The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 12:58:42 AM

Title: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 12:58:42 AM
Earlier today, in a thread about an "animal rights" terrorist (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28879), 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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831)".

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness_in_Japanese_culture) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-body_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!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: JWI on April 22, 2009, 01:09:03 AM
Shut the fuck up Libman.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 01:14:17 AM
So "Jay"...  my suspicions about you are finally verified!

You can't fool me!  I know exactly what you are!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Dylboz on April 22, 2009, 02:08:56 AM
Eat shit and die you fucking douche-bag. You're an asshole who doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to pets. I hope you choke on a fucking chunk of steak and die because no one wants to save your lousy butt because they're too busy with their beloved animal friends. You're a hypocrite, you think animals are merely property, so you have no reason whatever to criticize what I do with my animal property, including forming an emotional attachment to them. And you want to fuck robots! I really hope that you fall in a well and Lassie refuses to go get help for you. In fact, I hope Timmy takes a leak on your drowning face. Dick.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: John Shaw on April 22, 2009, 02:16:47 AM
Eat shit and die you fucking douche-bag. You're an asshole who doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to pets. I hope you choke on a fucking chunk of steak and die because no one wants to save your lousy butt because they're too busy with their beloved animal friends. You're a hypocrite, you think animals are merely property, so you have no reason whatever to criticize what I do with my animal property, including forming an emotional attachment to them. And you want to fuck robots! I really hope that you fall in a well and Lassie refuses to go get help for you. In fact, I hope Timmy takes a leak on your drowning face. Dick.

Never mind Libman.

You see, it's all about me. He doesn't like that I talk about my cats on the BBS, so he's decided to adopt this dumb stance in hopes that I'll get pissed off about it.

I'm kind of a big deal, you see.

Maybe I should make a thread about my cats.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: atomiccat on April 22, 2009, 02:52:02 AM
Eat shit and die you fucking douche-bag. You're an asshole who doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to pets. I hope you choke on a fucking chunk of steak and die because no one wants to save your lousy butt because they're too busy with their beloved animal friends. You're a hypocrite, you think animals are merely property, so you have no reason whatever to criticize what I do with my animal property, including forming an emotional attachment to them. And you want to fuck robots! I really hope that you fall in a well and Lassie refuses to go get help for you. In fact, I hope Timmy takes a leak on your drowning face. Dick.

Never mind Libman.

You see, it's all about me. He doesn't like that I talk about my cats on the BBS, so he's decided to adopt this dumb stance in hopes that I'll get pissed off about it.

I'm kind of a big deal, you see.

Maybe I should make a thread about my cats.

This and Libman is in favor of eugenics and is a Damn Neo libertarian fascist
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on April 22, 2009, 07:56:42 AM
Shut the fuck up Libman.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
[...]  I hope you choke on a fucking chunk of steak [...]

I'm trying to go vegan again, for health reasons obviously.  It's been a few years since I came to believe that a vegan diet would be beneficial for a fat ass like me, given my particular family history of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and all that.  (Stupid inbred Jews!)  I went vegan for ~5 weeks last year (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21634), then stopped.  The main reason why I always stop: I get pissed off at the "animal rights" idiots, which all vegan resources are filled with, and my rational repugnance toward them irrationally overrules my desire to improve my health.  :x


[...] and die because no one wants to save your lousy butt because they're too busy with their beloved animal friends [...]

No one has an obligation to save me in that scenario.  And I do hope that advances in technology will make it easier for victims of choking and falling into wells to effectively save themselves.  (Patents pending.)  Most things that animals do for humanity, robots and other technological advances can do better.  And if for now this isn't true for some things, then uses of animals for those purposes (i.e. scent dogs, guide dogs for the blind, etc) are perfectly rational.  Though ultimately I do believe technology can replace them entirely.


[...] And you want to fuck robots!  [...]

Well, not all robots.  And not to the determent of my obligation to contribute to human reproduction, which would be just as bad.  See, this is why the "childless tax (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831.0)" is so great, it legitimizes all sorts of sexual minorities while leaving the breeding to the experts (i.e. there naturally would be competition between various families to receive funds to have children).


[...] you think animals are merely property, so you have no reason whatever to criticize what I do with my animal property [...]

First of all, I've never advocated government or any other force in dealing with race traitors (pet owners), I've just made the case why rational egoists like me shouldn't own pets, and should avoid people that do.  This is no different than when some person is exercising his / her free speech or rights as a parent in a way that is contrary to your moral framework, and so you avoid that person.  I've made my case on why it is a moral negative - how you integrate that argument into your own moral framework is up to you.

Second of all, it isn't my problem if you don't know self-parody when you see it.  The reasons why pet ownership can be harmful are serious, but here I amplify them to the point of obvious absurdity.  I don't really expect everyone reading this to get rid of their pets ASAP, I'm just giving people something to ponder about.  I realize I sound like an asshole when I present this rational idea, so I make fun of myself in the process.  You can't sue The Onion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion) for doing what they do.  And, believe it or not, Jonathan Swift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal) didn't really want people to eat babies...  You might be surprised by that one.

Third, work to get over your emotional attachment.  Seriously.


[...] You see, it's all about me [...]

You are delusional.  Go post something that everybody likes to fulfill your need for attention.  I am on this BBS with a rational agenda to test and expand new ideas, which often requires doing the very opposite.  Deal with it - ideally by ignoring me, since you never have anything intelligent to contribute anyway.  Which can be expected from someone with no kids and a zillion cats.


[...] Libman is in favor of eugenics and is a Damn Neo libertarian fascist

What you call "eugenics" I call parents' rights.  What, you don't believe that parents have the right to use whatever methods they find effective to have smarter and healthier children?

And calling me (or Ayn Rand, or Ian Freeman, etc) a "fascist" is childish.  For people ignorant of political philosophy and history, this word has simply come to mean "mean person" or "not an altruist".  For rational people that word has a specific meaning, and it is the very opposite of the philosophy I advocate.

And BTW, no one loves "animal rights" more than the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany)!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: hayenmill on April 22, 2009, 08:55:41 AM
Quote
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness_in_Japanese_culture) crap is just as bad as the real thing!

I have been a vegetarian for a year now, mostly because of moral and practical issues. I simply do not eat any animal that has a well-developed brain capable of at least recognizing pain, since I do not wish to make my everyday survival depend on the suffering of others and because i find there are enough alternatives for us to stop eating, sort of like fur coats are viewed today.

That said, I have nothing wrong with people using pets for scientific experiments that better our lives, but i do oppose eating on the bases of what i've mentioned before. As for images and toys, they are just that, images and toys, and i don't think there should be any more importance to give it.

Quote
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!

I hope you are joking about this. I agree with the whole "we-ve have a nature of empathy" shit, but the rest is just not true. They have no conscious desire to "exterminate" our species. And what is wrong with discouraging someone through voluntary means that they should not have any more children? Is it not a personal question? If people want to have copies of themselves or not its up to them, but they must deal with the consequences of either choice.

Anyway, in modern cities there is already plenty of discouragement for people to stop having babies, and thats good, because otherwise the human population would really have an exponential growth, which we may now think we are in, but i believe population will stabilize and even decrease as technology and modern society advances.

Quote
  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!

lol. It happens with every animal. If you stop feeding it he'll know he cant rely on you anymore for food and will proceed to feed himself. He doesn't necessarily have to attack you, but he will be so desperate for food he'll do anything for it, pretty much like humans also do.

Quote
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!

ok, i get it...this really IS  a joke thread. Shame you have made me spend so much time typing already.

You sir, has just lost -1 in credibility and rationality

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-body_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!

[/quote]
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 09:38:42 AM
[...] I simply do not eat any animal that has a well-developed brain capable of at least recognizing pain [...]

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?


[...] fur coats are viewed today

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.

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!


[...] in modern cities there is already plenty of discouragement for people to stop having babies, and thats good, because otherwise the human population would really have an exponential growth, which we may now think we are in, but i believe population will stabilize and even decrease as technology and modern society advances.

Exponential growth could happen in some underdeveloped third-world countries if their fertility rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate) stays the same, but this just isn't realistic - it is falling very quickly.  In virtually all industrialized countries, however, the very opposite is true - the fertility rate is dangerously low, causing exponential decline if it doesn't recover.  The former problem is pretty much guaranteed to be solved in a few decades, for the latter there's no end in sight.  (See my "childless tax (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831.0)" thread.)

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!

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.


ok, i get it...this really IS  a joke thread. Shame you have made me spend so much time typing already.

It is serious subject matter presented in this thread through self-parody.  (Couldn't resist.)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: John Shaw on April 22, 2009, 10:12:31 AM
You are delusional.  Go post something that everybody likes to fulfill your need for attention.  I am on this BBS with a rational agenda to test and expand new ideas, which often requires doing the very opposite.  Deal with it - ideally by ignoring me, since you never have anything intelligent to contribute anyway.  Which can be expected from someone with no kids and a zillion cats.

See, this is why we'll probably never get along.

I was kidding, Alex. It was a joke, you see. You know, humor? Har dee har har?

And, uh... I don't know if I'd be throwing stones when it comes to the subject of people who "Need Attention", man...
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 10:32:36 AM
Well, yeah, and I've hardeeharhared right back at you in my own way.  Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: JWI on April 22, 2009, 10:38:03 AM
So "Jay"...  my suspicions about you are finally verified!

You can't fool me!  I know exactly what you are!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog)


That comic looks pretty close to my two dogs!  One is a black lab mix the other is a german shepherd/bloodhound.  Thanks for posting it!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: John Shaw on April 22, 2009, 10:41:41 AM
Well, yeah, and I've hardeeharhared right back at you in my own way.  Have a nice day.

I dunno, man.

"Never have anything intelligent to contribute anyway."

That doesn't sound very lighthearted, but okay.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: NHArticleTen on April 22, 2009, 10:47:16 AM
So "Jay"...  my suspicions about you are finally verified!

You can't fool me!  I know exactly what you are!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog)


priceless...

(I wondered where all my bandwidth was going during the night...damn dogs...)

Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: miamiballoonguy on April 22, 2009, 11:36:47 AM
Earlier today, in a thread about an "animal rights" terrorist (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28879), 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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831)".

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness_in_Japanese_culture) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-body_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.

Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: TimeLady Victorious 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?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 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 (http://newhampshirefreepress.com/?q=node/349) or even throw you in prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Dog_fighting_investigations)!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: hayenmill 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 ^^
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Low-Eight on April 22, 2009, 07:42:26 PM
Earlier today, in a thread about an "animal rights" terrorist (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28879), 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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831)".

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness_in_Japanese_culture) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-body_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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: blackie 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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Dylboz 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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 22, 2009, 08:33:16 PM
Rights derive from nature, apply to individuals, but are recognized collectively, yes.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Low-Eight 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
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Jackson 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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks.  :roll:
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Low-Eight 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?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)".
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: davann on April 23, 2009, 11:03:49 AM
I would bet that your parents wish they had... taught you not to launch pointless ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks.  :roll:

It was an insult. Why do the geeks always throw out the "ad hominem attacks" when they are faced with an insult. Really it's getting old and not every comment is a debate, but call it was ever you want. I'll call it a burn and laugh.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Low-Eight on April 23, 2009, 01:28:51 PM
<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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)".

I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
It was an insult. Why do the geeks always throw out the "ad hominem attacks" when they are faced with an insult. Really it's getting old and not every comment is a debate, but call it was ever you want. I'll call it a burn and laugh.

When I am in debate mode, I feel an obligation to address all feedback rationally, even if that means pointing out that an obvious insult is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  Then I can call you an asshole, asshole.  See?


I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP.

Vegans do not base their moral values on reason, but on subjective emotion, and people like that cannot be trusted to do the right thing.  Hitler (I don't believe bringing him up is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) every time) was an (uncommitted) vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism) and believed animals should have state-recognized rights, but some of his other subjective feelings weren't so compassionate...
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: blackie on April 23, 2009, 08:28:11 PM
people like that cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
People can not be trusted to do the right thing.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Low-Eight on April 23, 2009, 08:56:28 PM
It was an insult. Why do the geeks always throw out the "ad hominem attacks" when they are faced with an insult. Really it's getting old and not every comment is a debate, but call it was ever you want. I'll call it a burn and laugh.

When I am in debate mode, I feel an obligation to address all feedback rationally, even if that means pointing out that an obvious insult is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  Then I can call you an asshole, asshole.  See?


I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP.

Vegans do not base their moral values on reason, but on subjective emotion, and people like that cannot be trusted to do the right thing.  Hitler (I don't believe bringing him up is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) every time) was an (uncommitted) vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism) and believed animals should have state-recognized rights, but some of his other subjective feelings weren't so compassionate...

Not all vegitarians are nazis,  nor are they all irrational
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: blackie on April 23, 2009, 09:11:43 PM
It was an insult. Why do the geeks always throw out the "ad hominem attacks" when they are faced with an insult. Really it's getting old and not every comment is a debate, but call it was ever you want. I'll call it a burn and laugh.

When I am in debate mode, I feel an obligation to address all feedback rationally, even if that means pointing out that an obvious insult is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  Then I can call you an asshole, asshole.  See?


I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP.

Vegans do not base their moral values on reason, but on subjective emotion, and people like that cannot be trusted to do the right thing.  Hitler (I don't believe bringing him up is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) every time) was an (uncommitted) vegetarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism) and believed animals should have state-recognized rights, but some of his other subjective feelings weren't so compassionate...

Not all vegitarians are nazis,  nor are they all irrational
Yeah, and not everything Hitler did was bad. Some of his paintings just sold (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/8013945.stm).
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on April 24, 2009, 09:32:50 AM
First of all, I may owe this thread a confession of emotional hypocrisy.  I was visiting someone this morning, and I rode up in an elevator with a nice old guy who had the cutest little Chihuahua puppy evah!  It was all excited to see me, and I petted it, and it licked my hand, and awww...  I want one!  But I will overrule that emotion for rational reasons.


People can not be trusted to do the right thing.

Obviously, but some people are more trustworthy than others.  The only rational way to tell (how trustworthy someone is) is by projecting from their past actions.  There's nothing wrong with going vegan for health or other reasons, but making sacrifices (exchanging greater value for lesser) because of your emotional attachment to animals is a moral flaw, and a major negative for their trustworthiness rating.


Not all vegitarians are nazis,  nor are they all irrational

Like I've said in the first post, using (or not using) animals for your benefit is morally neutral, but making sacrifices based on this irrational emotion of misplaced pity is immoral.  This isn't to say that it should be illegal, what you do with your property is your right, but reasonable people should avoid people who hold irrational emotions in such high esteem.  That's the point of this thread.

Furthermore, forcing others to make sacrifices based on your irrational emotions, which is what "animal rights" movement is all about, is an initiation of force that rational people will feel a moral imperative to defend themselves against!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 29, 2009, 11:48:40 AM
[...]  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.  [...]

Wow, I meant to say "grandpa / grandma" - gayest typo evah!  :lol:
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:50:43 PM
The pet nazis on nhliberty (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=2015.45) are making me sick!  :x
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 23, 2009, 08:07:06 PM
Oh joy, a heavily consequentialist based argument for morality.     :|

Though after reading the thread supporting taxation for childless couples, I'm going to guess that you are either joking about this stuff (probably not), or are one heavy utilitarian.   You'd probably like Judge Posner.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on May 23, 2009, 08:47:40 PM
Evolutionary Pragmatism != Utilitarianism

(Read Ayn Rand.)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on June 21, 2009, 06:07:56 PM
So, did anyone follow my advice yet?

(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-002.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: atomiccat on June 22, 2009, 12:19:39 AM
nope
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: IndyCA on July 01, 2009, 10:28:54 PM
Alex Libman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFFo582ZnYw
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: rookie on July 01, 2009, 10:44:17 PM
i think libman would have waited in the bushes, patiently biding his time drinking cheap vodka, and then attempt to throw the pet-owner against the wall...after which he would grab the dog by the leash, toss it against the same wall while exclaiming, "FLY!!  BE FREE!!!"
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Jetfire on July 02, 2009, 02:26:15 AM
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm55/cfdphotos/Site%20Configuration/Page%20Albums/DSC_0799-1.jpg)

Homeless

Vs.

Not

(http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2008/04/medium_medium_medium_dog.jpg)


Ur right libman owning a dog for companionship or any other reason is immoral and wrong. That poor dog i'm sure doesnt want all those kids petting him or giving him food...
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 02, 2009, 02:29:38 AM
Due to the quite obvious fact that pets != children, this thread = fail.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Jetfire on July 02, 2009, 02:31:44 AM
in that case according to libmans logic you should toss your kids in the street. Dont own them and feed them its immoral to own them
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 02, 2009, 03:37:38 AM
in that case according to libmans logic you should toss your kids in the street. Dont own them and feed them its immoral to own them
I'll own all the children I want!  Pets too.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Jetfire on July 02, 2009, 03:56:20 AM
in that case according to libmans logic you should toss your kids in the street. Dont own them and feed them its immoral to own them
I'll own all the children I want!  Pets too.

Of course the jew goes against libmans "morality"
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on July 08, 2009, 07:39:09 PM
Um, wow...

Just because you're too stupid to understand something doesn't make it wrong.

And speaking of moral flaws, so is wasting time on this forum.  I've been getting better lately though.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman 15 on September 30, 2009, 07:42:12 AM
Rodeen (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=profile;u=3242)'s dolphin-puppy-noserub avatar...

(http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=4249;type=avatar)

IT MUST BE DESTROYED!!!   :x


Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on October 24, 2009, 01:47:26 AM
And this video...


[youtube=425,350]7ikm3o5hDks[/youtube]


It's a crime against nature!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: mikehz on October 24, 2009, 10:52:25 AM
Some couples who don't want kids substitute them with pets.  As such, they may actually help the planet by aiding in reducing the human birth rate.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: One two three on October 24, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
Maybe a pet owner looks at it as Jefferson looked at slave owning.  He thought it was bad but that his slaves were be even worse off if he set them free.  He tried to prevent people from owner slaves in the future, or at least thought about ways to do it.  If a pet owner becomes enlightened while owning a pet, takes care of the pet well until it dies, and then never gets another pet, is that good enough for you? 

Another way to look at it, what if the pet owner keeps the pet in good condition until it eats the pet.  This is common with pig owners.  Surely it is moral to grow your own food?  When not treat it decent and consider it a pet?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on October 24, 2009, 01:59:46 PM
Some couples who don't want kids substitute them with pets.
As such, they may actually help the planet by aiding in reducing the human birth rate.

Yes, and thus the human civilization is about to begin its long decline...  The technologies that have already been on the drawing board for decades -- that can feed and power tens of billions of homes this one planet alone -- will never be implemented, and new technologies will never be invented.  The settlement of space will not take place.  With all the thugs of earth unified into One World Government, there'll be no intergovernmental competition to keep their power in check.  Humanity will surrender to a state religion of environmentalist socialism, heralding a new dark age, like to the one described in Ayn Rand's Anthem...  Government schools will brainwash everyone, and inquisition heretics for "crimes against humanity (http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/environment1.html)"...  Government family planning boards will tell you how many kids you may have, if any...  Government health-care commissars will tell you when to live or die...  :cry:

Without population growth, humanity has no future.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on October 26, 2009, 01:46:39 AM
From Slashdot -- Save the Planet, Eat Your Dog (http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0321245/Save-the-Planet-Eat-Your-Dog) --

Quote
New Zealand's Dominion Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dominion_Post) reports on a new book just released, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.  In this book, they compare the environmental footprint of our housepets to other things that we own (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog).  Like that German Shepherd?  It consumes more resources than two Toyota SUVs.  Cats are a little less than a Volkswagen Golf.  Two hamsters are about the same as a plasma TV.  Their suggestions?  Chickens, rabbits, and pigs.  But only if you eat them.

:lol:


Oh, shit - they're serious!  :shock:
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on November 28, 2009, 10:41:36 AM
I'm certainly substituting pets for children.

And my mother's substituting pets for grandchildren...
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on December 17, 2009, 03:37:33 AM
Aww, doggies without front paws are so adowwable (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_fe_st/us_fea_pets_two_legged_dog)...  Whoever figures out a way to mass-produce them will make billions.  :lol:

(http://www.erichufschmid.net/AsiansButcherDogForMeat.JPG)


I'm a vegan now (exclusively for health and tax resistance reasons) (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494), so I'm obligated to hate all animals 2x as hard, especially if they go after my beetroot and cabbage patch...  Wild animals are no better (or worse) than commies!  We must wipe them all out!

Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 24, 2010, 03:37:06 AM
From AP -- Dog bites firefighter who rescued it from LA River (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100123/D9DD69UG0.html) --

Quote
A firefighter splashed into a rain-swollen river Friday to rescue a German shepherd and managed to hang on safely, even after the dog furiously bit his arm and hand.  [...]

Fire officials said the male dog, nicknamed Vernon after the Southern California town where he was found, was fine. He did not have a name tag or computer chip, said Sgt. Charles Miller of the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority in Downey.  [...]

At least 50 firefighters responded to reports that the dog was in the river.  For an hour, firefighters stood at the top of the steep, concrete banks, throwing life vest and float rings, hoping the dog would grab on.  Most of the time, the canine walked along a pipe or ledge in the center of the river, sometimes slipping.  One firefighter got into the river and tried to catch him, but the dog took off.  Soon the pipe was submerged.

When the helicopter hovered overhead, the dog scrambled to the side of the river and tried to climb the sides, only to slip each time.

The 50-year-old St. Georges finally splashed down from the helicopter, wrestled with the frightened canine and lifted it to safety.  [...]

Fifty tax-eaters?!

A helicopter?!


WHAT?!
THE?!
FUCK?!



Fifty union salaries for half a day w/ hazard pay is at least $10,000, the helicopter with fuel and crew is probably doubles that!  Your tax dollars at work...  To save a homeless dog, no different than the thousands the state has to gas every day?!  And the fucking animal bit him?!

Don't you see what economic damage the irrationality of people's emotions to animals are doing?!  And that's just one example to illustrate the greater point - replacing human babies with unthinking beasts!  The whole human civilization is going down to the dogs!



And, in related news: Floridian charged for performing "surgery" on injured animal (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0121102dog1.html).

:x
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 25, 2010, 06:56:27 AM
(Video of the insanity here.) (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3984866/dog-rescuers-speak-out)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 19, 2010, 06:01:11 PM
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/funny-pictures-cat-wishes-you-had-kids.jpg)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 23, 2010, 04:14:59 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, behold:

MarryYourPet.com (http://www.marryyourpet.com/)


(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-level1_don004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x
:x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x


(http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-dog-pictures-horror-movie-face.jpg) (http://www.marryyourpet.com/)


(Encyclopedia Dramatica) (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Marry_Your_Pet)


The human civilization is in free-fall...
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 23, 2010, 10:22:38 AM
I have to ask, in all seriousness Libman, is there a point to this thread? :?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 23, 2010, 06:58:44 PM
Um, yeah, read the first post.

To discourage people from owning pets.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 23, 2010, 07:19:32 PM
Bumping thread.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 23, 2010, 11:58:28 PM
Um, yeah, read the first post.

To discourage people from owning pets.

Um, why?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 24, 2010, 12:15:57 AM
Because it is illogical, economically destructive, detrimental to the human desire to reproduce, and harmful to human relationships as well.  Pet ownership is a mental illness that all rational people should look down on!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 24, 2010, 07:23:30 AM
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7409/1087039rivetingtalechapj.jpg)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 24, 2010, 09:09:38 PM
I'm with Libman on this. The desire to control others comes from a bad place.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 25, 2010, 11:47:26 AM
I'm with Libman on this. The desire to control others comes from a bad place.

Are you sure that the pet isn't controlling you? Take a cat for example, these little fuckers will eat all your food and go to the next house to eat some more, and so on. Dog sometimes do this too, just not as often as cats as they tend to be pack animals and will either fall in line with a human family or form their own packs (not good as these fuckers will get aggressive and hurt humans). Either way, no force is plied on a cat or dog. Or fish, or bird, or anything else. Humans simply possess a pet in the same fashion as you possess a child; to socialize, nurture, and etc. Furthermore, if we take Libman's thesis to its end, then all consumption of plant and animal sources is equally illogical; so why not just abandon living altogether then? I'm sorry, but Libman's ideas are as flawed as my 'best' paintings; haphazard at best, but rubbish none the less.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on February 25, 2010, 12:12:44 PM
I'm with Libman on this. The desire to control others comes from a bad place.

Are you sure that the pet isn't controlling you? Take a cat for example, these little fuckers will eat all your food and go to the next house to eat some more, and so on. Dog sometimes do this too, just not as often as cats as they tend to be pack animals and will either fall in line with a human family or form their own packs (not good as these fuckers will get aggressive and hurt humans). Either way, no force is plied on a cat or dog. Or fish, or bird, or anything else. Humans simply possess a pet in the same fashion as you possess a child; to socialize, nurture, and etc. Furthermore, if we take Libman's thesis to its end, then all consumption of plant and animal sources is equally illogical; so why not just abandon living altogether then? I'm sorry, but Libman's ideas are as flawed as my 'best' paintings; haphazard at best, but rubbish none the less.
Excellent point.  I have to remind my girlfriend not to let her dog control her. 
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: anarchir on February 25, 2010, 01:12:56 PM
I'm with Libman on this. The desire to control others comes from a bad place.

Are you sure that the pet isn't controlling you? Take a cat for example, these little fuckers will eat all your food and go to the next house to eat some more, and so on. Dog sometimes do this too, just not as often as cats as they tend to be pack animals and will either fall in line with a human family or form their own packs (not good as these fuckers will get aggressive and hurt humans). Either way, no force is plied on a cat or dog. Or fish, or bird, or anything else. Humans simply possess a pet in the same fashion as you possess a child; to socialize, nurture, and etc. Furthermore, if we take Libman's thesis to its end, then all consumption of plant and animal sources is equally illogical; so why not just abandon living altogether then? I'm sorry, but Libman's ideas are as flawed as my 'best' paintings; haphazard at best, but rubbish none the less.
Excellent point.  I have to remind my girlfriend not to let her dog control her. 

"Small dog syndrome" is a prevalent problem that bugs me to no end. People think, "oh its a little dog, I'll let it do what it wants" until the dog is literally walking all over everyone.  It becomes the pack leader, the alpha dog, when another one does not present itself, which leads to all sorts of problems.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Rillion on February 25, 2010, 02:23:15 PM
"Small dog syndrome" is a prevalent problem that bugs me to no end. People think, "oh its a little dog, I'll let it do what it wants" until the dog is literally walking all over everyone.  It becomes the pack leader, the alpha dog, when another one does not present itself, which leads to all sorts of problems.

Yep.  My brother and sister-in-law got a small scruffy dog from the humane society and had to mostly re-train him, because he really thought he ruled the house and everyone in it.  Since then he has mellowed quite a bit, and is actually okay to be around.  I'm not a big fan of small dogs, so of course I'm his favorite person whenever I go to visit.  

If they had not adopted that dog, Libman, it's quite likely that he would've been killed.  If they let him go wild, he most likely would be killed.  Is it still inhumane for them to keep him as a pet?
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 25, 2010, 08:24:59 PM
It's nice to see some people here starting to get it, except those that don't...


[...]  Humans simply possess a pet in the same fashion as you possess a child  [...]

That's what I am against.  Every human child (or mental patient, etc) is a potential rational economic actor whose rights to Liberty and Property are deferred to someone else, but who nonetheless has the right to Life and Emancipation.  Animals are natural resources that cannot possibly own themselves, they simply lack the neurological infrastructure to think on a level that is compatible with the rest of the civilized universe.


Furthermore, if we take Libman's thesis to its end, then all consumption of plant and animal sources is equally illogical; so why not just abandon living altogether then?  [...]

Huh?  Where did that come from?  Are you trying to win a stupidity contest here?

People are of course free to do whatever they wish with their own property (be it plant, animal, or otherwise).  Very few people have the same delusions about plants that most people have about animals.  There will inevitably be some degenerate idiots who would talk about "plant rights", just as there will always be thieves, rapists, and murderers.  Those retards need to be defended against.


[...]  Is it still inhumane for them to keep him as a pet?

The word "inhumane" is a meaningless appeal to emotions; what we are talking about here are objective economic laws (i.e. right to own animals as property) as well as rational moral positions (i.e. ostracizing the pet nuts).  The immorality of keeping an animal is addressed throughout this thread.  Animals are a very inefficient food-source, raising food prices while some humans starve.  Wild animals are pests that can spread disease or otherwise damage your property.  And pets are an emotional virus that inevitably takes affection away from other humans, leading to smaller and weaker human families as the result.

Since humans are already thousands of times more productive than animals at acquiring food on this planet, and that advantage becomes infinite as we venture into space - there is no limit to how many pets we can produce.  Animals will breed as much or as little as we allow them.  We could fill the known universe with cute little puppy and kitty filled space-stations if we wanted it.  In case you missed the memo - man has conquered this planet.  An animal has no value in of itself, it's human beings that assign it value.

Animals are automatons created by natural selection, no different from rocks that are a product of chemical and planetary evolution.  What necessitates the recognition of Human Rights is the value that that rule-set brings to Civilization.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Rillion on February 25, 2010, 09:23:56 PM
And pets are an emotional virus that inevitably takes affection away from other humans, leading to smaller and weaker human families as the result.

Evidence, please.   
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 25, 2010, 10:01:02 PM
There's nothing that pisses me off more than people who inject requests for "sources" and "evidence" into the conversation completely out of context, just to make themselves feel intelligent without actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

Do you really expect me to spend millions of dollars on a scientific study that explores the psychological projections of human parental emotions onto pets, or do you expect Mommy Government to fund a study whose highly predictable conclusions will be contrary to its population control / "bread and circuses" agenda? 

Are you completely incapable of using just a little bit of deductive reasoning and common sense?!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Rillion on February 25, 2010, 10:13:07 PM
In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever, and are vexed about being called on it.

No, I have seen nothing to indicate that people with pets demonstrate less affection for other humans than people without pets, but thanks for playing.  
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 25, 2010, 10:32:14 PM
(1)  The burden of proof for "animal rights" is on people claiming that animals have "rights" and initiating aggression against other human beings (http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=25825) for that cause.

(2)  In arguing that pet ownership is immoral I am sharing my own opinion, and calling for others to avoid pets and to look down on human pet nuts.  That is a cultural argument, not a legal one.  I've clearly stated that I recognize anyone's right to own animals on their own property, to eat animals, to have sex with animals, and so on.

(3)  Why is it that the most scientifically illiterate people seem have the highest esteem in their understanding of the scientific method?

(4)  Put ten million dollars in an escrow account, and I'll gladly prove you wrong.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 26, 2010, 08:22:38 AM
It's nice to see some people here starting to get it, except those that don't...
Should I care?

Quote
That's what I am against.  Every human child (or mental patient, etc) is a potential rational economic actor whose rights to Liberty and Property are deferred to someone else, but who nonetheless has the right to Life and Emancipation.  Animals are natural resources that cannot possibly own themselves, they simply lack the neurological infrastructure to think on a level that is compatible with the rest of the civilized universe.
Yes and I have the potential to be the next Lance Armstrong, but that doesn't mean I am one right now or in the foreseeable future. Get me?

Quote
People are of course free to do whatever they wish with their own property (be it plant, animal, or otherwise).  Very few people have the same delusions about plants that most people have about animals.  There will inevitably be some degenerate idiots who would talk about "plant rights", just as there will always be thieves, rapists, and murderers.  Those retards need to be defended against.
What does rights have to do with animals or humans? Not a damn thing.

Quote
The word "inhumane" is a meaningless appeal to emotions; what we are talking about here are objective economic laws (i.e. right to own animals as property) as well as rational moral positions (i.e. ostracizing the pet nuts).
Nope, try again, friendo.

Quote
The immorality of keeping an animal is addressed throughout this thread.  Animals are a very inefficient food-source, raising food prices while some humans starve.  Wild animals are pests that can spread disease or otherwise damage your property.  And pets are an emotional virus that inevitably takes affection away from other humans, leading to smaller and weaker human families as the result.
Proof? Or are you just going to make a claim without even a coherent argument as you have for this entire thread?

Quote
Since humans are already thousands of times more productive than animals at acquiring food on this planet, and that advantage becomes infinite as we venture into space - there is no limit to how many pets we can produce.  Animals will breed as much or as little as we allow them.  We could fill the known universe with cute little puppy and kitty filled space-stations if we wanted it.  In case you missed the memo - man has conquered this planet.  An animal has no value in of itself, it's human beings that assign it value.
Cool story bro.

Quote
Animals are automatons created by natural selection, no different from rocks that are a product of chemical and planetary evolution.  What necessitates the recognition of Human Rights is the value that that rule-set brings to Civilization.
And thus justifies your bullshit position that possessing a pet is bad? Come on, niggah, get some intellectual chops and learn to debate. You clearly are better at coding, so either learn to debate or go back to coding. I have no time for your shit.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 26, 2010, 08:27:49 AM
Moreover, by your logic everything that relates to emotion in any way should be discouraged or stamped out. That means no art, no music, no sex, no booze, no orchestral music, no video games, and no fun. Sorry, I recognize the reality that humans are emotional and rational creatures. In fact, emotion is a kind of reasoning by virtue of the fact that it is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history, as it is with all animals.

Without emotion, empathy wouldn't exist, it is the lifeblood of species to exploit emotion (especially empathy) as without it no learning is possible. Want proof? Look at any low order autistic or any socio/psychopath, these people have very little capacity to feel or empathize. Because of this impairment, many of them can't learn. Many low order autistics may have wonderful gifts of computation, but that's it. And psychopaths, well they're just fucked all over, that's why you never see many psychopaths with college level educations.

So, until you can prove emotion is useless, I'm going to be smiling when my niece is petting or playing with her cats, cause she enjoys them, and I enjoy that she enjoys them.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 26, 2010, 09:22:45 AM
Is Schrödinger going for the dumbest troll award?   :?


Yes and I have the potential to be the next Lance Armstrong  [...]

Did anyone imply that you and Lance Armstrong differ in your Natural Rights?


What does rights have to do with animals or humans? Not a damn thing.

There are rational empirically-verifiable reasons why a society should adapt a rule-set that prohibits murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, and other violations of Natural Rights.  (See also: evolutionary pragmatism, principle of materialistic competitive advantage, etc, etc, etc.  Even Ayn Rand's crude epistemology should suffice.)  But the benefits of non-violent cooperation only apply to "rational economic actors", and so far the only entities that can possibly fit that criteria are human beings.  Self-owning robots / AI is a real possibility, but all genetically-unmodified animals other than humans simply don't have the neurological infrastructure to own themselves.


Proof? Or are you just going to make a claim without even a coherent argument as you have for this entire thread?

I can prove that humans have Natural Rights.  I can prove that the burden of proof in any claim that anything else has Natural Rights falls on the claimant, and that no other species has ever been proven worthy of self-ownership.  But I cannot prove the main point of this thread, which wasn't intended to be factual.  It's like you proving that what you had for breakfast tasted good!


And thus justifies your bullshit position that possessing a pet is bad?

Yes, it does, in as much as any aesthetic opinion can be justified.


Moreover, by your logic everything that relates to emotion in any way should be discouraged or stamped out.  [...]

You clearly haven't understood a damn thing.  I recognize the economic benefit of people being able to spend their money however they damn please to make themselves happy - whether eating animals, loving them as pets, torturing them for sadistic pleasure, or none of the above.  But I also subjectively decide that the character traits implied by certain hobbies are undesirable, that I should stay away from such hobbies, use my speech discourage others from participating in it, and avoid people who engage in said hobby at my discretion.  Or do you want Mommy Government to dictate what people are allowed to like or dislike?


That means  [...]  no fun.  [...]

You are free to own pets and you are free to have fun however you see fit, as long as you don't violate the Natural Rights of others.  But you are not free to force other people to like you / respect what you do, and not ostracize you.  And in this thread I am expressing my opinion why pet ownership is a moral flaw - you are free to disagree, but no one has yet made a single rational point in its defense.


So, until you can prove emotion is useless  [...]

I am a big fan of emotion (as you could have been able to tell from my posts over the past few years), but some emotions are more rational than others.  A lot of psychoactive drugs are very addictive and very destructive to your capacity to reason - you should be free to take them, but you will not have my respect if you do.

Emotion can even be taken to the extreme in the form of EEE (Eternal Electric Enjoyment) - total immersion in pleasure by inserting electrodes into certain parts of the brain.  It refers to wide-known experiments on rats which, when provided with ability to trigger a switch connected to the electrodes, kept constantly pressing it until they starved to death.  A similar effect is possible for humans as well, and, once again - you should be free to use such devices, but you will not have my respect if you do.

(http://antisex.info/images/rat.jpg)

Rational people must learn to alter their emotional needs on the basis of reason.  I am not condemning pet owners to a fiery hell, I am simply communicating that their hobby is a sign of irrationality, and is thus immoral to a person who values reason.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on February 26, 2010, 02:13:28 PM
Did anyone imply that you and Lance Armstrong differ in your Natural Rights?
Who said there have to be natural rights?

Quote
There are rational empirically-verifiable reasons why a society should adapt a rule-set that prohibits murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, and other violations of Natural Rights.  (See also: evolutionary pragmatism, principle of materialistic competitive advantage, etc, etc, etc.  Even Ayn Rand's crude epistemology should suffice.)  But the benefits of non-violent cooperation only apply to "rational economic actors", and so far the only entities that can possibly fit that criteria are human beings.  Self-owning robots / AI is a real possibility, but all genetically-unmodified animals other than humans simply don't have the neurological infrastructure to own themselves.
That still doesn't really answer the question, because what you call natural rights others would call positivism. I lean toward you method of thinking on rights, but just be aware of the fact that it's not [classical] natural rights.


Quote
I can prove that humans have Natural Rights.  I can prove that the burden of proof in any claim that anything else has Natural Rights falls on the claimant, and that no other species has ever been proven worthy of self-ownership.  But I cannot prove the main point of this thread, which wasn't intended to be factual.  It's like you proving that what you had for breakfast tasted good!
Then there are no natural rights then, thanks.

Quote
Yes, it does, in as much as any aesthetic opinion can be justified.
Then justify the argument against owning pets without falling for the faulty notions you've prescribed (hint: they're not related at all to rights).


Quote
I recognize the economic benefit of people being able to spend their money however they damn please to make themselves happy - whether eating animals, loving them as pets, torturing them for sadistic pleasure, or none of the above.  But I also subjectively decide that the character traits implied by certain hobbies are undesirable, that I should stay away from such hobbies, use my speech discourage others from participating in it, and avoid people who engage in said hobby at my discretion.  Or do you want Mommy Government to dictate what people are allowed to like or dislike?
You clearly aren't thinking in terms of what owning a pet is all about, thus conflate natural rights arguments with pet ownership, where there is no such connection in the first place. A cat or dog has no capacity to reason, it has no morality to call its own, and etc, so please stop trying to turn something simple into something complex.

Quote
You are free to own pets and you are free to have fun however you see fit, as long as you don't violate the Natural Rights of others.  But you are not free to force other people to like you / respect what you do, and not ostracize you.  And in this thread I am expressing my opinion why pet ownership is a moral flaw - you are free to disagree, but no one has yet made a single rational point in its defense.
Again, what does natural rights have to do with Mark's pussy: Senor Grouchypants? Or any other person's pet?


Quote
I am a big fan of emotion (as you could have been able to tell from my posts over the past few years), but some emotions are more rational than others.

Emotion can even be taken to the extreme in the form of EEE (Eternal Electric Enjoyment) - total immersion in pleasure by inserting electrodes into certain parts of the brain.  It refers to wide-known experiments on rats which, when provided with ability to trigger a switch connected to the electrodes, kept constantly pressing it until they starved to death.  A similar effect is possible for humans as well, and, once again - you should be free to use such devices, but you will not have my respect if you do.

(http://antisex.info/images/rat.jpg)

Rational people must learn to alter their emotional needs on the basis of reason.  I am not condemning pet owners to a fiery hell, I am simply communicating that their hobby is a sign of irrationality, and is thus immoral to a person who values reason.


Cool story, bro.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Rillion on February 26, 2010, 05:26:32 PM
(1)  The burden of proof for "animal rights" is on people claiming that animals have "rights" and initiating aggression against other human beings (http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=25825) for that cause.

(2)  In arguing that pet ownership is immoral I am sharing my own opinion, and calling for others to avoid pets and to look down on human pet nuts.  That is a cultural argument, not a legal one.  I've clearly stated that I recognize anyone's right to own animals on their own property, to eat animals, to have sex with animals, and so on.

(3)  Why is it that the most scientifically illiterate people seem have the highest esteem in their understanding of the scientific method?

(4)  Put ten million dollars in an escrow account, and I'll gladly prove you wrong.


More vexation.  I didn't say anything about animal rights, one way or another.  You're welcome to your opinion about pet ownership, but so far as I can tell it's complete bollocks and you refuse to give me any reason to believe otherwise.   Now I'm off to feed my parakeet. 
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 26, 2010, 10:07:01 PM
Who said there have to be natural rights?

Who said there should be mathematics?  No one legislated them into being, they were discovered as humans attempted to pursue their self-instinct (whether on an instinctive or rational level), and it has been proven over and over again that trying to build a hut or a warp drive under a faulty understanding of mathematics puts you at a relative competitive disadvantage.  Your existence on this planet is a consequence of the human civilization achieving a certain understanding of mathematics - without them life was nasty, brutish, and short for the very small number of cavemen this earth can support.

The same also applies to Natural Law - societies that violate it the least have an evolutionary advantage over ones that don't.  History and modern econometrics can be used as a guide to measuring different theories about Natural Law, but it's not a perfect experiment of cultures in a petri dish, so some deductive reasoning is helpful as well.

It is clear, however, that a society which tolerates murder, theft, rape, etc simply cannot build the level of civilization that we already have today, and that we already depend on for survival.  If magically theft and murder became acceptable, civilization would collapse back to an earlier era of pre-agricultural hunting and gathering, which means a massive famine, disease, etc - the odds of you being born at all, much less surviving in your present state, become astronomically small.  Natural Law is something you are born into, just like you are born into a universe where Pi is greater than 3 and less than 4.

You of course have free will to ignore all natural laws, from mathematical to social, but in both cases there will naturally be consequences, and sufficient violations of those laws are equivalent to suicide.


[...]  what you call natural rights others would call positivism  [...]

Um, wrong again (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logical_positivism.html).


Then there are no natural rights then, thanks.

Non-sequitur.


Then justify the argument against owning pets without falling for the faulty notions you've prescribed (hint: they're not related at all to rights).

Yes, we have two debates going on in parallel here.

One is me disproving any notion of "animal rights" - leave Brian Travis and Michael Vick alone (and I don't mean to equate the two), legalize dog meat, stop fining people over animal issues (http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=25825), that sort of thing.  It is based on the simple economic fact that attributing arbitrary rights to animals, gods, and other things in reality only violates the Natural Rights of real "rational economic actors", that is human beings.  Many Buddhist cultures failed to develop economically because they didn't want to hurt earthworms while tilling the soil.  A modern society that restricts animal experimentation will have a severe scientific disadvantage resulting in lower quality of life and lower life expectancy for human beings.  And if you have the "right" to force others to follow your subjective rules on how animals should be treated, why can't someone else force you to pray to Allah five times a day?  You get the idea.

The second debate, which is the main point of this specific thread, looks deeper at the source of the "animal rights" delusion at how human beings condition themselves and their children from birth to elevate animals to a human level.  Just like addiction to narcotics or artificial electric stimulation of the brain, addition to pets is a serious moral flaw that the modern suffers from, and it needs to be exposed as such.  Putting dumb helpless animals into a family where they fulfill the role of children (as opposed to being used as guard dogs, food livestock, etc) is unnatural and harmful to the human needs of the family.

The money, time, and most importantly emotional energy that a person spends on a pet is inevitably taken away from another human being.  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.

Pet ownership might just be a "gateway drug" to the "animal rights" insanity, but that is a sufficient reason to call it immoral.


[...]  Now I'm off to feed my parakeet. 

Hmm, I wonder if there's a correlation between the nasty treatment I've received from the various forum members here (i.e. their irrationality) and their attachment to their pets.  I know John Shaw has half-dozen cats, for example...  :roll:
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on February 26, 2010, 11:14:42 PM


Hmm, I wonder if there's a correlation between the nasty treatment I've received from the various forum members here (i.e. their irrationality) and their attachment to their pets.  I know John Shaw has half-dozen cats, for example...  :roll:


Hmm.... I know there is correlation that people indifferent to the suffering of animals especially ones that like to torture them have a much higher propensity to end up being loner sociopaths.
Does the act of "persuading others to frown upon pet ownership fall under this category?  Probably not. 
Just saying.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 27, 2010, 12:03:57 AM
I'm not saying that pet-torturing freaks shouldn't be ostracized, but at least they're doing what (pre)human beings have done for millions of years to aid their survival.  Even domesticated cats will torture the mice they capture for their own amusement, which probably sharpens their hunter instincts in the process.

Getting emotional enjoyment out of animals is sick one way or the other.  By elevating animals to a human level -- no matter if it's as a family member or as an opponent in battle -- you bring humanity down to a lower evolutionary level.  Slaying monster trolls in the holodeck is far more civilized.  ;)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Rillion on February 27, 2010, 12:58:01 AM
Hmm, I wonder if there's a correlation between the nasty treatment I've received from the various forum members here (i.e. their irrationality) and their attachment to their pets.  I know John Shaw has half-dozen cats, for example...  :roll:

No, it couldn't possibly be that you're telling people that something they enjoy means they're sick for no reason that you can demonstrate or explain, and they recognize and mock the absurdity of it.  Nevah.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on February 27, 2010, 01:22:53 AM
I've explained my position numerous times above.  Your failure to comprehend it is entirely your own.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 27, 2010, 12:20:58 PM
And here I was thinking Libman had turned over a new leaf. Stupid me. :roll:
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous 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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=32565.75), so as to not pollute this one.)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Cognitive Dissident on February 27, 2010, 04:42:09 PM
My cats are quite certain they own me.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter 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 (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logical_positivism.html).
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).
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous 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!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous 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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254356/Now-Government-want-competence-test-dog-owner.html) --

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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%C2%A360+in+USD) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Environment,_Food_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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=£5+in+USD), 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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=£30+in+USD).

Other proposals due to be floated by the Government include giving the police and local authorities the power to impose ASBO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order)'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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 28, 2010, 10:56:43 AM
Objectivism is stupid and so's the UK.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter 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.
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on March 03, 2010, 02:40:41 PM
(http://i45.tinypic.com/18kx1z.jpg)
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on March 05, 2010, 09:25:12 PM
From Time - Should There Be an Animal-Abuser Registry? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969346,00.html)

:x
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: miamiballoonguy on May 17, 2010, 10:27:41 AM
My cats are quite certain they own me.

same here
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: anarchir on May 17, 2010, 01:37:30 PM
My cats are quite certain they own me.

same here


Whoah whoah whoah necro'd!
Title: Re: Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw
Post by: Alex Libman on August 07, 2010, 05:50:17 AM
The last episode of Futurama (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Futurama-S06E08-That-Darn-Katz-HDTV-XviD-FQM/43586740928fb724e4afe508e2f5c79c8a37970034d2) captured the evil Katz conspiracy perfectly!  :lol: