R.P. on animal cruelty?

[Joe3113]

I think as far as I'm personally concerned, I am the least likely to be a Ron Paul supporter. I am a woman, I am a Latina with a father who did not arrive in this country legally, I support Pro- Choice, and I support Animal rights.
Despite all that I am a die hard Revolution supporter. Why? Because even though I know this candidate does not agree with alot of the same opinions I have, he stands for something that is most important, bringing the power back to the people. So I won't go another 12 pages into what defines "Animal Rights". I know how it is defined to ME and that's all that matters. If I want something changed with Animal Rights, I will do it myself. But if I can get a president into office that will get big government off my back, and let me enjoy my entire paycheck so that with that extra money I can donate to my preferred Animal Rights foundation or even better, start my own.
OP- The way to get them is to help them understand the bigger picture of it all.

I love you.

Don't forget to keep some money to pay for you healthcare

 

[eldeeder]

You are about 5 years behind

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html

That article is from 2002. Im going from Dawkins book "the God Delusion." Ill have to do some more reasearch now though. Thank you.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Animals have no rights.

 

[eldeeder]

You are about 5 years behind

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent


check out that link, tell me what you think...


some of its creationist junk, but they put alot of different crap out their to cloud peoples minds into believing that scientists disagree on things that they actually dont.

 

[Joe3113]

4. Enough people in this world are already starving without diet restrictions. Combined with the economy and jobmarket, the realistic phasing out of meat from our civilization in any short term span is just not possible.

Dude, you are misreading, I don't want to restrict anyone's diet in terms of humanely (or at least attempted humanely) slaughtered food animals. However I would like it if people came to the conclusion, as I have, that veganism is a the ultimate in morality. But they must come to that conclusion of their own free will. That's freedom!

 

[Joe3113]

Animals have no rights.

Animals have rights. (Note, I used an argument at the same level of complexity as the one you used)

 

[eldeeder]

You'll notice most of the references to the articles about it being less than 99% are attributed to websites like "Answers in Genisis" which have NO REGARD for scientific facts.

 

[eldeeder]

Dude, you are misreading, I don't want to restrict anyone's diet in terms of humanely (or at least attempted humanely) slaughtered food animals. However I would like it if people came to the conclusion, as I have, that veganism is a the ultimate in morality. But they must come to that conclusion of their own free will. That's freedom!

Yup, I got that later on, thats why I apologized in #5.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Animals have rights. (Note, I used an argument at the same level of complexity as the one you used)

Animals are property. Does someone's lawn have rights?

 

[eldeeder]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039

Then there is that article too...

 

[Joe3113]

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent


check out that link, tell me what you think...


some of its creationist junk, but they put alot of different crap out their to cloud peoples minds into believing that scientists disagree on things that they actually dont.

The New Scientist Article is referring to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Whether it is 95% or 99% doesn't really matter. The point is it's high.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Animal Cruelty (ie. torture) should be illegal at the Federal Level , imo... Tho Im fine with allowing the states to decide .

Torture of anything, whether it be a 30 year old man ,a pet dog or a wild fox, should be illegal. Period.


.

 

[eldeeder]

Animals are property. Does someone's lawn have rights?

Hope not.... Dont want to go to the park and get nabbed for "Lawn Molestation"

 

[Joe3113]

Animals are property. Does someone's lawn have rights?

Animals are not only property. And why does something being property preclude it having rights?

Lawns do not have rights.

 

[jeffersonT]

I stopped reading your post here, because what you said is so ridiculous.

...
Yeah, Aristotle’s a dumbass.

An inability to discuss this in a real philosophical sense—to back up claims of animal ‘morality’ with substance rather than sentiment—does not reflect well on your part.

When my dog cries when I leave the house, is she acting on instinct?

Yes. It is sentimentalism on your part to believe a dog is crying because of your absence. It’s sublimation and fetishism (as Freud might respond), and lots of other psychological associations and aspects.

It does not, however, have anything to do with a dog having any kind of morality. Even if a dog were to cry in reaction to a situation, it has nothing to do with “right and wrong”; it has as much to do with it as taking a shit on the lawn or becoming aroused in certain times/at certain situations.

Just dismissing animals by saying "they act on instinct" is rather simplistic don't you think. What is instinct exactly? As a veterinary student and someone who has studied animal behavior, I can tell you that it is not easily defined, nor is anything associated with complex brain function.

It is behavior based in no abstract contemplation. The urge to procreate/have sex is instinct; there is no thought involved.

This should be fairly obvious.

Human 'characteristics' you say? So you think all of our characteristics are unique to us? Every one of them? Newsflash....Humans and Chimpanzees share 95% similarity in DNA.

This completely mishandles the post you were responding to:

The problem with 'animal rights' is the fact the human beings project human characteristics onto their pets and those animals become equal to them in their eyes.

This is basically saying that individuals project emotions onto pets that aren’t really there. These projected emotions take the form of the build-up of concepts having to do with the animal’s similarity to the owner (in whatever form).

Whether or not Chimpanzees and Humans have 95% similarity in DNA is not the issue. Both humans and mice have feet; this has nothing to do with the psychology of the situation.


I thought this was particularly, out of this entire thread, correct also:

Well animals do have similar emotions to human beings, the fundamental difference between human beings and other mammels is forsight. Animals can learn, and can also act out of instinct. Their emotions evolved much the same way ours did. To reward good action, and to repremand bad action. Animals however have no concept of "the future" That is why they don't bury their dead. We are the only species on the planet that is capable of understanding our own death. Animals can learn, and can be very intellegent, but they are not able to apply their learned concepts to untested, future based ideas.

and

Animals are easy to defend because they seem so innocent when placed within our own standards. No vegetarian condems a lion for eating a zebra though.

I don't understand this statement:

Just fyi, on a quantitative level. We have much more evidence of evolution than we do of a Solar-Centric System.

Sentient? Words are human concepts. Words have definitions which are themselves made up of words. They are simply a tool to communicate. For you to simply dismiss animals as not being "sentient" is a ridiculous argument.

Sentient in the sense of rationality based in abstract conception. Ants communicate. By your manner of thought, ants would be sentient.

They are not.

 

[CowCat33]

Bravo

I think as far as I'm personally concerned, I am the least likely to be a Ron Paul supporter. I am a woman, I am a Latina with a father who did not arrive in this country legally, I support Pro- Choice, and I support Animal rights.
Despite all that I am a die hard Revolution supporter. Why? Because even though I know this candidate does not agree with alot of the same opinions I have, he stands for something that is most important, bringing the power back to the people. So I won't go another 12 pages into what defines "Animal Rights". I know how it is defined to ME and that's all that matters. If I want something changed with Animal Rights, I will do it myself. But if I can get a president into office that will get big government off my back, and let me enjoy my entire paycheck so that with that extra money I can donate to my preferred Animal Rights foundation or even better, start my own.
OP- The way to get them is to help them understand the bigger picture of it all.

I think you've made the best point out of the whole thread. I am not happy about RP's stance on animal-rights or lack thereof (if true based on previous poster's article), however, we've got more important fish to fry (no pun intended). Like you I am pro-choice up to a point and against animal cruelty of any kind. I believe in harsh penalties for animal abuse because it is a sign of a sick mind and one that could lead to further problems in society - i.e. crime against people. I also believe puppy mills should be shut down and dog/cat breeders strictly limited - there is no reason millions of companion animals are put to sleep every year - that is human beings' fault. I also believe slaughterhouses should be as humane as possible. I would like to see laws about these things at the federal level, but if it doesn't happen I'm not going to fret too much. I'm more concerned at this point about the economy going to shit, the dollar being worthless, and me unable to afford food or shelter for me and my pets. Side note, I do eat meat, but I was raised on it - however if the day came I had to butcher my own meat if I wanted to eat it again, I would turn vegetarian pretty quick. I do think a lot of what PETA does is very good and if we support animal rights/anti-cruelty then we should donate to these types of organizations.

 

[Joe3113]

Yeah, Aristotle’s a dumbass.

Anyone who speaks about animals collectively is a dumbass

An inability to discuss this in a real philosophical sense—to back up claims of animal ‘morality’ with substance rather than sentiment—does not reflect well on your part.

You are attacking my supposed lack of substance while providing none of your own.

Yes. It is sentimentalism on your part to believe a dog is crying because of your absence. It’s sublimation and fetishism (as Freud might respond), and lots of other psychological associations and aspects.

Yeah right, all human feeling can simply be belittled and dismissed by your rationalistic definitions. You are the one of these people who think words can define life itself. Newsflash, words are a means of communicating, they are not the absolute fundamentals of life itself. You say I'm being sentimental. I say I'm not.

It does not, however, have anything to do with a dog having any kind of morality. Even if a dog were to cry in reaction to a situation, it has nothing to do with “right and wrong”; it has as much to do with it as taking a shit on the lawn or becoming aroused in certain times/at certain situations.

There you go with your word worshiping again. You think using certain words can dismiss what other people feel. Obviously my dog would not know if I was a murderer or a rapist, but that does not mean the animal does not have feelings of loneliness, anxiety and agony (now i'm doing the wordiness thing). A child does not know if it's father is moral, but does that mean it has no rights

It is behavior based in no abstract contemplation.

I know a lot of people who love their animals. Why don't you go up to them and tell them that it's all just a result of "abstract contemplation". I'm sure they would punch you in the nose.

The urge to procreate/have sex is instinct; there is no thought involved.

So because their method of procreation is instinctive, it dismisses the rest of their behavior as instinctive? Wrong.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Animals are not only property. And why does something being property preclude it having rights?

Lawns do not have rights.

You must not be a libertarian . Animals better evolve into something, or else they will continue to be my food supply. lol.

 

[Joe3113]

You must not be a libertarian . Animals better evolve into something, or else they will continue to be my food supply. lol.

Once again you simplify the argument by saying i'm not 'libertarian'. I doubt anyone can provide a complete and unanimously accepted definition of what a 'libertarian' is. I don't believe people should be afraid of their governments, I believe governments should be afraid of their people. I believe that people need to discover morality under their own free will rather than have it imposed on them by the government or some global 'elite'. Where I draw the line is with human rights and animal rights, which should be protected. What word would you like to attach to that position?

I find it quite disturbing when people see animals purely as property and nothing more. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Ron took that position. I don't agree with Ron on every issue, just about 99% of them. Ron has also proven he is not dogmatic. He has changed his position on the death penalty as he gained new information. A willingness to listen to other arguments and be honest, is fundamental. I am never rigid in my positions. If new information comes to light then I will listen to it and make a judgment. As long as Ron has that characteristic, then he is a hero in my book.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Once again you simplify the argument by saying i'm not 'libertarian'. I doubt anyone can provide a complete and unanimously accepted definition of what a 'libertarian' is. I don't believe people should be afraid of their governments, I believe governments should be afraid of their people. I believe that people need to discover morality under their own free will rather than have it imposed on them by the government or some global 'elite'. Where I draw the line is with human rights and animal rights, which should be protected. What word would you like to attach to that position?

I find it quite disturbing when people see animals purely as property and nothing more. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Ron took that position. I don't agree with Ron on every issue, just about 99% of them. Ron has also proven he is not dogmatic. He has changed his position on the death penalty as he gained new information. A willingness to listen to other arguments and be honest, is fundamental. I am never rigid in my positions. If new information comes to light then I will listen to it and make a judgment. As long as Ron has that characteristic, then he is a hero in my book.

How can you protect animals when a billion chickens are slaughtered annually? A vegan nation?