[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Anyway…
Animals do not have “rights”. [/quote]Looky there. I agree.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Anyway…
Animals do not have “rights”. [/quote]Looky there. I agree.
[/quote]
but you did step on that slippery slope of “godly” and “ungodly” treatment.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Anyway…
Animals do not have “rights”. [/quote]Looky there. I agree.
[/quote]
but you did step on that slippery slope of “godly” and “ungodly” treatment. [/quote]Hunting, eating animal flesh and research can and are carried out by godly people in the name of Jesus. Torturing an animal to watch and hear it suffer cannot. Somewhere on that somewhat long slope the line is crossed. I don’t know that I can pinpoint where in a forum post, but I usually know when it has been.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Anyway…
Animals do not have “rights”. [/quote]Looky there. I agree.
[/quote]
but you did step on that slippery slope of “godly” and “ungodly” treatment. [/quote]Hunting, eating animal flesh and research can and are carried out by godly people in the name of Jesus. Torturing an animal to watch and hear it suffer cannot. Somewhere on that somewhat long slope the line is crossed. I don’t know that I can pinpoint where in a forum post, but I usually know when it has been.[/quote]
sorry fella, there is a problem there when you state you can “pinpoint it when YOU see it”. that’s personal and arbitrary and an infringement upon another man’s viewpoint. and that’s the problem with the entire AR and “humane” agenda.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Wrong.
If I’m hungry, the rooster has more “value” AND utility.
[/quote]
That’s fallacious and incorrect. Firstly, you are again talking about the value that YOU place on the animal when I have explained that I mean the animal’s own inherent value. Secondly, if you really were ‘hungry’ in the starving/malnourished sense, you would be better off eating the dog. More meat.
No. No animals should have ‘rights’ as such under the law. It’s a slippery slope(see roguevampire for why.)
At dogfighting.
[quote]
Check.[/quote]
I’m gonna call a threefold repetition draw.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Wrong.
If I’m hungry, the rooster has more “value” AND utility.
[/quote]
That’s fallacious and incorrect. Firstly, you are again talking about the value that YOU place on the animal when I have explained that I mean the animal’s own inherent value. Secondly, if you really were ‘hungry’ in the starving/malnourished sense, you would be better off eating the dog. More meat.
No. No animals should have ‘rights’ as such under the law. It’s a slippery slope(see roguevampire for why.)
At dogfighting.
[quote]
Check.[/quote]
I’m gonna call a threefold repetition draw.[/quote]
you’re arguing in circles. again.
YOU are talking about the value that YOU place on said animals (not their “inherent” value b/c such value is subjective) and you’re using extremes (comparing the utility of a dog to a rooster) to avoid the slippery slope that in the beginning I stated this argument will slide down. And it has. When you can reconcile the relative value of all animals, across all cultures, across all customs, I shall sit here and listen to your arrogant “checks”, along with your explanation. However, one will not be forthcoming now will it?
Check mate.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you’re arguing in circles. again.
[/quote]
No
It is true that it is a subjective judgement in the sense that the inherent qualities the dog possesses are judged superior to a rooster’s inherent qualities. But that judgement is made, not as a determination of the animal’s value to man, but as a determination of whether the dog is a superior lifeform to a chicken. That a dog IS a superior lifeform to a chicken cannot be denied. Additionally, from a biological perspective a dog is a more advanced and complex form of life. That is NOT subjective.
Actually no, I answered the original questions you posed to me. What do I think of “bloodsports?” I gave my opinion on cockfighting and dogfighting. If they are ‘extremes’ as you say, then that would explain why I don’t care about cockfighting but I draw the line at dogfighting.
Balderdash. Any reasonable person has to make comparative judgements as to the inherent value of a lifeform.
[quote]
Check mate. [/quote]
I offered you a draw to save face. But if it’s that important to you, then yes. Checkmate. You beat me. Good game.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< sorry fella, there is a problem there when you state you can “pinpoint it when YOU see it”. that’s personal and arbitrary and an infringement upon another man’s viewpoint. and that’s the problem with the entire AR and “humane” agenda. [/quote]Everything everybody believes is an infringement on somebody’s viewpoint.
I have no AR and “humane” agenda. I simply know that torturing an animal to watch it die an agonizing death is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Denial of Christ isn’t either, but that doesn’t mean I’m coming to put you in jail for it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Wrong.
If I’m hungry, the rooster has more “value” AND utility.
[/quote]
That’s fallacious and incorrect. Firstly, you are again talking about the value that YOU place on the animal when I have explained that I mean the animal’s own inherent value. Secondly, if you really were ‘hungry’ in the starving/malnourished sense, you would be better off eating the dog. More meat.
[/quote]
Oh please, you are basically claiming that his valuation are subjective whereas yours are objective.
The trick you use, probably to trick yourself also, is to go one step back and derive your evaluation from supposedly objective values.
However, he is not obliged to share those values.
Utility is individual and subjective, always.
[quote]orion wrote:
Utility is individual and subjective, always. [/quote]
I will not attempt to dispute that. But biological sophistication is not subjective. And those utitility related attributes are a result of the biological sophistication of the canine. A dog is more intelligent than a rooster. That is NOT subjective. Or not by any reasonable standards in that ANY judgement we make has to be subjective in some sense. There are very few people who would attempt to argue that a chicken is more intelligent than a dog. And if they did attempt to argue such they’d look very silly indeed. Basically I’m saying that if you try to tell me a chicken is smarter than some of the working dogs I’ve had I’d call bullshit. Subjective maybe. But regardless, the hound is a more biologically sophisticated lifeform - not a subjective judgement by any reasonable standard.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Utility is individual and subjective, always. [/quote]
I will not attempt to dispute that. But biological sophistication is not subjective. And those utitility related attributes are a result of the biological sophistication of the canine. A dog is more intelligent than a rooster. That is NOT subjective. Or not by any reasonable standards in that ANY judgement we make has to be subjective in some sense. There are very few people who would attempt to argue that a chicken is more intelligent than a dog. And if they did attempt to argue such they’d look very silly indeed. Basically I’m saying that if you try to tell me a chicken is smarter than some of the working dogs I’ve had I’d call bullshit. Subjective maybe. But regardless, the hound is a more biologically sophisticated lifeform - not a subjective judgement by any reasonable standard.[/quote]
No, you are arguing that more intelligent = better. Or more sophisticated which then = better.
I have bad news for you though, in many ways a caterpillar is more sophisticated than you.
Chimps are able to do some intelligence tests faster than you.
Also, if you are seriously arguing that more intelligent = better, is that only true for interspecies comparison or also for intraspecies comparison?
Because that would get you into interesting territory.
Also, what skills?
Can a dog fly? Catch worms? Get a chicken pregnant?
If I am a chicken farmer I think I care more about those qualities, especially the last one.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, you are arguing that more intelligent = better. Or more sophisticated which then = better.
[/quote]
Not ‘better’ but a higher form of life. Capable of such ‘human’ things as loyalty and even wisdom. I don’t want to get all roguevampire and everything but dogs deserve better than to be pitted against each other in mortal combat as do humans. I’m not equating dogs with humans however. Nor even placing humans on the same scale. I believe human life is sacred and animal life is not. But animals that have attributes esteemed by man should be held in higher regard. That is my own opinion.
You may well be correct here. However as I stated above, attributes that correspond to human attributes should be more highly esteemed. A subjective argument perhaps; but one that is based on the essential sacredness of human life.
[quote]
Also, if you are seriously arguing that more intelligent = better, is that only true for interspecies comparison or also for intraspecies comparison?
Because that would get you into interesting territory.[/quote]
Good points. Perhaps I was a little hasty in declaring a win. Bears further analysis. But right now I am not convinced enough to oppose a dogfighting ban.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No, you are arguing that more intelligent = better. Or more sophisticated which then = better.
[/quote]
Not ‘better’ but a higher form of life. Capable of such ‘human’ things as loyalty and even wisdom. I don’t want to get all roguevampire and everything but dogs deserve better than to be pitted against each other in mortal combat as do humans. I’m not equating dogs with humans however. Nor even placing humans on the same scale. I believe human life is sacred and animal life is not. But animals that have attributes esteemed by man should be held in higher regard. That is my own opinion.
[/quote]
Ah, unabashed anthropocentric anthropomorphism.
Better = more like you?
As perceived by you of course.
Good points. There IS a larger subjective element to this subject than I initially thought. But I believe we have to strive to be moderate in all things(within reason) and try to accomodate the wishes of the 'oi polloi wherever possible. If cockfighting gets their rocks off then so be it. But I draw the line at dogfighting.
[quote]Not ‘better’ but a higher form of life. Capable of such ‘human’ things as loyalty and even wisdom. I don’t want to get all roguevampire and everything but dogs deserve better than to be pitted against each other in mortal combat as do humans. I’m not equating dogs with humans however. Nor even placing humans on the same scale. I believe human life is sacred and animal life is not. But animals that have attributes esteemed by man should be held in higher regard. That is my own opinion.
You may well be correct here. However as I stated above, attributes that correspond to human attributes should be more highly esteemed. A subjective argument perhaps; but one that is based on the essential sacredness of human life.
[/quote]
the problem here is that the “essential sacredness of human life” depends on subjective definitions and criteria.
these definitions and criteria will allow you to recognize “human things” and characteristics in animals. which is a good news for your dog.
But someone else could use the very same definitions and criteria to deny these “human things” and characterics in… other humans.
As soon as classical humanism has been formulated, during the Renaissance, it has been used to do exactly that. And it’s not a mere coincidence. It’s the main function of this argument.
That’s why i consider “life” and not “human life” as the ultimate criterium of (moral) value.
The former has an objective definition. Not the last.
You can’t “respect” an object. But as soon as (and as long as) a being is living, it’s not a thing, and you can (and you should) respect it.
RogueVampire is right on this one : all lives have an equal intrinsic value, no matter the specie.
He is wrong when he tries to translate this moral position into a political one (animals and human should have the same ‘rights’).
‘rights’ rules societies. not ecosystems.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Not ‘better’ but a higher form of life. Capable of such ‘human’ things as loyalty and even wisdom. I don’t want to get all roguevampire and everything but dogs deserve better than to be pitted against each other in mortal combat as do humans. I’m not equating dogs with humans however. Nor even placing humans on the same scale. I believe human life is sacred and animal life is not. But animals that have attributes esteemed by man should be held in higher regard. That is my own opinion.
You may well be correct here. However as I stated above, attributes that correspond to human attributes should be more highly esteemed. A subjective argument perhaps; but one that is based on the essential sacredness of human life.
[/quote]
the problem here is that the “essential sacredness of human life” depends on subjective definitions and criteria.
these definitions and criteria will allow you to recognize “human things” and characteristics in animals. which is a good news for your dog.
But someone else could use the very same definitions and criteria to deny these “human things” and characterics in… other humans.
As soon as classical humanism has been formulated, during the Renaissance, it has been used to do exactly that. And it’s not a mere coincidence. It’s the main function of this argument.
That’s why i consider “life” and not “human life” as the ultimate criterium of (moral) value.
The former has an objective definition. Not the last.
You can’t “respect” an object. But as soon as (and as long as) a being is living, it’s not a thing, and you can (and you should) respect it.
RogueVampire is right on this one : all lives have an equal intrinsic value, no matter the specie.
He is wrong when he tries to translate this moral position into a political one (animals and human should have the same ‘rights’).
‘rights’ rules societies. not ecosystems.
[/quote]
I could never agree that any animal life was of equal intrinsic value to human life but other than that you raise some good points also.
Probably because, like RogueVampire (but on the other end of the spectrum) you translate it too fast into practical terms.
‘all men are (created) equal’ doesn’t mean you can’t love your family more than the guy next door.
‘all lives are (created) equal’ doesn’t means you can’t love your own specie more than the next amoeba.