There's a direct relationship between how cute an animal is and how much legal protection it receives. Keep a thousand pigs in tiny cages in a filthy barn and kill them for meat? No problem. Do that to kittens? Off to jail you go!
Even so-called le god-given rights entail responsibilies. Most basic of them is the responsibility to respect the rights of others. If I respect a bear's right to life will he respect my right not to be mauled to death for no reason?
I'm not that other anon. I'm trying to get you back to a higher level. Rights are responsibilities, and animals have responsibilities. Treadwell punched grizzlies in the nose for 13 years before he was eaten
>Even so-called le god-given rights entail responsibilies.
No, they do not. >Most basic of them is the responsibility to respect the rights of others
There is no such responsibility.
>no responsibility
So I have the right to say whatever I want but now I don't have to respect the right of other people to say what they want? Awesome.
If you have the right to say anything you want you can say anything you want.
If you have to respect the right of other people to say what they want you don't have a right, you have a mutual agreement that can be renegotiated at any time.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The idea behind human rights is they apply to all humans anon.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Is there something that prevents me from having another idea, where only some humans have rights and not others?
Or maybe I just make up some criteria for who's human, and who's subhuman
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you want to go the moral relativism route that's fine. Just admit it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I already told you, "rights" is a word made-up by humans.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
As are all words.
Are you just going to reject all abstract concepts because we "made them up"?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I'm a nominalist. I don't believe in stance independent rights/moral values.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The idea behind human rights is...
okay, so we're talking about made up shit. Sure, they can be whatever you want them to be
yes, you are right. >what are the responsibilies of animals?
some quite extensive
However, nobody has permanent rights because there are no permanent responsibilities. It's a what can you do for me situation
>Why
I think there's enough evidence to state that these animals have a high-enough level of intelligence to merit being treated differently than others. I would add octopi to the list as well.
>What level
Banning their consumption by humans, special protections for their habitats, etc.
My smartphone is more intelligent than all the species you listed, should it get rights to? Intelligence is irrelevant without phenomenal experience and self-awareness and there's no reason to suggest animals possess these qualia.
Why are dolphins more intelligent than smartphones?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
i'm not sure if you're baiting or just total midwit
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>zero argument
Apologize to my phone this lil nigga has been chugging along on 4gb of ram for like 6 years, all to be disrespected by some homosexual in favor of octopussy?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Literal room temperature IQ
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What can you say to the point? Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Why are dolphins smarter than smartphones?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Dolphins pass the mirror test intuitively, an iPhone needs a program written to teach it to pass that very same test and if you have no relevant app, it never will. Don't really have an opinion either way, that just popped into my head and I thought I'd share.
Cognitive ability + capacity to feel emotion is what makes intelligence in my book. An elephant is capable of feeling things like grief, happiness, etc. and has some advanced level of cognition. An IPhone does not.
We already established that cognitive abilities on their own are worthless since automatons possess them too, as for "capacity to feel emotion", aka qualia, there's ZERO proof to suggest that such a thing occurs in animals. The reason we know that humans have an aware, subjective self is due to communication, through language, arts, development of systems of ethics and morality. And we still argue about things like p-zombies, npcs, perfect sociopaths. Concluding that a doggy has emotions because it made a sad face is both retarded and insulting to the complex nature of humanity. You are anthropomorphizing animals and their instinctive responses to outer stimuli.
>Cognitive ability
Available for electronic devices. >capacity to feel emotion
Just the ability to produce certain chemicals. Some plants emit chemicals in dangerous conditions, give a signal to others. This can also be called emotions.
I would say we have the duty to do not fuck up the ecosystem, since we are part of that and we depend on that.
Animal right is the rebranding of a portion of that.
Also, avoid being cruels for the sake of cruelty might help us take distances from naggers et al.
>do animals have right
yes and technically some are codified into law (anti-poaching). since human beings are one of the only animals that can cause large scale changes to the ecosystem we have a duty to protect it. with that being said all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. i would not give the same rights to a dolphin and a cow
consent is a human thing
pets are responsible for a high level of interaction with people
livestock are responsible for providing value
even wild animals are responsible for their place in the ecosystem we use. They have the "right" not to be interfered with in a way that screws up their role.
Stretching the word responsibity tp the max here pham. Cows aren't responsible for anything, they are a utility item like traffic lights to a road.
Also we can safely annihilate 99% of animal species without harming the climate, meanwhile plants are absolutely important for the maintenance of biosphere, oxygen, water cycle, shading, soil aeration etc. how do you justify giving rights to stupid fucking elephants that do nothing but walk and shit all day but not to the essential guardians on the planet?
You're telling me a traffic light doesn't have responsibility? If it breaks, the manufacturer bears responsibility so obviously there was some to be had.
The plants-animals distinction is a matter of scale. Plants aren't individuals so it's less common for a single plant to be important, far less to operate on the emotional level that animals do. However you wouldn't wipe out all plants in an area, that is a matter of right and responsibility just as you described it.
You said it, if the traffic light breaks and causes an accident or a jam we don't bring the traffic light to court and put the traffic light in traffic light jail. We find out who's responsible for malfunction of a utility apparatus. These people are conferred rights and responsibilities.
but if it turns out the unit was responsible and not the manufacturer, no blame is assigned. That's how one human can control a thousand NPCs, ten thousand head of cattle, and 2000 acres of plant life without bearing ultimate responsibility for all of them. They have some of their own.
"Rights" talk is so fucking retarded
Rights, is a word humans made up. It would just depend on what people mean when they say it¨
When you say 'rights', is that something you think an animal would have? (whatever that means)
Animals do not have rights, but Human Beings who are cruel to animals must be excised from our society because such behavior is indicative of psychopathy and antithetical to our values.
au contraire I find "animal lovers" to be creepy and psychopathic. Seeing people treat mindless fucking dogs and cats as family members, baby them like replacement children, form a emotional bond with something that sees you no more than a mobile food dispenser to the point when a pet inevitably croaks after a decade of pointless existence, I dunno man there's something atavistic about this shit. Like, if you feel attached to dumb shit like that you've got emotional diarrhea.
Depends on how you define a "right". They're not any less conscious than you or I, they still feel pain, I imagine they're typically not fond of being killed. If some advanced alien civilization came along and processed your family into a TV dinner slop meal I reckon you'd feel pretty shitty about it right? >That's not heckin utilitarian enough! Appeal to emotionerino!!
You know it's true.
They are less conscious than us, alot less conscious. The scenario you described is a scenario that they are completely incapable of ever grasping, even if they were to see every step of it, as they aren't even capable of grasping the steps they do partake in.
It's tough
I think that the discussion of animal 'rights' can be very mentally ill
If someone is whining to me about how I cannot take the honey from a bee or the eggs from a chicken because those animal's have a right to their labour and that by taking it away I am exploiting them, all I can think is that this person is seriously mentally ill
At the same time though I think if we are raising animal's for their meat they have a right to experience as little pain and distress as possible and to be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible
Rights entail responsibilies, correct? Otherwise they're just entitlements. So thrn what are the responsibilies of animals?
To be soft and cuddly.
Unironically this.
There's a direct relationship between how cute an animal is and how much legal protection it receives. Keep a thousand pigs in tiny cages in a filthy barn and kill them for meat? No problem. Do that to kittens? Off to jail you go!
>Rights entail responsibilies, correct?
No.
Even so-called le god-given rights entail responsibilies. Most basic of them is the responsibility to respect the rights of others. If I respect a bear's right to life will he respect my right not to be mauled to death for no reason?
generally yes
Ok you almost convinced me mate, all you gotta do is film yourself approaching a grizzly in a friendly manner.
I'm not that other anon. I'm trying to get you back to a higher level. Rights are responsibilities, and animals have responsibilities. Treadwell punched grizzlies in the nose for 13 years before he was eaten
>Even so-called le god-given rights entail responsibilies.
No, they do not.
>Most basic of them is the responsibility to respect the rights of others
There is no such responsibility.
>no responsibility
So I have the right to say whatever I want but now I don't have to respect the right of other people to say what they want? Awesome.
If you have the right to say anything you want you can say anything you want.
If you have to respect the right of other people to say what they want you don't have a right, you have a mutual agreement that can be renegotiated at any time.
The idea behind human rights is they apply to all humans anon.
Is there something that prevents me from having another idea, where only some humans have rights and not others?
Or maybe I just make up some criteria for who's human, and who's subhuman
If you want to go the moral relativism route that's fine. Just admit it.
I already told you, "rights" is a word made-up by humans.
As are all words.
Are you just going to reject all abstract concepts because we "made them up"?
Yeah, I'm a nominalist. I don't believe in stance independent rights/moral values.
>The idea behind human rights is...
okay, so we're talking about made up shit. Sure, they can be whatever you want them to be
yes, you are right.
>what are the responsibilies of animals?
some quite extensive
However, nobody has permanent rights because there are no permanent responsibilities. It's a what can you do for me situation
philosophy and ethics break down one you start discussing animals.
I think that elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins and whales have some level of rights.
What level and why?
>Why
I think there's enough evidence to state that these animals have a high-enough level of intelligence to merit being treated differently than others. I would add octopi to the list as well.
>What level
Banning their consumption by humans, special protections for their habitats, etc.
My smartphone is more intelligent than all the species you listed, should it get rights to? Intelligence is irrelevant without phenomenal experience and self-awareness and there's no reason to suggest animals possess these qualia.
Nigga so dense he thinks AI is literal intelligence
>computers are intelligent
Why are dolphins more intelligent than smartphones?
i'm not sure if you're baiting or just total midwit
>zero argument
Apologize to my phone this lil nigga has been chugging along on 4gb of ram for like 6 years, all to be disrespected by some homosexual in favor of octopussy?
Literal room temperature IQ
What can you say to the point? Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Why are dolphins smarter than smartphones?
Dolphins pass the mirror test intuitively, an iPhone needs a program written to teach it to pass that very same test and if you have no relevant app, it never will. Don't really have an opinion either way, that just popped into my head and I thought I'd share.
You are literally a biological computer my friend, computers are getting closer and closer to becoming living organisms.
Cognitive ability + capacity to feel emotion is what makes intelligence in my book. An elephant is capable of feeling things like grief, happiness, etc. and has some advanced level of cognition. An IPhone does not.
We already established that cognitive abilities on their own are worthless since automatons possess them too, as for "capacity to feel emotion", aka qualia, there's ZERO proof to suggest that such a thing occurs in animals. The reason we know that humans have an aware, subjective self is due to communication, through language, arts, development of systems of ethics and morality. And we still argue about things like p-zombies, npcs, perfect sociopaths. Concluding that a doggy has emotions because it made a sad face is both retarded and insulting to the complex nature of humanity. You are anthropomorphizing animals and their instinctive responses to outer stimuli.
>Cognitive ability
Available for electronic devices.
>capacity to feel emotion
Just the ability to produce certain chemicals. Some plants emit chemicals in dangerous conditions, give a signal to others. This can also be called emotions.
I would say we have the duty to do not fuck up the ecosystem, since we are part of that and we depend on that.
Animal right is the rebranding of a portion of that.
Also, avoid being cruels for the sake of cruelty might help us take distances from naggers et al.
>do animals have right
yes and technically some are codified into law (anti-poaching). since human beings are one of the only animals that can cause large scale changes to the ecosystem we have a duty to protect it. with that being said all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. i would not give the same rights to a dolphin and a cow
No, because they have no responsibilities nor are they capable for consenting to such.
consent is a human thing
pets are responsible for a high level of interaction with people
livestock are responsible for providing value
even wild animals are responsible for their place in the ecosystem we use. They have the "right" not to be interfered with in a way that screws up their role.
Stretching the word responsibity tp the max here pham. Cows aren't responsible for anything, they are a utility item like traffic lights to a road.
Also we can safely annihilate 99% of animal species without harming the climate, meanwhile plants are absolutely important for the maintenance of biosphere, oxygen, water cycle, shading, soil aeration etc. how do you justify giving rights to stupid fucking elephants that do nothing but walk and shit all day but not to the essential guardians on the planet?
You're telling me a traffic light doesn't have responsibility? If it breaks, the manufacturer bears responsibility so obviously there was some to be had.
The plants-animals distinction is a matter of scale. Plants aren't individuals so it's less common for a single plant to be important, far less to operate on the emotional level that animals do. However you wouldn't wipe out all plants in an area, that is a matter of right and responsibility just as you described it.
You said it, if the traffic light breaks and causes an accident or a jam we don't bring the traffic light to court and put the traffic light in traffic light jail. We find out who's responsible for malfunction of a utility apparatus. These people are conferred rights and responsibilities.
but if it turns out the unit was responsible and not the manufacturer, no blame is assigned. That's how one human can control a thousand NPCs, ten thousand head of cattle, and 2000 acres of plant life without bearing ultimate responsibility for all of them. They have some of their own.
retard
"Rights" talk is so fucking retarded
Rights, is a word humans made up. It would just depend on what people mean when they say it¨
When you say 'rights', is that something you think an animal would have? (whatever that means)
No one has rights. Not even humans.
>Do animals have rights
If I like the animal then yes, if no then no. Depends on how tasty I find them also.
Animals do not have rights, but Human Beings who are cruel to animals must be excised from our society because such behavior is indicative of psychopathy and antithetical to our values.
au contraire I find "animal lovers" to be creepy and psychopathic. Seeing people treat mindless fucking dogs and cats as family members, baby them like replacement children, form a emotional bond with something that sees you no more than a mobile food dispenser to the point when a pet inevitably croaks after a decade of pointless existence, I dunno man there's something atavistic about this shit. Like, if you feel attached to dumb shit like that you've got emotional diarrhea.
Yeah
Depends on how you define a "right". They're not any less conscious than you or I, they still feel pain, I imagine they're typically not fond of being killed. If some advanced alien civilization came along and processed your family into a TV dinner slop meal I reckon you'd feel pretty shitty about it right?
>That's not heckin utilitarian enough! Appeal to emotionerino!!
You know it's true.
>They're not any less conscious than you or I
Mentally ill
They are less conscious than us, alot less conscious. The scenario you described is a scenario that they are completely incapable of ever grasping, even if they were to see every step of it, as they aren't even capable of grasping the steps they do partake in.
coz they're cute
It's tough
I think that the discussion of animal 'rights' can be very mentally ill
If someone is whining to me about how I cannot take the honey from a bee or the eggs from a chicken because those animal's have a right to their labour and that by taking it away I am exploiting them, all I can think is that this person is seriously mentally ill
At the same time though I think if we are raising animal's for their meat they have a right to experience as little pain and distress as possible and to be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible