FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
> Diogenes wrote:
> > I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind
> > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals.
>
> *WHAT* ****ing *standard*?
>
> Define the standard that your morals are measured against is it, a
> *human beings life* OR an animal's life?

That's a false dichotomy, it doesn't have to be one or the other. You
can consider both to varying degrees. Implying an animal does have
rights doesn't inherently imply that those rights are at the expense of
a human.

> Dutch claimed (before he claimed he doesn't believe in animal rights,
> that was after claiming he does, **** knows what he believes in, I
> digress) Dutch claims, that an animal has *a right to a house*,
> presumably because not giving an animal a right to a house was
> *abusing* that animal and therefore, according to him, immoral.

I'm not dutch. I don't believe that animals have a right to a house,
but they do have a right to not be subject to extreme conditions that
are beyond the scope of their natural state. No one should make a
penguin sit on the beach in New Zealand. Even if they do "own" the
penguin.

> If society really wants a house for a horse of course, then why doesn't
> that society build and pay for that ****ing house, for the horse of
> course?
>
> If a society doesn't want to see an animal abused, then that soceity
> ought own those ****ing animals and do with them as that society wants.

If society doesn't want to see an animal abused, then society should
take that animal away from the person who is abusing it. In your
example of the Island, I would talk to Friday, if that didn't work I
would take the dog from him until he calmed down. Then I would return
the dog to him and talk to him regarding why he would do that. If
Friday chose to continue to go on in his present course of action, why
would I assume that Friday would be there for me when I was in a state
similar to the dogs. If Friday was able to, it would be reasonable to
assume he would beat me as well if the desire overtook him.

> Forcing an animal owner *an individual human being* to use *his energy*
> to build a horse a house of course, IS to claim ownership over that
> human being and IS abusing that human being's right to be the owner of
> himself, IS that ****ing moral?

No argument there. I don't think horses need houses, they're herd
animals. But you shouldn't stick to solitary animals in the same place.
For example "Beta" fish, I don't know what they call them in New
Zealand, will kill each other if put in the same tank. It would be
reasonable for the owner of these animals to acknowledge that and put
them in separate tanks. It would be immoral not to do so, but not on
the same level as cock-fighting or beating children.

> Start at the beginning with your ****ing morals and END your morals
> there, *the human being* its a very good place to start AND finish the
> standard of moral values.

Agreed that human beings are a good place to start and finish the moral
standard of values. How do you assume that is the end of moral values
as well? Human beings are not the only agents, though you ignore
evidence that this is so. Animals are capable of functioning on a
rational level, just not on the same level as most humans.

> Are you done yet?

Probably not