Please don’t compare me and with roguevampire. Because I’m much more a realist than an idealist. And roguevampire is a troll not an idealist.
yes. I agree that’s a substantial difference.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[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]
Your argument is terribly flawed. Frankly, at this point, no worthy of further reply. I quickly scanned and I think Orion kicked the tires too. At any rate, as a dog and animal lover in general - who hunts with and puts his dogs in peril during a hunt, I’ve given this subject far more consideration than you…trust me.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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]
Define “torture”.
There are those that would claim that hunting is torture. And there are those that would claim that raising cattle and such for slaughter is torture. And guess what? They are no more right (or wrong) than whatever definition of “torture” you can conjure up.
I am stating that there is simply no moral or biological guidance here other than animals simply do not have rights and are not equal to or superior to man. If you agree with this, why do we have laws that imprison men over their treatment of animals?
[quote]orion wrote:
[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]
He knows what he’s doing and is being intellectually dishonest as I stated prior, or he’s not smart enough to see the error in his “argument”.
[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]
A pig is more intelligent than a dog. Why then can we farm raise them for slaughter, hunt them and otherwise exterminate them under permit, but dogs are deserving of protection under your analysis.
Under your analysis, pigs are a higher life form than dogs. Pigs should not be protected, and dogs left unprotected.
[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.
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]
Whoa there puppy dog. Hold on for a moment.
Dogs were domesticated with food. I assure you that dogs are not “loyal” in the sense that you are referring. Dogs are as loyal as long as you fee them. Give me your dog, allow me to feed him, and he’s then loyal to me. FACT.
STOP THE ANTHROPOMORPHISM NOW!
You’re now all over the place.
First it was utility. When utility was debunked, it became “higher life form” - never mind that all life forms are complex in relative ways and never mind that your analysis thus far has been personal. And now you’re imbuing a dog with human traits like loyalty. Trust me my misguided opponent, humans barely manage loyalty in any significant fashion - your dog would fail miserably against any reasonable “loyalty” test.
Either find a better argument, or concede. Or, admit it’s your personal feelings and that’s that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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 accommodate 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]
So you should make the laws? Is that your best argument? “You” draw the line. If animals are property, what do you care what men do with their property in the privacy of their dominion? It’s one thing to object if they march to center square to pit their animals, but quite another to object what they do privately.
I’m not taking a “right” or “wrong” position here regarding any bloodsport. I’ve stated at the beginning that it is wrought with irreconcilable differences and slippery slope arguments and finally, hypocrisy.
But like freedom, and even a better example - free speech, we must allow some things that some might find objectionable to enjoy those rights and freedoms fully.
[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]
This position I fully appreciate (and probably agree with).
Now do me a favor. Reconcile the above with society.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[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]
The problem with reducing the argument to an hierarchy placement based on smarts, and therefore value, is that in the example of the pig it could easily be argued that he is smarter than the dog and rooster put together.[/quote]
I pointed this out. And the pig IS.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
This position I fully appreciate (and probably agree with).
Now do me a favor. Reconcile the above with society. [/quote]
All lives are inter-linked. They share the same spaces, same ressources, eat each other, have symbiotic or parasitic relationships, etc.
Because of this, even the simplest of our actions (eating a steak) have complex consequences not only for 1 non-human life (the beef), but for countless non-human lives.
killing an animal may be a bad news for him, but a good news for his prey and/or his direct “competitors”.
and since “all lives are equal”, we can’t (ethically) favorize one over the other.
The “individual right” paradigm doesn’t apply here.
We have to think at a broader and more (eco-)systemic scale.
the “best” action (the more ethical) is the one who harm the smallest number of lifeforms and/or favorize the largest number of lifeforms.
The main criterium here is (local) biodiversity, since biodiversity is the best indicator of the “health” of an ecosystem. (except in some specific cases)
And obviously, this start to be a legitimate concern once and only once our subsitence needs are actually met).
When we have to deal with sentient lifeforms, there may be some additionnal concerns and questions. Not because of “their rights”, but because of our duties as civilized and socialized human beings.
If we have to ban dog fighting, it’s not because “dogs are people too”. It’s because we don’t want to promote cruel behaviors in our communities.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
Which is fine so long as you don’t infringe on the dogfighting. which can’t be done her anyway.
I’m sure some would call me letting my pits kill the fox or coyote’s inhumane too. oh well, they are more then welcome to try and stop them. and when my dog’s tell them they are intruders and proceed to subdue them I am sure they will engage my dogs aggressively and I will be forced to use lethal defense to ensure the safety of my property.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[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]
This position I fully appreciate (and probably agree with).
Now do me a favor. Reconcile the above with society. [/quote]
All lives are inter-linked. They share the same spaces, same ressources, eat each other, have symbiotic or parasitic relationships, etc.
Because of this, even the simplest of our actions (eating a steak) have complex consequences not only for 1 non-human life (the beef), but for countless non-human lives.
killing an animal may be a bad news for him, but a good news for his prey and/or his direct “competitors”.
and since “all lives are equal”, we can’t (ethically) favorize one over the other.
The “individual right” paradigm doesn’t apply here.
We have to think at a broader and more (eco-)systemic scale.
the “best” action (the more ethical) is the one who harm the smallest number of lifeforms and/or favorize the largest number of lifeforms.
The main criterium here is (local) biodiversity, since biodiversity is the best indicator of the “health” of an ecosystem. (except in some specific cases)
And obviously, this start to be a legitimate concern once and only once our subsitence needs are actually met).
When we have to deal with sentient lifeforms, there may be some additionnal concerns and questions. Not because of “their rights”, but because of our duties as civilized and socialized human beings.
If we have to ban dog fighting, it’s not because “dogs are people too”. It’s because we don’t want to promote cruel behaviors in our communities.
[/quote]
you had me right up until your closing wherein you illogically placed yourself right back upon the slippery slope arguments you essentially refuted earlier (“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.”), and to which I agree with.
Anyway, getting off that slippery slope, how do you label one cruel and the manner in which other animals are raised for slaughter not cruel, and hence legal? I say here there is more “cruelty” committed upon farm animals than all dog fighting combined. And, back to your ecosystem points, there is and never has been a shortage of dogs.
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to appear to be taking any position upon dog fighting, other than the logical counterpoint to these arguments, but a dog fight is no more cruel than the conditions farm animals are raised and slaughtered or, for that matter, the manner in which some animals are legally hunted. In addition, dogs are slaughtered by “humane” societies and such by the legion every single day.
Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading and hyperbolic to oppose animals as property by stating “we don’t want to PROMOTE cruelty” in our communities? Most of the population has their head in the sand and is perfectly willing to be blissfully ignorant or ignore the plight of farm animals…do we really care that our neighbor is engaging in a cock or dog fight? Or a fox hunt? Or a bull fight? If you do not like it, do not attend.
Reconcile this for me.
[quote]
Anyway, getting off that slippery slope, how do you label one cruel and the manner in which other animals are raised for slaughter not cruel, and hence legal? I say here there is more “cruelty” committed upon farm animals than all dog fighting combined. And, back to your ecosystem points, there is and never has been a shortage of dogs.[/quote]
notice that i didn’t say that one thing was cruel and the other was not.
“objectively”, both can be cruel, and both can be “not cruel”, depending on the individuals involved, their motives, their cultural background, the context, etc.
but that was not my point :
I just stated that “we don’t want to promote cruelty” is the main reason of existing ‘animal laws’.
it’s obviously a cultural thing. a western “taboo”, if you want.
But, in my eyes, we, as a culture, have every right to pass subjective and cultural laws, and to use the legal system to enforce such taboos.
[quote]Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading and hyperbolic to oppose animals as property by stating “we don’t want to PROMOTE cruelty” in our communities? Most of the population has their head in the sand and is perfectly willing to be blissfully ignorant or ignore the plight of farm animals…do we really care that our neighbor is engaging in a cock or dog fight? Or a fox hunt? Or a bull fight? If you do not like it, do not attend.
Reconcile this for me. [/quote]
If i was an american, born in a political system based on “the individual” and derived from abstract philosophical principles, i would probably not care that my neighbor is engaging in whatever he want to engage.
but i’m an european. I have 2000+ years of culture and history to defend.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In 2004 the British parliament passed the Hunting Act which banned fox hunting in England and Wales. Fox hunting in Britain pre-dates the Roman era and is the longest continually practiced sport on earth. In Germany fox hunting was first banned on the initiative of Hermann Goring in 1934 and in 1939 the ban was extended to cover Austria after the Anschluss.
Bullfighting has now been banned in Catalonia, the last ever corrida de toros in Barcelona last month brought to an end more than 600 years of tradition and culture. Spain’s leading broadcaster announced a ban on televised bullfights “to protect children from viewing violence.”
What say you about these bans? Good idea? Assault on our culture and heritage?[/quote]
Food, protection, clothing, and as a species with an ability to recognize ecological disorder, population management. Otherwise, be merciful. That pretty much rules out sports of torture and pain. Anytime humanity has the opportunity to practice mercy, it should to do so.
[quote]kamui wrote:
to be honest, you started strong and insightful in your first post, but you were left with nowhere to really go. the above is wanting compared to your earlier insight. I know you’re smart enough to see the folly here, so I’ll leave it be. I certainly don’t have the answer; I just know where the irreconcilable differences, hypocrisy and illogical arguments lie.
lol at the 2000+ years of culture to defend; it was from your culture that so called bloodsports sprang forth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In 2004 the British parliament passed the Hunting Act which banned fox hunting in England and Wales. Fox hunting in Britain pre-dates the Roman era and is the longest continually practiced sport on earth. In Germany fox hunting was first banned on the initiative of Hermann Goring in 1934 and in 1939 the ban was extended to cover Austria after the Anschluss.
Bullfighting has now been banned in Catalonia, the last ever corrida de toros in Barcelona last month brought to an end more than 600 years of tradition and culture. Spain’s leading broadcaster announced a ban on televised bullfights “to protect children from viewing violence.”
What say you about these bans? Good idea? Assault on our culture and heritage?[/quote]
Food, protection, clothing, and as a species with an ability to recognize ecological disorder, population management. Otherwise, be merciful. That pretty much rules out sports of torture and pain. Anytime humanity has the opportunity to practice mercy, it should to do so.
[/quote]
define “torture”.
be careful, you’ll be making an argument against all hunting.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
At any rate, as a dog and animal lover in general - who hunts with and puts his dogs in peril during a hunt, I’ve given this subject far more consideration than you…trust me. [/quote]
Maybe so. I’m not a dog or animal lover. Dogs never set foot in my house. I never ‘play’ with my dog in any way. I keep a sense of reserve - distance. Dogs are not companions for me. They never could be.
And one of my cousins hunts with pig dogs regularly and I know the breeds pretty well. But I have more experience with the Australian cattle dog breed which my family helped establish.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[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]
The problem with reducing the argument to an hierarchy placement based on smarts, and therefore value, is that in the example of the pig it could easily be argued that he is smarter than the dog and rooster put together.[/quote]
That’s true. But I wouldn’t support a pig being torn apart in a ring even though it resembles how a pig would die in the hunt. And yes, the hierarchical argument based on intelligence has flaws. But’s it’s not my only argument. I have many reasons why I don’t like dogfighting.