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 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw  (Read 27163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #90 on: February 27, 2010, 12:26:55 PM »

And here I was thinking Libman had turned over a new leaf.  Stupid me.  :roll:

(Reply moved to an existing ad hominem attack thread, so as to not pollute this one.)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 12:36:04 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #91 on: February 27, 2010, 04:42:09 PM »

My cats are quite certain they own me.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #92 on: February 27, 2010, 04:57:42 PM »

Who said there have to be natural rights?

Who said there should be mathematics?
Mathematics does not pre-exist you or me. It's a consequence of our ability to reason, not that which we're dependent upon to reason. The same follows for the rest of human nature.

Quote
Um, wrong again.
Ayn Rand != definitive or final source for debates on epistemology.


Quote
Then there are no natural rights then, thanks.

Non-sequitur.
NO U

Quote
The money, time, and most importantly emotional energy that a person spends on a pet is inevitably taken away from another human being.
That's according to your goals. Some other people's goals don't always follow yours. For example, a stock breeder would probably devote his life to the animals he breeds. They may not be his highest value, but they are part of his highest values in comparison to other values. 

Quote
I might not be a world-class programmer today if my parents had gotten me a kitten instead of a lego set (a very difficult thing to acquire in Russia at the time) when I was a kid.  I know plenty of people who waste so much "love" on their pets they could have adopted several undernourished human orphans for whom that love would make the difference between life and death, between first-world economic opportunity and third-world squalor...  Etc.
If it wasn't for my love of animals, my studies into artificial intelligence wouldn't have been as fruitful. But neither here nor there the point of this reference is that actions follow values, not values follow actions. Look deeper than your assessment, then you will find something meaningful in all human action (*hint* Action Axiom *hint*).

Quote
Pet ownership might just be a "gateway drug" to the "animal rights" insanity, but that is a sufficient reason to call it immoral.
That's equally as dumb as saying that pot is a gateway drug. In fact the entire argument of gateway anything relies on the premise that things are driven by the same values.
A good example would be the interest in the slaughtering of animals. Most people think this is a definite sign of sociopathy, but in reality some children are more interested in what goes on in the animal and then become doctors (for humans or animals). Some may become prize hunters. Others become butchers. At the end of the day, the interest is just that; an interest, which no one can deduce without further study the source value(s) of it (or them).

You make the same mistake of taking a surface expression (a behavior) as an intention (or value).
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2010, 05:57:57 AM »

Ayn Rand != definitive or final source for debates on epistemology.

I never said she was, but she makes a lot of good points and I do agree with her on some things.  At least understanding Objectivism would be a definite leap upwards for someone like you.


That's according to your goals.  [...]

Of course.  How is that any different from a person whose goal is to promote a rational and just society ostracizing a non-violent racist?


If it wasn't for my love of animals, my studies into artificial intelligence wouldn't have been as fruitful.

Doubtful until clarified.


That's equally as dumb as saying that pot is a gateway drug.  [...]

Being a pet nut isn't just comparable to smoking a little pot (which doesn't seem to harm people like Ian all that much, at least not yet), it's much closer to crack.  Some pet nuts I know are complete fucking junkies who can't go five minutes without talking about drugs pets!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 06:01:27 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2010, 10:56:05 AM »

From Daily Mail (UK) -- Now the Government wants competence tests before you can be a dog owner --

Quote
Every dog owner will have to take a costly "competence test" to prove they can handle their pets, under new Government proposals designed to curb dangerous dogs.

Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone, and pay for the insertion of a microchip in their animal recording their name and address.

The proposals are among a range of measures to overhaul dog laws in England and Wales being considered by senior Ministers, who are expected to announce a public consultation within weeks.

But critics said responsible dog owners would be penalized by yet more red tape and higher bills -- one expert estimated the extra costs at £60 or more -- while irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs would just ignore the measures.

They added that genuine dog lovers could end up paying for efforts to control a small number of "devil dogs" that terrorized socially deprived areas.

The RSPCA said last night it would welcome a review of legislation which has failed to curb the numbers of dangerous dogs that can attack, and sometimes kill, children and adults.

But a spokesman for the charity added: "We would not support anything that would hit sensible owners while failing to police those who are a danger."

A government source said the proposals, contained in a confidential document headed Consultation On Dangerous Dogs, have been drawn up by the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

They follow mounting public concern about the spate of serious injuries and deaths inflicted by dogs.

Police figures show an increase in the number of "status" dogs used to intimidate or threaten others.  According to the last available figures, there were 703 convictions for dangerously out of control dogs in 2007 - up from 547 in 2004.

Under the proposals, would-be owners would have to show they had a basic understanding of their dogs before being allowed to keep one.

The document says: "There have been suggestions for a competency test for all or some dog owners, akin to the driving theory test."

But the document admits the cost of setting up such a scheme to cover Britain's six million dog owners "is likely to be prohibitive", and would have to be met by either charging for the test or by imposing a dog license fee.  Moreover, the officials concede that there were disagreements over what would constitute competence in looking after and controlling a dog.

Third-party insurance would be less contentious, as owners of certain breeds of dogs are already required to take out such cover.

It is also included in the pet insurance taken out by owners to cover unforeseen vets' bills and it can be bought for a little as £5, though it will be more expensive for larger and more powerful breeds.

In addition, many owners have had microchips implanted in the necks of their dogs - a process that costs about £30.

Other proposals due to be floated by the Government include giving the police and local authorities the power to impose ASBO's on the owners of unruly dogs, and extending the law to cover attacks everywhere.

At the moment, dogs which attack people on private property where they are allowed to be are exempt from the law, despite the complaints from injured postmen.

There are also plans to boost the enforcement powers of police, the courts and local authorities.

As part of the proposed overhaul, all dog laws, including the Dangerous Dog Act 1991, often cited as an example of poorly drawn-up "knee jerk" legislation, could be incorporated into a single law.

An RSPCA spokesman said:  "We welcome a review but the problem is that while responsible owners will abide by the rules, inevitably you are going to get a fraternity that does not. There are always people who will buy a dog from their mate in a pub and won't tell the authorities.

"So the danger is that sensible owners will be out of pocket while irresponsible dog owners will ignore any new rules unless the policing of them is rigorous."

He said, for example, that while the RSPCA encouraged the use of microchips, the system relied on owners keeping the information up to date.

"It is no good finding an aggressive dog roaming the streets, perhaps having attacked someone, and going to the address on the microchip to find that the owner hasn't lived there for years", he said.

The Kennel Club said that it was in favor of measures to promote responsible dog ownership, but that the competence tests sounded impractical.

A spokesman for DEFRA said:  "We do not comment on leaked documents".

:x
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2010, 10:56:43 AM »

Objectivism is stupid and so's the UK.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2010, 11:11:57 AM »

Ayn Rand != definitive or final source for debates on epistemology.

I never said she was, but she makes a lot of good points and I do agree with her on some things.  At least understanding Objectivism would be a definite leap upwards for someone like you.
Note that I am a Post-Objectivist/Neo-Aristotelean, so I don't see her as the definitive or authoritative source for everything.


Quote
That's according to your goals.  [...]

Of course.  How is that any different from a person whose goal is to promote a rational and just society ostracizing a non-violent racist?
Maybe I don't care to shape civilization at all? Meaning, if they want to be a racist, fine, but I won't be helping/hindering said racist.


Quote
If it wasn't for my love of animals, my studies into artificial intelligence wouldn't have been as fruitful.

Doubtful until clarified.
I don't care if you doubt it or not. My studies of animals on a personal level has allowed me to come to conclusions that lead me to find out if scientists have already made similar leaps in logic from their own studies (which lead me to JJ Gibson's work). So, please, stop assuming to know what will and will not inspire me. You never met me or known me beyond random posts on a website.


Quote
That's equally as dumb as saying that pot is a gateway drug.  [...]

Being a pet nut isn't just comparable to smoking a little pot (which doesn't seem to harm people like Ian all that much, at least not yet), it's much closer to crack.  Some pet nuts I know are complete fucking junkies who can't go five minutes without talking about drugs pets!
It's not even in the category of substance abuse. Pet fanciers and breeders are clearly not addicted. I loved all of my pets that I've had in my life, but even now I am petless for the fact that I can't afford one. It's a hobby/luxury, not a 'need.'

Maybe you seem to be reflecting onto others your own addictive personality? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but often those that protest against something are oftener the ones who were proponents in the past.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #97 on: March 03, 2010, 02:40:41 PM »

Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #98 on: March 05, 2010, 09:25:12 PM »

Logged

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 #99 on: May 17, 2010, 10:27:41 AM »

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.'

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #100 on: May 17, 2010, 01:37:30 PM »

Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2010, 05:50:17 AM »

The last episode of Futurama captured the evil Katz conspiracy perfectly!  :lol:
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw

// ]]>

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 32 queries.