Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw  (Read 27154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

miamiballoonguy

  • Twisted Balloons For All Occasions
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1038
  • Have Balloons, Will Travel!
    • View Profile
    • The Miami Balloon Guy's Home Page
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2009, 11:36:47 AM »

Earlier today, in a thread about an "animal rights" terrorist, I have made and defended the argument that even non-violent advocacy of "animal rights" is an immoral act that results in reduction in economic growth, decline in human life expectancy growth, and thus billions of people dying earlier than they otherwise would have through no fault of their own.

But I'm not done yet.  I also believe that the very act of pet ownership should be viewed as immoral, and people who exhibit irrational emotional attachment to animals should be ostracized - much like racists, child abusers, and demographic thieves who don't reproduce nor pay their "childless tax".

Now it's very important that we don't go too far with this - only recreational forms of pet ownership are immoral.  There's nothing wrong with using animals for a rational purpose, like scientific experiments that will benefit mankind.  It's still OK to eat your animals, but keep in mind that the little fuckers will try to poison you with their cholesterol as their final act of revenge.  It is an open question whether images and toys that simulate the effect of pet ownership should be made taboo as well - in my opinion kitty porn and all the Japanese kawaisa crap is just as bad as the real thing!

The animal threat has attacked us in the one place that hurts the most: reproduction.  See, the human emotion of pity has been developed by evolution (aka nature / God / gods / etc) to encourage human beings to take care of human babies, even if they were not theirs.  That constitutes an objective evolutionary advantage: human babies that are cute enough are definitely worth saving.  Unfortunately, a group of villainous impostors have hijacked that emotion for their benefit, and are using it to the determent of our entire species!  You may think of those parasites as fuzzy wuzzy little doggies and kitties, but they in fact constitute the greatest external threat ever faced by the human race!  They infiltrate our families, taking the role of children, and thus discourage people from having more human children instead!

We thought we've learned to outsmart our foremost enemies of 10,000 years BC -- lions and tigers and bears -- but, oh my - there's one right there in your living room playing with a ball of string!  Don't let their disguises fool you, on the inside they're still the same.  They may purr and rub up against your leg and and even catch mice, but if you stop feeding them they will attack you, or chew your face off while you sleep!

How can the human race sabotage its potential in such ways?!  How can logical beings act so illogically, neglecting their individual desire for life and the future of their children?  There's only one logical answer - we must have been compromised from the outside.  Animals have brainwashed us and made us their slaves!

Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are wasted on pets and pet-related activities, and proximity to those deceiving fiends results in them somehow brainwashing human beings to do their bidding for them.  Nicotine, crack cocaine, and crystal meth all pail in comparison to the addiction of animal companionship!  Some pet victims have been known to talk about their pets nonstop and post pictures of them on the Internet, thus trying to spread their infection to others!

Hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of dollars a year are also lost from the human economy as a side-effect of the "animal rights" agenda: regulation and outright bans on medical experiments that could have raised your life expectancy to 200 years and beyond!  Is it possible to grow rejection-proof replacement organs for a human being inside of a pig?  Hell yes, but the "animal rights" Nazis won't hear of it!  Can much be learned on how to save human lives by breeding millions of gorillas for head transplant experiments?  There's only one way to find out, but all the red tape you have to go through to kill just one gorilla makes that completely impossible.

Once infected, pet junkies begin to lose all of their rational egoism and fail to identify with their own species.  Sure, we're all individuals, but when it comes to some things all human beings are in the same boat.  After all, only human beings are capable of being rational economic actors -- to reason, to respect the rights of other human beings, and to take responsibility for one's actions -- and thus contribute to the world economy.  Animals don't contribute anything to the economy except as a natural resource.  Human beings should focus on their own reproduction, and, if needed, build robots to bring them their newspaper and slippers and roll over on demand.

The human race is facing a bleak future unless we repent quickly: declining birth rates, shrinking global economy, and misguided efforts to deindustrialize and shift the course of civilization in reverse toward a dark age from which we may never recover!  We can't be doing this to ourselves, someone else has to be pulling the strings, manipulating the human race toward its destruction!

I call on all rational beings everywhere to abandon the mental illness known as "pet ownership" before it is too late!  Please, for the love of life and all good things that are possible in it, please - kill every animal that you own!  Now.  Right now, before their wickedness causes you to lose your resolve.  Then post pictures / video here to help encourage others.  You can do this.  I am counting on you.  Reason must triumph over emotion!  Though it may be a long twilight struggle against our furry overlords, through your heroic act, someday, perhaps within our lifetimes - HUMANITY WILL PREVAIL!

Oh man, my head hurts...   you know that a person has no life when he comes up with some mindless, rambling paranoid nonsense like the one posted here.

Quote
Animals don't contribute anything to the economy except as a natural resource.  Human beings should focus on their own reproduction, and, if needed, build robots to bring them their newspaper and slippers and roll over on demand.

You can't be serious.  Lets see, there are seeing eye dogs and those dogs that help the handicapped, all of which allow the people that they help contribute to the economy.  Don't forget about the guard dogs.  Cat's are good at hunting vermin, which help keep the exterminators away, and for scratching the shit out of people that threaten them.  Those are some examples off the top of head in which pets help the economy.  They don't help directly, but indirectly.  Another way pets can help the economy is by helping their owners with their unconditional love.  When I have a bad day and am tired of dealing with humans, I just kick back, turn on the tube and hang with my kitties.  They help me relax and the purring is so soothing. They help to relieve stress.  Humanity has been using dogs and cats for thousands of years as pets, companions, and beasts of burden.  All you need to do is look at the many breeds of dogs out there.  Each dog was genetically engineered to help mankind perform specific tasks.

Anyone who thinks that pet ownership is a mental illness is probably mentally ill himself.  Anyone that would choose a robot over a pet has got to have something wrong with him.

Logged
"People keep asking me, 'Balloon Guy, what kinds of things can you make?' and I'm like, 'I used to make a Charlie Chaplin balloon, but my Jewish Friends told me to stop making it.  They all thought it looked like Hitler.'

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2009, 11:39:26 AM »



Anyone who thinks that pet ownership is a mental illness is probably mentally ill himself.  Anyone that would choose a robot over a pet has got to have something wrong with him.



What if I'd rather have a sexbot catgirl as a pet than a cat?

Or being around any other people, for that matter?
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2009, 12:38:41 PM »

Oh man, my head hurts...  [..]

That may be a sign that you are confronting information, both logical and emotional, that you haven't processed in full yet.  I believe the ideal thing to do in this situation is take it all in, research / discuss certain points, and not rush to judgment.  Your initial emotional response might not be the wisest.


[...]  you know that a person has no life when he comes up with some mindless [...]

You are free to make whatever judgments you care to make, but it is factually inaccurate to say that this thread is mindless.  It makes an unpopular argument and attempts to defend it through reason: psychological and economic theories that I believe are valid.


[...]  rambling paranoid nonsense like the one posted here.

Any paranoia and most flaws of clarity in my original post come from my decision to express it as a self-parody.  The points it presents, while you may strongly disagree with them, are not nonsense.


[...] Those are some examples off the top of head in which pets help the economy.  [...]

Everything in the universe must be divided into two categories: economic actors and natural resources.  The former, the only known example being human beings, own themselves on the basis of their capacity to reason.  The latter, once utilized by an economic actor, become their property.

Yes, there are many examples of ways in which animals are a part of the economy - so are plants, minerals, and even empty space.  I've brought up plenty of uses of animals that I said were rational, other examples could include canaries in coal mines, pigs that help mushroom farmers pick their crop, etc.  In every single example you can come up with, the animals are natural resources put to a specific use by human beings, just like raw elements like metals can be used to make robots and other technical innovations that can do the same job better and more efficiently.


[...]  Another way pets can help the economy is by helping their owners with their unconditional love.  [...]

You have as much right to say pet ownership is beneficial as I do to say that it is harmful, but your subjective opinion backed by nothing except an appeal to emotion.  I try to base my arguments on economic facts.  

Interaction with pets is a learned behavior - playing with wild animals in nature is a very bad idea.  Human beings have to tame animals and become conditioned to the idea that they are tame.  Not all human cultures keep pets, and some that don't find the idea very repugnant.  The same companionship that you get from animals could come from other things that you neglect in their favor: children / human playmates, constructive hobbies, and technological advances.  Those alternatives encourage demographic and economic growth, while emotional attachment to pets discourages it.


When I have a bad day and am tired of dealing with humans, I just kick back, turn on the tube and hang with my kitties.

That is your subjective value that I do not share and am hereby criticizing.  I understand the emotions you experience, and I've always loved animals myself, but I now believe that it is a moral flaw that human beings should strive to overcome.  The emotions you feel toward your felines were intended by nature to go toward human beings: younger siblings, children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and so on.

Substituting animals results in smaller families and weaker family connections, which has many negative effects that I've already mentioned, and some that I didn't - like government growth.  The fewer children you have, the more likely you are to be a socialist, trying to project your neglected parental instinct onto other people.  Small families also make socialism appear more desirable economically, out of fear over who will take care of you when you're old.  Your cats can't grow up, get jobs, buy large houses, and compete over who grandpa / grandpa is going to stay with, as in some large human families.  That isn't to say that you should count on your children, but it does provide a "safety net" for many.


[...] Anyone that would choose a robot over a pet has got to have something wrong with him.

The appeal of robotic pets cannot be judged at this time.  I don't see why it would be impossible for them to reach a level where most people would be utterly incapable of telling robotic pets from live ones (without, um, opening them up, of course).  This doesn't address the substantial psychological issues that I've mentioned, but at least robotic pets are cheaper to maintain - they don't eat, poop, get sick, or die.  Or give government thugs the excuse to invade / steal your property or even throw you in prison!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 12:52:38 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

hayenmill

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Anarchist Without Adjectives
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2009, 01:36:40 PM »


Quote
A moral system must have a rational foundation, basing it on subjective emotion alone would result in you doing objectively immoral things - if not now then if your emotions someday change.  And the capacity to feel pain is not a rational basis for respecting life: pain is an inherent and useful part of the system that we call life.  Cockroaches recognize pain - are you going to let them take over your house (which they will if they get in and you don't kill them fast enough)?  Even plants recognize pain - are you going to starve yourself to save them?

There is a difference between an infestation, aka living entities invading your house, and eating them to survive. And to not eat anything alive would mean my death., so obviously i looked for an alternative. And the most rational i came up with was to only eat animals that did not feel pain in the way humans do, which requires a complex central nervous system, and only eat those who didn't have that experience of pain. Besides, plants do NOT recognize pain, they recognize outside stimuli

"In the scientific community as a whole, paranormal biocommunication has been subjected to much criticism, and is largely regarded as a pseudoscience. Overall, there is little concrete, universally verified evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory, and it is therefore apt to receive a great deal of contempt among scientific circles(...). Many skeptics of the theory also state that, since plants lack nervous or sensory systems, they are not capable of having feelings, or perceiving human emotions or intentions, which would require a complex nervous system. [2][3] The primary emotional center in the animal brain is believed to be the limbic system which is absent in plants, just like the rest of the nervous system. [3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_pain

Thus i removed from my diet mammals, fish, birds, pretty much higher complex organisms. The only things that do not make a vegan are the fact I eat mussels, barnacles, eggs and milk/butter/cheese. The seafood I mentioned because they feel pain practically the same as plants, and the animal derived products (including eggs), because I consider them as alive and developed as a my own sperm or a cancer.

Quote
It is very probable that the human capacity to utilize animal resources for food, clothing, shelter, storage materials, etc has made the difference between our species surviving or going extinct many thousands of years ago.  Because we were able to survive and dominate the planet, animals have benefited tremendously: human beings can use natural resources hundreds of times more effectively (i.e. farming), thus allowing animal populations on this planet to increase hundreds of times under human dominion

sounds plausible

Quote
Most domesticated species would have gone extinct by now if it wasn't for us.  Instead there will someday be cows on hundreds of terraformed planets / moons and space stations - all thanks to man's capacity for rational thought.  Under your moral system, none of this would have been possible!

my moral system has nothing against people taking cows to terraformed planets. And i have never stated something against domesticated animals. I merely explained why I didn't eat them, and why it sounded rational to me, as well as practical and less damaging to animals. I use a similar argument that people use against fur coats. If we can make equal or better clothes without having to cause pain to animals, isn't it preferable? Same with food. I studied what I needed to survive and have a healthy natural diet and came to the conclusion animals are not needed (except their derived products such as eggs and milk which are very helpful), so why should we be causing animals pain when we can eat equally and better now? And that's not mentioning that if everyone ate a lot less meat, there would be more vegetables and other food available, and for those who actually believe in man-made global warming, the amount of Methane released to the atmosphere by cows farting would also decrease a lot (lol).

Quote
This is a tragedy because as human demographics diminish and population ages, economic collapse is pretty much inevitable.  If the average family only has one child then you have to be twice more productive than your parents, four times more productive than your grandparents, and 128 times more productive than someone from the time of the American revolution - just to keep the human economy on the same level where it was at that time!  And, as a rational atheist, I don't want humanity to stand still, I want spectacular new scientific advances that would benefit us all!  If everyone averages just ~2.2 children per family (gradual population growth), the same advances in per-capita productivity would grow the total human economy by that much!

well, but by the advances of science, won't we come to a point when we will never die of age? couldn't be some sort of reverse for the tendency that we will have less children and still die?

Quote
The carrying capacity of this planet is hundreds of billions of humans - more if we stop eating meat.  The carrying capacity of the universe is limitless, given that there is the will and the economic growth to take humanity toward the stars, and stable demographic growth is a prerequisite.

I don't know if stable demographic growth is a prerequisite, but i too would like seeing humanity in space.


Quote
It is serious subject matter presented in this thread through self-parody.  (Couldn't resist.)

ah...then +1 for the criativity, but next time i wont be so light on self-parody ^^
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 01:40:36 PM by hayenmill »
Logged
IGNORANCE IS SLAVERY

FREEDOM IS STRENGTH

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2009, 07:42:26 PM »

Earlier today, in a thread about an "animal rights" terrorist, I have made and defended the argument that even non-violent advocacy of "animal rights" is an immoral act that results in reduction in economic growth, decline in human life expectancy growth, and thus billions of people dying earlier than they otherwise would have through no fault of their own.

But I'm not done yet.  I also believe that the very act of pet ownership should be viewed as immoral, and people who exhibit irrational emotional attachment to animals should be ostracized - much like racists, child abusers, and demographic thieves who don't reproduce nor pay their "childless tax".

Now it's very important that we don't go too far with this - only recreational forms of pet ownership are immoral.  There's nothing wrong with using animals for a rational purpose, like scientific experiments that will benefit mankind.  It's still OK to eat your animals, but keep in mind that the little fuckers will try to poison you with their cholesterol as their final act of revenge.  It is an open question whether images and toys that simulate the effect of pet ownership should be made taboo as well - in my opinion kitty porn and all the Japanese kawaisa crap is just as bad as the real thing!

The animal threat has attacked us in the one place that hurts the most: reproduction.  See, the human emotion of pity has been developed by evolution (aka nature / God / gods / etc) to encourage human beings to take care of human babies, even if they were not theirs.  That constitutes an objective evolutionary advantage: human babies that are cute enough are definitely worth saving.  Unfortunately, a group of villainous impostors have hijacked that emotion for their benefit, and are using it to the determent of our entire species!  You may think of those parasites as fuzzy wuzzy little doggies and kitties, but they in fact constitute the greatest external threat ever faced by the human race!  They infiltrate our families, taking the role of children, and thus discourage people from having more human children instead!

We thought we've learned to outsmart our foremost enemies of 10,000 years BC -- lions and tigers and bears -- but, oh my - there's one right there in your living room playing with a ball of string!  Don't let their disguises fool you, on the inside they're still the same.  They may purr and rub up against your leg and and even catch mice, but if you stop feeding them they will attack you, or chew your face off while you sleep!

How can the human race sabotage its potential in such ways?!  How can logical beings act so illogically, neglecting their individual desire for life and the future of their children?  There's only one logical answer - we must have been compromised from the outside.  Animals have brainwashed us and made us their slaves!

Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are wasted on pets and pet-related activities, and proximity to those deceiving fiends results in them somehow brainwashing human beings to do their bidding for them.  Nicotine, crack cocaine, and crystal meth all pail in comparison to the addiction of animal companionship!  Some pet victims have been known to talk about their pets nonstop and post pictures of them on the Internet, thus trying to spread their infection to others!

Hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of dollars a year are also lost from the human economy as a side-effect of the "animal rights" agenda: regulation and outright bans on medical experiments that could have raised your life expectancy to 200 years and beyond!  Is it possible to grow rejection-proof replacement organs for a human being inside of a pig?  Hell yes, but the "animal rights" Nazis won't hear of it!  Can much be learned on how to save human lives by breeding millions of gorillas for head transplant experiments?  There's only one way to find out, but all the red tape you have to go through to kill just one gorilla makes that completely impossible.

Once infected, pet junkies begin to lose all of their rational egoism and fail to identify with their own species.  Sure, we're all individuals, but when it comes to some things all human beings are in the same boat.  After all, only human beings are capable of being rational economic actors -- to reason, to respect the rights of other human beings, and to take responsibility for one's actions -- and thus contribute to the world economy.  Animals don't contribute anything to the economy except as a natural resource.  Human beings should focus on their own reproduction, and, if needed, build robots to bring them their newspaper and slippers and roll over on demand.

The human race is facing a bleak future unless we repent quickly: declining birth rates, shrinking global economy, and misguided efforts to deindustrialize and shift the course of civilization in reverse toward a dark age from which we may never recover!  We can't be doing this to ourselves, someone else has to be pulling the strings, manipulating the human race toward its destruction!

I call on all rational beings everywhere to abandon the mental illness known as "pet ownership" before it is too late!  Please, for the love of life and all good things that are possible in it, please - kill every animal that you own!  Now.  Right now, before their wickedness causes you to lose your resolve.  Then post pictures / video here to help encourage others.  You can do this.  I am counting on you.  Reason must triumph over emotion!  Though it may be a long twilight struggle against our furry overlords, through your heroic act, someday, perhaps within our lifetimes - HUMANITY WILL PREVAIL!


Pet ownership=no force on a human being+no harm to the pet=no force=a moral
Animal Experimentation=no force on a human being+harm to the animal=force=immoral
Human consumption of animals=survival benifit of human+death to the animal=amoral
Veganism=no force of a human being or animal=amoral

Animal Experimentation can be substituted by better science (i.e. animal experimentation is only neccessary when you haven't really tested things correctly) And also, animal physiology is not the same as human physiology.
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2009, 07:57:48 PM »

Wow, total ignorance of logic AND medical research practices, all in one post...  :lol:

Where does your axiom of "force is immoral" come from?  Wishful thinking.  In reality, the only rational argument for rights is that cooperation among individual economic actors constitutes a mutual competitive advantage.  Animals are not economic actors, therefore it doesn't apply to them.  Furthermore, natural rights (human self-ownership) are subject to higher moral imperatives that constitute mutual competitive advantage, like the need to defend against common external threats, as well as the need to reproduce.

And the idea that we can simulate biological experiments virtually, as effectively and as cheaply as animal experiments, is ridiculous, at least for the foreseeable future.  In the meantime, people are dying.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 08:00:23 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2009, 08:18:12 PM »

In reality, the only rational argument for rights is that cooperation among individual economic actors constitutes a mutual competitive advantage. 
Rights are collectivist.
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2009, 08:29:46 PM »

Well, obviously, they are meaningless without another person or group of people to interact with, either respecting or violating them.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2009, 08:33:16 PM »

Rights derive from nature, apply to individuals, but are recognized collectively, yes.
Logged

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2009, 09:45:34 PM »

Wow, total ignorance of logic AND medical research practices, all in one post...  :lol:

Where does your axiom of "force is immoral" come from?  Wishful thinking.  In reality, the only rational argument for rights is that cooperation among individual economic actors constitutes a mutual competitive advantage.  Animals are not economic actors, therefore it doesn't apply to them.  Furthermore, natural rights (human self-ownership) are subject to higher moral imperatives that constitute mutual competitive advantage, like the need to defend against common external threats, as well as the need to reproduce.

And the idea that we can simulate biological experiments virtually, as effectively and as cheaply as animal experiments, is ridiculous, at least for the foreseeable future.  In the meantime, people are dying.


Violation of the NAP=Use of Force=Immoral
Nonviolation of the NAP=No Use of Force=Amoral
Evolving technology=less dependance on animals
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2009, 10:28:12 PM »

You are in danger of chanting a religious slogan without questioning what it is based on.

(1) NAP doesn't apply to animals, only to REAL's (Rational "Economic Actor" Lifeforms), that is humans.

(2) NAP is theory, not proven fact, and the burden of proof is on us.  I love NAP because it is simple, brilliant, psychologically appealing, and functional in the vast majority of human disputes, but whether it applies to all of them is a matter of debate and (since societies are complex and unpredictable) actual societal experiment.  We know Minarchism works, but we won't know if Anarcho-Capitalism works in practice until we try it on a broad enough scale.  If it doesn't, that simply means there is a need for certain "positive rights" that Rothbard's theories will fail to make up for.  Anarcho-Capitalism should not be an exercise in blind faith, it should be a rational philosophy based on real-life results.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 07:11:03 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Jackson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2009, 10:40:14 PM »

I would bet that your parents wish they had gotten a dog or a cat rather than having you.
Logged
Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' 
 
~ Thomas Jefferson

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2009, 11:07:32 PM »

I would bet that your parents wish they had... taught you not to launch pointless ad hominem attacks.  :roll:
Logged

Low-Eight

  • The Emancipator
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Aint no thang but a chicken wing!
    • View Profile
    • Emancipation!
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2009, 06:55:57 AM »

You are in danger of chanting a religious slogan without questioning what it is based on.

(1) NAP doesn't apply to animals, only to REAL's (Rational "Economic Actor" Lifeforms), that is humans.

(2) NAP is theory, not proven fact, and the burden of proof is on us.  I love NAP because it is simple, brilliant, psychologically appealing, and functional in the vast majority of human disputes, but whether it applies to all of them is a matter of debate and (since societies are complex and unpredictable) actual societal experiment.  We know Minarchism works, but we won't know if Anarcho-Capitalism works in practice until we try it on a broad enough scale.  If it doesn't, that simply means there is a need for certain "positive rights" that Rothbard's theories will fail to make up for.  Anarcho-Capitalism should not be an exercise in blind faith, it should be a rational philosophy based on real-life results.


<1> I have never heard of REALS.  I was taking the veganist approach to applying the NAP is all.  How is that religous?

<2>Positive rights?
Logged
Feel free to add me to facebook, or contact me on MSN.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2009, 07:12:54 AM »

<1>  Fix your grammar, I have no idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean.

<2>  Added hyperlink to Wikipedia article on "negative and positive rights".
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 33 queries.