PETA and the 13th Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Bullshit. You don’t have the right to deny another person food or clothing because you think something is pretty
[/quote]

With the alligator, funny enough, this is exactly what was happening (for future generations) until conservation laws protected them.
[/quote]
Nonsense, If I own something I have as much a right to destroy it as you do to marvel at it. If the alligator is unclaimed and on my property, its my alligator.
Further, conservation laws only ration animals for consumption. They are nothing but price controls that allow a monopolization of industry by squeezing out competitors with the regulatory costs. So your comment about starting a alligator farm is nonsense also. I wouldn’t be able to afford the regulations even for starting that business, much less competing with the existing companies that would immediately lobby their federal/state/local government to squeeze me out.[/quote]

Supposed self-interest of individuals nearly wiped out the american alligator. It was the laws of society which preserved the critter for future generations. That is undeniable. While you may hold that wiping out species–if you have the desire, opportunity, and means to do so i–is the height of human existence, we do not. If you want to measure and define freedom and liberty by perverse and depraved standards (hunting down the last bald eagle for kicks), you are in a tiny minority. Even hunters make for some of the most outspoken conservationists. Doing what you want, when you want, not matter what the hell happens later down the road (future citizens deprived of natural beauty and diversity), is never going to happen. This isn’t an argument you’ll ever win, and therefore, I don’t feel inspired to say much else. It’s not going to change. Good day.

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Bullshit. You don’t have the right to deny another person food or clothing because you think something is pretty
[/quote]

With the alligator, funny enough, this is exactly what was happening (for future generations) until conservation laws protected them.
[/quote]
Nonsense, If I own something I have as much a right to destroy it as you do to marvel at it. If the alligator is unclaimed and on my property, its my alligator.
Further, conservation laws only ration animals for consumption. They are nothing but price controls that allow a monopolization of industry by squeezing out competitors with the regulatory costs. So your comment about starting a alligator farm is nonsense also. I wouldn’t be able to afford the regulations even for starting that business, much less competing with the existing companies that would immediately lobby their federal/state/local government to squeeze me out.[/quote]

Supposed self-interest of individuals nearly wiped out the american alligator. It was the laws of society which preserved the critter for future generations. That is undeniable. While you may hold that wiping out species–if you have the desire, opportunity, and means to do so i–is the height of human existence, we do not. If you want to measure and define freedom and liberty by perverse and depraved standards (hunting down the last bald eagle for kicks), you are in a tiny minority. Even hunters make for some of the most outspoken conservationists. Doing what you want, when you want, not matter what the hell happens later down the road (future citizens deprived of natural beauty and diversity), is never going to happen. This isn’t an argument you’ll ever win, and therefore, I don’t feel inspired to say much else. It’s not going to change. Good day.

[/quote]
OF course it’s not going to change. The United States has been degraded by social engineers and central planners like conservationists for over a century. Half the world lives a sustenance lifestyle and the assholes like you and the hunters that may support your stance have the unfettered arrogance to DEMAND the use of force to preserve their lofty vanity for “natural beauty and diversity”.

23

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

OF course it’s not going to change. The United States has been degraded by social engineers and central planners like conservationists for over a century. Half the world lives a sustenance lifestyle and the assholes like you and the hunters that may support your stance have the unfettered arrogance to DEMAND the use of force to preserve their lofty vanity for “natural beauty and diversity”.[/quote]

Wiping out species doesn’t help ‘sustenance lifestyles.’ How would such a person, in the future, sustain himself on extinct alligators?

24

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

OF course it’s not going to change. The United States has been degraded by social engineers and central planners like conservationists for over a century. Half the world lives a sustenance lifestyle and the assholes like you and the hunters that may support your stance have the unfettered arrogance to DEMAND the use of force to preserve their lofty vanity for “natural beauty and diversity”.[/quote]

Wiping out species doesn’t help ‘sustenance lifestyles.’ How would such a person, in the future, sustain himself on extinct alligators? [/quote]

That person would just hunt the next species in line. It could be snakes, birds, fish, mollusks. Humans make up .1% of the biological density of the planet The total available biological density doesn’t go down when species go extinct. Only the structure of the ecology changes and so with it the type of food available to consume. Farming and breeding is all the preservation necessary to maintain stability and no central planning is necessary to determine what species should be preserved with farming and what species should be eradicated. Humans can decide what choice is valuable on their own through the price system.
By banning or rationing the consumption of animals you simply put a floor on prices and make producing/consuming animals more expensive ultimately hurting those most affected by food prices.

25

I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread.

26

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]
…because calling someone a nut is the most sound argument you can make?

27

Well, i think it’s the first time i use (in a quote, but still) such a word on this board.
since 2008.
on PWI.
And if anything, this actually says a lot.

28

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]

How about that you are going on about natural rights in the constitution, when the authors completely disagreed with your beliefs on personal property. The inventors of the constitution completely disagreed. The were okay with public lands and limiting what could be done with and on private property.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]

How about that you are going on about natural rights in the constitution, when the authors completely disagreed with your beliefs on personal property. The inventors of the constitution completely disagreed. The were okay with public lands and limiting what could be done with and on private property.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about “natural rights in the constitution,” because the Constitution doesn’t contain any natural rights. They are rights and natural because they are the default condition of your human existence(and before anyone starts down that path; the source of your humanity, divine or otherwise, is immaterial).
Like I stated before, the Constitution(and definitely not it’s “inventors”-see: Alien and Sediction Act) isn’t everywhere consistent with individual human rights or with it’s self in the protection of those rights in the BoR.
No individual has the right to demand to control or seize the property of another individual. A group of individuals doesn’t magically gain this right, they use violence to enforce it.
By supporting price controls and/or rationing as a group and labeling it “conservation” you are extolling the violence necessary to force those mandates.

30

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]

How about that you are going on about natural rights in the constitution, when the authors completely disagreed with your beliefs on personal property. The inventors of the constitution completely disagreed. The were okay with public lands and limiting what could be done with and on private property.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about “natural rights in the constitution,” because the Constitution doesn’t contain any natural rights. They are rights and natural because they are the default condition of your human existence(and before anyone starts down that path; the source of your humanity, divine or otherwise, is immaterial).
Like I stated before, the Constitution(and definitely not it’s “inventors”-see: Alien and Sediction Act) isn’t everywhere consistent with individual human rights or with it’s self in the protection of those rights in the BoR.
No individual has the right to demand to control or seize the property of another individual. A group of individuals doesn’t magically gain this right, they use violence to enforce it.
By supporting price controls and/or rationing as a group and labeling it “conservation” you are extolling the violence necessary to force those mandates.[/quote]

You do know that property rights don’t exist naturally, right…?

Property rights derive from the social enter-action with other people. They lose all meaning outside of a society, so they cannot exist naturally. If you were alone by yourself in the woods, property and ownership don’t make sense.

And they do have the right in nature. A group can get together and do whatever they want.

And they do also have the right to interfere when others are being wronged. I can put you in jail for things you do to your kid. I can also take your property if you are endangering or threatening to endanger me. You can’t aim a rifle at me from your property. You can’t build a building that could collapse and fall on my property.

There are limits on all rights.

Further, animals do have natural rights the same way people do, it just isn’t the same set of rights.

31

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]

How about that you are going on about natural rights in the constitution, when the authors completely disagreed with your beliefs on personal property. The inventors of the constitution completely disagreed. The were okay with public lands and limiting what could be done with and on private property.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about “natural rights in the constitution,” because the Constitution doesn’t contain any natural rights. They are rights and natural because they are the default condition of your human existence(and before anyone starts down that path; the source of your humanity, divine or otherwise, is immaterial).
Like I stated before, the Constitution(and definitely not it’s “inventors”-see: Alien and Sediction Act) isn’t everywhere consistent with individual human rights or with it’s self in the protection of those rights in the BoR.
No individual has the right to demand to control or seize the property of another individual. A group of individuals doesn’t magically gain this right, they use violence to enforce it.
By supporting price controls and/or rationing as a group and labeling it “conservation” you are extolling the violence necessary to force those mandates.[/quote]

You do know that property rights don’t exist naturally, right…?

Property rights derive from the social enter-action with other people. They lose all meaning outside of a society, so they cannot exist naturally. If you were alone by yourself in the woods, property and ownership don’t make sense.

And they do have the right in nature. A group can get together and do whatever they want.

And they do also have the right to interfere when others are being wronged. I can put you in jail for things you do to your kid. I can also take your property if you are endangering or threatening to endanger me. You can’t aim a rifle at me from your property. You can’t build a building that could collapse and fall on my property.

There are limits on all rights.

Further, animals do have natural rights the same way people do, it just isn’t the same set of rights. [/quote]

You absolutely do. Your right(the default “natural” condition) to property exists as an elaboration of your existence. Your hands, feet, teeth, nails, guts, colono-ceacal bacteria that help you digest food and everything else is your tool and capital. Your physical self, your body, is your first property; your mind: the owner.
Beyond that: your labor, the products of your labor(even alone you produce, save and consume), are all elaborations of that fundamental self-ownership that is a default condition)right) of your existence.

By acknowledging “the right in nature” you are acknowledging the force of violence used to deny that right(default condition).
When humans use the force of violence against another human individual they are denying that human their natural rights(removing that default condition of existence).
Certainly other living organisms have analogous conditions of existence which are similarly denied through violence by humans.
In this case, the contradiction of human rights, which are analogous in other organisms, comes to the conclusion of an arbitrary distinction.
That distinction is the separation of humans as a top predator species.

32

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I was going to post a quite long reply, but i suddenly realized that this one would be more than enough :

/thread. [/quote]

How about that you are going on about natural rights in the constitution, when the authors completely disagreed with your beliefs on personal property. The inventors of the constitution completely disagreed. The were okay with public lands and limiting what could be done with and on private property.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about “natural rights in the constitution,” because the Constitution doesn’t contain any natural rights. They are rights and natural because they are the default condition of your human existence(and before anyone starts down that path; the source of your humanity, divine or otherwise, is immaterial).
Like I stated before, the Constitution(and definitely not it’s “inventors”-see: Alien and Sediction Act) isn’t everywhere consistent with individual human rights or with it’s self in the protection of those rights in the BoR.
No individual has the right to demand to control or seize the property of another individual. A group of individuals doesn’t magically gain this right, they use violence to enforce it.
By supporting price controls and/or rationing as a group and labeling it “conservation” you are extolling the violence necessary to force those mandates.[/quote]

You do know that property rights don’t exist naturally, right…?

Property rights derive from the social enter-action with other people. They lose all meaning outside of a society, so they cannot exist naturally. If you were alone by yourself in the woods, property and ownership don’t make sense.

And they do have the right in nature. A group can get together and do whatever they want.

And they do also have the right to interfere when others are being wronged. I can put you in jail for things you do to your kid. I can also take your property if you are endangering or threatening to endanger me. You can’t aim a rifle at me from your property. You can’t build a building that could collapse and fall on my property.

There are limits on all rights.

Further, animals do have natural rights the same way people do, it just isn’t the same set of rights. [/quote]

You absolutely do. Your right(the default “natural” condition) to property exists as an elaboration of your existence. Your hands, feet, teeth, nails, guts, colono-ceacal bacteria that help you digest food and everything else is your tool and capital. Your physical self, your body, is your first property; your mind: the owner.
Beyond that: your labor, the products of your labor(even alone you produce, save and consume), are all elaborations of that fundamental self-ownership that is a default condition)right) of your existence.

By acknowledging “the right in nature” you are acknowledging the force of violence used to deny that right(default condition).
When humans use the force of violence against another human individual they are denying that human their natural rights(removing that default condition of existence).
Certainly other living organisms have analogous conditions of existence which are similarly denied through violence by humans.
In this case, the contradiction of human rights, which are analogous in other organisms, comes to the conclusion of an arbitrary distinction.
That distinction is the separation of humans as a top predator species.
[/quote]

Says who? You are just claiming these things. I claim animals have some rights too. Now what?

33

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Both of our property and liberty is protected by the Constitution’s due process clause.[/quote]

Correct, and both can be infringed upon so long as that infringement is the result of “due process”.

The text of the 14th Amendment reads:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

So, a state may deprive someone of life, liberty or property with due process of law.

What is an example of “due process”? An elected legislature passing laws under its constitutional authority.

34

TooHuman you are absolutely ridiculous. You’re WAY too proud of the fact that by chance you were born human and not some other species.

Don’t act like you’re the one who fought to the top of the food chain and because you’re a human you’re automatically able to do whatever the hell you want to the world and the other species that share it with us.

Animals were here long before humans and they will be here long after, so in my opinion it’s more their planet than it is ours. Just because humans have technology and bigger brain capacity doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want.

36

While I agree granting whales constitutional rights to be foolish I also think it more foolish to grant Corporations Constitutional rights

38

/Thread.

39

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
There are eco-whackos, then there are conservationists. Sorry, but society has an interest in wildlife preservation. While homo-economicus might not see a alligator as nothing more than a potential pair of boots he may or may not be able to fetch some bucks for, others would conserve them so their children and grand-children will be able to marvel at the natural wonder of an alligator sunning itself on the banks of a lazy canal.[/quote]

Bullshit. You don’t have the right to deny another person food or clothing because you think something is pretty. I think your steak is pretty. Sorry asshole you can’t eat it now.
[/quote]

If you’d like to start an alligator farm for meat, go to it. If you want to blast them on the shores, or in the waters, leaving them to rot, just because you can (‘it’s my damn right!’)…no.[/quote]

So what if you want to harpoon them, blast them, mount them on your wall…then eat the meat?

And besides, we are not talking about whether something offends your sensibilities, OR depleting and destroying the balance of an ecosystem (like the buffalo hunting in the 1800s). I think most people here would agree fucking an ecosystem up goes beyond hunting or trophy sport, and beyond individual animal rights questions anyway. Except TooHuman it would seem. More’s the pity.

40

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Bullshit. You don’t have the right to deny another person food or clothing because you think something is pretty
[/quote]

With the alligator, funny enough, this is exactly what was happening (for future generations) until conservation laws protected them. And of course, outside of food and clothing there is natural wonder and beauty. These things future generations would potentially deprived of by earlier generations. It’s a matter of convenience to be able to say “If I want to enjoy bald eagles (in your case) by shooting them wherever I find, I should be able to.” Especially when future generations then wouldn’t have the eagles.
[/quote]

In order to clarify my post directly above, I should add that I agree with this. I agree with conservation laws, but not based on “animal rights” nonsense. Those have nothing to do with “animal rights” and much more to do with other issues. If something is not endangered or unbalancing an ecosystem though…there’s no reason to deny somebody hunting rights whether it’s for food, or just because they want to kill a trophy. No matter what your sensibilities are.