Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Plaything48 · Feb 25, 2004, 12:30 pm

Rights

Feb 25, 2004, 12:41 pm

The possession of moral rights, of inherent value does not depend on any given dna sequence, but rather on rationality, knowledge, and vulnerability. Any entity possessing these traits necessarily has inherent value and moral rights.

Impenitent · Feb 25, 2004, 12:51 pm

human rights for non humans... all humans don't even have "human" rights...

RebelWithanAK · Feb 25, 2004, 01:49 pm

Let's fix our own species before we go on a PETA binge, alright?

**Pooeypants** · Feb 25, 2004, 03:55 pm

How about extension to artificial intelligence?

Plaything48 · Feb 25, 2004, 07:25 pm

I think we need to at least have evidence of artificial intelligence before we extend rights to it.

Leopard · Feb 26, 2004, 04:06 am

the day artificaial intelligence demands that its rights be recognized... is the day it will have rights. For an entity to have human rights (and rights ARE purelty a human o abstraction) it must be able to define, reciprocate, and extend the same rights to those it is seeking rights from.

michael

laserkid · Feb 26, 2004, 04:38 am

Rights are for sentients. If we're expanding human rights, its an expansion to "sentient rights" that would only work for

A: A new species or an old one showing up on Earth that proves its sentience

B: Extra Terrestrial Sentient Life

C: Sentient A.I.

AnonT · Feb 26, 2004, 05:27 am

Rights should be extended to "persons", persons being sovereign, intelligent beings (yes, admittedly that's a vague definition).
There are dolphins and chimps who rate higher on human IQ and EQ scales than a lot of humans, there are a few species of apes that use tools, and there are many non-human species that are sovereign by pretty much any definition of the term I've seen (self aware, able to make their own decisions).

Plaything48 · Feb 26, 2004, 10:37 am

You know, the idea I find hard to grasp is sentient meat.

Leopard · Feb 26, 2004, 11:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Plaything48,)
You know, the idea I find hard to grasp is sentient meat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

don't humans fall under this classification?

commonsense · Feb 27, 2004, 05:09 pm

Although I would never mistreat an animal, I think hunting serves a spiritual purpose, connecting us to the land and the sanctity of our food source. Its possible that millennia of evolution of instincts for survival in our human psyche as neanderthals, indians, etc when artificially cooped-up in unnatural environments causes a certain percentage of us to take on a "bloodlust" with some outlets benign, like sports, martial arts or in some cultures bullfighting, yet in some individuals, with modern life this innate drive is scrambled and leads to violent or psychopathic behaviour.

Pets and all domesticated animals really, are wonderful! and provide man with many still to be understood benefits and joys, and most excessive animal lovers and perhaps even whacko PeTA members are sincere...

But! What most of them don't realize, like the members of so many of our ostensibly "positive" activist groups, is that thet are the dupes of the elitist, self-serving enslaving International Socialist Movement.

How you say? Because, even if one considers himself intellectual, or worldly, or agnostic... Our world culture is overwhelmingly influenced either by Judeo-Christian ethics that animals are our heavenly gifts that serve us but can't fend for themselves without our "good stewardship" or by Eastern or primitive philosophy which puts man as sacredly "one" with nature or reincarnation...

All of which is fine,
But! When the real powerful forces of the world, either at a small scale, like in primitive societies, or in great modern self-serving lying movements like socialism...

Their efforts at "Animal Rights" are in effect efforts of control over our freshly indoctrinated young minds who love cute little bunnies, etc, and are taught the sanctity of human life by the same liars...

Yet, they do so with the real intention of creating the societal sense that, "Well, if our precious little creatures need "good stewardship" then so do we, we human "equals" of all living things...

Opening the philosophical door to a (Hah!) mighty and beneficent Socialistic elitist corp of usurpers to care and coddle us poor defenseless creature just like nature's fluffy adorable little bunny!

What a place to be!

castille · Feb 27, 2004, 11:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (commonsense,)
Although I would never mistreat an animal, I think hunting serves a spiritual purpose, connecting us to the land and the sanctity of our food source.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So if I hunt a human, kill him, then eat him, its spiritual?

I have nothing against killing - human, animal, alien, or whatever. Humans aren't special; we're just another species who've learnt to kill better than anyone else.

So if humans get rights, so should animals. We can feel pain, so can animals. You think those animals in the zoo enjoy a bunch of morons pointing at them and laughing?

Leopard · Feb 27, 2004, 11:56 pm

castille,
so you ascribe rights to things that can feel pain?

answer these two questions, please:

'who' assigns rights?

Is there any indication of rights in a natural world without man?

castille · Feb 28, 2004, 12:02 am

Leopard - I don't believe in rights either

I prefer the realistic belief that whoever has power has more rights.

Just look at the Communist revolution in Russia. The peasants demanded rights, so they overthrew the Imperial government. But in the end, the Russians ended up being oppressed again by Lenin, Stalin, etc. who all wielded power.

However, personally I see no difference between humans and animals. I would gladly sacrifice a human to save 2 dogs if I had to. And of course, I don't go to zoos either, until they start putting humans in it.

Plaything48 · Feb 28, 2004, 12:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
don't humans fall under this classification? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah, i was referrring to humans.

Leopard · Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 pm

Castille,
I believe in Rights as an universal agreement between all humans (and whomever else has the ability to agree) that everybody is enhanced and their survival is forwarded by having such agreements. Its kinda like murder: no one wants to be murdered, so everyone agrees that murdere is a very bad thing. But in the natural world, there is no such right... animals murder each other with no respect to the others 'right to live'. The only 'right' is the right to TRY to survive. At the fundamental level, it really is 'survival of the fittest' or 'might makes right' - and we need to understand that and be aware of it in our own views of 'reality - to do otherwise and proclaim that someone, somehow has mystically granted special consideration to a certain segment of the natural world is to just stick ones head in the sand. and that is a dangerous thing, like believeing one can fly so he proceeds to jump of a cliff... it just ain't the truth. But, this in no way states that a God or gods do not exist - just that if they do, their influence on our world is not possible to detect by current methods.

michael

commonsense · Feb 28, 2004, 04:53 pm

castille,
I see you stopped reading at the first line. Sure hunting is spiritual for us..we can contemplate it, the animal eats the other purely on instinct.
I was hoping to stimulate discussion on the real motivations behind the animal rights movement

bugsbunny04 · Feb 28, 2004, 05:28 pm

I did not check to see if this point has already been made, but here goes:

If we did, then they would no longer be "human" rights.

Plaything48 · Feb 29, 2004, 02:20 pm

That's true, but that's not what i was trying to imply. The poll is about imposing human rights on others(non-human).

View Poll Results: Should we extend human rights beyond the species?
Yes, we need to protect "persons" and not species	4	14.29%
Yes, humans have no monopoly on fundamental rights	3	10.71%
Yes, it would be another progressive step in the evolution of liberal democracy	4	14.29%
No, it would weaken and diminish current protections	2	7.14%
No, only humans can understand and appreciate the concept of rights	10	35.71%
No, extending rights beyond the species is an affront to human dignity	5	17.86%
Voters: 28. You may not vote

Feb 25, 2004, 12:30 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	Rights A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 25, 2004, 12:51 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	human rights for non humans... all humans don't even have "human" rights... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 25, 2004, 01:49 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Let's fix our own species before we go on a PETA binge, alright? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 25, 2004, 03:55 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	How about extension to artificial intelligence? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 25, 2004, 12:41 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	The possession of moral rights, of inherent value does not depend on any given dna sequence, but rather on rationality, knowledge, and vulnerability. Any entity possessing these traits necessarily has inherent value and moral rights.

Feb 25, 2004, 07:25 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	I think we need to at least have evidence of artificial intelligence before we extend rights to it. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 26, 2004, 04:06 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	the day artificaial intelligence demands that its rights be recognized... is the day it will have rights. For an entity to have human rights (and rights ARE purelty a human o abstraction) it must be able to define, reciprocate, and extend the same rights to those it is seeking rights from. michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 26, 2004, 04:38 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	Rights are for sentients. If we're expanding human rights, its an expansion to "sentient rights" that would only work for A: A new species or an old one showing up on Earth that proves its sentience B: Extra Terrestrial Sentient Life C: Sentient A.I. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Feb 26, 2004, 05:27 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	Rights should be extended to "persons", persons being sovereign, intelligent beings (yes, admittedly that's a vague definition). There are dolphins and chimps who rate higher on human IQ and EQ scales than a lot of humans, there are a few species of apes that use tools, and there are many non-human species that are sovereign by pretty much any definition of the term I've seen (self aware, able to make their own decisions).

Feb 26, 2004, 10:37 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	You know, the idea I find hard to grasp is sentient meat. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 26, 2004, 11:26 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Plaything48,) You know, the idea I find hard to grasp is sentient meat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> don't humans fall under this classification? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 27, 2004, 05:09 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	Although I would never mistreat an animal, I think hunting serves a spiritual purpose, connecting us to the land and the sanctity of our food source. Its possible that millennia of evolution of instincts for survival in our human psyche as neanderthals, indians, etc when artificially cooped-up in unnatural environments causes a certain percentage of us to take on a "bloodlust" with some outlets benign, like sports, martial arts or in some cultures bullfighting, yet in some individuals, with modern life this innate drive is scrambled and leads to violent or psychopathic behaviour. Pets and all domesticated animals really, are wonderful! and provide man with many still to be understood benefits and joys, and most excessive animal lovers and perhaps even whacko PeTA members are sincere... But! What most of them don't realize, like the members of so many of our ostensibly "positive" activist groups, is that thet are the dupes of the elitist, self-serving enslaving International Socialist Movement. How you say? Because, even if one considers himself intellectual, or worldly, or agnostic... Our world culture is overwhelmingly influenced either by Judeo-Christian ethics that animals are our heavenly gifts that serve us but can't fend for themselves without our "good stewardship" or by Eastern or primitive philosophy which puts man as sacredly "one" with nature or reincarnation... All of which is fine, But! When the real powerful forces of the world, either at a small scale, like in primitive societies, or in great modern self-serving lying movements like socialism... Their efforts at "Animal Rights" are in effect efforts of control over our freshly indoctrinated young minds who love cute little bunnies, etc, and are taught the sanctity of human life by the same liars... Yet, they do so with the real intention of creating the societal sense that, "Well, if our precious little creatures need "good stewardship" then so do we, we human "equals" of all living things... Opening the philosophical door to a (Hah!) mighty and beneficent Socialistic elitist corp of usurpers to care and coddle us poor defenseless creature just like nature's fluffy adorable little bunny! What a place to be! The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Feb 27, 2004, 11:43 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (commonsense,) Although I would never mistreat an animal, I think hunting serves a spiritual purpose, connecting us to the land and the sanctity of our food source.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So if I hunt a human, kill him, then eat him, its spiritual? I have nothing against killing - human, animal, alien, or whatever. Humans aren't special; we're just another species who've learnt to kill better than anyone else. So if humans get rights, so should animals. We can feel pain, so can animals. You think those animals in the zoo enjoy a bunch of morons pointing at them and laughing? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 27, 2004, 11:56 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	castille, so you ascribe rights to things that can feel pain? answer these two questions, please: 'who' assigns rights? Is there any indication of rights in a natural world without man? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 28, 2004, 12:02 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Leopard - I don't believe in rights either I prefer the realistic belief that whoever has power has more rights. Just look at the Communist revolution in Russia. The peasants demanded rights, so they overthrew the Imperial government. But in the end, the Russians ended up being oppressed again by Lenin, Stalin, etc. who all wielded power. However, personally I see no difference between humans and animals. I would gladly sacrifice a human to save 2 dogs if I had to. And of course, I don't go to zoos either, until they start putting humans in it. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 28, 2004, 12:04 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by don't humans fall under this classification? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah, i was referrring to humans. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Castille, I believe in Rights as an universal agreement between all humans (and whomever else has the ability to agree) that everybody is enhanced and their survival is forwarded by having such agreements. Its kinda like murder: no one wants to be murdered, so everyone agrees that murdere is a very bad thing. But in the natural world, there is no such right... animals murder each other with no respect to the others 'right to live'. The only 'right' is the right to TRY to survive. At the fundamental level, it really is 'survival of the fittest' or 'might makes right' - and we need to understand that and be aware of it in our own views of 'reality - to do otherwise and proclaim that someone, somehow has mystically granted special consideration to a certain segment of the natural world is to just stick ones head in the sand. and that is a dangerous thing, like believeing one can fly so he proceeds to jump of a cliff... it just ain't the truth. But, this in no way states that a God or gods do not exist - just that if they do, their influence on our world is not possible to detect by current methods. michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 28, 2004, 04:53 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	castille, I see you stopped reading at the first line. Sure hunting is spiritual for us..we can contemplate it, the animal eats the other purely on instinct. I was hoping to stimulate discussion on the real motivations behind the animal rights movement The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Feb 28, 2004, 05:28 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	I did not check to see if this point has already been made, but here goes: If we did, then they would no longer be "human" rights. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 02:20 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	That's true, but that's not what i was trying to imply. The poll is about imposing human rights on others(non-human). A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.