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.
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.
Shut the fuck up Libman.
[...] 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 [...] |
[...] And you want to fuck robots! [...] |
[...] you think animals are merely property, so you have no reason whatever to criticize what I do with my animal property [...] |
[...] You see, it's all about me [...] |
[...] Libman is in favor of eugenics and is a Damn Neo libertarian fascist |
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!
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!
[...] I simply do not eat any animal that has a well-developed brain capable of at least recognizing pain [...] |
[...] fur coats are viewed today |
[...] 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. |
ok, i get it...this really IS a joke thread. Shame you have made me spend so much time typing already. |
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.
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)
Well, yeah, and I've hardeeharhared right back at you in my own way. Have a nice day.
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)
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.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.
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!
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.
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.
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. |
[...] Those are some examples off the top of head in which pets help the economy. [...] |
[...] 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. |
[...] Anyone that would choose a robot over a pet has got to have something wrong with him. |
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?
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!
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.
It is serious subject matter presented in this thread through self-parody. (Couldn't resist.)
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!
In reality, the only rational argument for rights is that cooperation among individual economic actors constitutes a mutual competitive advantage.Rights are collectivist.
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.
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.
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:
<1> Fix your grammar, I have no idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean.I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP.
<2> Added hyperlink to Wikipedia article on "negative and positive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)".
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.
I was taking the same approach that Vegans do to interperting the NAP. |
people like that cannot be trusted to do the right thing.People can not be trusted to do the right thing.
Not all vegitarians are nazis, nor are they all irrationalIt 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?
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...
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).Not all vegitarians are nazis, nor are they all irrationalIt 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?
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...
People can not be trusted to do the right thing. |
Not all vegitarians are nazis, nor are they all irrational |
[...] 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. [...]
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 themI'll own all the children I want! Pets too.
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 themI'll own all the children I want! Pets too.
Some couples who don't want kids substitute them with pets. |
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.
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. [...]
Um, yeah, read the first post.
To discourage people from owning pets.
I'm with Libman on this. The desire to control others comes from a bad place.
Excellent point. I have to remind my girlfriend not to let her dog control her.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.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.
"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.
[...] Humans simply possess a pet in the same fashion as you possess a child [...] |
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? [...] |
[...] Is it still inhumane for them to keep him as a pet? |
And pets are an emotional virus that inevitably takes affection away from other humans, leading to smaller and weaker human families as the result.
It's nice to see some people here starting to get it, except those that don't...Should I care?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes and I have the potential to be the next Lance Armstrong [...] |
What does rights have to do with animals or humans? Not a damn thing. |
Proof? Or are you just going to make a claim without even a coherent argument as you have for this entire thread? |
And thus justifies your bullshit position that possessing a pet is bad? |
Moreover, by your logic everything that relates to emotion in any way should be discouraged or stamped out. [...] |
That means [...] no fun. [...] |
So, until you can prove emotion is useless [...] |
Did anyone imply that you and Lance Armstrong differ in your Natural Rights?Who said there have to be natural rights?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
(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.
Who said there have to be natural rights? |
[...] what you call natural rights others would call positivism [...] |
Then there are no natural rights then, thanks. |
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). |
[...] 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:
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:
And here I was thinking Libman had turned over a new leaf. Stupid me. :roll: |
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.
Who said there should be mathematics?
Um, wrong again (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logical_positivism.html).Ayn Rand != definitive or final source for debates on epistemology.
NO U
Non-sequitur.
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.
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*).
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.
Ayn Rand != definitive or final source for debates on epistemology. |
That's according to your goals. [...] |
If it wasn't for my love of animals, my studies into artificial intelligence wouldn't have been as fruitful. |
That's equally as dumb as saying that pot is a gateway drug. [...] |
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".
Note that I am a Post-Objectivist/Neo-Aristotelean, so I don't see her as the definitive or authoritative source for everything.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Doubtful until clarified.
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.'
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 aboutdrugspets!
My cats are quite certain they own me.
My cats are quite certain they own me.
same here