------


## ctnjason

depends on what country you are in....... those shows on food network of the bald guy eating monkey legs on a stick make you wonder what we will be eating when things are really bad.

----------


## BamaAla

It is illegal here, but it is one of those things that kinda gets overlooked. Unless someone complains loudly, the county police usually look the other way; if the birds aren't gaffed, I don't think they would even ticket you.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnew...730.xml&coll=2

As to the question, yes, I think it should be legal.

----------


## Agorism

How about torturing dogs since "they don't have rights."

I don't think this should be legal.

----------


## RileyE104

why not? loser gets eaten... hell, both get eaten.. I love me some fried chicken.

----------


## RonPaulCult

I don't have a problem with a LOCAL government banning the use of animals forced to violently fight/kill one another for the enjoyment of humans.  Likewise, I have no problem with a local government looking the other way or even putting it into the books as legal and ok.

Ron Paul often says about abortion, and I think it applies here: the more difficult/controversial a law, the more local the decision should be.

----------


## guitarlifter

Animals have no rights.  It is unfair and inconsistent to give different rights to one animal over another such as a dog over a chicken because dogs are "pets," and chickens are "food."  I have had pet chickens before, and they lived in my very own room when I was a kid.  I would drag them along in a cart behind me in the back yard, and the chickens would follow me like I was their parent.  In oriental countries, cats and dogs are regularly eaten as well.  It is silly to give one animal species rights over another.  What, is one more rational than the other?  Is it because one is cuter or more cuddly/fuzzy than the other?  Cats and dogs get rights and people go nuts if others use them as fish bait, but worms and crickets can be used as fish bait?  Is it because of size?  Do whales have more rights than mice?  What about the rights of ants?  Don't they get any rights?  Kids should be locked up and have the key thrown out because of the millions of ants that they kill daily.  Wait, if certain animals have rights, isn't it our responsibility to intervene in the wild and punish animals for killing other animals?  That must be it, right?  This is all wrong.  Any role that an animal takes in peoples' lives does not change the rights of an animal.  It doesn't matter how big, cute or common an animal is.  Just because you like a certain animal, doesn't mean that it magically gains rights.  To do this is to believe in a neoconservative philosophy where, if they don't like something, they make it illegal.  Animals are not rational beings, and they cannot grasp the concepts necessary to be rational, thus disqualifying all animals for rights.  People try to give animals rights, but they only do this out of emotion and not out of any logical philosophy.  Therefore, any kind of animal fight should be legal so long as the owners have consented to the fight.  Humans are fully rational beings, thus qualifying for rights.  This is why we have rights.  It isn't because we are cute, fuzzy or larger than other animals.  It's because of rationality.

As for the torturing of animals, this has to be legal as well in order for a consistent philosophy to take hold.  Again, animals have no rights, so we owe them nothing in terms of rights.  That doesn't mean that a person's life couldn't be drastically affected by torturing animals.  In a free society, the torturer's community could deny any interaction with this person, which includes products, services or even entrance into facilities.  Hell, private road and park owners could deny that person the convenience of driving on their roads or entering their parks.  Flyers could be put up everywhere, letting people know about this animal abuser as long as the story is absolutely true.  It would be completely legal to do all of these things in reaction to the torturing of animals, and this person would likely be quite bothered by it, possibly to the point of stopping because it's just not worth it.

Think rationally, and use consistency to create a philosophy.  Don't let emotion come into play.

----------


## charrob

"Should cockfighting be legal?"

absolutely not.

Animals have natural rights.

----------


## BamaAla

> "Should cockfighting be legal?"
> 
> absolutely not.
> 
> Animals have natural rights.


Natural rights to what?

----------


## guitarlifter

> "Should cockfighting be legal?"
> 
> absolutely not.
> 
> Animals have natural rights.


Yes, I'm with BamaAla in that I would like to know your philosophical reasoning that would grant animals natural rights.  If so, what animals get rights, and why?  Please read post #12 to see my objections to animals having rights.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Animals have natural rights.


Does the lion regard the natural rights of the gazelle?

Does the shark regard the natural rights of the bluefish?

----------


## low preference guy

i bet this funny character never read Locke's argument about natural rights.

----------


## cindy25

I don't think cockfighting would survive as legal business.  it thrives now because it is underground, with illegal gambling.

----------


## low preference guy

> How about torturing dogs since "they don't have rights."


same thing. each owner can do with his dog as he wishes.

----------


## Agorism

Animals get some rights. They don't get full rights.

----------


## dannno

Do animals have the right to defend themselves against attack from humans? Or would the state sentence an animal to death for attacking a human?

----------


## guitarlifter

This is ridiculous.  No person here who is arguing against cockfighting or for the idea that animals have some rights is giving any philosophical explanation whatsoever that could justify their position without being fallacious.

----------


## Agorism

> This is ridiculous. No person here who is arguing against cockfighting or for the idea that animals have some rights is giving any philosophical explanation whatsoever that could justify their position without being fallacious.


No it's not. Animals do have limited rights depending on how large and intelligent they are.

For instance a mosquito or cockroach basically gets no rights at all. A rat would get very little rights although we don't want them to experience unnecessary pain. Larger animals like a cat or dog get more, and we don't want people harming them for pleasure etc. Then there is something like a chimpanzee that would be someone like George Bush we'd have to worry about.

----------


## guitarlifter

> No it's not. Animals do have limited rights depending on how large and intelligent they are.
> 
> For instance a mosquito or cockroach basically gets no rights at all. A rat would get very little rights although we don't want them to experience unnecessary pain. Larger animals like a cat or dog get more, and we don't want people harming them for pleasure etc. Then there is something like a chimpanzee that would be someone like George Bush we'd have to worry about.


Size?  How does size have to do with rights?  Does a larger man get more rights than a smaller man?  Does an elephant get more rights than a man?  You have to be consistent here.  We're not talking about giving rights based on simply the fact that we're homosapiens.  And intelligence is a very broad term that needs to be defined.  Does a man with an IQ of 160 get more rights than a man with an IQ of 90?  What do you mean?  What if you have an extremely intelligent mouse, but a not-so-smart blue whale?  Who has more rights?  Does a great dane get more rights than a chihuahua?  No animal can reason by any means, which is the only kind of intelligence that can qualify an animal for rights.  And the size argument is just ridiculous and could qualify an elephant for more rights than a human.

The only way an animal could have rights is if it could reason like a human can.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Do animals have the right to defend themselves against attack from humans? Or would the state sentence an animal to death for attacking a human?


The latter I think.  A dog that mauls a kid is going to be 'put down.'

People do not have a right to torture or be unnecessarily cruel to animals; and doing that should be illegal.  But cockfighting doesn't really fall under that.

----------


## Agorism

> Size? How does size have to do with rights? Does a larger man get more rights than a smaller man? Does an elephant get more rights than a man? You have to be consistent here. We're not talking about giving rights based on simply the fact that we're homosapiens. We have to be consistent here. And intelligence is a very broad term that needs to be defined. Does a man with an IQ of 160 get more rights than a man with an IQ of 90? What do you mean? What if you have an extremely intelligent mouse, but a not-so-smart blue whale? Who has more rights? Does a great dane get more rights than a chihuahua? No animal can reason by any means, which is the only kind of intelligence that can qualify an animal for rights. And the size argument is just ridiculous and could qualify an elephant for more rights than a human.



You're just sorting out the details. Humans are humans so they all get the same rights. This is all common sense though so there is really no point in pointing such things out to you.

The argument that rights are a grey scale is nothing new with regard to animals. It's fairly obvious that a dog gets more rights than mosquito.

----------


## cindy25

I don't think the cock fight operators would want legality.  it would be culturally unacceptable to be seen there. they would have to comply to the same local regulations as movie theaters, or adult entertainment places.  children would not be allowed.

----------


## Captain America

my opinion is no locally. nationally it shouldn't matter.

----------


## guitarlifter

> You're just sorting out the details. Humans are humans so they all get the same rights. This is all common sense though so there is really no point in pointing such things out to you.
> 
> The argument that rights are a grey scale is nothing new with regard to animals. It's fairly obvious that a dog gets more rights than mosquito.


I could just as easily say that mosquitoes are mosquitoes, so they get all the same rights, and my argument would be just as valid as yours, which is of no validity at all.  And, although the argument that rights are a grey scale in regard to animals being nothing new is true, the age of the argument does not make it correct.  To say that something is common sense is also fallacious.  You can't say that something is right just because it is.  You have still yet to provide an argument that is without fallacy.

----------


## low preference guy

> The latter I think.  A dog that mauls a kid is going to be 'put down.'
> 
> People do not have a right to torture or be unnecessarily cruel to animals; and doing that should be illegal.  But cockfighting doesn't really fall under that.


what? so the government should protect people's life, liberty, and property... and also animals from pain! what the heck? are you serious? you just arbitrarily inserted an emotional pet issue to a well reasoned political philosophy.

no. animals don't have rights. someone who decides to torture their animals might have mental issues, so don't talk or don't trade with them if you don't want to, but the government should stay out.

----------


## Kregisen

There's no using logic to back up banning animal torture. Even still, locally, I would probably still want it banned, even though it doesn't fit in with the philosophy of private ownership and rights. 

If you say animals have rights, you go down a slippery slope and you'll end up with tons of double standards, so that's out of the question. You also get into what rights are and where they come from, which has been discussed on these forums thousands of times.

Just for the hell of stimulating thought: does anyone here think animals don't have the right to life, but do have the right not to be tortured?

----------


## agitator

> Does the lion regard the natural rights of the gazelle?
> 
> Does the shark regard the natural rights of the bluefish?


They outta!!  We need to provide government law school for them!

----------


## guitarlifter

> They outta!!  We need to provide government law school for them!


We could provide political favoritism for the gazelles, but then the Lions would only become terrorist lions who would kill Americans in the name of Mufasa.  They would swim across the Atlantic Ocean just to kill us.

----------


## Imperial

> Animals have no rights.  It is unfair and inconsistent to give different rights to one animal over another such as a dog over a chicken because dogs are "pets," and chickens are "food."  I have had pet chickens before, and they lived in my very own room when I was a kid.  I would drag them along in a cart behind me in the back yard, and the chickens would follow me like I was their parent.  In oriental countries, cats and dogs are regularly eaten as well.  It is silly to give one animal species rights over another.  What, is one more rational than the other?  Is it because one is cuter or more cuddly/fuzzy than the other?  Cats and dogs get rights and people go nuts if others use them as fish bait, but worms and crickets can be used as fish bait?  Is it because of size?  Do whales have more rights than mice?  What about the rights of ants?  Don't they get any rights?  Kids should be locked up and have the key thrown out because of the millions of ants that they kill daily.  Wait, if certain animals have rights, isn't it our responsibility to intervene in the wild and punish animals for killing other animals?  That must be it, right?  This is all wrong.  Any role that an animal takes in peoples' lives does not change the rights of an animal.  It doesn't matter how big, cute or common an animal is.  Just because you like a certain animal, doesn't mean that it magically gains rights.  To do this is to believe in a neoconservative philosophy where, if they don't like something, they make it illegal.  Animals are not rational beings, and they cannot grasp the concepts necessary to be rational, thus disqualifying all animals for rights.  People try to give animals rights, but they only do this out of emotion and not out of any logical philosophy.  Therefore, any kind of animal fight should be legal so long as the owners have consented to the fight.  Humans are fully rational beings, thus qualifying for rights.  This is why we have rights.  It isn't because we are cute, fuzzy or larger than other animals.  It's because of rationality.
> 
> As for the torturing of animals, this has to be legal as well in order for a consistent philosophy to take hold.  Again, animals have no rights, so we owe them nothing in terms of rights.  That doesn't mean that a person's life couldn't be drastically affected by torturing animals.  In a free society, the torturer's community could deny any interaction with this person, which includes products, services or even entrance into facilities.  Hell, private road and park owners could deny that person the convenience of driving on their roads or entering their parks.  Flyers could be put up everywhere, letting people know about this animal abuser as long as the story is absolutely true.  It would be completely legal to do all of these things in reaction to the torturing of animals, and this person would likely be quite bothered by it, possibly to the point of stopping because it's just not worth it.
> 
> Think rationally, and use consistency to create a philosophy.  Don't let emotion come into play.


It is also irrational to always believe in reason, due to our lack of omniscience. The great paradigm shifts in history have been primarily led by two groups- those who are young and those who are working outside of their field of expertise. We get so wrapped up in the boundaries we place upon the world that we forget what may be beyond that. This is not to say reason is not useful; however, an excessive faith in reason can be irrational.

How can you say a human is _fully_ rational but a chimpanzee is not? Chimpanzees have similar social structures as humans, with competing social groups much like we do. Or take dolphins, which are self-aware enough to have intercourse for pleasure. Where is the imaginary line we have drawn to decide what is reasonable?

----------


## low preference guy

> Just for the hell of stimulating thought: does anyone here think animals don't have the right to life, but do have the right not to be tortured?


it's not really stimulating, because an animal has as many rights and deserves as much legal protection as a rock.

----------


## Agorism

> I could just as easily say that mosquitoes are mosquitoes, so they get all the same rights, and my argument would be just as valid as yours, which is of no validity at all. And, although the argument that rights are a grey scale in regard to animals being nothing new is true, the age of the argument does not make it correct. To say that something is common sense is also fallacious. You can't say that something is right just because it is. You have still yet to provide an argument that is without fallacy.


I think you're one of those people who like to argue for the sake of arguing.

----------


## guitarlifter

> I think you're one of those people who like to argue for the sake of arguing.


And you're one of those people who refuse to give a compelling argument.

----------


## Agorism

> And you're one of those people who refuse to give a compelling argument.



That's because when people don't make sense, I prefer to nod my head and quit talking to them.

----------


## guitarlifter

> It is also irrational to always believe in reason, due to our lack of omniscience. The great paradigm shifts in history have been primarily led by two groups- those who are young and those who are working outside of their field of expertise. We get so wrapped up in the boundaries we place upon the world that we forget what may be beyond that. This is not to say reason is not useful; however, an excessive faith in reason can be irrational.
> 
> How can you say a human is _fully_ rational but a chimpanzee is not? Chimpanzees have similar social structures as humans, with competing social groups much like we do. Or take dolphins, which are self-aware enough to have intercourse for pleasure. Where is the imaginary line we have drawn to decide what is reasonable?


One could say that, due to a lack of omniscience, it is impossible to conclude anything, but then we're getting into Straussian concepts.  My lack of omniscience makes me glad that I believe in God.  He is an omniscient being who has laid out the groundwork for the perfect philosophy because of his omniscience, and all one has to do in order to live a good life is to deontologically follow His word.

As for animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins, one can externally state that an animal is acting rationally, but one has to assume that an animal can also make mistakes and not just assume that an animal, with whatever action they are performing, is considered rational.

----------


## guitarlifter

> That's because when people don't make sense, I prefer to nod my head and quit talking to them.


I have made complete sense with well-thought out idea that are clearly explained.  You give the "it is right just because it is" argument, which won't fly here.  And perhaps it doesn't make sense because you refuse to decentralize and actually analyze the argument.

----------


## brandon

People have no rights either.

----------


## rprprs

> People have no rights either.


Interesting.  And closer to the truth than many of the posts in this thread.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

Will my pet rock go to heaven?????

----------


## MRoCkEd

I made a thread on this a year and a half ago:
Is it ever wrong and should it ever be illegal to torture or kill animals?

People end up being very inconsistent on this, ultimately saying some animals have rights while others don't, without being able to explain how these rights are determined.

----------


## Brian in Maryland

> Does the lion regard the natural rights of the gazelle?
> 
> Does the shark regard the natural rights of the bluefish?


Does the government regard the natural rights of the citizens?

I believe that every living being values its life as much as I value mine.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

> chickens are different than dogs; dogs are pets, not food. but it should not be encouraged.


Actually... Most dog breeds were orginally bred for hunting, herding, and yes, even fighting.

Dogs ARE for the most part natural killers, whether it be rabbits, hogs, bulls, or other dogs.

Roosters, though sometimes aggressive, are less equipped to be killers than dogs.

So, if dog fighting should be illegal, should it be illegal for me to use dogs to hunt wild boar, which are every bit as intelligent (and far more tasty) as dogs?

----------


## pcosmar

*Wrong Question*
Didn't vote.

Should the state be making anything illegal? Short of Murder, Rape, Assault, Theft and Fraud. Actual crimes of aggression against others, the state should have no business making laws to control the lives of people.
Society(the market) will dictate what is acceptable or allowed.

----------


## Sentient Void

Of course it should be legal. Animals don't have rights - period, and to say they do leads to quite a slippery slope that would end our reliance on them as labor, food, , resources (you seriously wouldn't *believe* how much of the products we use in everyday lives are reliant on animal products), and even pets.

Animals are property, period. Once they, or any animal, or object even, gains *sapience* - then we can talk about them having 'rights'.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Of course it should be legal. Animals don't have rights - period, and to say they do leads to quite a slippery slope that would end our reliance on them as labor, food, , resources (you seriously wouldn't *believe* how much of the products we use in everyday lives are reliant on animal products), and even pets.
> 
> Animals are property, period. Once they, or any animal, or object even, gains *sapience* - then we can talk about them having 'rights'.


Just to play devil's advocate - I'm pretty sure people used to say the same thing about slaves.

----------


## jtstellar

LOL animal rights never thought i'd see this on a liberty forum

are you guys friggin' forgetting something?  LOCALS AND COMMUNITIES ring a bell?

first of all if enough people in some small town or city want to ban animal fighting, they could.  federal government?  hell no.  why isn't this mentioned

furthermore, if you have animal fighting in your neighborhood with animal yelps every night, how friggin' much do you think your neighborhood properties will be worth.. 

you don't need federal laws.. laws stem from common sense.  common sense and economic laws are the first defenses against unsavory acts.. every time when you have a brain fart moment about liberty "oh wait, what about this.  constitution doesn't protect this~??", please apply this rule.

will it stop all animal fighting?  hmm.  michael vick did stop.  wait, what about his buddies.  anybody did a check on them?  

instead of resorting to black markets, maybe some of these homeless towns will sanction animal fighting and take revenue, and then ban it when their property values go up.  who knows.

keep making stupid freaking laws and make this country get poorer, and i guarantee you there will be more animal fighting.  actually, try man fighting for a change.

so can we start thinking now?  all brains back in order?  jesus

----------


## pcosmar

If it's illegal will they have barnyard cops who arrest roosters that fight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDL_h4u9XQ0

----------


## WorldonaString

> LOL animal rights never thought i'd see this on a liberty forum
> 
> are you guys friggin' forgetting something?  LOCALS AND COMMUNITIES ring a bell? 
> 
> ......
> 
> keep making stupid freaking laws and make this country get poorer, and i guarantee you there will be more animal fighting.  actually, try man fighting for a change.
> 
> so can we start thinking now?  all brains back in order?  jesus


thank you.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Animals have rights? Lol...I can just see a lion sitting there quietly during _voir dire_.

----------


## dannno

Can animals fight for their right to party?

----------


## JasonC

The state should havee no say in the matter at all, so I voted no. Personally, I do not like cockfighting, but I see no reason why it should be illegal.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Should it be illegal on the Federal Level, probably not, should it be illegal on the state level, well that would depend on the will of those living in the state, or if it was sent to the local level to handle the issue. 

This question does not involve dog "rights" anymore than sitting 10 rusted out cars in your yard involves car "rights". A community can decide if they find storing rusted out cars in your yard to be acceptable or not. Just the same as a community can decide if it will accept dog torture to be acceptable, or blaring loud music at night, or driving on the left versus right side of the road. These aren't questions of inalienable rights, but questions pertaining to community standards. 

Unless one believes there should be no laws, or only a few arbitrary laws, then it should be up to the community, to set the standards of behaviour. As in I'm sure even if this government collapsed and even the state government collapsed, and all of us made all the laws for our little communities, we'd still make many activities illegal. As in walking around town naked, having sex in the park, driving 100 mph by a school, torturing animals, burning toxic $#@! in the middle of town, etc, etc... Now maybe there are some anarchist purists that would make a town with the only laws being no rape,murder, stealing, well that town will be a total $#@!hole in no time flat, but most towns will adopt a rational level of lawfully acceptable behaviour, and that will effect your rights to do certain things to your property, including but not limited to animals, your real estate, etc...

So most are framing the question wrong as in framing it in terms of god given animal rights, when that is not the question at all, the question is does the community have the right to enforce standards for itself in regards to property. 

And the answer is yes.

However, if there was no federal, or state government, and it all was local, I'm sure a community or two out of hundreds would allow animal torture for entertainment, I doubt they will be popular, and packed with sociopaths, but sure it's not an unalienable right (but even what we call god given rights is really just group consensus), but just something most will believe to be a decent standard rule of behaviour, like not jerking your meat in the front yard to passing traffic.

But hell there is the possiblity some community would allow it, just none, I'd trade with, or visit. So, in other words, IMO, the "market" would eliminate them and tag the community as nuttersociopathville.

----------


## pcosmar

> But hell there is the possiblity some community would allow it, just none, I'd trade with, or visit. So, in other words, IMO, the "market" would eliminate them and tag the community as nuttersociopathville.


What about Bug Fights?
http://www.japanesebugfights.com/

Or Bug races for that matter.
http://www.2camels.com/world-champio...ach-racing.php

My opinion, If you don't want to, DON"T.
But leave everyone else the hell alone.

----------


## RCA

Torture of any form is immoral. Whether or not it should be legal depends on if the State should exist or not.

----------


## denison

Public shaming of animal abusers is the best way to handle these situation. The state can not help. Animals have no rights, though. You can't consider yourself a libertarian and argue such nonsense.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Exactly, if you don't like the rules the community agreed upon move to a different one that agrees with your philosophy. I wouldn't live there, and move immediately, but if that is your bliss, well, don't try to force your standards on me. 

As far as bugs go, they don't have any higher brain function at all, they are literally like machines, so, yeah, if you are asking me personally would I live in a community that allowed bug fights, sure. They aren't equivalent to something that feels fear, or happiness, or any form of reality as we know it. A Bug is more akin to a computer than a human. Their nervous system is to simple to allow for more than programmed responses.

----------


## denison

> Torture of any form is immoral. Whether or not it should be legal depends on if the State should exist or not.


The state shouldn't exist at all, so you have your answer.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes, as long as it is voluntary and both men consent, it should be legal.


Yeah, I'm sure the cops are gunna arrest a couple of kids playing sword fight.

----------


## charrob

I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life. 

No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly.  For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering.  Factory farms need to become a thing of the past.  Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.  

A society that looks the other way because of some idealistic vision of what government "should" be, is just as sick, perverted, depraved, and pathetic as those who participate in the activity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBgC...layer_embedded

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-is...ing-to-thrive/

----------


## MRoCkEd

What if someone goes further than you and says animals have a right to life and liberty, and therefore it should be illegal to keep them in cages or kill them for food?

Where does an animal's "right not to suffer" come from?

It seems like arbitrary assignation of (made-up) rights based on emotional reactions.

----------


## pcosmar

> I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life. 
> 
> No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly.  For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering.  Factory farms need to become a thing of the past.  Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.  
> 
> A society that looks the other way because of some idealistic vision of what government "should" be, is just as sick, perverted, depraved, and pathetic as those who participate in the activity.


What about farmers observing a fight and then choosing which one breeds and which one is stew?

(Chickens fight with or without human intervention)

----------


## Heimdallr

Animals don't have rights, but they DO deserve to be protected from cruelty. I voted NO.

EDIT: Well, I dunno about the "no rights" thing; I suppose it could be said that your rights extend as far as your intelligence, or ability to suffer, so perhaps animals do have some rights. The thing is, they lack the capacity to put real value in their life, so they don't really have a right to life, but they do understand physical pain. They don't have property, so that's off the table, and since, again, they don't really put value in their lives, they don't really have a right to liberty. 

Ehh, either way, there should be at least some protection against needless cruelty imposed by humans.

----------


## charrob

"Where does an animal's "right not to suffer" come from?"

Where does a human's "right not to suffer" come from?  I would say common sense.  Decency.  Respect for all of life.  As far as food, it should be illegal for animals to suffer (as in factory farms) before they are put down.  Personally, for people who need to eat meat, there should be ongoing stem cell research to make chicken legs, etc., so someday (hopefully) animals will no longer have to die for this.

----------


## dannno

> I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life. 
> 
> No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly.  For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering.  Factory farms need to become a thing of the past.  Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.  
> [/url]


Would you destroy an indigenous community for participating in traditional cock fighting that has been going on for generations? When the losing chicken goes to market anyway? Who would be worse, the indigenous community for their traditions or the people who wiped out the indigenous community?

You should checkout the surf film "Morning of the Earth". It's a beautifully shot film from Australia in the early 70s. The Aussie surfers go visit an indigenous community in Bali that has cock fights and they shoot one of the fights, adding beautiful music to some rather intense imagery.

----------


## charrob

> What about farmers observing a fight and then choosing which one breeds and which one is stew?
> 
> (Chickens fight with or without human intervention)


As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible.  If no humans are around when animals fight naturally,  then so be it.  Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose.  And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window.  Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying.  After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat.  Needless to say, she did not like me.  But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard.  Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.

----------


## Imperial

> One could say that, due to a lack of omniscience, it is impossible to conclude anything, but then we're getting into Straussian concepts.  My lack of omniscience makes me glad that I believe in God.  He is an omniscient being who has laid out the groundwork for the perfect philosophy because of his omniscience, and all one has to do in order to live a good life is to deontologically follow His word.
> 
> As for animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins, one can externally state that an animal is acting rationally, but one has to assume that an animal can also make mistakes and not just assume that an animal, with whatever action they are performing, is considered rational.


Right. I am not saying that animals are necessarily rational. I illustrated that they employ some degree of what we may consider to be reason. At the same time, the fact that we are not omniscient means that we can never act in a fully rational manner. And if we are not able to be fully rational, then at a certain point we must wonder if there is a limit to the utility of reason.

I agree that God is one solution to this problem. At the same time, God has left a significant amount of space for us to respond to this problem. This is an excellent illustration of it- the only precedent God really gives us towards animals is somewhat vague- act as their stewards. At the same time, we know He does not simply ban us from hunting or using animals as necessary. Thus, a policymaker is still left with significant space to act.

So let us look at this. The deontological aspects of the question are vague- God has given us a vague directive, some animals illustrate some degree of reason, and humans demonstrate imperfect reason. We cannot craft some clear policy based upon a philosophical principle without leading to absurd conclusions that lessen the value of any of the above. At this point, we should be enacting a policy which provides the greatest utility for our goals- undermining the least amount of human autonomy while also respecting the life of animals as well is what I prefer in this situation, although there is room for flexibility here.

----------


## dannno

> Personally, for people who need to eat meat, there should be ongoing stem cell research to make chicken legs, etc., so someday (hopefully) animals will no longer have to die for this.


I would hope many people would make this decision and choose the more humane option, but I don't think the government should force people to choose that way. If it is cheaper, then poor people will buy it anyway. If it is better tasting and more expensive, then rich people might buy it, but forcing poor people to buy it could mean starvation. If it is about the same price and quality and there is enough availability, then I think most people would choose the more humane option. I guess one question is where do the stem cells come from, or do they generate and multiply on their own by feeding them something else?

----------


## charrob

> Would you destroy an indigenous community for participating in traditional cock fighting that has been going on for generations? When the losing chicken goes to market anyway? Who would be worse, the indigenous community for their traditions or the people who wiped out the indigenous community?


How would stopping a sadistic custom destroy an indigenous community?

----------


## dannno

> As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible.  If no humans are around when animals fight naturally,  then so be it.  Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose.  And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window.  Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying.  After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat.  Needless to say, she did not like me.  But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard.  Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.


Hmmm, I see that as forcing her to keep the cat captive in her own home.. You can't train your cat to stay in your yard, cats are roaming creatures.. and they naturally eat birds in nature, why are you trying to stop nature?

----------


## dannno

> How would stopping a sadistic custom destroy an indigenous community?


How do you stop sadistic customs in indigenous communities? You can try education, if it works then awesome, but if that doesn't work then you would have to use violence. Why are you policing indigenous communities anyway, what are you a European explorer out to destroy indigenous populations if they don't hold your same (Christian, in their case) values? 

It's probably just going to end up going underground like drugs and other things, then it will become more profitable and they might even end up throwing away the chickens instead of eating them since you made it become so profitable (you can charge more for something if it is banned, if it is legal, then if you charge too much to hold cockfights, then the person next door will open one and charge less... in the case of the black market, it doesn't function properly and you end up with extraordinary profits in these types of ventures)

----------


## charrob

> Hmmm, I see that as forcing her to keep the cat captive in her own home.. You can't train your cat to stay in your yard, cats are roaming creatures.. and they naturally eat birds in nature, why are you trying to stop nature?


Cats have the added advantage of a warm home in winter, and food/water etc. without hunting for it.  They do not have to survive like animals in the wild.  Also,  they can be placed on a leash outside or, many, pretty much just stay indoors on their own.  Many bird populations are becoming extinct; bobwhites are almost (if not totally) gone in the upper northeast of the U.S. (I can remember hearing them all the time as a child.)  This is a result of overpopulation by human beings so that we are not living in harmony with nature.

----------


## pcosmar

> As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible.  If no humans are around when animals fight naturally,  then so be it.  Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose.  And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window.  Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying.  After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat.  Needless to say, she did not like me.  But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard.  Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.




You know, I have several and varied predators in my immediate area. My cats are both Predator and prey. My dogs hunt and kill.
There is a large Snowy Owl that would love to get one. (close, but no joy so far)
There is a Bald Eagle, Several Hawks and Owls that hunt the area. As well as Wolves, Coyote, Badgers and weasels. etc.
Nature is violent. Fact of life.

----------


## agitator

Sound like too many cats killing those birds.  We need cat fights to thin them out.

----------


## Maximus

Animals do have rights.  You can't starve or torture your pets.

----------


## charrob

> How do you stop sadistic customs in indigenous communities? You can try education, if it works then awesome, but if that doesn't work then you would have to use violence.


But the act the indigenous communites are engaging in itself is violent.  Do we not use force (ie. the police) to stop the violence of a Charles Manson?

I'm talking about indigenous communities in the U.S.  (ie. what goes on in the Australian backwoods or some tribal community in another country is for that country to determine).  There's a indian tribe in southwest Washington State (i think) that hunts whales.   Whales have equal and greater intelligence than humans; this hunting needs to stop.  It's sick and is equal in every way to spearing live humans and eating them.  If spearing live humans and eating them were the custom of this indigenous tribe in the U.S. northwest, would we let this continue?

----------


## charrob

> You know, I have several and varied predators in my immediate area. My cats are both Predator and prey. My dogs hunt and kill.
> There is a large Snowy Owl that would love to get one. (close, but no joy so far)
> There is a Bald Eagle, Several Hawks and Owls that hunt the area. As well as Wolves, Coyote, Badgers and weasels. etc.
> Nature is violent. Fact of life.


Very true; nature is violent.  But humans don't have to be, and if violence is necessary for human food, then it should and can be done as painless as possible without suffering by the animal.

----------


## guitarlifter

> Right. I am not saying that animals are necessarily rational. I illustrated that they employ some degree of what we may consider to be reason. At the same time, the fact that we are not omniscient means that we can never act in a fully rational manner. And if we are not able to be fully rational, then at a certain point we must wonder if there is a limit to the utility of reason.
> 
> I agree that God is one solution to this problem. At the same time, God has left a significant amount of space for us to respond to this problem. This is an excellent illustration of it- the only precedent God really gives us towards animals is somewhat vague- act as their stewards. At the same time, we know He does not simply ban us from hunting or using animals as necessary. Thus, a policymaker is still left with significant space to act.
> 
> So let us look at this. The deontological aspects of the question are vague- God has given us a vague directive, some animals illustrate some degree of reason, and humans demonstrate imperfect reason. We cannot craft some clear policy based upon a philosophical principle without leading to absurd conclusions that lessen the value of any of the above. At this point, we should be enacting a policy which provides the greatest utility for our goals- undermining the least amount of human autonomy while also respecting the life of animals as well is what I prefer in this situation, although there is room for flexibility here.


My goal is to please God because of the justification that He gives me.  In order to please God, I must be faithful.  In order to be faithful, I must enact my faith through works.  In order to properly enact my faith through works, I must follow God's law.  God's law is an interesting beast.  There's the moral dilemma of having Siamese twins, who are attached to one another.  One is healthy, but is losing that health because of a sickly twin that is killing the other.  According to sheer utility, one should cut off the twin that is killing the other.  The ends would seem to justify the means  However, God's law does not allow killing of innocent people.  The deaths of the two children is tragic, but one murder of one of the children is sinful, so we justify the two children's death by the fact that, in order to be faithful, we must follow God's law, for following it is the highest moral ground, even above unfavorable ends to the most extreme extent.

The same applies to animals.  God would not want us to abuse animals.  However, it would be sinful to force another person to stop since animals have no rights.  It would be even more sinful to vote that the government steal money from others through taxation in order to fund the intervention of animal abuse.  Ergo, animal abuse is tragic, but coercion and theft of money in order to fund such coercion is sinful.  My means of being faithful to God justify the ends of this earth.  Luckily for us, we know that, as long as we are faithful, God will count us as righteous.  We don't have to be perfect so long as we follow Christ.

----------


## pcosmar

> Very true; nature is violent.  But humans don't have to be, and if violence is necessary for human food, then it should and can be done as painless as possible without suffering by the animal.


Perhaps. I am not really interested in Cock Fights.
But in the several thousand years of human history, Blood sports have existed. They are cultural traditions and have a basis in breeding and harvesting animals.

I don't see it going away because of some (johnny come lately) laws. It will just go underground and become profitable to the criminal classes.

Prohibition is good for organized crime.

----------


## YumYum

I am a boxer. I am in the hurt game. That is my choice. I can choose to fight or not to fight. A cock has no choice in a cockfight.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Just to play devil's advocate - I'm pretty sure people used to say the same thing about slaves.


The difference is:

1) Slaves were human beings and not animals. All men have unalienable rights - these are natural rights, and rights even recognized by the constitution. The constitution was clearly inconsistent in keeping slavery legal ('ALL men are created equal... inalienable rights")

2) Human slaves have sapience, animals do not. 

Animal cruelty should and would be handled through appropriate social and commercial ostracism.

----------


## charrob

> The difference is:
> 
> 1) Slaves were human beings and not animals. All men have unalienable rights - these are natural rights, and rights even recognized by the constitution. The constitution was clearly inconsistent in keeping slavery legal ('ALL men are created equal... inalienable rights")
> 
> 2) Human slaves have sapience, animals do not. 
> 
> Animal cruelty should and would be handled through appropriate social and commercial ostracism.


Why such a distinction between human beings and animals?  Do animals not feel the same pain as a human if tortured?

Animal cruelty is obviously not being handled through appropriate social and commercial ostracism, so there needs to be laws to protect them.

----------


## BamaAla

> Animal cruelty is obviously not being handled through appropriate social and commercial ostracism, so there needs to be laws to protect them.


What? So if any given market doesn't respond the way charrob sees fit, laws are required to gain a favorable outcome?

I don't want to ruin your Christmas, but laws against cockfighting are already in place in all 50 states. I can only speak for areas that I have been to cockfights and my home, but, in those instances, the laws are wholly ignored by everyone involved. What works best for you and your community isn't necessarily right for me and mine; furthermore, I don't appreciate you suggesting that the majority of my state and community be classified as outlaws because we hunt, fight chickens, and use livestock to work.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

From a moral standpoint, torture is torture.  Roman gladiators vs cockfighting are similar in that the subjects are facing mortal peril at the whim of their owners.

In the case of predator prey relationships, every great hunter I know strives to provide his quarry as quick and painless a death as possible.  A clean kill.  Clean kills provide health benefits as well as toxins from undesirable body parts, adrenalin, cortizone, bile, fecal matter, etc is not spread throughout the animal's system.  The whole concept of Kosher butchering is based on efficient clean killing.

In nature, most predators don't have the ability to make the kind of instant kills that modern humans with firearms can provide.  A heart/lung or brain shutdown is often not possible.  However, instinctively most predators do try for the kind of injuries that will result in relatively quick death via throat attacks to bleed their victim out, or snapping the neck.

There are not many animals that play with prey.  Domestic cats are rare in that regard.  I have seen some scavengers eat the innards of a weak animal while it was still alive, but they are not predators and they acted as if the still living animal was already a carcass.  Indeed, it was in a way, as if it could have lived, it wouldn't have been in any danger from the scavengers.  I have also seen normally solitary scavengers like raccoons start acting like predators when they become semi domesticated and social and will attack small dogs and cats and wound them enough to start eating them like a carcass.  Raccoons I don't think have the instincts to make a quick kill.  As soon as their victim is weak enough that they can't run away, raccoons start eating their guts out.  Pretty gruesome, really.  Coyotes on the other hand usually will rip out the throat of a victim ensuring a quick kill as soon as they can, and before they start glutting themselves.

Is the Raccoon less moral than the Coyote?

Is a Housecat less moral than a Bobcat?

Is a Coyote that doesn't kill its victim before eating less moral than one that does?

Is a pack of raccoons that actively hunts weak or pregnant housecats and eats them alive less moral than the solitary raccoon that only eats already dead carcasses?

I don't have the answer to those questions.  I personally think that animal cruelty is immoral, but I don't believe any government should legislate morality, and I don't believe that natural rights are interspecieal, only intraspecieal.  If a mouse has a natural right to life against a hawk, then the entire food chain breaks down.  But a mouse I think probably does have certain right to life against other mice, and they have their own little battles of resource use, sexual dominance etc, but that is up to mice to sort out amongst themselves.  As humans, we have a right to life protected from other humans, but I don't think that Sheer Khan the Bengal Tiger is a murderer if he preys on little Mowgli the manchild, but Sheer Khan has no right to preside over our human-human disputes.  Likewise, we have no right to preside over Chicken-Chicken disputes, nor to incite or force Chickens to fight or make peace amongst each other.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Why such a distinction between human beings and animals?  Do animals not feel the same pain as a human if tortured?
> 
> Animal cruelty is obviously not being handled through appropriate social and commercial ostracism, so there needs to be laws to protect them.


There is a pre-requisite for rights. Sentience. Animals neither have reason, logic, or sentience. I didn't know rights were impinged upon having certain receptors. Of course, personally, I would never do such an intentional provocation, but it isn't like lions and zebra's take each other to court, or are aware of or capable of discourse. Can a Lion represent themselves or have the capacity to appoint anyone? What about squirrels? Where is your distinction? Rights imply the ability to be responsible for ones actions. Rights are intrinsically a human construct, therefore it is silly to assign animals something to which they cannot even understand nor have the capability to possess. 

How do you know trees do not feel pain? What about plants? Are we going to institute courts for arbitration between predators and prey? How far are you going to take this?

----------


## charrob

> What works best for you and your community isn't necessarily right for me and mine;


so if in your neck of the woods people murder and torture humans for fun and entertainment, are you asking me to ignore it because it's "in your neck of the woods"?

----------


## BamaAla

> so if in your neck of the woods people murder and torture humans for fun and entertainment, are you asking me to ignore it because it's "in your neck of the woods"?


Reductio ad absurdum is not a flattering debate technique. I think nearly everyone on earth can draw the distinction between the two examples. Poster after poster has outlined the problems with your line of reasoning, yet you ignore them and call for more laws. Why don't you come here and educate everyone instead?

----------


## charrob

> There is a pre-requisite for rights. Sentience. Animals neither have reason, logic, or sentience.


says who?  I'd argue they have all three.





> I didn't know rights were impinged upon having certain receptors.


What do you mean?




> Rights imply the ability to be responsible for ones actions.


why?

I just don't understand your argument.  Let's use an example; this is Fluffy:

 

Fluffy has reason, logic, and sentience.  She knows what pain feels like and she has a right as a sentient life-form not to be harmed unnecessarily.  She is a member of our family and should anyone harm her, this person should be given the same penalty as if they harmed a human in our family.  We love her as an equal member of our family, and we would mourn her loss just as we would mourn the loss of any other member of the family who would be harmed.  So what is your argument?  In our eyes she is an equal.

----------


## farrar

I argue that a right is moral capacity. The ability to act and be moral in doing so. In order to understand a right, we must understand what morality is. 

Morality is staying within the bounds of a mutual contract between [men], the contract defined by our empathy for one another who live on this earth with the capacity to ask "who am I? why am I here?" and then to answer those questions. We tend to empathize with one another, who bare this burden of existence, and we tend to respect one anothers existence and property to the extent that it does not conflict with our own. The mutual contract is a result of our empathy for one another, and our recognition that just as I may wish to live my life unmolesteed so would others, and that the best way to achieve this goal in my life is to refuse to molest others intentionally. When we obey this mutual contract and respect one anothers life and property we have acted in a moral fashion.

This is why attackers, who have lost the empathy of the victim can be killed without acting immorally.

This is the same with many others such a murders and such.

Therefore I would argue that animals have as much rights as they are capable of, through tapping into man's empathy. My dog has alot of rights compared to the racoon that tips over my garbage can. the Racoon does not have enough empathy from others who are willing to protect its "right" to live. Where as my family and I are willing to protect my dogs right to live and will to do so.

In a sense morals are just general rules that humans concieve for themselves based on their empathy for one another, and whatever else they are willing to invite into the group. If racoons were capable of this higher level of thinking there might be general rules for racoons, and how humans fit into it would depend on their level of empathy for us.

----------


## dannno

> I just don't understand your argument.  Let's use an example; this is Fluffy:
> 
>  
> 
> Fluffy has reason, logic, and sentience.  She knows what pain feels like and she has a right as a sentient life-form not to be harmed unnecessarily.  She is a member of our family and should anyone harm her, this person should be given the same penalty as if they harmed a human in our family.  We love her as an equal member of our family, and we would mourn her loss just as we would mourn the loss of any other member of the family who would be harmed.  So what is your argument?  In our eyes she is an equal.



Fluffy is also your property, which you have the right to protect with your life.

----------


## farrar

Do plants have rights? They are living things. Does matter have rights? What has the nail or the hammer done to me? lol

----------


## Dr.3D

> says who?  I'd argue they have all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> 
> why?
> ...


I'm with you on that.  Both of my dogs know they are alive, are sentient and they know they don't like pain.  As far as someone causing them harm or unnecessary pain, I would do anything in my power to keep that from happening.   I know for a fact, if someone were to cause me harm or even attempt to while they were watching, they would do the same for me.

----------


## libertybrewcity

I think most local communities would ban cockfighting. The ones that didn't would probably be pressured to.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> Fluffy is also your property, which you have the right to protect with your life.


bingo.

----------


## charrob

> Fluffy is also your property, which you have the right to protect with your life.


The "property" business raises several issues. I don't think many people realize our pets are not even OUR property, but under the control of the Dept. of Agriculture. They are in our "care, custody and control" with limits.

Furthermore, why not try and enact legislation to end the outdated concept that pets are merely property?  If such a law were passed, and I realize that has its own bumps and hurdles, at the very least, it would clear the way for civil action against animal abusers and killers. 

In every way i see hurting/torturing an animal as the same as hurting a human being:  it's force against a life-form, it's immoral, and it's wrong.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> The "property" business raises several issues. I don't think many people realize our pets are not even OUR property, but under the control of the Dept. of Agriculture. They are in our "care, custody and control" with limits.
> 
> Furthermore, why not try and enact legislation to end the outdated concept that pets are merely property?  If such a law were passed, and I realize that has its own bumps and hurdles, at the very least, it would clear the way for civil action against animal abusers and killers. 
> 
> In every way i see hurting/torturing an animal as the same as hurting a human being:  it's force against a life-form, it's immoral, and it's wrong.


if animals are not property anymore, we would then be forced to be vegetarians because animals have rights and those rights can not be taken away.

----------


## jack555

> I could just as easily say that mosquitoes are mosquitoes, so they get all the same rights, and my argument would be just as valid as yours, which is of no validity at all.  And, although the argument that rights are a grey scale in regard to animals being nothing new is true, the age of the argument does not make it correct.  To say that something is common sense is also fallacious.  You can't say that something is right just because it is.  You have still yet to provide an argument that is without fallacy.



What you are missing is that a mosquito feels far less pain then a dog.

He originally stated that it had to do with animal size. I think what he meant was

insect>non mammal animal (possible exceptions)>mammal>primates

This is general would have to do with intelligence and ability to feel pain.

I agree in this sense. This is why there are stricter rules at say a College University when putting down a dog verses a fish.

I do think animals have some natural rights. Its just a concept anyways right? Humans having natural rights is just a concept. A concept that can quickly be taken away when a big bully steps up and imprisons you or kills you. I would argue that in the case of torturing a dog you are the one acting like the bully in my example. Now is dog fighting torturing? It would seem like the dog is doing it of it's own free will to some degree. Thats tough.

I think a mammal and many other animals should have the right to not be tortured for human pleasure. 

An exception might be an ant who does not feel pain like a mammal and in addition if an ant is in your home whether intentional or not it is invading your property especially if it is crawling on you. I would squash a bug in my home but not if I was on a walk. However I think making it illegal to squash a bug outside your home (with no real purpose) is a little far fetched but I'm not sure I would have a problem with it.


Is it wrong to imagine creatures as having a right to their life as long as it doesn't need to be taken for a valid human purpose (like food or the animal is causing a problem)?

----------


## charrob

> if animals are not property anymore, we would then be forced to be vegetarians because animals have rights and those rights can not be taken away.


Would this be a bad thing?  Humans, created with very long intestines, were designed for fruits and vegetables which take much longer to digest than meat.  We were given hands to pick fruit off of a tree.  Dogs/cats, however, have very short intestines; they cannot fully digest vegetables/fruit, but can fully digest meat.  So, it's not that humans need meat to survive (we were not created to be meat-eaters), but rather that it's a choice of diet.

For meat lovers, I'd bet it wouldn't be long before stem cells were growing chicken legs, etc....  The food thing will take time, but it provides hope to see society move in the direction to find alternatives to killing animals for meat.  In the mean time, at the very least, putting down an animal for its meat should be done as painless as possible.  Factory farms should be eliminated imho.  Hunting deer with a gun can cause immediate death w/o alot of pain; however bow-and-arrow hunting should be outlawed.  etc. etc.

But we're not even talking about food here:  this cockfighting is done for "entertainment" and "betting".  This is sick and pathetic and immoral.  And it should be outlawed.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Would this be a bad thing?  Humans, created with very long intestines, were designed for fruits and vegetables which take much longer to digest than meat.  We were given hands to pick fruit off of a tree.  Dogs/cats, however, have very short intestines; they cannot fully digest vegetables/fruit, but can fully digest meat.  So, it's not that humans need meat to survive (we were not created to be meat-eaters), but rather that it's a choice of diet.
> 
> For meat lovers, I'd bet it wouldn't be long before stem cells were growing chicken legs, etc....  The food thing will take time, but it provides hope to see society move in the direction to find alternatives to killing animals for meat.  In the mean time, at the very least, putting down an animal for its meat should be done as painless as possible.  Factory farms should be eliminated imho.  Hunting deer with a gun can cause immediate death w/o alot of pain; however bow-and-arrow hunting should be outlawed.  etc. etc.
> 
> But we're not even talking about food here:  this cockfighting is done for "entertainment" and "betting".  This is sick and pathetic and immoral.  And it should be outlawed.


Humans are omnivores. Always have been, always will be. It's why we have traits of both. Canines, incissors, a body that needs high amounts of protein, bacteria in the stomach made for breaking down meat, etc (Note: don't you think it is odd how our stomachs cannot break down many types of fruits and vegetables, but have no problem with meat? Corn, Peanuts, Olives, Jalapenos, etc.). That is all besides the point in the first place. For someone who loves animals you sure would be condemning to extermination every predator on the planet. How come predators do not have a right to liberty? What about plants? Plants are alive. Like I said, rights and liberty are a human construct. One must first be able to have discourse in order to logically deduce the a priorism of natural rights. Again, as another poster brought up, rights are intraspecies. That is the nature of the beast. You can fight against nature all you like, but nature is more powerful than anything. I am just glad that humans have reason and logic, which animals do not possess (I am willing to debate any other animal in economics and philosophy...).

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Personally, for people who need to eat meat, there should be ongoing stem cell research to make chicken legs, etc., so someday (hopefully) animals will no longer have to die for this.


Not a good idea.

----------


## BamaAla

You sure do want to outlaw a lot of stuff charrob.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Would this be a bad thing?  Humans, created with very long intestines, were designed for fruits and vegetables which take much longer to digest than meat.  We were given hands to pick fruit off of a tree.  Dogs/cats, however, have very short intestines; they cannot fully digest vegetables/fruit, but can fully digest meat.  So, it's not that humans need meat to survive (we were not created to be meat-eaters), but rather that it's a choice of diet..


I take from your frequent use of the word Created, and Designed that you support the idea of biblical creation.  If that is the case, then God certainly did intend for us to be meat eaters, even going so far as to dictate the proper way to prepare our meat.

If on the other hand, you are an evolutionist despite your word usage, you have to recognize that factoring all our bodies systems together, we are not evolved as exclusive carnivores, like cats, nor as exclusive herbivores like cattle, but rather as Omnivores like a bear.  Our intestines are long enough to digest some juicy fruits and vegetables, but not long enough to digest nor chambered enough for dry grains and fibrous veggies.  Our teeth have the canines and pointed molars to tear meat, but also flattened molars and wide incisors for cutting and grinding vegetables.  While fruits are certainly the most ideal thing for our intestines, it can cause trouble if that's all we ate because our metabolism is prone to diabetes if given too much fruit, and that factor is even more extreme in high latitude genetic phenotypes such as Siberians, and Inuits who have been diverging from the main human line to become even more dependent on a meat diet, while conversely, Mediterranean people with a long history of agriculture and a good growing climate have been diverging toward being less dependent on meat.  If you are the type of person who sits behind a desk all day, with low calorie, and low cholestoral, and low protein needs, you'll probably do okay as a vegetarian, but if you are active and have high physical demands as our primitive ancestors were, and some of us are today, you will not get your nutritional needs through a vegetarian diet unless you take laboratory produced supplements which tend to have lots of other nasty things in them that cause digestive problems like Crohn's disease.




> Hunting deer with a gun can cause immediate death w/o alot of pain; however bow-and-arrow hunting should be outlawed.  etc. etc..


Getting back to the origin side of things.  Hunting is a task that evokes connections with God and Spirituality and the more primitive your methods, the more that connection is enhanced because of the skill required to perform the task.  From a biological perspective, why is a heart shot from a bow and arrow immoral, but being gutted by a cougar not immoral.  Prey species, regardless of what they are, have no expectation of a quick or painless death, and the sudden death from a distance might actually cause natural selection pressure to make the species less able of dealing with coyotes, wolves, cougars, bears, and other predators.  A bowhunter having to approach the animal closer will behave more like a natural predator, and keep the herd fit.  You want to outlaw things based on emotional arguments that are not based on logic, natural history, biblical scripture, or normal interspecieal behavior.

----------


## charrob

> Humans are omnivores. Always have been, always will be.


But you can eat animal products (ie. milk, eggs, etc.) without killing a live animal.  In addition to many other plant foods, those animal products can give you the protein required.  There are many who are vegan and perfectly healthy.  Meat is a choice, not a requirement.




> For someone who loves animals you sure would be condemning to extermination every predator on the planet.


I am only talking about human interaction with animals.  The most important point is the cockfighting is not done for the purpose of food- it's done for the purpose of "entertainment" for a very sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic sub-population in our country.  It involves torture which is not required for food or survival.




> What about plants? Plants are alive.


Plants don't have a brain and they don't feel pain.  There is no consciousness there.  But life-forms such as dogs surely have consciousness and reason and logic.  Life-forms such as dolphins and whales have larger brains than humans- and every bit, if not more, reason and logic.  To establish a harmful force against any of these life-forms is wrong and immoral just as it is wrong and immoral to do so against a human.
QUOTE]

----------


## charrob

> Our intestines are long enough to digest some juicy fruits and vegetables, but not long enough to digest nor chambered enough for dry grains and fibrous veggies.  Our teeth have the canines and pointed molars to tear meat, but also flattened molars and wide incisors for cutting and grinding vegetables.  While fruits are certainly the most ideal thing for our intestines, it can cause trouble if that's all we ate because our metabolism is prone to diabetes if given too much fruit, and that factor is even more extreme in high latitude genetic phenotypes such as Siberians, and Inuits who have been diverging from the main human line to become even more dependent on a meat diet, while conversely, Mediterranean people with a long history of agriculture and a good growing climate have been diverging toward being less dependent on meat.  If you are the type of person who sits behind a desk all day, with low calorie, and low cholestoral, and low protein needs, you'll probably do okay as a vegetarian, but if you are active and have high physical demands as our primitive ancestors were, and some of us are today, you will not get your nutritional needs through a vegetarian diet unless you take laboratory produced supplements which tend to have lots of other nasty things in them that cause digestive problems like Crohn's disease.


yes, we are able to eat both.  But is it required?  I would argue that in many cases it is not.  Take, for example, my cousin who has been vegan for 20 years.  She literally plays tennis 8 to 10 hours everyday and has been in the nationals for her age group many years.  She doesn't have an ounce of fat on her and is pure muscle.  Yet she eats no meat.  She has no health problems whatsoever.  She does, however, drink milk, eat eggs, etc., ie. animal products.





> Getting back to the origin side of things.  Hunting is a task that evokes connections with God and Spirituality and the more primitive your methods, the more that connection is enhanced because of the skill required to perform the task.


As long as an animal is put down quickly and doesn't languish in pain for extended periods, it's not an issue.  

However, food is just one part of the animal question.  Cockfighting is not being done for human food or survival:  it's being done for entertainment.  And _ that_  is sick, perverted, pathetic and unnecessary.

----------


## RonPaulGetsIt

Animals have no rights. They are property.

 You can defend your own property.  As far as others abusing their own animals all we can do is ostracize them.

----------


## low preference guy

> Cockfighting is not being done for human food or survival:  it's being done for entertainment.  And _ that_ * is sick, perverted, pathetic and unnecessary*.


but should be legal

----------


## charrob

> Animals have no rights. They are property.
> 
>  You can defend your own property.  As far as others abusing their own animals all we can do is ostracize them.



Animals are life-forms- not property.  You have no more right to torture a dog than you do to torture your wife.  The fact that the laws allow this doesn't mean it's right. (The law allows soldiers to murder innocent iraqi's:  that doesn't make it right.)

It's just a shame laws are needed for what should be obvious (just as it was a shame laws were needed to stop discrimination and slavery) but i applaud these legal efforts to ensure all life-forms the right not to be unnecessarily harmed by force:   

Animal Legal Defense Fund:

----------


## Fox McCloud

Until an animal can claim, understand, and put forth the idea of self-ownership and that its rights derive from these principles, I won't even begin to entertain the idea that animals have rights. 

That said, I don't like animal cruelty in the slightest.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> yes, we are able to eat both.  But is it required?  I would argue that in many cases it is not.  Take, for example, my cousin who has been vegan for 20 years.  She literally plays tennis 8 to 10 hours everyday and has been in the nationals for her age group many years.  She doesn't have an ounce of fat on her and is pure muscle.  Yet she eats no meat.  She has no health problems whatsoever.  She does, however, drink milk, eat eggs, etc., ie. animal products.


She also doesn't produce sperm which is almost 100% protein.

----------


## mport1

How is this poll almost 50/50?  This is a clear cut issue from a liberty standpoint.  People should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions are not an initiation of force on somebody else.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> How is this poll almost 50/50?  This is a clear cut issue from a liberty standpoint.  People should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions are not an initiation of force on somebody else.


We still have a lot of Pet issue statists on this forum.  For example, in another active thread, Axis Mundi is a marriage statist who would rather have government control marriage than allow a free market based union take place.

Here, Charrob is an animal rights statist that would rather outlaw things she disagrees with and put them underground than allow them to be legal and as a legal activity, participants would be less likely to hide their participation and you could more easily boycott them and exert economic influence on their actions rather than use another morally repugnant act of government force.

----------


## charrob

> How is this poll almost 50/50?  This is a clear cut issue from a liberty standpoint.  People should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions are not an initiation of force on somebody else on another life-form.


fixed it for ya.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> People have no rights either.





> Interesting.  And closer to the truth than many of the posts in this thread.


Yup.  Rights are just ideas in our heads.

Personally, I find cruelty towards animals to be repugnant for many of the same reasons that I find cruelty towards humans to be repugnant.  If I personally see someone mistreating an animal, I feel obligated to intervene, and have done so in the past.

Do I think things like cockfighting and dogfighting should be illegal?  No, I don't... I don't even think it should be illegal for humans to fight to the death gladiator style, if they want.

However, I would like to see, and would be very likely to actively support social ostracism towards people who engage in and promote cruel and unusual forms of abuse towards animals.

----------


## ClayTrainor

for the lol's.

----------


## jack555

> How is this poll almost 50/50?  This is a clear cut issue from a liberty standpoint.  People should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions are not *an initiation of force on somebody else*.


Heres what you are missing, that somebody else can also be say a chimanzee or a dog. Why does it just have to be a human. As I posted earlier

"What you are missing is that a mosquito feels far less pain then a dog.

He originally stated that it had to do with animal size. I think what he meant was

insect>non mammal animal (possible exceptions)>mammal>primates

This is general would have to do with intelligence and ability to feel pain.

I agree in this sense. This is why there are stricter rules at say a College University when putting down a dog verses a fish.

I do think animals have some natural rights. Its just a concept anyways right? Humans having natural rights is just a concept. A concept that can quickly be taken away when a big bully steps up and imprisons you or kills you. I would argue that in the case of torturing a dog you are the one acting like the bully in my example. Now is dog fighting torturing? It would seem like the dog is doing it of it's own free will to some degree. Thats tough.

I think a mammal and many other animals should have the right to not be tortured for human pleasure.

An exception might be an ant who does not feel pain like a mammal and in addition if an ant is in your home whether intentional or not it is invading your property especially if it is crawling on you. I would squash a bug in my home but not if I was on a walk. However I think making it illegal to squash a bug outside your home (with no real purpose) is a little far fetched but I'm not sure I would have a problem with it.


Is it wrong to imagine creatures as having a right to their life as long as it doesn't need to be taken for a valid human purpose (like food or the animal is causing a problem)?"

----------


## dannno

> She also doesn't produce sperm which is almost 100% protein.


Vegetarians can produce a $#@!load of sperm, let me tell you.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Vegetarians can produce a $#@!load of sperm, let me tell you.


There is a different between Semen and Sperm.

----------


## agitator

> Vegetarians can produce a $#@!load of sperm, let me tell you.


Yeah, but who wants a gay son?

----------


## jtstellar

> I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life. 
> 
> No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly.  For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering.  Factory farms need to become a thing of the past.  Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.  
> 
> A society that looks the other way because of some idealistic vision of what government "should" be, is just as sick, perverted, depraved, and pathetic as those who participate in the activity.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBgC...layer_embedded
> 
> http://www.texastribune.org/texas-is...ing-to-thrive/


you realize there's a HUGE difference between what you think and you using the law to coerce what you think ON A FEDERAL LEVEL?

if not, it begs the question of what lured you into the liberty camp.  identity crisis much?  someone help this stray animal back to a liberal forum

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3044169

READ pls

you can do away locally with what you don't like by convincing people who ACTUALLY SEE YOU in real life in your local NEIGHBORHOOD, CITIES AND TOWNS or even STATES instead of arguing some no-brain commonsensical stupid crap online that most agree with and try to enforce it ON A NATIONAL LEVEL.. how many people here do you think are obsessed with animal fighting, even if there's no such thing as "animal rights"?

the problem is whether the FEDERAL government has anything to do with it.. just wtf are "rights" do you even know?  there are no such private activities that violate "rights" as long as you don't touch anybody's life or property.. yes, a human's life, duh.  don't tell me you support federally-sanctioned abortion now.  that would really be something

where does it mention in the constitution about ANIMALS.. seriously, where the HELL did you guys come from.  how many hours have you spent on politics and history?  you just graduated high school or something?  even some ppl that age aren't that stupid

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> you realize there's a HUGE difference between what you think and you using the law to coerce what you think *ON A FEDERAL LEVEL?*


The poll question was phrased in such a way as to attempt to avoid the whole "I believe it's a states' rights issue" type predictable responses.

Cockfighting is already a state issue.  Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico were the last three states to have it legal.  Louisiana I know banned it only a couple of years ago.  Not sure of cockfighting's current status in New Mexico and Oklahoma.

----------


## dannno

> Yeah, but who wants a gay son?


Do you wanna fight?

----------


## dannno

> There is a different between Semen and Sperm.


You too.. ya buddy..

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> You too.. ya buddy..


Umm, no cock fighting for me, Danno.

----------


## BamaAla

> The poll question was phrased in such a way as to attempt to avoid the whole "I believe it's a states' rights issue" type predictable responses.
> 
> Cockfighting is already a state issue.  Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico were the last three states to have it legal.  Louisiana I know banned it only a couple of years ago.  Not sure of cockfighting's current status in New Mexico and Oklahoma.


It is now illegal in all 50 states, but I have no idea how its enforced in those other states. 

http://www.agribusinessweek.com/sabo...port-of-kings/




> It is believed to be the world’s oldest spectator sport, dating back about 6000 years in Persia (now Iran). Great men in history have been known to participate in it. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were all cockers. Alexander the Great staged cockfights on the night before a battle to impress courage and valor upon his soldiers.

----------


## charrob

> just wtf are "rights" do you even know?  there are no such private activities that violate "rights" as long as you don't touch anybody's life or property.. yes, a human's life, duh.  don't tell me you support federally-sanctioned abortion now.  that would really be something.


That's what the argument is about.  I don't see animals as property but rather as sentient life-forms that have inherent rights.  I see no difference in using force against an animal or using force against a human being:  they are both equal in my eyes.

btw:  What is unequal in my eyes are human fetus':  i do not see them as fully functioning life-forms, and as such, in my eyes they have no rights.

----------


## low preference guy

> btw:  What is unequal in my eyes are human fetus':  i do not see them as fully functioning life-forms, and as such, in my eyes they have no rights.


a baby with 8 and a half months doesn't deserve legal protection but animals do? what a psycho!

----------


## charrob

> a baby with 8 and half months doesn't deserve legal protection but animals do? what a psycho!


of course, at 8 1/2 months a baby can live outside the woman; that is fully-functioning.  At 1 month it cannot.  The line should be drawn whether or not the fetus can survive outside the mother all on its own.  That's when it's fully functioning imho.

----------


## dannno

> Umm, no cock fighting for me, Danno.

----------


## low preference guy

> of course, at 8 1/2 months a baby can live outside the woman; that is fully-functioning.  At 1 month it cannot.  The line should be drawn whether or not the fetus can survive outside the mother all on its own.  That's when it's fully functioning imho.


so it's about when they can have feelings? so hypothetically if a human loses his capacity to feel, does he lose his rights and can be cut into little pieces like an aborted fetus?

----------


## dannno

> so hypothetically if a human loses his capacity to feel, does he lose his rights and can be cut into little pieces like an aborted fetus?


Can they survive on their own or are you talking about vegetables? Should people be forced to be enslaved to vegetables who will never really live again?

----------


## charrob

> so it's about when can it have feelings? so hypothetically if a human loses his capacity to feel, does he lose his rights and can be cut into little pieces like an aborted fetus?


If a baby can survive outside the mother, it should not be aborted.
If the baby cannot survive outside the mother, i believe it is up to the woman.

I do not believe i have the right to force my choice on the woman carrying the fetus.

----------


## dannno

> If a baby can survive outside the mother, it should not be aborted.
> If the baby cannot survive outside the mother, i believe it is up to the woman.
> 
> I do not believe i have the right to force my choice on the woman carrying the fetus.


What if the baby is old enough to feel, has more feeling than most animals, but isn't old enough to survive on it's own? Slice it up still?

As you probably know I'm a bigger fan of very early term natural abortive remedies.

But ya if you're gonna go there I'd also consider if you let the chickens out into the wild they would probably have a more excruciating death via coyote or something. I think in cock fights they just end up bleeding to death which isn't that bad as far as deaths go, better than being chomped up.

----------


## low preference guy

> If a baby can survive outside the mother, it should not be aborted.
> If the baby cannot survive outside the mother, i believe it is up to the woman.
> 
> I do not believe i have the right to force my choice on the woman carrying the fetus.


so the criteria is not pain anymore? do you realize how messed up and contradictory are your positions? you first say that rights come from beings ability to feel, so you include animals. but a baby of many months can feel. yet you say you can't force the woman to carry the baby. but he can feel! so by what argument now should killing the baby, a feeling being, be legal?

----------


## charrob

> so the criteria is not pain anymore? do you realize how messed up and contradictory are your positions? you first say that rights come from beings ability to feel, so you include animals. but a baby of many months can feel. yet you say you can't force the woman to carry the baby. but he can feel! so by what argument now should killing the baby, a feeling being, be legal?


What are you talking about?  Fully-functioning life-forms walking around on the earth or swimming in the seas like whales (ie. human or not) that are surviving outside of a womb should be protected against torture.  They are life-forms in my eyes- not property- and as such they have rights.

Human fetus' that can survive outside the mother should be protected because they are capable of fully functioning outside the mother.  If the mother didn't want it, she could get a caesarean and the fetus would still live.

However, a blob of cells at one month is not a fully functioning being.  If it can feel any pain at one month, I doubt the pain at this stage is much different than the pain felt by some lower life-form like an insect or a slug.  Ya, maybe it twitches if it is poked- but that is far different than a fully-functioning life-form walking around the earth.

----------


## BamaAla

> if animals are not property anymore, we would then be forced to be vegetarians because animals have rights and those rights can not be taken away.





> Would this be a bad thing?





> For meat lovers, I'd bet it wouldn't be long before stem cells were growing chicken legs, etc....





> The food thing will take time, but it provides hope to see society move in the direction to find alternatives to killing animals for meat.





> Factory farms should be eliminated imho.





> Hunting deer with a gun can cause immediate death w/o alot of pain; however bow-and-arrow hunting should be outlawed.  etc. etc.





> this cockfighting is done for "entertainment" and "betting".  This is sick and pathetic and immoral.  And it should be outlawed.





> But you can eat animal products (ie. milk, eggs, etc.) without killing a live animal.  In addition to many other plant foods, those animal products can give you the protein required.  There are many who are vegan and perfectly healthy.  Meat is a choice, not a requirement.







> it's done for the purpose of "entertainment" for a very sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic sub-population in our country.


 



> yes, we are able to eat both.  But is it required?





> Cockfighting is not being done for human food or survival:  it's being done for entertainment.  And _ that_  is sick, perverted, pathetic and unnecessary.





> btw:  What is unequal in my eyes are human fetus':  i do not see them as fully functioning life-forms, and as such, in my eyes they have no rights.


I'm not going to partake in the name calling that you directed at me, but all of this is a WTF.

On one hand, you have no problem with all manner of hunting, livestock farming, and chicken fights being outlawed because, according to you, animals have natural rights; meanwhile, on the other, you declare that a fetus has nothing. You even take it a step further by asserting that even if a month old fetus had only a small possession of neurological feeling it wouldn't matter as they would only amount to those found in slugs. 

Have these things ever caused even a hint of cognitive dissonance on your part?

----------


## low preference guy

> Have these things ever caused even a hint of cognitive dissonance on your part?


she hates humans. it's obvious. trying to put animals above humans is just how she acts on her hatred. she probably hates herself as well.

----------


## dannno

> I'm not going to partake in the name calling that you directed at me, but all of this is a WTF.
> 
> On one hand, you have no problem with all manner of hunting, livestock farming, and chicken fights being outlawed because, according to you, animals have natural rights; meanwhile, on the other, you declare that a fetus has nothing. You even take it a step further by asserting that even if a month old fetus had only a small possession of neurological feeling it wouldn't matter as they would only amount to those found in slugs. 
> 
> Have these things ever caused even a hint of cognitive dissonance on your part?



I dunno, what's your opinion on using violence against someone who kills what can feel maybe the equivalent of a slug, but would not advocate violence against those torturing animals which feel many times more pain than a 2-4 week fetus?

----------


## BamaAla

That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.

----------


## dannno

> That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.


Ok, so you're for putting people in jail for torturing slugs?

nm.. but ya that's what charrob was doin i think.

----------


## charrob

> What if the baby is old enough to feel, has more feeling than most animals, but isn't old enough to survive on it's own?


At what month would this be?  I personally don't believe fetus' are fully aware or sentient until the last couple of months at the earliest.  Not in comparison to life-forms actually walking around the earth (or swimming in the seas such as whales).

But the discussion is about sentient life-forms that exist on their own, walking around the earth, that are being tortured for no other reason then entertainment.  Discussion of life-forms inside wombs is for another thread because then you get into issues of rape, incest, mother's health- and what to do in these cases, and the whole can of worms, etc.  imho this is like comparing apples and oranges.  Better to compare the human fetus to the dolphin fetus and discuss the rights of both these pre-life forms.  




> But ya if you're gonna go there I'd also consider if you let the chickens out into the wild they would probably have a more excruciating death via coyote or something. I think in cock fights they just end up bleeding to death which isn't that bad as far as deaths go, better than being chomped up.


i understand what you're saying here that nature is cruel.  But the coyote is doing this for survival, these humans are doing this for 'entertainment'.  As humans, it would be nice to recognize that these life-forms also have rights in our relationship with them.  Here's a video on the cockfighting:

----------


## charrob

> I'm not going to partake in the name calling that you directed at me, but all of this is a WTF.


I don't believe i called you any names, nor showed any amount of disrespect to you whatsoever despite your really nasty initial post???




> On one hand, you have no problem with all manner of hunting, livestock farming, and chicken fights being outlawed because, according to you, animals have natural rights;


Do you even know how to read?  In my actual posts i stated that when animals are put down for human consumption (ie. food) it should be done compassionately with the least pain possible.  Ideally, eventually, it might be nice to strive for a society where killing other life-forms for human consumption is no longer required.  But for now, compassion should be used in a civil society when putting down an animal.

It is not necessary, nor is it compassionate, to watch chickens mull each other to death.  Every fully-functioning sentient life-form has a right not to be tortured.




> meanwhile, on the other, you declare that a fetus has nothing. You even take it a step further by asserting that even if a month old fetus had only a small possession of neurological feeling it wouldn't matter as they would only amount to those found in slugs.


So you are saying that if a non-sentient,  month-old fetus, has no more ability to feel pain than a slug, you would give this fetus rights over a sentient fully-functioning life-form walking the earth or swimming the seas (such as whales)?




> Have these things ever caused even a hint of cognitive dissonance on your part?


The contradictions are in your logic, not mine.

----------


## charrob

> That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.


there's many characteristics that determine a fully-functioning sentient life-form:  awareness, intelligence, experience to feel pain, etc.

----------


## Imperial

Damn, I misread the poll and actually meant to vote no, although that should be evident from my posts anyhow.

----------


## Bman

This one I think should be illegal.  I just don't believe it is acceptable to torment a creature to get off your rocks.

----------


## Sentient Void

First off, it must be said that I am a (consequentialist) vegetarian - and would be a vegan if not for the fact that I *love* egg whites (I don't drink milk, nor eat cheese - I drink Almond Milk and have Vegan cheese actually).

That said, to re-assert my position - once again, animals do not have rights. As many including myself have shown, believing animals should have 'rights' leads to quite a slippery slope and often many either hypocritical and contradictory positions that end up completely arbitrary and illogical - or carried to it's logical conclusion, exposes one to be a tyrannical statist to impose veganism on everyone with the threat of violent force if necessary, and abandon things like pet ownership, animal labor and other things as well - all of which are extremely intertwined with our society and in many ways we are dependent upon.

Charrob, you say that you find no difference between animals and humans. Yes, both humans and animals have *sentience* - but sentience does not grant rights. If this were the case, even insects, worms, and some simple-celled organisms would have 'rights' - and apart from this absurdity - the animal kingdom clearly doesn't recognize such things. 

The difference - is *SAPIENCE*. What sets human beings apart from animals, is our *sapience*. If an alien came down to us, clearly not a human - we would recognize his sapience and recognize him to have the same natural rights as humans. If an animal, or even a plant - hell, if a $#@!ing cardboard box somehow was able to show that it had attained *sapience*, *then* we must recognize their rights.

Sentience is not a pre-requisite for rights - sapience is. This is the difference.

----------


## BamaAla

> I don't believe i called you any names, nor showed any amount of disrespect to you whatsoever despite your really nasty initial post???


Sick, pathetic, immoral, perverted, and depraved are the terms you launched. Its no skin off my back, but you are passing judgement about a sport and a people that you know nothing about. 





> Do you even know how to read?  In my actual posts i stated that when animals are put down for human consumption (ie. food) it should be done compassionately with the least pain possible.  Ideally, eventually, it might be nice to strive for a society where killing other life-forms for human consumption is no longer required.  But for now, compassion should be used in a civil society when putting down an animal.


I am indeed a competent reader. libertybrewcity made a comment about everyone having to become a vegetarian in your world to which you replied "would this be a bad thing." You then went on a tangent about the necessity of meat in the human diet and mislabeling a lacto-ovo vegetarian as a vegan. You then advocated the criminalization of bow hunting and "factory farming."





> It is not necessary, nor is it compassionate, to watch chickens mull each other to death.  Every fully-functioning sentient life-form has a right not to be tortured.


I agree 100%; however, neither necessity nor compassion have anything to do with it. Millions of people enjoy a plethora of activities that are neither; this sport happens to be one. As I posted earlier, Jefferson, Washington, and Andrew Jackson enjoyed chicken fights. Chicken fighting is part of the culture of the south east, Latin America, south east Asia, and many other parts of the world. 

Torture is a subjective term. Frankly, I don't believe that fighting chickens fits the bill.





> So you are saying that if a non-sentient,  month-old fetus, has no more ability to feel pain than a slug, you would give this fetus rights over a sentient fully-functioning life-form walking the earth or swimming the seas (such as whales)?


I don't accept the notion that animals have any inherent rights. I do, however, believe that a fetus has some measure of rights just as a child short of adulthood possesses. 

I have no problem with you trying to educate or sway people's opinions, but you throw around "outlaw" a lot. The thing is, though, it is illegal here; it simply isn't enforced. Quite frankly, the chances that it ever will be are slim to none, so I suppose the whole argument is moot.

----------


## mport1

Not going to read the whole thread but I assume that all you that think animals have rights are strict vegans and do not own pets?  Should I (and probably 99% of the population) be aggressed against because I have somehow violated their rights by doing both?

----------


## MRoCkEd

I can't believe almost 50% of voters on Liberty Forest want the State to initiate violence against people who mistreat their property.

----------


## YumYum

So, are you for cockfighting?

----------


## mport1

> So, are you for cockfighting?


You can be against cockfighting and still not think it should be illegal.  There are a ton of things I am against that should not be illegal because there is no initiation of force involved.  Threatening others at the point of a gun when no human has been harmed is wrong.  NOTHING which has does not involve the initiation of force against a person should be illegal.

----------


## Freedom 4 all

Insanity Wolf says:

----------


## pcosmar

This thread is still going???

OK, How about racing animals. Horse Racing? Dog racing? Dog Sled racing?

What about hooking up horses to wagons. Isn't that slavery?


Or Police Dogs. Attack Dogs?
Why is it ok to force a dog to attack humans, but not other dogs?

----------


## torchbearer

IF an animal is considered a person property, then that person can do whatever they want to their property.

----------


## agitator

> Or Police Dogs. Attack Dogs?
> Why is it ok to force a dog to attack humans, but not other dogs?


I guess if the cops use dogs to attack humans that have attack dogs fight, then...

----------


## Brett85

> Decriminalized, yes. 
> 
> Animals don't have rights.


Animals don't have rights that are given to them by the Constitution.  But they can have rights that are given to them by men.

----------


## osan

> Animals don't have rights.


How is it that you are certain of this?  On what basis do you assert this?

Assuming it is in fact so, does it therefore follow that we may treat non-human creatures any way we please?  Would you object to someone tying a cat up in a public place and skinning it alive?  Is there no act that is sufficiently brutal to prompt you to say "no"?

Just wondering.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Animals don't have rights that are given to them by the Constitution.  But they can have rights that are given to them by men.


The constitution doesn't give us our rights. It recognizes them and (is supposed to) chains the government so that it may not violate them. You can't give animals rights without threatening everyone with violent force to be a vegan and to not use animal labor, animal products, or have them as pets.

----------


## osan

> chickens are different than dogs; dogs are pets, not food. but it should not be encouraged.


I take it you have not heard of places like China and the Philipines?  Doggies be food in them parts.




> what about two consenting adults fighting to the death? winner get a share of the pay per view


Absolutely legalize it.  People _that_ stupid need to be culled from the gene pool.  I would welcome this.

----------


## osan

> depends on what country you are in....... those shows on food network of the bald guy eating monkey legs on a stick make you wonder what we will be eating when things are really bad.


Or when China takes over running the USA.

Oh wait...

----------


## Sentient Void

> How is it that you are certain of this?  On what basis do you assert this?
> 
> Assuming it is in fact so, does it therefore follow that we may treat non-human creatures any way we please?  Would you object to someone tying a cat up in a public place and skinning it alive?  Is there no act that is sufficiently brutal to prompt you to say "no"?
> 
> Just wondering.


We may treat them anyway we please, but we are morally obligated as individuals not to be cruel.  Social and commercial ostracism is the only method to handle such things., and it already accomplishes this to the extent that 'society' finds it relevant enough. This does not require the existence of animal rights. As for your example about the cat, the food industry does stuff like this and worse to different animals everyday.

If you're truly serious about this, then I suggest you become a vegan and become a vegan political activist. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical.

----------


## pcosmar

> Animals don't have rights that are given to them by the Constitution.  But they can have rights that are given to them by men.


Humans don't have rights that are given by the Constitution.
The Constitution is Supposed to protect rights that are already in existence.

----------


## osan

> same thing. each owner can do with his dog as he wishes.


Elaborate on your basis.

----------


## osan

> No it's not. Animals do have limited rights depending on how large and intelligent they are.
> 
> For instance a mosquito or cockroach basically gets no rights at all. A rat would get very little rights although we don't want them to experience unnecessary pain. Larger animals like a cat or dog get more, and we don't want people harming them for pleasure etc. Then there is something like a chimpanzee that would be someone like George Bush we'd have to worry about.


WTF?  "unnecessary pain?"  Is there necessary pain?  Size? What has that to do with anything?  Small feel no pain?  Small merit no consideration of agony?  Intelligence?  Who determines this?  Where do I get one of their crystal balls?  I could use some winning lottery numbers.

Seriously - WTF?

----------


## osan

> The latter I think.  A dog that mauls a kid is going to be 'put down.'


whic is not always the correct response.  In some cases I would seriously consider putting the owner down.




> People do not have a right to torture or be unnecessarily cruel to animals; and doing that should be illegal.  But cockfighting doesn't really fall under that.


It doesn't?  How do you figure?

----------


## osan

> no. animals don't have rights.


Yet, if by some twist of evolution suddenly all animals were to come into possession of the faculty of language and all it implies and by that virtue were able to take over, making us their bitches so to speak, what then?  All our talk/belief of "natural rights" and $3.75 would get us latte at Starbucks.

The only reason animals don't have rights is because we say so and we enforce that reality.  Let us not fool ourselves into thinking the truth is any nobler than that.  It isn't.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Yet, if by some twist of evolution suddenly all animals were to come into possession of the faculty of language and all it implies and by that virtue were able to take over, making us their bitches so to speak, what then?  All our talk/belief of "natural rights" and $3.75 would get us latte at Starbucks.
> 
> The only reason animals don't have rights is because we say so and we enforce that reality.  Let us not fool ourselves into thinking the truth is any nobler than that.  It isn't.



I don't disagree with you here - but then we must acknowledge then that the concept of rights are a human construct for the purposes of advancing civilization and human prosperity. I'd say that is the only extent to which rights, at all, are legitimate. 

Ultimately, and objectively in nature, rights don't even really exist otherwise - whether we're talking about humans or not.

Ultimately, the egoist anarchists have it right and are the true realists in political philosophy. I prefer to adopt the natural rights theory because it serves to foster the maximization of the prosperity for *all* individuals.

Further, in regards to what constitutes the ability to have natural rights in this context... I'd say it's do to sapience - but that's hard to measure. Perhaps Adam Smith was right in referencing the ability to voluntarily trade one's property as the attainment of rights?

----------


## RyanRSheets

> I can't believe almost 50% of voters on Liberty Forest want the State to initiate violence against people who mistreat their property.


This is precisely how we used to view slaves, before our moral code evolved.

All living, animate things have a natural, self-evident right to self-defense.  Many living things are capable of feeling pain.  If an animal is capable of feeling pain, it can be morally wronged.  Murdering or torturing a living thing that is capable of feeling pain can not be morally justified.  Moralism isn't the role of government, but government does have an obligation to ensure that rights are not being trampled, if government has any role whatsoever.

Living things cannot continue to live without eating other living things, thus eating is an act of self-defense and not murder.  An animals status as an accepted food source is irrelevant, because humans and pets are just taboo meat.  Animals are no more our property than our captive dependents, and certainly you would not suggest that we have the right to brutally murder our children, should we see it fit.

I do not think it should be illegal at any high level, but I most certainly disagree that animals do not have rights.  Animals have the same rights as humans, they are just less capable of exercising them.

----------


## osan

> My goal is to please God


Laudable insofar as the statement goes, but to accomplish it you need to know what, if anything, is wanted.





> because of the justification that He gives me.


Given through what mechanism?  If you say "the bible", I will be most thoroughly disappointed.




> In order to please God, I must be faithful.


Faithful as in "true", or as in "blindly believing"?




> In order to be faithful, I must enact my faith through works.  In order to properly enact my faith through works, I must follow God's law.


Cogent enough, but the truth value of the argument turns fully on the truth value of the suppositions.




> God's law is an interesting beast.


This assumes the law of which you speak is, in fact, God's.  It may be nothing more than man's arbitrary law with the  imprimatur of "God" painted on for effect, which would mean it is nothing better than arbitrary crap designed to serve interests that are not likely to align well with your own.




> There's the moral dilemma of having Siamese twins, who are attached to one another.  One is healthy, but is losing that health because of a sickly twin that is killing the other.  According to sheer utility, one should cut off the twin that is killing the other.  The ends would seem to justify the means


If there is good reason to believe that the sickly twin is toast no matter what, then it can be strongly argued from a moral perspective that you are obliged to separate the two if you are able, assuming that preserving life in such manner is some universal mandate with which humans are to comply.




> However, God's law does not allow killing of innocent people.


Again you presume the law in question is actually God's - that aside, God's law prohibits _murder,_ which is the unjustifiable taking of innocent life.  In this case, the taking of life  is eminently justifiable because to do nothing entails allowing another life to be lost unnecessarily.

There is an old addage of the Bushi (samurai) which states:_Satsujin ken, katsujin ken._
"The sword that takes life, the sword that gives life."  By killing another in defense of my own life, I give life to myself.  In killing to defend the life of another person, through that act I have given life to another.  All such transactions are two-way affairs.

Your siamese twins hypothetical is an example of same.  It can easily be argued that the only morally correct thing to do is save the life that can be saved.  If "God" would have it otherwise, he should have made the wish far more clear to us.  But we were given brains, the purposes of which are that they be used for something more than just a hat rack.  We were given both emotion and rational thought.  If "God" is going to $#@! with us in so apparently sadistic a manner, then he can kiss my butt, so sorry.  I do not for a moment believe that your assertions about "God's" law are even remotely truthful.




> The deaths of the two children is tragic


In the given context, you are Wrong-0.  Not tragic: wholly unnecessary.  Were those my twins, I would make the decision and I would live with the consequences.  If anyone tried to stop me, I would put a bullet 'tween their eyes.  If "God" has a roasty place in hell for me in the afterlife, so be it.  I will not act in a way that is so apparently idiotic for the sake of pleasing a potentially wholesale-wrong understanding of what "God" wants me to do in such a situation.

Take such argument's as yours to the healthy twin who is dying and see what joy they will feel to know you're doing "God's" work.  Sorry, but this stinks like a great steaming pile of self-serving nonsense.  Barring conclusive proof that this is actually what "God" wants, this brand of reasoning serves but one purpose in my mind: to absolve people of the responsibility for using the brains given them in ways that make rational sense in the world of human life.  

This argument is similar to that used by Mennonites to justify cowardice and the abdication of personal responsibility in self defense situations.  A "good" Mennonite will do nothing to prevent someone from harming them.  They will do nothing to prevent someone from murdering their children.  Poltroons!  Their arguments are nonsense-laden bull$#@! from one end to the other.



> murder of one of the children is sinful,


Bull.  It is NOT murder.  It is an act of defense resulting in the saving of one life rather than allowing the loss of two.  This should not be that difficult to comprehend.



> so we justify the two children's death


Were the act just, no justification would need be made.  This is not justification, it is rationalization of poltroonery and abdication of responsibility.  How does your "God" feel about that?  If it pleases him, you need a new God.




> by the fact that, in order to be faithful, we must follow God's law, for following it is the highest moral ground, even above unfavorable ends to the most extreme extent.


Sure, but you had best be sure you know what God wants.  Pardon me, but to hell with any written law that conflicts with my inner sense of right - the law written upon the hearts of all living beings is that which is to be obeyed.  When everything that you are is shrieking at you from within to save the life that can be saved, methinks you'd damned well better listen to that and tell anyone waving a book that says otherwise to back the hell off.





> The same applies to animals.  God would not want us to abuse animals.  However, it would be sinful to force another person to stop since animals have no rights.


This is more of the same rationalistic  nonsense designed to excuse one from responsible action.  If someone came to my place and was going to harm one of my chickens, I would stop them even if I had to kill them.  It would have nothing to do with property rights.  It would have everything to do with what I know to be right and the defense of a member of my family.

Do I say you are compelled to stop someone from abusing an animal?  Not at all.  We all make our choices and one day we will all come to learn the ultimate propriety of them.   But I am similarly not entirely against the notion of interfering on a good faith basis when the actions of another wander past the boundary of that which is tolerable, come what may as the chips fall.




> Ergo, animal abuse is tragic, but coercion and theft of money in order to fund such coercion is sinful.


Profoundly weak argument.  It is structurally similar to saying we should let the rapist go because, thankfully, he did not kill his victim.  Yeah - HELLO.  Animal abuse is not a tolerable act just as murder is not tolerable.  Killing animals to eat them is one thing.  Tormenting them and damaging them is, by any sane standard, "sinful" as you put it.




> My means of being faithful to God justify the ends of this earth.


IMO you need to work on this a bit.  But do as you will, of course.  Just make sure you don't beat your dog in front of me because you won't have him long thereafter. 




> Luckily for us, we know that, as long as we are faithful, God will count us as righteous.


That is a VERY big assumption - and a very dangerous one.  I'd bet money I do not have that you don't know the first thing about "God's" will.  Don't feel badly about that - I say the same for every other human walking the earth, myself included.  

St. Bernard made mention of Hell being choked full of "good intentions".  I for one see no virtue in renouncing my responsibility for using my brain in accord with the most obvious nature born into it.  I will choose that over the words of any book, any day.  Again, do asyou feel is right, but so shall I.

----------


## low preference guy

> I do not think it should be illegal at any high level, but I most certainly disagree that animals do not have rights.  *Animals have the same rights as humans*, they are just less capable of exercising them.


So animals have a right to be left alone as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others? That implies you can't kill animals for food and we all should be forced to become vegans. I can't believe I am reading something so stupid at RonPaulForums.

----------


## Theocrat

> You're just sorting out the details. Humans are humans so they all get the same rights. This is all common sense though so there is really no point in pointing such things out to you.
> 
> The argument that rights are a grey scale is nothing new with regard to animals. It's fairly obvious that a dog gets more rights than mosquito.


What is the source of rights? You keep asserting that one group of animals has more rights than another group of animals, but how do you know that? It's obvious that rights do not come from you, so on what authority can you bestow more rights to a dog but not to a worm? You're just being arbitrary.

By the way, nothing you've stated in this thread has been based on common sense, nor is it obvious fact. So stop making that claim. Saying "humans are humans so they get all the same rights" doesn't affirm anything. Would Hitler hold to that basis for rights when he deemed the Jews less human than the Aryans? I don't think so, but to you, it's "obvious."

----------


## RyanRSheets

> the concept of rights are a human construct for the purposes of advancing civilization and human prosperity. I'd say that is the only extent to which rights, at all, are legitimate


The concept of rights is a basic, fundamental code that can guide human action in a way that does not bring undue harm to another living thing.  It is a simplistic, natural code that is perfectly legitimate.

I think what you are referring to is our legal adaptation of the concept of rights, which is very human, and I would agree that it is of questionable legitimacy.  Our legal system of rights is ultimately aimed at removing the rights of those who do not adhere to the code of rights, and there is some circular logic in that.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> So animals have a right to be left alone as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others? That implies you can't kill animals for food and we all should be forced to become vegans. I can't believe I am reading something so stupid at RonPaulForums.


No.

As I stated, eating is an act of self-defense.

As I further stated, I do not believe it should be illegal at a high level.

Finally, I never advocated force.  There was no implication that anyone should be forced to become a vegan.

----------


## low preference guy

> As I stated, eating is an act of self-defense.


Eating is an act of self-defense? No. You act in self-defense when someone attacks you and you attack that person to protect yourself from the attack. According to your definition, if I kill you and cook you and eat you, I'll be acting in self-defense.

----------


## Sentient Void

> The concept of rights is a basic, fundamental code that can guide human action in a way that does not bring undue harm to another living thing.  It is a simplistic, natural code that is perfectly legitimate.
> 
> I think what you are referring to is our legal adaptation of the concept of rights, which is very human, and I would agree that it is of questionable legitimacy.  Our legal system of rights is ultimately aimed at removing the rights of those who do not adhere to the code of rights, and there is some circular logic in that.


Although I agree with you here on everything (except where you say 'living thing', I say 'sapient being', ie human beings, not animals, etc)... even fundamental natural rights are ultimately human constructs. Your rights are only enforceable to the extent you can enforce them, otherwise they're just words and can't stop a sword nor a gun nor a majority / lynch mob. And ultimately, unfortunately, reality shows that what someone does in fact have the might to take, they have the right to take. The existence and overgrowth of the State, even with something such as the Constitution trying to limit such things as much as possible, is proof of this.

I adhere to natural rights and negative rights theory (for humans / sapient entities) specifically because of the concept of justice, and believe that a 'controlled demolition' / marketization of the role of government over time (as quickly as possible though) into a purely capitalist society based on private property rights (anarcho-capitalism) is one that would result in the most justice and prosperity, minimizing the impact of 'might-makes-right' through decentralized market mechanisms and accountability systems.

----------


## QuinnR

> whatever 2 dudes do in their bedroom is their business..........
> 
> Some countries they will be decapitated and stuff but if they wanna slap meatsticks, go for it.....


Someone beat me to it. LOL.

----------


## Bman

> I can't believe almost 50% of voters on Liberty Forest want the State to initiate violence against people who mistreat their property.


and if you were making your children fight to the death I'd advocate the state to initiate violence against you for that.  There is a huge difference between a stone and a living, breathing, thinking life form.  By your standards, my IQ rates in the top .2%.  I should be able to treat any sub intelligent being as property.  Now of course that's not what you are exactly saying but this is the slippery slope you have put yourself on.  If we want to act like animals maybe we should be treated as animals.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> Eating is an act of self-defense? No. You act in self-defense when someone attacks you and you attack that person to protect yourself from the attack. According to your definition, if I kill you and cook you and eat you, I'll be acting in self-defense.


We can assume you would be legally prosecuted as a murderer if you decided to eat me, but it would hardly be a legitimate prosecution if you killed and ate me while starving in the middle of the nowhere.  It would be more desirable to have to eat an animal, as sentient beings typically try not to eat their own type, but ultimately you have 2 choices, eat or die.

----------


## Sentient Void

> and if you were making your children fight to the death I'd advocate the state to initiate violence against you for that.  There is a huge difference between a stone and a living, breathing, thinking life form.  By your standards, my IQ rates in the top .2%.  I should be able to treat any sub intelligent being as property.  Now of course that's not what you are exactly saying but this is the slippery slope you have put yourself on.  If we want to act like animals maybe we should be treated as animals.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Bad analogy. Children are humans (and humans are sapient), animals are not. Children are not 'property', animals are.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> and if you were making your children fight to the death I'd advocate the state to initiate violence against you for that.  There is a huge difference between a stone and a living, breathing, thinking life form.  By your standards, my IQ rates in the top .2%.  I should be able to treat any sub intelligent being as property.  Now of course that's not what you are exactly saying but this is the slippery slope you have put yourself on.  If we want to act like animals maybe we should be treated as animals.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Now hold on a second.  Are you suggesting I don't have the right to beat my retard?

----------


## jmdrake

> Decriminalized, yes. 
> 
> Animals don't have rights.


^This.  I mean seriously folks.  Those same two roosters that can't be put together to fight for entertainment can be legally tortured to death in a slaughterhouse.

----------


## osan

> I don't disagree with you here - but then we must acknowledge then that the concept of rights are a human construct for the purposes of advancing civilization and human prosperity. I'd say that is the only extent to which rights, at all, are legitimate.


Absolutely agree with you.  Natural rights exist in and of themselves, but only because of _context_.  Murder all humans and the concept of natural human rights vanishes into the mists of eternity.  It is precisely because we live among our fellows that the rights exist.  The rights are natural results of the inherently equal nature of our claims to life.  Our rights speak to the propriety of human action and will _in the context of life among other human beings_.  Natural rights have no meaning on a desert island where but a single soul resides.  This is a key concept that so few people grasp.

Similarly, natural rights do not hold where human-animal relations are in question.  In that context there is brute force - who has more of it and who can wield it most effectively.  But that is not quite the entire picture - there is still the question of the propriety of one's treatment of animals.  Killing to survive is an inescapable truth of life.  Beyond that, destruction of life beyond acts of self defense is most eminently questionable from the moral perspective.  Choose as you will, but choose carefully for one cannot know with pure certainty that the infliction of unnecessary harm upon those of non-human persuasions is just fine.




> Ultimately, and objectively in nature, rights don't even really exist otherwise - whether we're talking about humans or not.


I would modify this to say that they in fact do when the context comes into existence.  Context creates and destroy as surely as anything else does.  With the rise of the context of human fellowship, thus arises out of the dust the rights of men.  SNuff out the context and those same rights vanish instantly as if they had never been.




> Ultimately, the egoist anarchists have it right and are the true realists in political philosophy. I prefer to adopt the natural rights theory because it serves to foster the maximization of the prosperity for *all* individuals.


Could you elaborate on this a bit?  I am not well read on this anarchist position.




> Further, in regards to what constitutes the ability to have natural rights in this context... I'd say it's do to sapience - but that's hard to measure. Perhaps Adam Smith was right in referencing the ability to voluntarily trade one's property as the attainment of rights?


Self awareness of this sort is good for humans within the human-human context, but its limitations in the human-animal context seems to be a little problematic.  Because we cannot know what an animal knows, feels, etc. in the strictest metaphysical sense, I believe it is best to assume the most about their abilities such that when we kill for the sake of eating, we do so with skill and merciful swiftness.  For me it is a horror beyond all horror to cause suffering beyond the absolute minimum.  When I see something dying in the road, I kill it as swiftly as I am able.  I go into something dangerously like a trance state and I act.  This past summer I shot a turtle on the shoulder.  A truck stopped down the road, turned and followed me, but I lost them.  For all I know it could have been an off duty cop who would have arrested me for discharging a firearm withing the city limits of Charleston.  It never occurred to me what I was risking.  I did what everything that I am commanded.  There was no question of what had to happen.  None whatsoever.  Freaked me out afterward just a little, though.

The year before in the great snows of 2009, I found what had once been a magnificant buck on the roadside, dying of starvation.  I tried feeding him, but he was too far gone.  I brought hay, laid him down on it, sat by him with his head in my lap and stayed with him until the end.  Perhaps I should have shot him - I don't know.  I'm not a fan of killing anything and so perhaps I shirked my responsibility.  But he'd done the bulk of his suffering and a couple more minutes in exchange for sparing him violence was perhaps a proper end for him.  I cannot say for certain - I can only go by what seems right in a given situation.

----------


## Bman

> Now hold on a second.  Are you suggesting I don't have the right to beat my retard?


lol.  yes.

----------


## Bman

> ^This.  I mean seriously folks.  Those same two roosters that can't be put together to fight for entertainment can be legally tortured to death in a slaughterhouse.


Didn't your mother ever teach you to not play with your food?  Are you saying that society should advocate violence with the sole outcome of death for entertainment?

----------


## Bman

> Bad analogy. Children are humans (and humans are sapient), animals are not. Children are not 'property', animals are.


Really?  In history humans have been property that could be used in such ways that are being advocated here.  Animals may have reason to be considered property but to equate a cow to a television is madness.

----------


## low preference guy

> Really?  In history humans have been property that could be used in such ways that are being advocated here.  Animals may have reason to be considered property but to equate a cow to a television is madness.


if we're talking about rights, it isn't madness because neither has any rights whatsoever.

----------


## Sentient Void

Osan,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

----------


## jmdrake

> Didn't your mother ever teach you to not play with your food?  Are you saying that society should advocate violence with the sole outcome of death for entertainment?


Do you not understand the difference between something being legal and something being advocated by society?  Ron Paul is against the drug war, but I've never seen him advocating illicit drug use.  As for my mother teaching me not to play with my food, she never suggested I should be prosecuted for doing so.

----------


## jmdrake

> Really?  In history humans have been property that could be used in such ways that are being advocated here.  Animals may have reason to be considered property but to equate a cow to a television is madness.


True.  You can't eat a television.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> ^This.  I mean seriously folks.  Those same two roosters that can't be put together to fight for entertainment can be legally tortured to death in a slaughterhouse.


That isn't exactly right, either.  The animals should be killed quickly.  This analogy doesn't really work, though, because a cockfight is not meant to feed anyone, it is purely meant for entertainment.

----------


## jmdrake

> We can assume you would be legally prosecuted as a murderer if you decided to eat me, but it would hardly be a legitimate prosecution if you killed and ate me while starving in the middle of the nowhere.  It would be more desirable to have to eat an animal, as sentient beings typically try not to eat their own type, but ultimately you have 2 choices, eat or die.


It would be a *totally legitimate* prosecution!  Using your analogy if you had me killed because you needed a heart and I was a perfect match that would not be murder.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Really?  In history humans have been property that could be used in such ways that are being advocated here.  Animals may have reason to be considered property but to equate a cow to a television is madness.


I've covered this numerous times in this thread. Human slavery is a violation of human rights, because all humans have sapience. 'Animal slavery' is not a violation of rights, because they don't have sapience, and thus do not have rights.

----------


## Bman

> Do you not understand the difference between something being legal and something being advocated by society?  Ron Paul is against the drug war, but I've never seen him advocating illicit drug use.  As for my mother teaching me not to play with my food, she never suggested I should be prosecuted for doing so.


Are you saying that getting yourself high from doing a drug is exactly the same as getting high from strangling a dog to death?

----------


## jmdrake

> That isn't exactly right, either.  The animals should be killed quickly.  This analogy doesn't really work, though, because a cockfight is not meant to feed anyone, it is purely meant for entertainment.


Maybe they _should_ be killed quickly, but the truth is they *are not*.  Regardless if you don't have a right to life you don't really have any rights at all.  If I was a rooster I'd rather take my chances in a cock fight where I *might* live if victorious than in a slaughterhouse no matter how "humanely" I was killed.

----------


## low preference guy

> Are you saying that getting yourself high from doing a drug is exactly the same as getting high from strangling a dog to death?


he obviously means that even if both are wrong they shouldn't be illegal. not that they are the same thing.

-rep for acting stupid

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you saying that getting yourself high from doing a drug is exactly the same as getting high from strangling a dog to death?


Are you saying that you beat your wife?    Goodness, enough with the ridiculous straw men.  I'm saying that you can be against something and still not think it should be illegal.  Not everybody that thinks Lawrence v. Texas was correctly ruled is an advocate for gay sex.  Not everybody that thinks that drugs shouldn't be criminalized is an advocate for drug use.  And not everybody that thinks that people shouldn't go to prison for cock fighting is an advocate for cock fighting.  The idea that not everything you disagree with should be criminal is libertarianism 101.  I'm not libertarian per se, but at least I understand the basics.

----------


## Bman

> I've covered this numerous times in this thread. Human slavery is a violation of human rights, because all humans have sapience. 'Animal slavery' is not a violation of rights, because they don't have sapience, and thus do not have rights.


Really?  I could certainly make the case that my German Shepherd has sapience.  Like the fact that when his toy ends up on an end table that he gently pulls the toy off to make sure that he doesn't knock anything off the table.  Or when playing with another dog he takes it easy on them.  If you have not seen wisdom or intelligence in an animal it's because you have been far to ignorant to watch the animal behave.

----------


## Sentient Void

> That isn't exactly right, either.  The animals should be killed quickly.  This analogy doesn't really work, though, because a cockfight is not meant to feed anyone, it is purely meant for entertainment.


Honestly, I'd be fine with seeing blatantly convicted serial killers / murderers being used as a form of entertainment to the masses a la the gladiatorial arena or like the movie 'Running Man'.

They've lost their rights to the extent that they've taken away their rights to others, and so if someone has maliciously murdered someone else, then they lose the right to their life - without rights, anything goes and IMO it's perfectly fine for them to be used as entertainment or slave labor. Like animals. Like cocks (no, not THOSE cocks you sicko).

----------


## akforme

> Do you not understand the difference between something being legal and something being advocated by society?  Ron Paul is against the drug war, but I've never seen him advocating illicit drug use.  As for my mother teaching me not to play with my food, she never suggested I should be prosecuted for doing so.


This was my take.  It's the difference between having the right and it being right.  We should have the right to do many things we can't, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> Really?  I could certainly make the case that my German Shepherd has sapience.  Like the fact that when his toy ends up on an end table that he gently pulls the toy off to make sure that he doesn't knock anything off the table.  Or when playing with another dog he takes it easy on them.  If you have not seen wisdom or intelligence in an animal it's because you have been far to ignorant to watch the animal behave.


Can your German Shepherd write poetry?  You should read about Phillis Wheatley.  During her lifetime some people assumed that negro slaves were not intelligent.  She proved them wrong by becoming one of the best poets of her era.  Animals have done some amazing things.  The most amazing would be Koko the gorilla.  But I've seen no suggestion that Koko, or any other animal could pass the Turing test.

----------


## jmdrake

> Honestly, I'd be fine with seeing blatantly convicted serial killers / murderers being used as a form of entertainment to the masses a la the gladiatorial arena or like the movie 'Running Man'.
> 
> They've lost their rights to the extent that they've taken away their rights to others, and so if someone has maliciously murdered someone else, then they lose the right to their life - without rights, anything goes and IMO it's perfectly fine for them to be used as entertainment or slave labor. Like animals. Like cocks (no, not THOSE cocks you sicko).


I suppose if the criminal has already been condemned to death, being given the option to "fight for your life" would be a step up.  That said I would be more concerned about the effect on the people "enjoying" this kind of entertainment.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Really?  I could certainly make the case that my German Shepherd has sapience.  Like the fact that when his toy ends up on an end table that he gently pulls the toy off to make sure that he doesn't knock anything off the table.  Or when playing with another dog he takes it easy on them.  If you have not seen wisdom or intelligence in an animal it's because you have been far to ignorant to watch the animal behave.


Which is why I also said in a previous post in the thread that perhaps apart from sapience, Adam Smith was right that rights are dependent upon an entity's ability to voluntarily trade it's property. This could make sense, considering that *all* rights are ultimately property rights (all rights derive from the right of self-ownership which is a property right in the self), and this recognition shows a consistency in both Adam Smith's assertion and the concept of rights as property rights in general.

I've definitely heard of dogs recognizing property as a concept (bone, dog hosue, territory, etc), but have never heard of a dog voluntarily trading his property AFAIK.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> It would be a *totally legitimate* prosecution!  Using your analogy if you had me killed because you needed a heart and I was a perfect match that would not be murder.


No.  Starvation is guaranteed without food and heart disease is abnormal.  A sick man who needs a heart has either neglected his body or became sick natural.  Initially, both men probably had the heart they need.

We naturally assign a higher priority to the lives of human beings, and I think that is right.  Our needs will always come first, but I think we must recognize that animals are living, feeling things, and in that capacity, we should not mistreat them.  If we must eat them, we should not kill them slowly.  We should not put them in a ring and force them to brutally kill each other, because it does us no tangible good and causes them verifiable pain.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> Honestly, I'd be fine with seeing blatantly convicted serial killers / murderers being used as a form of entertainment to the masses a la the gladiatorial arena or like the movie 'Running Man'.
> 
> They've lost their rights to the extent that they've taken away their rights to others, and so if someone has maliciously murdered someone else, then they lose the right to their life - without rights, anything goes and IMO it's perfectly fine for them to be used as entertainment or slave labor. Like animals. Like cocks (no, not THOSE cocks you sicko).


This is just one reason why I thoroughly oppose the state.  Eventually, people come to believe that criminals are so bad, they deserve no dignity.  If all their rights have been removed, execute them.  Do it as quickly as possible.  Bullets are cheap.

I'd be opposed to any type of death as entertainment.  It would be a mockery of everything that is possibly moral.

----------


## osan

> ^This.  I mean seriously folks.  Those same two roosters that can't be put together to fight for entertainment can be legally tortured to death in a slaughterhouse.


The two are not comparable in principle.  That some slaughterhouses sustain poor conditions shall be put aside for this argument.  Assuming the most humane means of killing them, that is not torture.  It is swift merciful death.  To compare that with the ring of cockfighting cannot even be taken seriously.  To live is to kill.  We have yet to find a way of escaping this necessity that is not detrimental to our own lives.  Killing with swift mercy is the best we can do and is, therefore, legitimate.  What other choice have we but to starve?  I live in accord with my limitations as flesh and blood, but I make no sport of the lives and deaths of others.

----------


## Bman

> Which is why I also said in a previous post in the thread that perhaps apart from sapience, Adam Smith was right that rights are dependent upon an entity's ability to voluntarily trade it's property. This could make sense, considering that *all* rights are ultimately property rights (all rights derive from the right of self-ownership which is a property right in the self), and this recognition shows a consistency in both Adam Smith's assertion and the concept of rights as property rights in general.
> 
> I've definitely heard of dogs recognizing property as a concept (bone, dog hosue, territory, etc), but have never heard of a dog voluntarily trading his property AFAIK.


So where does this leave the mentally challenged?

----------


## Bman

> Can your German Shepherd write poetry?


I will say at times he's poetry in motion.  And since we are saying CAN.  Hawkings cannot WRITE poetry.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  Starvation is guaranteed without food and heart disease is abnormal.  A sick man who needs a heart has either neglected his body or became sick natural.  Initially, both men probably had the heart they need.


It takes weeks to die from starvation.  If you have the strength to kill me then you probably aren't at deaths door yet.  Also some people are born with heart defects.  Regardless that has nothing to do with anything.  Whether your about to die because of your own screwup doesn't change the basic facts.  Why are you out in the wilderness starving?  Is it because you didn't plan to bring enough food?  Did you not read your compass right?

The only relevant question from a self defense point of view is if I *caused* you to be in danger.  In other words you'd have to make the argument that I was the one starving you.  And even then that would be a stretch.  You are mistaking defense of self defense with the necessity defense.

See: http://www.mojolaw.com/info/cl055




> We naturally assign a higher priority to the lives of human beings, and I think that is right.  Our needs will always come first, but I think we must recognize that animals are living, feeling things, and in that capacity, we should not mistreat them.  If we must eat them, we should not kill them slowly.  We should not put them in a ring and force them to brutally kill each other, because it does us no tangible good and causes them verifiable pain.


Except there is no general necessity to kill animals at all for food.  Not in the 21st century.  People eat meat, in general, because they *want* to, not because they *have* to.  Your whole "self defense" argument is off base from jump because there is no necessity.  "We must"?  No.  Not true.  "It would be better if we did"?  Perhaps.  But that's different from "we must".

----------


## jmdrake

> The two are not comparable in principle.  That some slaughterhouses sustain poor conditions shall be put aside for this argument.  Assuming the most humane means of killing them, that is not torture.  It is swift merciful death.  To compare that with the ring of cockfighting cannot even be taken seriously.  To live is to kill.  We have yet to find a way of escaping this necessity that is not detrimental to our own lives.  Killing with swift mercy is the best we can do and is, therefore, legitimate.  What other choice have we but to starve?  I live in accord with my limitations as flesh and blood, but I make no sport of the lives and deaths of others.


1) If I was given a choice between fighting for my life and being given a "merciful" death, I would choose to fight for my life.  Wouldn't you?

2) What other choice have we but to starve?  *Don't be ridiculous!  You don't have to eat meat to live!*  Really.  Take a trip to Whole Foods.  There are lots of tasty alternative to meat.  And there have been healthy vegetarians for thousands of years before Whole Foods existed.

----------


## jmdrake

> I will say at times he's poetry in motion.  And since we are saying CAN.  Hawkings cannot WRITE poetry.


That's nice.  I think the dance of the bees is fascinating.  Are bees now at the level of humans?  Kung fu masters were inspired by the praying mantis.  And?  My point is that slaves accomplished feats in the arts and sciences indistinguishable from their masters.  That's why I linked the Turing test.  It's a test for machine intelligence.  Basically a human converses with a machine and several other humans.  If the human cannot tell the difference the the machine is deemed to be intelligent.  The same thing could be done for animal intelligence.  Find someway for the animal to communicate through a computer terminal, and if humans can't tell the difference I'm willing to concede human level intelligence.

----------


## osan

> if we're talking about rights, it isn't madness because neither has any rights whatsoever.


The question of whether animals have rights is not really relevant to this discussion, whereas the propriety of human behavior is.  Causing agony and torment to any living creature is questionable under even more liberal circumstances.  To be sure there is a gray margin between the obvious extremes of what is right and what is not.  Situations falling between those extremes are to be taken individually with the application of intelligence and thereby assessed for propriety.  Some guy on a desert island, stranded and starving, may certainly be excused if his killing technique would not pass muster under more "normal" circumstances.  OTOH, slowly torturing an alley cat to death IMO merits a very severe ass-beating at the very least, if not prison time.  There is simply no possible justification for such heinous action.  For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism.  I will be waiting.

----------


## Bman

> That's nice.  I think the dance of the bees is fascinating.  Are bees now at the level of humans?  Kung fu masters were inspired by the praying mantis.  And?  My point is that slaves accomplished feats in the arts and sciences indistinguishable from their masters.  That's why I linked the Turing test.  It's a test for machine intelligence.  Basically a human converses with a machine and several other humans.  If the human cannot tell the difference the the machine is deemed to be intelligent.  The same thing could be done for animal intelligence.  Find someway for the animal to communicate through a computer terminal, and if humans can't tell the difference I'm willing to concede human level intelligence.


But you see intelligence is a horrible meter as to whether or not something should be killed for entertainment.  It's when is killing acceptable.  For mere pleasure is something I will never be on the side of, and that's not saying you are, but when in terms of the scope of government I find it acceptable for government to make killing for _pleasure of bloodlust_ illegal.

----------


## jmdrake

> But you see intelligence is a horrible meter as to whether or not something should be killed for entertainment.  It's when is killing acceptable.  For mere pleasure is something I will never be on the side of, and that's not saying you are, but when in terms of the scope of government I find it acceptable for government to make killing for _pleasure of bloodlust_ illegal.


So trophy hunters should go to prison?  How about the kid that uses a magnifying glass on an ant?  I don't trophy hunt and I don't light burn ants, but I don't think either should be illegal.  But maybe that's just me.

----------


## jmdrake

> The question of whether animals have rights is not really relevant to this discussion, whereas the propriety of human behavior is.  Causing agony and torment to any living creature is questionable under even more liberal circumstances.  To be sure there is a gray margin between the obvious extremes of what is right and what is not.  Situations falling between those extremes are to be taken individually with the application of intelligence and thereby assessed for propriety.  Some guy on a desert island, stranded and starving, may certainly be excused if his killing technique would not pass muster under more "normal" circumstances.  OTOH, slowly torturing an alley cat to death IMO merits a very severe ass-beating at the very least, if not prison time.  There is simply no possible justification for such heinous action.  For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism.  I will be waiting.


Should this be illegal?

----------


## low preference guy

> For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism. I will be waiting.


I don't need to produce any special justification, just like I don't need to justify that people who get drunk should be left alone. Getting drunk is a disgusting activity for many reasons I won't get into, but does it violate the life, liberty and property of other humans beings? No. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal. You don't need to come up with an argument for every case, if you already have established a general principle. If no other human's property is stolen, no contract is broken, or no aggression against other human is taking place, then no legal punishment should occur. So yes, even if microwaving your cat or slicing it to little pieces is disgusting, you don't have and shouldn't have any legal punishment whatsoever.

----------


## BamaAla

This thread blew up since the last time I visited. Unfortunately, it seems that about half of the people that have voted believe that the sport should be criminal. 

All I can say is that I will continue to make it to a couple of cockfights a year, continue bow hunting, continue killing vermin on my property, and I'll make it to a few bull fights every time I'm in Spain. Have fun folks.

----------


## MelissaWV

The way the question is phrased is screwy.

It asks if I'd like to see it legalized in my state.  No, I wouldn't LIKE it; I wouldn't leap up and down joyfully and celebrate "Cockfighting Day" every year thereafter.  I would love it if this nation saw fit to decriminalize things like this, but the question makes it seem like I support the fights themselves by clicking "yes."

----------


## low preference guy

> The way the question is phrased is screwy.
> 
> It asks if I'd like to see it legalized in my state.  No, I wouldn't LIKE it; I wouldn't leap up and down joyfully and celebrate "Cockfighting Day" every year thereafter.  I would love it if this nation saw fit to decriminalize things like this, but the question makes it seem like I support the fights themselves by clicking "yes."


A better wording would probably be "Should cockfighting be illegal?".

----------


## osan

> That's why I linked the Turing test.  It's a test for machine intelligence.  Basically a human converses with a machine and several other humans.  If the human cannot tell the difference the the machine is deemed to be intelligent.  The same thing could be done for animal intelligence.  Find someway for the animal to communicate through a computer terminal, and if humans can't tell the difference I'm willing to concede human level intelligence.


Depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in the case of machines vis-a-vis, say, human beings. The two clearly are not the same.  If I dress up like a black man, act like one, walk like one, talk like one, dance like one, screw like one, does that make me a black man?  

I have heavy experience in AI.  I have worked on systems that behaved with such convincing illusions of organic intelligence that it would frighten you, and I mean that most literally.  But at the bottom of it all, there were just 1s and 0s assembled in fabulously complex and abstruse patterns.  The intelligence of machines is nothing more than a simulation of the _manifestations and methods_ of human thought processes.  

As the "fit" of the homomorphic mapping to real, _living_ intelligence approaches isomorphism in terms of capabilities such that the delta between them becomes sufficiently small, the illusion of actual living intelligence becomes very convincing.  But there is no subject behind the eyes, so to speak - just a complex pattern of binary impulses.  The intelligence is not alive, and _life_ is the differentiating factor here between actual intelligence and that which is simulated, regardless of how convincingly that simulation may be.  Machine intelligence as it currently exists is nothing more than the simulation of living intelligence.  It is a simulation of life itself as we experience it though intelligent communication.  

Could there be some threshold of complexity beyond which a machine becomes a living being?  Impossible to say at this stage of the game, but I am sceptical, even doubtful.  I am yet to be convinced that life is a simple matter of achieving a level of perceptual complexity - but who knows - it may one day be demonstrated as truth.  But I point you to even single-celled life.  Nowhere near the intellectual capacity of some of the AI systems out there, yet nobody will deny that such creatures are alive while the computers clearly are not.

----------


## dannno

> This thread blew up since the last time I visited. Unfortunately, it seems that about half of the people that have voted believe that the sport should be criminal. 
> 
> All I can say is that I will continue to make it to a couple of cockfights a year, continue bow hunting, continue killing vermin on my property, and I'll make it to a few bull fights every time I'm in Spain. Have fun folks.


Ya I'm pretty surprised about the results as well (I voted yes, was mostly messing around with some of my comments in the thread)

----------


## ivflight

I think guitarlifter's posts are pretty much spot-on.  The only change I would consider is that I think animals don't have human rights more because we can't communicate with them on the level necessary to have informed consent.  Humans can be irrational, but we don't immediately take away their rights.  If a turtle had the means to communicate and do business with me (maybe I give her an ipod and she collects pearls for me, she trades the ipod for a plot of land to lay eggs on) then I would be more open to acknowledging the turtle's equal rights.  When we encounter things (alive or not) that have pretty much no ability to distinguish themselves as purposeful beings by doing things like engaging in contracts, those things end up being property, and therefor under human control.  Trees, rocks, chicken eggs, dogs, houses, etc...

In the case of animal fights it is especially silly to make it illegal because animals do these things anyways.  If cock fighting is illegal then dog breeding should be too because it's kind of like rape or prostitution.

----------


## Bman

> So trophy hunters should go to prison?  How about the kid that uses a magnifying glass on an ant?  I don't trophy hunt and I don't light burn ants, but I don't think either should be illegal.  But maybe that's just me.


I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you.  I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you.  I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.


I hear this argument often, but it just doesn't wash.  Human beings use tools and have the mental capacity to work together; that's our advantage, and makes up for a lack of claws or fangs or naturally lethal poisons.

Trophy hunters that hunt an animal in its natural habitat (as opposed to people who trap them and then shoot them when the animal can't escape) are facing the creature on fair terms, imo.

----------


## Bman

> In the case of animal fights it is especially silly to make it illegal because animals do these things anyways.  If cock fighting is illegal then dog breeding should be too because it's kind of like rape or prostitution.


That's strange.  I go to a dog park on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two dogs break out into a fight to the death.

----------


## ivflight

> That's strange.  I go to a dog park on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two dogs break out into a fight to the death.


That's strange.  I go to a cock fight on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two cocks not break out into a fight to the death.

[some] Dogs have been bred to be very docile.  Watch the discovery channel - then you'll see dogs eat each other.

----------


## Bman

> I hear this argument often, but it just doesn't wash.  Human beings use tools and have the mental capacity to work together; that's our advantage, and makes up for a lack of claws or fangs or naturally lethal poisons.
> 
> Trophy hunters that hunt an animal in its natural habitat (as opposed to people who trap them and then shoot them when the animal can't escape) are facing the creature on fair terms, imo.


Have you seen the video of Caribou Barbie shooting the Caribou?  Fair terms?  Hardly.  You can kill anything with a high powered rifle.  The only way the thing escapes is;

A.  You didn't find one.

B.  You're a $#@!ty hunter and a lousy shot.

The reason I don't hunt for trophy or would ever consider it is because the animal has no chance.  As a matter of fact the few times I was dragged on such adventures I intentionally shot near the animal to disturb its environment and scare it away.

----------


## jmdrake

> Depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in the case of machines vis-a-vis, say, human beings. The two clearly are not the same.  If I dress up like a black man, act like one, walk like one, talk like one, dance like one, screw like one, does that make me a black man?


Oh don't be ridiculous.  The turning test isn't to prove whether or not something is human, but whether something is intelligent.  Intelligence is an attribute just like dress, acting, walking, talking and (since you chose to be vulgar) "screwing".  If you wanted to be accurate you would pick some attribute that people may have once assumed white people couldn't do (such a rapping), apply an analogous test and see if said white person could accomplish the same thing.  Only that's already been done.  After one failure (Vanilla Ice) we now have Eminem.




> I have heavy experience in AI.  I have worked on systems that behaved with such convincing illusions of organic intelligence that it would frighten you, and I mean that most literally.  But at the bottom of it all, there were just 1s and 0s assembled in fabulously complex and abstruse patterns.


Good for you.  Then you show know enough about logic to understand the straw man in your initial argument.  Also at the bottom of it all we are just atoms that are activating in particular ways on synapses and dendrites.  And I doubt anything you've done in AI would "frighten me".  I've done a lot in AI myself and I don't frighten easily.  Plus this really is a total red herring.  Whether you feel the Turing test is valid or not for determining if a machine is really "intelligent" it would be perfectly valid as applied to another organic being such as a dog, gorilla or dolphin.




> The intelligence of machines is nothing more than a simulation of the _manifestations and methods_ of human thought processes.


Says you.  I know enough about AI to know that your conclusion is hotly debated.




> Could there be some threshold of complexity beyond which a machine becomes a living being?  Impossible to say at this stage of the game, but I am sceptical, even doubtful.  I am yet to be convinced that life is a simple matter of achieving a level of perceptual complexity - but who knows - it may one day be demonstrated as truth.  But I point you to even single-celled life.  Nowhere near the intellectual capacity of some of the AI systems out there, yet nobody will deny that such creatures are alive while the computers clearly are not.


That's nice.  But there is nothing in the definition of intelligence that requires life.  My AI professor would call you a "carbon chauvinist".  But again *that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making*.  We're not talking about whether or not machines have the level of intelligence needed to qualify for life.  *We're talking about animals!  And I proposed a Turing test using animals instead of computers.*  Again back to the slavery analogy.  Abolitionists were able to point to negro slaves such as Phillis Wheatly *who were accomplishing the same feats as their white counterparts* and saying "See?  These people deserve rights because there are as intelligent as anyone else".  By contrast we are continually given examples of animals doing *interesting things*, but nowhere near what humans do, as proof of "animal intelligence".

----------


## Bman

> That's strange.  I go to a cock fight on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two cocks not break out into a fight to the death.
> 
> [some] Dogs have been bred to be very docile.  Watch the discovery channel - then you'll see dogs eat each other.


No $#@! Sherlock.  When you have no where to run you kind of have to fight or just submit to death, which is case and point that the animals want to survive and you are using them to get your rocks off.  It is a disgusting quality for one to have.

----------


## osan

> I don't need to produce any special justification


Your assertion by itself is insufficient - it constitutes no proof.




> just like I don't need to justify that people who get drunk should be left alone.


Nonsequitur.  People getting drunk are bringing harm to nobody, all else equal.  We are talking about cases where people are bringing harm to other living beings who, as a general rule, do what is in their power to rebel against being damaged and killed - a clear indication of sufficient self-awareness and sentience to justify treating them with a minimal level of respect.





> Getting drunk is a disgusting activity for many reasons I won't get into, but does it violate the life, liberty and property of other humans beings? No.


Again, nonsequitur.  The two activities are not even remotely similar in principle of action or structure.  Mr. Apples, meet Mr. Oranges.




> You don't need to come up with an argument for every case, if you already have established a general principle.


I am well familiar with conceptual generalization.  The question here is whether the principle you cite applies to the case in question.  It doesn't unless you accept assumptions about non-human life that are tortuously stretched for credibility on their absolutely finest days.

Stick a dog with a pin - does it not yelp and bleed?  Does it not seek to avoid being so damaged yet again?  Does it not seek to continue its own life?  It should not take this much work to convince someone that there is life here and that it merits respect.  This is so hopelessly obvious that any denial can only be the product of disingenuous intentions taken to epic heights.  




> If no other human's property is stolen, no contract is broken, or no aggression against other human is taking place, then no legal punishment should occur.


This statement equates a living being that feels pain and experiences the desire to continue living with an inanimate object.  If you cannot see how unsound this is, I have no idea how to help you.




> So yes, even if microwaving your cat or slicing it to little pieces is disgusting, you don't have and shouldn't have any legal punishment whatsoever.


Hopelessly wrong.  Utter, catastrophic, cataclysmic FAIL.  To assert that human beings are the only living creatures on the earth that humans are compelled to respect is ludicrous on its face.

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you.  I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.


Ah.  So you do think trophy hunters should go to prison.  So I wasn't making up a straw man after all.  Thanks for proving me right in your attempt to prove me wrong.

----------


## ivflight

> It is a disgusting quality for one to have.


Agreed.

----------


## Bman

> Ah.  So you do think trophy hunters should go to prison.  So I wasn't making up a straw man after all.  Thanks for proving me right in your attempt to prove me wrong.


It was a strawman.  I just humored you with a response as gay as your question.

----------


## jmdrake

> It was a strawman.  I just humored you with a response as gay as your question.


You don't know what a strawman is.  You said that killing for pleasure or bloodlust should be illegal.  I'm pretty sure that people who trophy hunt do so for pleasure.  Why else would they do that?  Because they need a moose head to cover that spot on the wall?  By contrast when I said I didn't think cockfighting should be illegal you wrongly claimed I was advocating it.  That's a strawman.

----------


## Bman

> You don't know what a strawman is.  You said that killing for pleasure or bloodlust should be illegal.  I'm pretty sure that people who trophy hunt do so for pleasure.  Why else would they do that?  Because they need a moose head to cover that spot on the wall?  By contrast when I said I didn't think cockfighting should be illegal you wrongly claimed I was advocating it.  That's a strawman.



Lets totally forget about the second half of your post, not to mention making a trophy out of something you killed to eat is a possibility where as the food factor outweighs the pleasure of bloodlust factor.

----------


## low preference guy

I agree with many here that say that microwaving your cats for fun and things like that are disgusting and shows that the person who does it is sick. I just add that the people who want to put people in jail for an action that doesn't even hurt humans are even sicker and bigger psychos. There's no justification whatsoever for that, because many humans survive by eating animals. The logical consequence of those who say animals deserve legal protection is that any killing of an animal should be illegal. And if you put the well-being of animals above that of human beings, you are a plain psycho.

----------


## klamath

> I suppose if the criminal has already been condemned to death, being given the option to "fight for your life" would be a step up.  That said I would be more concerned about the effect on the people "enjoying" this kind of entertainment.


My thoughts too. I don't have a problem with killing a KNOWN killer but playing with them for societies intertainment, no.

----------


## jtstellar

> the problem is whether the FEDERAL government has anything to do with it.. just wtf are "rights" do you even know?  there are no such private activities that violate "rights" as long as you don't touch anybody's life or property.. yes, a human's life, duh.  don't tell me you support federally-sanctioned abortion now.  that would really be something
> 
> where does it mention in the constitution about ANIMALS.. seriously, where the HELL did you guys come from.  how many hours have you spent on politics and history?  you just graduated high school or something?  even some ppl that age aren't that stupid





> That's what the argument is about.  I don't see animals as property but rather as sentient life-forms that have inherent rights.  I see no difference in using force against an animal or using force against a human being:  they are both equal in my eyes.
> 
> *btw:  What is unequal in my eyes are human fetus':  i do not see them as fully functioning life-forms, and as such, in my eyes they have no rights.*


i think this might just about sum up what i suspect about animal-right'ers (ye it is collectivism, bite me)

in a nut shell:  when i like something, it has a right.  when it is unwanted to me, it does not.  oh, only humbly "in my eyes", but it will be the law of the land nonetheless when up to me.  oh cute little rabbit.  it requires attention maybe couple times a day--life!  rights!.  a baby when i'm depressed or financially strained?  hell no.  giving it rights means i can't kill and get rid of it?  oh well.. then i will formulate my response on this and say.. no rights!

no i'm not arguing in favor or against abortion if you must be so stupid to ask

tell you what, glad you're not in power.  to be honest, you don't understand liberty at all.  maintaining liberty is more about policy and techniques about how to manage a federal government especially for a large nation to minimize its power and to maintain the integrity of a representative republic.. it has nothing to do with philosophy, and it has nothing to do with morality.  you would fit in better in the neo-con or liberal circle, but you're welcome to lose debates here.

btw you can certainly ban animal fighting in your towns and cities, but rest assured--they do not have rights, and they will never.  even if people comply with the ban out of commonsensical decency, it is a display of self control on human's part.  it has nothing to do with some active, imaginary "right" of animals.  to have rights, the first premise is to talk about organisms relatively equal in physical prowess and wit that they can on some level pose threat to each other.  "right" isn't a pretty word.. it requires actual defense.  an animal is not of an equal specie and "right" is nothing but an empty word even if you apply it to them.  if some technologically advanced alien were to come to earth with malicious intent, the same applies to us, but we can certainly fight back.

countries who fall so far as to grant animals "rights" will not sustain itself anyway.  a society who has identity crisis about is members will compete itself out of existence just by simple natural selection.  you're not going to win this argument.. it's the law of nature.  there's a saying in chinese "吃裡扒外" perhaps someone can translate for you.. a society with enough people like you to pass such a law will not live long.

----------


## klamath

All I can say is I would hate to have been Charob's baby if there was a house fire and Fluffy was closer to her. Better learn to craw pretty damn fast. There are some weird people out there

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I agree with many here that say that microwaving your cats for fun and things like that are disgusting and shows that the person who does it is sick. I just add that the people who want to put people in jail for an action that doesn't even hurt humans are even sicker and bigger psychos. There's no justification whatsoever for that, because many humans survive by eating animals. The logical consequence of those who say animals deserve legal protection is that any killing of an animal should be illegal.


You can't see the difference between simply killing and torture?  Most can.  That's why hunting is enshrined into some states' constitutions as a right while microwaving a live rabbit gets one sent to jail.

It's one thing when it's the animals themselves.  Like with cockfighting: the roosters fight on their own.  It's quite another when a human takes a defenseless animal and, unprovoked, just tortures the creature.  Anyone that screwed up in the head _should_ be confined to a jail cell or a mental hospital regardless of if you think an animal should have the right not to be treated cruelly.

----------


## osan

> Oh don't be ridiculous.  The turning test isn't to prove whether or not something is human,


The Turing test posits that a person interacting with a computer through a terminal such that if the exchanges cannot be differentiated  from those one would have with a human at the other end, the machine is effectively intelligent.  So yes, it is using human intelligence as the standard.  Sure, it could be used with, say, a chimpanzee but that wasn't how the original idea was formulated.




> Whether you feel the Turing test is valid or not for determining if a machine is really "intelligent" it would be perfectly valid as applied to another organic being such as a dog, gorilla or dolphin.


Not without making very broad and unsound assumptions about what constitutes intelligence.  Just because we may not be able to extract principles of behavior that we deem "intelligent", it does not follow that intelligence is not present.  To believe that intelligence holds but one flavor, the human one, is ridiculous.  Besides, who says that intelligence is the deciding factor in determining whether animals should be treated with respect?




> Says you.  I know enough about AI to know that your conclusion is hotly debated.


What does the level of debate have to do with the truth?  Flat earth/spherical earth was perhaps hotly debated at one time as well.  That did not alter the truth even a whit.




> That's nice.  But there is nothing in the definition of intelligence that requires life.


From the John  Uoft Dictionary of 1785:

INTE'LLIGENCE. 

1. Commerce of information ; notice; mutual
communication...Not what we're looking for.

2. Commerce of acquaintance; terms on
which men live one with another.Nor that.

3. Spirit; unbodied mind.4. Understanding.Now we're getting somewhere.

Definition 3 fits best our context and I would say that life is so very heavily implied.




> My AI professor would call you a "carbon chauvinist".


I've heard the term before.  Singularly unconvincing.  To date, carbon is the only known basis for life.  When someone discovers non-carbon based life, I will change my views.  Until then it is prudent to work within that which we know to be true insofar as law and policy is concerned.  Otherwise, as is with insanity, the sky's the limit and anything goes.  I do not think that is a sound basis for living amongst each other.

Before we go any further, let me b clear that there is nothing strident in my tone.  This medium of communication can sometimes impart the perception of timbre that is not there.  Just reminding you that I'm not trying to beat on you or be otherwise disrespectful.  OK? 




> But again *that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making*.  We're not talking about whether or not machines have the level of intelligence needed to qualify for life.


I think you may have this reversed.  If anything, I would consider life as the prerequisite for intelligence.




> *We're talking about animals!  And I proposed a Turing test using animals instead of computers.*


OK, but what of it?  To assume all intelligence must be readily recognizable by human probing seems too self-serving in its presumptuousness.  If we assume animal intelligence is of equal "value" to that of humans (whatever that would really mean), then it would follow that we are currently unable discern it as such.  We really have no basis for making such pronouncements of the nature of animal minds.  




> By contrast we are continually given examples of animals doing *interesting things*, but nowhere near what humans do, as proof of "animal intelligence".


Once again this presumes that animal intelligence must by necessity "make sense" to humans in terms of nature and degree.  This is a dangerously preposterous assumption - one made most transparently for the sake of mere convenience - to excuse the arbitrary treatment of such "inferior" creatures.  This smells awfully dishonest to me and possibly even evil, depending on degree.

Sticking with "what we know", we know animals are alive, they seek to remain that way, they avoid injury and pain.  We know precious little of the innermost nature of their intelligence, not that that has anything to do with predicating humane treatment.  But if it did, so much more the reason to err of the side of respect.

Believe what you will, of course.  I see - _discern_ - the life in other beings, human and otherwise.  They each have different qualities, even between individuals.  My assumptions are made in favor of life and what I feel is the propriety of respecting it.  Others feel differently.

----------


## low preference guy

> Anyone that screwed up in the head _should_ be confined to a jail cell or a mental hospital regardless of if you think an animal should have the right not to be treated cruelly.


The proper function of government is to protect individual rights _of humans_. When someone tortures an animal, no rights are being violated. Thus, no crime has been committed and the person shouldn't go to jail. I'm not going to happily accept -to put it mildly- having my money taken by force from me to punish people who committed no crime. Person A kills animal B, I don't care why, and _I_ have to pay for his prosecution? You could do a comedic routine making that argument!

----------


## ivflight

> I agree with many here that say that microwaving your cats for fun and things like that are disgusting and shows that the person who does it is sick. I just add that the people who want to put people in jail for an action that doesn't even hurt humans are even sicker and bigger psychos. There's no justification whatsoever for that, because many humans survive by eating animals. The logical consequence of those who say animals deserve legal protection is that any killing of an animal should be illegal. And if you put the well-being of animals above that of human beings, you are a plain psycho.


Good point.  I was thinking this about animal fights: if it is illegal to put two animals in a cage where they may or may not kill each other, then it should certainly be illegal to put humans in a cage (prison) where they may or may not kill each other.

----------


## low preference guy

> Good point.  I was thinking this about animal fights: if it is illegal to put two animals in a cage where they may or may not kill each other, then it should certainly be illegal to put humans in a cage (prison) where they may or may not kill each other.


Yes, I agree. Especially considering the amount of innocent people they put in jail today.

----------


## osan

> ...it should certainly be illegal to put humans in a cage (prison) where they may or may not kill each other.


What, then, do you propose should be done with violent criminals?  Surely you cannot be suggesting that they not be called to account for their actions or that they be let loose among the rest of us, are you?

----------


## YumYum

> This is precisely how we used to view slaves, before our moral code evolved.
> 
> All living, animate things have a natural, self-evident right to self-defense.  Many living things are capable of feeling pain.  If an animal is capable of feeling pain, it can be morally wronged.  Murdering or torturing a living thing that is capable of feeling pain can not be morally justified.  Moralism isn't the role of government, but government does have an obligation to ensure that rights are not being trampled, if government has any role whatsoever.
> 
> Living things cannot continue to live without eating other living things, thus eating is an act of self-defense and not murder.  An animals status as an accepted food source is irrelevant, because humans and pets are just taboo meat.  Animals are no more our property than our captive dependents, and certainly you would not suggest that we have the right to brutally murder our children, should we see it fit.
> 
> I do not think it should be illegal at any high level, but I most certainly disagree that animals do not have rights.  Animals have the same rights as humans, they are just less capable of exercising them.


Good points! It is called "Survival of the fittest". What that means is that when the reptilians come to bar-b-que us, we shouldn't complain.

----------


## klamath

> Good points! It is called "Survival of the fittest". What that means is that when the reptilians come to bar-b-que us, we shouldn't complain.


No you can complain all you want up to the final gasp but it sure don't mean you can stop it. Might makes right.

----------


## Sentient Void

> No you can complain all you want up to the final gasp but it sure don't mean you can stop it. Might makes right.


Egoist anarchists nod.

----------


## ivflight

> What, then, do you propose should be done with violent criminals?  Surely you cannot be suggesting that they not be called to account for their actions or that they be let loose among the rest of us, are you?


They should probably be put in cages.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Turing test posits that a person interacting with a computer through a terminal such that if the exchanges cannot be differentiated  from those one would have with a human at the other end, the machine is effectively intelligent.  So yes, it is using human intelligence as the standard.  Sure, it could be used with, say, a chimpanzee but that wasn't how the original idea was formulated.


*facepalm* Oh quit being a blowhard.  I said from jump that this wasn't the original Turing test.  I know how the Turing test was "originally formulated".  This is a *modified* test.  




> Not without making very broad and unsound assumptions about what constitutes intelligence.  Just because we may not be able to extract principles of behavior that we deem "intelligent", it does not follow that intelligence is not present.  To believe that intelligence holds but one flavor, the human one, is ridiculous.  Besides, who says that intelligence is the deciding factor in determining whether animals should be treated with respect?


Non sequitur.  You're just being silly.  Back to the original point, slaves could prove their intelligence by accomplishing tasks that required human intelligence.  Might there be a dog intelligence?  Of course.  In fact I would say for certainty that there is.  There's also bee intelligence and ant intelligence.  But none of those entities have *rights*.  Trees may also have a kind of intelligence.  They can communicate to each other through chemicals that they are under an insect infestation.  But most people would agree that tree intelligence has not been shown to the level that trees have rights.  




> What does the level of debate have to do with the truth?  Flat earth/spherical earth was perhaps hotly debated at one time as well.  That did not alter the truth even a whit.


 And so who's the arbiter of "truth"?  You?  Don't make me laugh!   




> Definition 3 fits best our context and I would say that life is so very heavily implied.


I don't know who the "we" is here.  I'm not interested in your dictionary definition nor do I find it relevant or helpful.  Reasoning by analogy I gave you an example of how slaves were shown to have intelligence and thus be dserving of rights.  If you want to be obtuse because deep down you know animals can't pass the same test then fine.  Whatever.




> Before we go any further, let me b clear that there is nothing strident in my tone.  This medium of communication can sometimes impart the perception of timbre that is not there.  Just reminding you that I'm not trying to beat on you or be otherwise disrespectful.  OK?


Ok.




> I think you may have this reversed.  If anything, I would consider life as the prerequisite for intelligence.


You aren't the standard of what is or is not intelligence.





> OK, but what of it?  To assume all intelligence must be readily recognizable by human probing seems too self-serving in its presumptuousness.


No.  It's common freaking sense.  Before a human court can start recognizing rights based on intelligence that human court has to recognize the intelligence.  It's not enough that "Osan" or "Bman" thinks that dog, dolphin, insect, tree, mushroom, virus *may* be intelligent.  You have to prove it to a court.




> If we assume animal intelligence is of equal "value" to that of humans (whatever that would really mean), then it would follow that we are currently unable discern it as such.  We really have no basis for making such pronouncements of the nature of animal minds.


Find.  Then we'll stick to the default.  Animals have no rights.  Point, set, match.




> Once again this presumes that animal intelligence must by necessity "make sense" to humans in terms of nature and degree.  This is a dangerously preposterous assumption - one made most transparently for the sake of mere convenience - to excuse the arbitrary treatment of such "inferior" creatures.  This smells awfully dishonest to me and possibly even evil, depending on degree.


Dangerous to whom exactly?  You?  Humanity?  The animals?  It's "dangerous" to go around making your presumption and is awfully dishonest and even evil depending on degree.  Because trees are alive and possess an ability to communicate they *might* have rights.  Because they *might* have rights then humans can't cut down trees because it *might* be immoral.  So you're going to abrogate property rights based on what *you* think *might* be true.

----------


## jmdrake

> Good points! It is called "Survival of the fittest". What that means is that when the reptilians come to bar-b-que us, we shouldn't complain.


What good would complaining do anyway?  The only thing to do would be to fight back.  Meanwhile, this spring when I kill the Japanese beetles eating my blueberry bushes I will do that with a clear conscience.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is precisely how we used to view slaves, before our moral code evolved.


Except with slaves there was an easy and readily available way to assess their intelligence and realize it was no different from that of free men.  I've proposed the same thing for animals, but your side would rather play obtuse mind games.  Oh well.

----------


## agitator

If we eat the vanquished, it is OK, right?

----------


## jtstellar

on the idiotic comparison to slavery..

it eventually became self evident that slaves can be beneficial to the society when granted equal rights (people wanted increased representation in congress for every black person present in the state, so the argument that they were mere properties fell apart since then the north could also count houses and farms to increase seats following the same logic), and equally threatening when treated with contempt..

they proved that they can help, but they also carry around a big stick.  just like how every other human being established himself in the society.

so actually if you are threatening enough, you could become a dictator and enforce your vision (animal still won't have rights.  you just take away the rights of humans).  all i am saying here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3046174) is that your society isn't going to last.  so either way YOU LOSE.  animals have no rights as long as humans exist.  end of story.  

did someone also mention "reptilians" might do the same thing to us?  so suppose that they do exist and they really give a crap, you think us treating animals differently will make a positive impression on them or something?  what if it is seen as a sign of weakness?  just sayin', ya' know.  you animal rights'ers are ridiculously hilarious

edit:  just look at how weak and powerless fetus' are with their inability to prove their future prospect to the mother, and how fast they lose their "rights" when their mothers want to get rid of them.  i mean if they came the way of those Christian epiphanies and foretold the future of a multi millionaire before the age of thirty, how many mothers will get rid of them.  how about if they could die the deaths of those suicide bombers when their mothers want to have an abortion.  "rights"?  wow you bet.

----------


## Son of Detroit

Would I like to see my state legalize it?  No.  I won't be campaigning for it any time soon, although I certainly see the reasoning why some people feel it should be legalized.  I'd rather just stay out of the whole debate honestly.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lets totally forget about the second half of your post, not to mention making a trophy out of something you killed to eat is a possibility where as the food factor outweighs the pleasure of bloodlust factor.


Fine.  I'll take food out of the equation altogether.  I visited someone who was an avid hunter.  He had all sorts of fully stuffed animals, ostriches, hyenas, you name it.  Now maybe he ate the hyena guts before stuffing it.  But somehow I doubt that.  Should that be illegal?  I personally didn't approve of that mind you.  His son would also shoot squirrels out the window.  He had three in the "See no evil, here no evil, speak no evil" pose.  Ban it by the force of law?  If you'd do that, fine.  I wouldn't do that, but I also wouldn't approve of my sons shooting squirrels just to stuff them.

----------


## jmdrake

You are honest.  Brutal, but honest.




> on the idiotic comparison to slavery..
> 
> it eventually became self evident that slaves can be beneficial to the society when granted equal rights (people wanted increased representation in congress for every black person present in the state, so the argument that they were mere properties fell apart since then the north could also count houses and farms to increase seats following the same logic), and equally threatening when treated with contempt..
> 
> they proved that they can help, but they also carry around a big stick.  just like how every other human being established himself in the society.
> 
> so actually if you are threatening enough, you could become a dictator and enforce your vision (animal still won't have rights.  you just take away the rights of humans).  all i am saying here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3046174) is that your society isn't going to last.  so either YOU LOSE.  animals have no rights as long as humans exist.  end of story.  
> 
> did someone also mention "reptilians" might do the same thing to us?  so suppose that they do exist and they really give a crap, you think us treating animals differently will make a positive impression on them or something?  what if it is seen as a sign of weakness?  just sayin', ya' know.  you animal rights'ers are ridiculously hilarious
> ...

----------


## torchbearer

In order to enjoy a free society, you must tolerate other people, even if you don't like what they are doing.
unless someone here is making the case that roosters have property rights, and thus should not be eaten.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In order to enjoy a free society, you must tolerate other people, even if you don't like what they are doing.
> unless someone here is making the case that roosters have property rights, and thus should not be eaten.


+a zillion and +rep

----------


## osan

I wrote:




> The Turing test posits that a person interacting with a computer through a terminal such that if the exchanges cannot be differentiated from those one would have with a human at the other end, the machine is effectively intelligent. So yes, it is using human intelligence as the standard. Sure, it could be used with, say, a chimpanzee but that wasn't how the original idea was formulated.





> *facepalm* Oh quit being a blowhard. I said from jump that this wasn't the original Turing test. I know how the Turing test was "originally formulated". This is a modified test.


Facepalm till you knock yourself unconscious if it pleases you.  As I gathered we were talking about the Turing test, not a modified version.  The specific reference was whether the Turing test was valid and I pointed out that it was a matter of definitions.  If we play fast and loose with them, then anything goes - sort of the way most professional politicians spend their existences as the mountebanks they are.

Then I wrote: 



> Not without making very broad and unsound assumptions about what constitutes intelligence. Just because we may not be able to extract principles of behavior that we deem "intelligent", it does not follow that intelligence is not present. To believe that intelligence holds but one flavor, the human one, is ridiculous. Besides, who says that intelligence is the deciding factor in determining whether animals should be treated with respect?


To which you responded with this:




> ...Back to the original point, slaves could prove their intelligence by accomplishing tasks that required human intelligence. Might there be a dog intelligence? Of course. In fact I would say for certainty that there is. There's also bee intelligence and ant intelligence. But none of those entities have rights. Trees may also have a kind of intelligence. They can communicate to each other through chemicals that they are under an insect infestation. But most people would agree that tree intelligence has not been shown to the level that trees have rights.


Slaves were human so of course they could potentially demonstrate _human_ intelligence.  If you are expecting a goldfish to display human intelligence you will be waiting perhaps a very long time.  The term "intelligence" doesn't apply only to humans. The point you raise is therefore irrelevant to the discourse unless your thesis is that human intelligence is the only kind that counts.

And so I asked:




> What does the level of debate have to do with the truth? Flat earth/spherical earth was perhaps hotly debated at one time as well. That did not alter the truth even a whit.


To which you responded:




> And so who's the arbiter of "truth"? You? Don't make me laugh!


Are you suggesting the earth is flat?

Then to this:




> Definition 3 fits best our context and I would say that life is so very heavily implied.


You reply in seemingly irratinal fashion:




> I don't know who the "we" is here. I'm not interested in your dictionary definition nor do I find it relevant or helpful. Reasoning by analogy I gave you an example of how slaves were shown to have intelligence and thus be dserving of rights. If you want to be obtuse because deep down you know animals can't pass the same test then fine. Whatever.


Not only unrelated to any valid argumentation relevant to the topic at hand, copping s somewhat snide and disrespectful tone in the deal.  What is up with that?  I was attempting to have an adult exchange and it comes to this.

Over and out.

----------


## osan

> I agree with many here that say that microwaving your cats for fun and things like that are disgusting and shows that the person who does it is sick.


OK, so we are agreed on this point.  Good.  Let us continue...




> I just add that the people who want to put people in jail for an action that doesn't even hurt humans are even sicker and bigger psychos.


As stated, I would submit that you are contradicting yourself in a way - on the one hand you acknowledge that such people are acting unacceptably and on the other you say it's OK because no human has been hurt.  Beyond being a bit contradictory, it seems more than a little self-serving.  The question is not whether one may bring harm to an animal - we do that every time we stick our forks into a piece of meat on our plates - but the nature of the harm.  

I will again clarify by restating that it is one thing to swiftly kill a living being with absolutely minimal pain and carrying out a campaign of torture and piecemeal destruction of their material reality.  I believe this is the salient point for many and not whether killing happens, per sé.




> The logical consequence of those who say animals deserve legal protection is that any killing of an animal should be illegal. And if you put the well-being of animals above that of human beings, you are a plain psycho.


But protection against torture would seem eminently reasonable, all else equal.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Of course it should.  So should dog fighting.  So should bull fighting.  As should horse racing and dog racing and so on.

Do I support it?  NO.  Infact, I don't even go to dog or horse tracks because I'm so personally against it.  I would never go to a cock, dog or bull fight.  I also don't have sex with men and find in very nasty but I don't think you should go to jail if you do.

It is crazy to see how many people here think cock fighting shouldn't be legal.  I mean do you eat chickens?  In the US, almost all commercial chickens are tortured throughout their life.  But I bet the vast majority of folks here eat commercial chicken.

----------


## denison

> Of course it should.  So should dog fighting.  So should bull fighting.  As should horse racing and dog racing and so on.
> 
> Do I support it?  NO.  Infact, I don't even go to dog or horse tracks because I'm so personally against it.  I would never go to a cock, dog or bull fight.  I also don't have sex with men and find in very nasty but I don't think you should go to jail if you do.
> 
> It is crazy to see how many people here think cock fighting shouldn't be legal.  I mean do you eat chickens?  In the US, almost all commercial chickens are tortured throughout their life.  But I bet the vast majority of folks here eat commercial chicken.


 they do. it's total hypocrisy and stupidity. in a way only amerika can produce.

----------


## jmdrake

> Facepalm till you knock yourself unconscious if it pleases you.  As I gathered we were talking about the Turing test, not a modified version.  The specific reference was whether the Turing test was valid and I pointed out that it was a matter of definitions.  If we play fast and loose with them, then anything goes - sort of the way most professional politicians spend their existences as the mountebanks they are.


You're just being ridiculous and obtuse.  I'm beginning to wonder if I'm actually conversing with an ELIZA program when I'm talking to you.  *Obviously if you use an animal on the other end instead of a computer that ITSELF IS A MODIFICATION!*

So, one more time.  One way to assess animal intelligence would be to have an animal on the other end, give it some way to communicate, and see if it can fool a human.  If you have some other way to assess animal intelligence then fine *MENTION IT SO WE CAN ALL BE ENLIGHTENED!*

Your thesis that "It's alive and *MIGHT* be intelligent so we should grant it rights just to be on the safe side" is stupid.

----------


## jmdrake

> In order to enjoy a free society, you must tolerate other people, even if you don't like what they are doing.
> unless someone here is making the case that roosters have property rights, and thus should not be eaten.


+rep.  It's so simple.  Things that society allows to be *killed and eaten* clearly don't have rights.

----------


## Sentient Void

> +rep.  It's so simple.  Things that society allows to be *killed and eaten* clearly don't have rights.


While I'm in complete agreement with both of you guys, I must play devil's advocate here and say that just because something is killed and eaten is not justification for it not having rights. People have (and still do in some places) killed and eaten people. But yet we all accept that people have natural rights, and in cases such as these and in government that these rights are being violated. 

As mentioned above by torchbearer, if someone is saying that roosters and animals in general have natural rights - then it would follow that thsoe rights are in fact being violated when we kill and eat them, or coerce them to fight or race, etc. 

I, personally, am of the opinion that they have no rights, though. I just think we should use the right tools to talk about when and what and why soemthing has rights, not simply because an act is committed upon them that is coercive.

Unless of course one is an 'egoist anarchist', then such claims are absolutely consistent and logical.

----------


## osan

> Your thesis that "It's alive and *MIGHT* be intelligent so we should grant it rights just to be on the safe side" is stupid.


You should learn to pay attention and read what I wrote.  I said NOTHING of rights in the sense you use here.  And you accuse me of being obtuse?  Get a mirror.

I specifically wrote that this is not an issue of  animal rights but of what constitutes proper treatment of other living beings that clearly feel pain and can experience agony and over which we exercise the power of life and death.  The two are not the same.  They are not even in the same ballpark.

I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.  There is no justification for it.

----------


## torchbearer

> If we eat the vanquished, it is OK, right?


why not?

----------


## pcosmar

Sheesh 

Birds fight.They do it in nature and they do it in barn yards. They have done so for thousands of years and are unlikely to quit because some "johnny come lately" law. 

*This is about opposition to people betting on the outcome.*
It has nothing to do with animal rights or lack thereof.

dumb stuff.
There are far more important things to bunch up your panties.

----------


## teacherone

*VENTURA, Calif. — About 1,000 roosters confiscated during the weekend bust of a Ventura County cockfighting ring have been euthanized.
*
The Ventura County Sheriff's Department says 16 men were arrested and cockfighting paraphernalia, including blades, were seized during the Saturday raid in an unincorporated area near Oxnard. A tip from an anonymous caller led to the bust.

Investigators say about 1,000 roosters had to be euthanized because of their aggressive nature.

The Ventura County Star says 43-year-old Michael Lim of Los Angeles and 29-year-old Luis Manzana of Oxnard were booked for investigation of felony animal cruelty. The other 14 men were booked for misdemeanors for being spectators at a cockfight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_817669.html

lol. isn't that just ironic.

----------


## oyarde

Why euthanize them ? Eat them . Wasteful Californians . Yes it should not be a crime ....

----------


## JK/SEA

Hell, legalize dog throat cutting. Make bets on how long it takes for the dog to die, then sell the carcass to dog meat eaters.

----------


## oyarde

> Hell, legalize dog throat cutting. Make bets on how long it takes for the dog to die, then sell the carcass to dog meat eaters.


I have been places where dogs are treated about the same as chickens . While it is not something I would do myself . I do not believe people should be jailed for it ...

----------


## JK/SEA

> I have been places where dogs are treated about the same as chickens . While it is not something I would do myself . I do not believe people should be jailed for it ...


I can only assume 'those' places you refer to are not in the U.S., so its not relevant here in this conversation as we don't have any control over other countries in what they do, but can only boycott/protest as a means to show disdain.

I have my lines in the sand, and ANY animal abuse, including the killing of dolphins and whales is where i get ....beyond angry. Jail for animal abusers?...no. Put them to work in animal shelters for a period of time. Thats what M. Vick should have done, for example.

I make no apologies for my belief in this.

----------


## JK/SEA

The statement has been made that animals don't have rights. Who says so?... therefore, I hereby grant rights to animals. As a human made in Gods image, i hereby assert my omnipotent stature as a rights giver to animals, to be free from abuse. For the definition of abuse, try Google.com

----------


## oyarde

Native Americans , Aztecs ate dogs , The Lewis and Clark expedition ate dog .....

----------


## JK/SEA

> Native Americans , Aztecs ate dogs , The Lewis and Clark expedition ate dog .....


1. still?
2. they are i believe..extinct now?. They also had human sacrifice.
3. Yea, they couldn't find McDonalds, and this was what...200 years ago?

----------


## oyarde

Dog meat was made illegal in 1950 by British in Hong Kong . Sold in butcher shops in Paris as late as 1910 . Still being consumed in Hawaii in the 1970's . Still consumed in Nigeria & Switzerland . In Poland dog fat is rendered for lard . The Comanches did not eat dog , but the Sioux , Cheyenne , Piute etc did ...

----------


## teacherone

> I can only assume 'those' places you refer to are not in the U.S., so its not relevant here in this conversation as we don't have any control over other countries in what they do, but can only boycott/protest as a means to show disdain.
> 
> I have my lines in the sand, and ANY animal abuse, including the killing of dolphins and whales is where i get ....beyond angry. Jail for animal abusers?...no. Put them to work in animal shelters for a period of time. Thats what M. Vick should have done, for example.
> 
> I make no apologies for my belief in this.


anybody who differentiates between different kinds of animals being ok to eat or not is tragically inconsistent. 

if i can eat chicken, then i can eat whale, or dog. 

or would you like to force me to not eat meat at all?

----------


## JK/SEA

I fully understand, however, that was then and this is now....keyword for the NA's ....DID...past tense.

----------


## JK/SEA

> anybody who differentiates between different kinds of animals being ok to eat or not is tragically inconsistent. 
> 
> if i can eat chicken, then i can eat whale, or dog. 
> 
> or would you like to force me to not eat meat at all?


The debate is actually about animal abuse, and got sidetracked towards eating dogs versus dog or cock fighting. The animal, if it absolutley must be eaten, then a quick and humane kill wouldn't constitute abuse.  An extreme exception (dog) wouldn't be condemned. Dogs are a little different though, as they are the ONLY animal that be-friended man...not the other way around, hence the extreme emotional reaction you get from dog abuse/eating...generally speaking of course. There are humans who take exception to this by not legally getting to torture dogs. I just had a roast beef sandwich. With mustard.

----------


## oyarde

Roast beef sounds good .

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The proper function of government is to protect individual rights _of humans_.


That phrase makes less sense the more I hear or read it.

If rights are defined as that which is unalienable, meaning something that can never be taken away... what is there to protect?

If rights are defined as that which is recognized, meaning something that can only exist if there are two or more parties... which party receives protection?

----------


## Danke

> I fully understand, however, that was then and this is now....keyword for the NA's ....DID...past tense.


Wonder if this is like "to catch a predator" site.

http://puppybeef.com/

----------


## oyarde

> Wonder if this is like "to catch a predator" site.
> 
> http://puppybeef.com/


In China it is caled " fragrant meat ".

----------


## Danke

> In China it is caled " fragrant meat ".


Had Kagogi in Korea.

----------


## mczerone

> The debate is actually about animal abuse, and got sidetracked towards eating dogs versus dog or cock fighting. The animal, if it absolutley must be eaten, then a quick and humane kill wouldn't constitute abuse.  An extreme exception (dog) wouldn't be condemned. Dogs are a little different though, as they are the ONLY animal that be-friended man...not the other way around, hence the extreme emotional reaction you get from dog abuse/eating...generally speaking of course. There are humans who take exception to this by not legally getting to torture dogs. I just had a roast beef sandwich. With mustard.


By that logic wouldn't dog be the only animal that would be okay to eat?  I mean, they came to us.  We had to capture and selectively breed other domesticated animals - we took them out of their natural path to serve our own ends, which is closer to abuse than is killing this mutt that keeps stealing our food scraps (that were going to be used in stew and feed my family for a week).

I do agree that there are differences between how one should treat assorted life forms, but I think your argument is lacking.

----------


## oyarde

> Had Kagogi in Korea.


I have seen it , did not try it ...

----------


## Danke

> I have seen it , did not try it ...


Had just about anything you can imagine in Asia.  Whale, horse...except no monkey brains nor polar bears...yet.

----------


## JK/SEA

From the PETA files...

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/a...f/default.aspx

----------


## JK/SEA

> By that logic wouldn't dog be the only animal that would be okay to eat?  I mean, they came to us.  We had to capture and selectively breed other domesticated animals - we took them out of their natural path to serve our own ends, which is closer to abuse than is killing this mutt that keeps stealing our food scraps (that were going to be used in stew and feed my family for a week).
> 
> I do agree that there are differences between how one should treat assorted life forms, but I think your argument is lacking.


Maybe. Just my opinion. You have yours. We're even.

----------


## oyarde

> Had just about anything you can imagine in Asia.  Whale, horse...except no monkey brains nor polar bears...yet.


Bear burgers on the grill , not bad .

----------


## YumYum

"Should Cockfighting Be Legal?"

No, male genitalia should be required to get along.

----------


## oyarde

> 1. still?
> 2. they are i believe..extinct now?. They also had human sacrifice.
> 3. Yea, they couldn't find McDonalds, and this was what...200 years ago?


Best I can tell , every early society in the Med and Middle East performed human sacrafice as well.

----------


## oyarde

> Had just about anything you can imagine in Asia.  Whale, horse...except no monkey brains nor polar bears...yet.


Whale is best on the grill . Never eat any whale liver , too toxic.

----------


## oyarde

> Bear burgers on the grill , not bad .


Has to be well done though , because of the Trych .

----------


## oyarde

> 1. still?
> 2. they are i believe..extinct now?. They also had human sacrifice.
> 3. Yea, they couldn't find McDonalds, and this was what...200 years ago?


The Comanche language is an aztecan language .

----------


## low preference guy

> That phrase makes less sense the more I hear or read it.
> 
> If rights are defined as that which is unalienable, meaning something that can never be taken away... what is there to protect?
> 
> If rights are defined as that which is recognized, meaning something that can only exist if there are two or more parties... which party receives protection?


apparently you don't have a definition of rights that is non-contradictory.

i say the concept of rights arises in the context of some sort of ethics. if you recognize from an ethical point of view for example that restricting somebody's freedom of speech is immoral, you can say that people have a right to free speech.

in summary, saying that you have a right to free speech just means that nobody can restrict your freedom of speech without violating the mentioned ethical code.

protecting rights means punishing those who violates rights.

i don't think this definition is contradictory like other conceptions of rights.

that freedom of speech is inalienable means that every human has a right to freedom of speech, i.e., it is immoral to restrict the freedom of speech of any human.

there are exceptions for criminals. it is not immoral to restrict a criminals freedom of association. so rights are not inalienable in that sense.

----------


## oyarde

> 1. still?
> 2. they are i believe..extinct now?. They also had human sacrifice.
> 3. Yea, they couldn't find McDonalds, and this was what...200 years ago?


The interesting thing about the Comanche language being an Aztecan language is that the Comanches originated from further North , from the Shoshone .

----------


## JK/SEA

Karma making its presence known. All you who voted for cockfighting..YOU ARE NOW ON NOTICE..hahaha

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/115315954.html

----------


## oyarde

> Karma making its presence known. All you who voted for cockfighting..YOU ARE NOW ON NOTICE..hahaha
> 
> http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/115315954.html


Thats more like a Darwin Award.

----------


## JK/SEA

Oh for sure. Definite Darwin Award nominee. I found that by googling 'rooster kills man'...and found other stories of the same thing happening over the years...crqzy and dangerous sport it appears.

----------


## oyarde

> Oh for sure. Definite Darwin Award nominee. I found that by googling 'rooster kills man'...and found other stories of the same thing happening over the years...crqzy and dangerous sport it appears.


Just between us , I question the sanity of the first guy who thought it was a good idea to put knives on a rooster's heals ...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> apparently you don't have a definition of rights that is non-contradictory.


the definitions I included in my post seems to be the only way the rights chip can fall....  either it is something unalienable because it can not be taken away or it is something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party.




> i say the concept of rights arises in the context of some sort of ethics. if you recognize from an ethical point of view for example that restricting somebody's freedom of speech is immoral, you can say that people have a right to free speech.


is there a disagreement here?  aren't you defining rights as something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party and labeling that concept ethics?




> in summary, saying that you have a right to free speech just means that nobody can restrict your freedom of speech without violating the mentioned ethical code.


Speech is not unalienable because it can be impaired with force.  But I am willing to consider your claim speech is a right if you can articulate how violations ought to be measured.  




> protecting rights means punishing those who violates rights.


How do you measure a violation exactly?  Non-Aggression Principle?




> i don't think this definition is contradictory like other conceptions of rights.
> 
> that freedom of speech is inalienable means that every human has a right to freedom of speech, i.e., it is immoral to restrict the freedom of speech of any human.


What if someone yells bomb in a crowded theater?  What about covert hypnosis?




> there are exceptions for criminals. it is not immoral to restrict a criminals freedom of association. so rights are not inalienable in that sense.


The label criminal seems subjective if there is no tool being proposed to consistently measure "violations."

----------


## low preference guy

> is there a disagreement here? aren't you defining rights as something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party and labeling that concept ethics


what's the definition of "must"? to talk about "must" you need ethics.

the way i see it is this: i want to live. that's requires a long term plan (i shouldn't overdose on meth tonight just because i really want to feel good for a moment). if the objective were to live well for a moment, there wouldn't be need for ethics. so the plan to be able to live in the long term is what i call ethics. what is conducive to that goal i call good and what isn't conducive to that goal i call evil.

we can benefit greatly when we can trade goods and exchange knowledge with others. the system of division of labor makes us all better off, and it works best when life and property are protected. thus, i choose to do what i can to protect the lives of others because 1. it's good for me, as there are more goods to exchange. 2. it's the only way others will accept some social rules (such as if someone kills he'll be punished), just like i will only accept social rules if they help me live well. there might be other reasons but 2 are enough to justify my decision.

so "must", as in X must respect the property of others (i.e., not steal) just means that disobeying the "must" in question is against the code of ethics (i.e., against my own life, directly or indirectly), and i'm going to do what i can to punish that action.




> Speech is not unalienable because it can be impaired with force. But I am willing to consider your claim speech is a right if you can articulate how violations ought to be measured.


you're correct. speech is alienable if you define alienable that way.

i think the point people try to make when they say inalienable is a moral statement. they want to say that it is always immoral to stop people from speaking, and that action should be punished. even if someone does it, it is wrong. again, this is by definition, because we defined 'wrong' to mean that.




> How do you measure a violation exactly? Non-Aggression Principle?


this topic is difficult, and to be honest i don't have an absolute answer. for example, if you commit a crime, and someone punishes you, and the punishment is "excessive" i don't know how to draw the line from proper punishment to excessive punishment, which can be seen as initiation of aggression. but i can measure the violation in common sense cases, like someone out of the blue shots somebody or somebody takes your property or somebody promises in a contract that he is going to pay you and then doesn't pay you. i'm worried about these big cases mostly, and i haven't thought much about the more difficult cases.




> What if someone yells bomb in a crowded theater? What about covert hypnosis?


the owner of the theater sets the rules. if he allows others in a contract to yell fire, that's ok. this is one of those difficult cases because we use implicit contracts. we don't sign a paper for absolutely everything we can and cannot do in other people's property or in our interaction with others. so i guess the courts will determine if and how the person will be punished depending on what they consider the implicit contract to cover. that problem should be overcome if all the people that come to your theater sign an explicit contract rendering any implicit contract invalid and establishing whether yelling bomb is ok or not.




> The label criminal seems subjective if there is no tool being proposed to consistently measure "violations."


sure, i illustrated the difficulty of the problem above. defining what is a violation precisely probably requires books, if you want an absolute definition that covers every case, including drawing the line between proper punishment and excessive punishment.

but i'm satisfied living in a society that broadly punishes violations... the common sense cases i mentioned above. most of the crimes fall under that category, i believe.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Animals are not rational beings,


According to whom?

I suspect you would find many who believe animals are capable of rational thought.  They may not be capable of complex thought, but that doesn't mean they aren't rational.

Also, if "rational thought" is required to have rights, what do we do with people, who, due to incapacitation or birth defect, are not capable of rational thought?  Are we free to torture them or kill them for amusement and/or profit?

These issues ain't always as clear as some of you like to think they are.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> what's the definition of "must"? to talk about "must" you need ethics.


the definition of must according to my usage means if there are not two parties it doesn't exit.

aka... rights do not exist unless there are two parties




> the way i see it is this: i want to live. that's requires a long term plan (i shouldn't overdose on meth tonight just because i really want to feel good for a moment). if the objective were to live well for a moment, there wouldn't be need for ethics. so the plan to be able to live in the long term is what i call ethics. what is conducive to that goal i call good and what isn't conducive to that goal i call evil.


the way i see it is this:  choice is good.  choice does not require a long term plan.  choice only requires one party.  however equal opportunity of choice does require two parties agreeing which choices will be respected by the parties.




> we can benefit greatly when we can trade goods and exchange knowledge with others. the system of division of labor makes us all better off, and it works best when life and property are protected. thus, i choose to do what i can to protect the lives of others because 1. it's good for me, as there are more goods to exchange. 2. it's the only way others will accept some social rules (such as if someone kills he'll be punished), just like i will only accept social rules if they help me live well. there might be other reasons but 2 are enough to justify my decision.


I believe I benefit when I am free to make any choice that does not impede the choices of others.  I believe I benefit competing in self defense.  I believe I benefit when able to live among like minded piers who voluntarily agree on how to share land.




> so "must", as in X must respect the property of others (i.e., not steal) just means that disobeying the "must" in question is against the code of ethics (i.e., against my own life, directly or indirectly), and i'm going to do what i can to punish that action.


so is the definition of rights choice or equal opportunity of choice?  (this was the point of my first post)




> you're correct. speech is alienable if you define alienable that way.
> 
> i think the point people try to make when they say inalienable is a moral statement. they want to say that it is always immoral to stop people from speaking, and that action should be punished. even if someone does it, it is wrong. again, this is by definition, because we defined 'wrong' to mean that.
> 
> this topic is difficult, and to be honest i don't have an absolute answer. for example, if you commit a crime, and someone punishes you, and the punishment is "excessive" i don't know how to draw the line from proper punishment to excessive punishment, which can be seen as initiation of aggression. but i can measure the violation in common sense cases, like someone out of the blue shots somebody or somebody takes your property or somebody promises in a contract that he is going to pay you and then doesn't pay you. i'm worried about these big cases mostly, and i haven't thought much about the more difficult cases.
> 
> the owner of the theater sets the rules. if he allows others in a contract to yell fire, that's ok. this is one of those difficult cases because we use implicit contracts. we don't sign a paper for absolutely everything we can and cannot do in other people's property or in our interaction with others. so i guess the courts will determine if and how the person will be punished depending on what they consider the implicit contract to cover. that problem should be overcome if all the people that come to your theater sign an explicit contract rendering any implicit contract invalid and establishing whether yelling bomb is ok or not.
> 
> sure, i illustrated the difficulty of the problem above. defining what is a violation precisely probably requires books, if you want an absolute definition that covers every case, including drawing the line between proper punishment and excessive punishment.
> ...



going back to my original point because the conversation is deviating...  What are rights and what needs protected exactly?

choice or equal opportunity of choice?

if choice, why does choice require protection?

if equal opportunity of choice, who receives protection?  Non Aggressor?  NAP?

----------


## trey4sports

I had to read a book on this in college. Forget the name of it but it was by peter singer.

----------


## Athena

I'm pro-animal rights usually, but roosters are some $#@!s. I don't have a lot of pity there. 

Then again, I've never seen a cockfight, so maybe I'd feel differently if I saw one.

----------


## teacherone

> *Rooster Kills Man Attending Cockfight*
> February 7, 2011 4:35 PM
> 
> 
> DELANO (AP) — A California man attending a cockfight has died after being stabbed in the leg by a bird that had a knife attached to its own limb.
> 
> The Kern County coroner says 35-year-old Jose Luis Ochoa was declared dead at a hospital about two hours after he suffered the injury in neighboring Tulare County on 
> 
> An autopsy concluded Ochoa died of an accidental “sharp force injury” to his right calf.


since animals have rights--should the accused rooster now stand trial?

----------


## oyarde

> since animals have rights--should the accused rooster now stand trial?


Thats it , I have made my dinner choice . Fried Chicken !

----------

