R.P. on animal cruelty?

[Joe3113]

Are you in to some sort of self wanker- fest, perhaps I could drop you off my boat, and you could cuddle up with some critters that might give you the self-realization that you are seeking...

Will you please shut the fuck up and stop making ridiculous posts. If you are Australian then I am pretty ashamed.

 

[nosebruise]

Fair enough mate, I'm fucking Captain Grumpy, and I'm shitted off at you young fucks.

Let people my age bend you over...

I threw money at ya, and you all forgot to fucking vote!

May work for you. I lost my sense of humour.

I made my money. Have you?

i didnt forget nothin! my primary hasnt passed yet.

but i did register to vote for the first time in my life last month after hearing about ron. if being registered and ready isnt enough to get me to actually sign a ballot i dont know what is.

 

[nosebruise]

Animal Rights activists are not concerned with insects. What I gave you was a personal opinion.

i'm sure they arent... that would be pretty ridiculous.

at what point ARE they suddenly concerned with?

that was my point.

where are these lines drawn?

 

[Ozwest]

Animal Rights activists are not concerned with insects. What I gave you was a personal opinion.

Insects?

As long as the World can depend on this enlightened forecast.

I'm inviting my insect friends...

 

[Joe3113]

i'm sure they arent...

what ARE they concerned with?

that was my point.

where are these lines drawn?

They are concerned with animals that possess emotive ability. Dogs experience agony, therefore they are of concern. Death is not the issue (euthanasia via barbiturates is humane) but rather the experience of agony.

Emotive ability is present on a continuous scale depending on the species in question.

 

[Ozwest]

Will you please shut the fuck up and stop making ridiculous posts. If you are Australian then I am pretty ashamed.

Didn't mean to shame you. Please explain your ass-licking credentials.

You wan't to call me out, I'll have your guts for garters.

What are you?

I lived in the U.S for 23 years.

Go suck a sailors dick.

I'm an Aussie, with sixteen relatives in the U.S.

 

[Joe3113]

Didn't mean to shame you. Please explain your ass-licking credentials.

You wan't to call me out, I'll have your guts for garters.

What are you?

I lived in the U.S for 23 years.

Go suck a sailors dick.

I'm an Aussie, with sixteen relatives in the U.S.

You are a lunatic but as long as you are supporting Ron, I like you.

 

[Ozwest]

Will you please shut the fuck up and stop making ridiculous posts. If you are Australian then I am pretty ashamed.

Are you some kind of a groupie?

Have you ever lived in America?

Or... Did you go to Disneyworld?

Fuck you Mickey.

 

[Ozwest]

You are a lunatic but as long as you are supporting Ron, I like you.

Don't hide behind Ron, and don't make me call you out...

 

[Ozwest]

Will you please shut the fuck up and stop making ridiculous posts. If you are Australian then I am pretty ashamed.

I'm guessing...

You have all the Michael Jackson tapes...

Fuck you kiss-ass.

 

[Ozwest]

Will you please shut the fuck up and stop making ridiculous posts. If you are Australian then I am pretty ashamed.

Peace bro.

Australia Day will be momentous!

And... No reason to be ashamed, I speak with an American accent.

That would make me bi-lingual.

Seems to work on the worlds best looking women. Aussie women rule!

 

[nosebruise]

They are concerned with animals that possess emotive ability. Dogs experience agony, therefore they are of concern. Death is not the issue (euthanasia via barbiturates is humane) but rather the experience of agony.

Emotive ability is present on a continuous scale depending on the species in question.

this presents a problem though. you're trying to come up with a definite point on a gradient scale.

whats a definite emotive ability?
do fish exhibit emotive abilities?

what about mice... and if so, is it wrong to feed mice to a pet snake?

 

[Ozwest]

this presents a problem though. whats a definite emotive ability? do fish have emotive abilities?

what about mice... and is it wrong to feed mice to a pet snake?

In Australia we fish.

We bludgeon the fish quickly and humanely.

Then we eat them.

We still have wild-fish off the West Australian coast.

Like it was 10 million years ago.

 

[Kregener]

How about we tackle OUR rights first?

 

[Ozwest]

this presents a problem though. you're trying to come up with a definite point on a gradient scale.

whats a definite emotive ability?
do fish exhibit emotive abilities?

what about mice... and if so, is it wrong to feed mice to a pet snake?

Whats the "gradient scale" of animal slaughter in a "meat works."

Do you eat meat?

Go to a "meat works" before you buy your cello-taped product.

 

[TaxProtester]

I like my animals on my plate. Ron Paul, being a hunter, I'm sure he does too.

This is certainly NOT a way to persuade people who are sensitive to issues of animal cruelty, to vote for RP. In fact, it does just the opposite.

Neither is this

um animals don't have rights. Animal 'cruelty' may be disgusting but it isn't a violation of anyone's rights. (Unless of course someone is harming your animals)

OR this

I don't care how you feel or what your personal convictions are. In the real world, animals do not have rights.

Pets and livestock are property. Under the US Constitution property owners have rights... not the property.

lol animal cruelty. Seriously? That's an issue?

It is for a large number of people and we need to try to get their vote. Belittling their concerns DOES NOT get their vote.

animal rights is fucking stupid. Animals = food

How is this going to persuade people with concerns for animals to vote for RP?????????

An animal is an animal.. the day we put a human into jail for animal cruelty was a real sign of the sad state of affairs in this nation. There are even some whacked out judges that think animals should have rights in court!!!!!

So you think people who have concerns for animals should not vote for RP??

I say kill em all and let McDonalds sort em out! (or not, like they do with McNuggets)

Will this get people to vote for RP. To think yes is absurd. Whose side are you on?

I pose the same question to the below:

It is a sad day when our courts are debating if animals should have "legal rights" while at the same time they are stripping the rights from humans. All the animals in this world don't equal 1 human.

And again the same question to the below:

Animal Rights? How about we take care of all the HUMAN BEINGS in this country first. Then we can start worrying about the animals. (please note, this is not an implication of open season on all animals, nothing like that whatsoever)

And again:

Animals have no rights.

The topic of this treads is "How to persuade people who are sympathetic to animal cruelty to cast a vote for RP"

Do you all think that these people's votes are unimportant? I have news for you: THEY ARE IMPORTANT! EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT! Belittling people's concerns for animals WILL NOT GET VOTES. It will push them to SOMEONE ELSE.

Do you not want people to vote for RP? Please reexamine your priorities here. If you do not, then you are essentially telling people: Don't vote for Ron Paul. I'm sure he does not appreciate this.

 

[nosebruise]

yeah ok, but what do you want people to say? its just not a point thats gonna bring anyone over to ron's camp regardless because this is a non-issue. if granting animal rights is gonna make or break it for them then they probably arent gonna be persuaded to ron's side over it. (pretty doubtful for the other candidates either, as others have said animal rights is a pretty ridiculous notion)

are we supposed to tell them ron paul wants to amend the constitution for animal rights?
cause i'm pretty sure hes personally against animal abuse, but im also pretty sure he would think giving animals constitutionally provided rights is ridiculous as well. and we all know ron paul is strictly constitutional. all other issues are non-issues, federally.

 

[Ozwest]

It should be a top priority that humans read and understand the Constitution first. Then we can bring the animals around.

During the meantime...

My Border Collie and I will continue our debate on the Super Bowl result.

 

[Ozwest]

Last year she cleaned up with the bookies. She has a sixth sense.

 

[jeffersonT]

Innateness? If the genetic capability is not present in these people then what exactly are you referring to? What exactly IS innateness? Natural selection absolutely destroys your theory. Genetic mutation occurs naturally.

Innateness is from Latin: natural or inborn.

Meaning: there is a typical, “non-retarded” model of a species. Some humans are born with more than two legs—it does not mean that having two legs is the normal, innate state of man. This is applicable to all living groups.

ALSO, as I’ve stated I do not oppose the theory of natural selection, and it does not “destroy” my theory, which is not even a theory of my own.

I'll revise my previous statement and say rights derive from a combination of emotive ability and species.

I don’t understand the addition of “species” as a qualifier. Could you explain a little more?

Widely used? So what. They are completely subjective words and yet you used them in a dismissive manner without further clarification.

They are not subjective words. Fetishism is defined for you in dictionaries, as is sublimation.

Simply using a particular word with a subjective definition does not degrade an opposing argument.

Obviously; but, as I didn’t do that, your statement is inane.

I also added “(Freud)” as a qualifier of specific usage, avoiding generalization, but also assuming these words are familiar to anyone of intellectual familiarity with the last 150 yrs.

You've just written my rebuttal for me with that last sentence. You say the word 'sentimental' means 'emotion in excess of the situation'. I am happy with that definition as being reduced as far as possible, however it is still completely subjective. What exactly constitutes 'excess' is completely in the eye of the beholder.

Example: is it subjective to say that a man dressing up a dog is emotional attention in excess of that the situation requires? or: is a man breaking a table over another man’s head for sneezing in his presence an excess of sentiment?

One could say they were, but you’d look absolutely ridiculous.

One can apply such logic to other, less obvious examples.

Then you should be more receptive to my arguments with regard to natural selection.

The reason I assume as much is due to your dogmatic application of the word 'morality', as I have described below.

Fair ‘nuff.

It seems you are making an artificial distinction. You have taken everything that is somewhat unique about the human species and then bastardized the word 'morality' to exclusively refer to these characteristics. You are in fact 'begging the question' so to speak. You are assuming something which you have not proven and need to prove. Then you follow by saying morality is the basis of rights, and so humans are the only species to which rights can be applied.

That’s what “morality” is, though; it is a human concept regarding human actions. That is, being human including abstract contemplation (I’m not sure if any animals take part in this, though certain animals have shown an ability for a very low amount of abstract “thought”), aesthetic creation (which no other species does), and awareness of temporal aspects of existence. I may be leaving some out. If animals did any of this, or practiced morality themselves in any discernable way, the premise—as regards that species—could be reconsidered as far as application.

Well that depends how you define 'morality'. As I explained above, you seem to take human characteristics that are unique and bastardize the word 'morality' to apply exclusively. I, on the other hand, keep an open mind about what the term 'morality' can apply to.

I mean they have some consideration of right and wrong, and if they do something “wrong” it produces guilt. Human conscience is at work even in sociopaths, just to a more complicated, less-straightforward degree. It manifests itself in “sociopathic” ways, ie in psychologically abnormal ways.

Yes they do.

See above (“being human including” remarks).

And yet you accept natural selection and evolutionary theory as the most likely means by which we have come to exist.

In this light, your sudden artificial distinction between humans and other animals is contradictory.

I value Oscar Wilde and Tolstoy over ants—who produce no art, do not contemplate, and are unaware of temporality; sorry.

Values—I’m speaking of these in the sense Nietzsche or Aristotle would apply them—do not disappear merely because we are all interrelated beings.