 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
Where's everybody gone?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:21:04 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote:
>>> dh pointed out: >>> >> "Misterina" asked: >> > Goo wrote: >>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>in order to be successful: >>> >>> >>> >>> Okay um. Can someone please tell me WHY is it that people assume I am vegan? >> >>You wrote: >> >> I just categorically don't eat anything that had a mother. >> Or eyes. Or brains. Like EUGH!! So here we go, how >>about this: >> >> Hi. My name is Misterina. I *categorically* condemn >>meat *eating*. >> >>If not "vegan", you are at least a loopy so-called "ethical >>vegetarian". >> >>That is, you're a crackpot. > >And you're an ass. Yes, Goo is an ass, and a liar, and ignorant, and stupid, and childish, and inconsiderate, and unable to explain his own beliefs, etc... >At least crackpots have SOME form of entertainment. Whatever on that. Goo was correct--very unusually--in pointing out that you claim to be some sort of "ethical vegetarian", which is close to veganism and pretty much the same idea. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
<snip> >> No, dear. > Don't call me by terms of affection Believe me, there is no affection involved. <snip> >Tell me how > your views on pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality jibe with > "anglo-catholicism". Sin is a matter for the Church, and one's relationship with God. Law -- State force -- is another matter, and has to be based on objective, demonstrable *harm* which is evident to all, whether they accept a particular denomination's religious views or not. > Stop running away from the arguments you raise. That's a laugh, considering you ran away from the arguments *you* raised about the scientific evidence for cross-species imprinting and mating behavior, and the ethics of conditioning. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > oups.com... cut >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >> >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect whether the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can condemn it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with your condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:27 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>"pearl" > wrote in message ... >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... >cut >>> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >>> >>> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >>> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >>> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >>> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >>> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >>> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >>> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >> >> From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of >> their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not >> harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. > >It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights violations, but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, without knowing what has happened, the victim dies painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong." Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. >Animals are >like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex >with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect whether >the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can condemn >it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with your >condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. That's true. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:27 +0100, "William" > wrote: >>"pearl" > wrote in message ... >>> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >>> oups.com... >>cut >>>> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >>>> >>>> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >>>> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >>>> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >>>> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >>>> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >>>> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >>>> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >>> >>> From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of >>> their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not >>> harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. >> >>It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. > > Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > violations, but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of > view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from > a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > > "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims > meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are > murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a > drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, > without knowing what has happened, the victim dies > painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the > wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim > suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders > are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account > for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the > victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended > to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? > > The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > the fundamental wrong." > Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > > As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > Hey I've read the whole book. It was years ago and I don't know what's happened to it now. :-( >>Animals are >>like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex >>with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect >>whether >>the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can >>condemn >>it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with your >>condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. > > That's true. I had a crush on my geography teacher, and my history teacher, and probably 3 or 4 more when I was at that funny age. I can't help thinking that if I had initiated sex with any of them and they went along with it, that lack of respect would not have been tolerated by my parents, or any other parents. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message .. .
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > cut > >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: > >> > >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, > >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why > >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no > >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as > >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it > >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] > >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > > > > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of > > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not > > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. > > It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are > like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex > with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect whether > the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can condemn > it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with your > condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. I agree with you that using animals to simply satisfy a sexual urge lacks respect, and the same applies to many human adult mutually-consenting sexual encounters! On the other hand, there are 'zoophiles', who I was referring to - having read posts to tpa long ago, who appear to see their relationships with the animals, as their preference to a loving committed relationship with another human. They obviously do not see animals as different, or as children, but as sentient beings who respond to their love and advances. Is that disrespectful to the animal if the feeling are mutual, as I stipulated? If there is no conditioning or coercion, simply attraction? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "William" > wrote in message > .. . >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> > oups.com... >> cut >> >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >> >> >> >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >> >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >> >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >> >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >> >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >> >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >> >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >> > >> > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of >> > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not >> > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. >> >> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are >> like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex >> with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect >> whether >> the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can >> condemn >> it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with >> your >> condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. > > I agree with you that using animals to simply satisfy a sexual urge lacks > respect, and the same applies to many human adult mutually-consenting > sexual encounters! On the other hand, there are 'zoophiles', who I was > referring to - having read posts to tpa long ago, who appear to see their > relationships with the animals, as their preference to a loving committed > relationship with another human. They obviously do not see animals as > different, or as children, but as sentient beings who respond to their love > and advances. Is that disrespectful to the animal if the feeling are mutual, > as I stipulated? If there is no conditioning or coercion, simply attraction? > Yes, even if the animal appears to consent or initiates it. Same goes for children. Adult humans are obligated to respect the status of children and animals, and a large part of that respects means not having sex with them, whatever the circumstances. Why does your condemnation of it include a tolerance for it and for those who would participate in it? > > > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message .. .
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "William" > wrote in message > > .. . > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> > oups.com... > >> cut > >> >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: > >> >> > >> >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, > >> >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why > >> >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no > >> >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as > >> >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it > >> >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] > >> >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > >> > > >> > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of > >> > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not > >> > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. > >> > >> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are > >> like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has sex > >> with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect > >> whether > >> the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can > >> condemn > >> it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with > >> your > >> condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. > > > > I agree with you that using animals to simply satisfy a sexual urge lacks > > respect, and the same applies to many human adult mutually-consenting > > sexual encounters! On the other hand, there are 'zoophiles', who I was > > referring to - having read posts to tpa long ago, who appear to see their > > relationships with the animals, as their preference to a loving committed > > relationship with another human. They obviously do not see animals as > > different, or as children, but as sentient beings who respond to their love > > and advances. Is that disrespectful to the animal if the feeling are mutual, > > as I stipulated? If there is no conditioning or coercion, simply attraction? > > > Yes, even if the animal appears to consent or initiates it. Same goes for children. > Adult humans are obligated to respect the status of children and animals, and a large > part of that respects means not having sex with them, whatever the circumstances. Human children, yes, I agree. We are not mature sexually until puberty; then in many cultures marriage, i.e. sexual activity, becomes acceptable. The status of animals is that of adult sexually active beings, not babies. > Why > does your condemnation of it include a tolerance for it and for those who would > participate in it? The Golden Rule. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "William" > wrote in message > .. . >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "William" > wrote in message >> > .. . >> >> >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> >> > oups.com... >> >> cut >> >> >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: >> >> >> >> >> >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, >> >> >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why >> >> >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no >> >> >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as >> >> >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it >> >> >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 >> >> > >> >> > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of >> >> > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not >> >> > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. >> >> >> >> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals >> >> are >> >> like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has >> >> sex >> >> with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect >> >> whether >> >> the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can >> >> condemn >> >> it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with >> >> your >> >> condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. >> > >> > I agree with you that using animals to simply satisfy a sexual urge lacks >> > respect, and the same applies to many human adult mutually-consenting >> > sexual encounters! On the other hand, there are 'zoophiles', who I was >> > referring to - having read posts to tpa long ago, who appear to see their >> > relationships with the animals, as their preference to a loving committed >> > relationship with another human. They obviously do not see animals as >> > different, or as children, but as sentient beings who respond to their love >> > and advances. Is that disrespectful to the animal if the feeling are mutual, >> > as I stipulated? If there is no conditioning or coercion, simply attraction? >> > >> Yes, even if the animal appears to consent or initiates it. Same goes for >> children. >> Adult humans are obligated to respect the status of children and animals, and a >> large >> part of that respects means not having sex with them, whatever the circumstances. > > Human children, yes, I agree. But obviously not where animals are concerned. >We are not mature sexually until puberty; > then in many cultures marriage, i.e. sexual activity, becomes acceptable. > Do you tolerate people who have sex with pubescent adolescents simply because they say it's a part of their culture to have sex with them? Reaching puberty is just a physiological stage where adolescents become capable of sexual reproduction. By definition they are immature and under adult protection from themselves and others who might want to have sex with them. > The status of animals is that of adult sexually active beings, not babies. > Their status obligates adult humans to respect them, even if they are sexually active beings. >> Why >> does your condemnation of it include a tolerance for it and for those who would >> participate in it? > > The Golden Rule. > Wow! You DO tolerate it and those who do it! > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message .. .
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "William" > wrote in message > > .. . > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "William" > wrote in message > >> > .. . > >> >> > >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> >> > oups.com... > >> >> cut > >> >> >> And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *As long as the feelings are mutual*, > >> >> >> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why > >> >> >> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no > >> >> >> problem with people's personal choices *as long as > >> >> >> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it > >> >> >> human or animal. [emphasis in original] > >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > >> >> > > >> >> > From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of > >> >> > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not > >> >> > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business. > >> >> > >> >> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals > >> >> are > >> >> like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. If an adult has > >> >> sex > >> >> with a child that has a crush, that adult is showing a severe lack of respect > >> >> whether > >> >> the child is harmed or not, and his actions should not be tolerated. You can > >> >> condemn > >> >> it all you want - call it a perversion, but until you include intolerance with > >> >> your > >> >> condemnation you condone it when you say that's their business. > >> > > >> > I agree with you that using animals to simply satisfy a sexual urge lacks > >> > respect, and the same applies to many human adult mutually-consenting > >> > sexual encounters! On the other hand, there are 'zoophiles', who I was > >> > referring to - having read posts to tpa long ago, who appear to see their > >> > relationships with the animals, as their preference to a loving committed > >> > relationship with another human. They obviously do not see animals as > >> > different, or as children, but as sentient beings who respond to their love > >> > and advances. Is that disrespectful to the animal if the feeling are mutual, > >> > as I stipulated? If there is no conditioning or coercion, simply attraction? > >> > > >> Yes, even if the animal appears to consent or initiates it. Same goes for children. > >> Adult humans are obligated to respect the status of children and animals, and a large > >> part of that respects means not having sex with them, whatever the circumstances. > > > > Human children, yes, I agree. > > But obviously not where animals are concerned. I do not think that it is right, as it goes against the laws of nature. I think it is immoral as it involves both animal and human in a deviant action, and relationship. I think it deprives the animal of the natural behaviour it could have properly enjoyed with others of its own species. Those are all valid reasons against it, and I could probably come up with a good few more. I do condemn it and think that it shouldn't happen; it is the depths of depravity. > >We are not mature sexually until puberty; > > then in many cultures marriage, i.e. sexual activity, becomes acceptable. > > > Do you tolerate people who have sex with pubescent adolescents simply because they > say it's a part of their culture to have sex with them? Reaching puberty is just a > physiological stage where adolescents become capable of sexual reproduction. By > definition they are immature and under adult protection from themselves and others > who might want to have sex with them. From the sound of "people who want to have sex with pubescent adolescents", I see that as a degree worse than prostitution or rape. It is true that we are still immature at that age, and require protection. > > The status of animals is that of adult sexually active beings, not babies. > > > Their status obligates adult humans to respect them, even if they are sexually active > beings. I've been looking at 'respect' as an attitude. Respecting the animal's true nature and 'innocence' is what you are really saying. Correct? From that point of view, yes, I agree that it is truly disrespectful. > >> Why > >> does your condemnation of it include a tolerance for it and for those who would > >> participate in it? > > > > The Golden Rule. > > > Wow! You DO tolerate it and those who do it! I've seen the light. Thanks for the illumination O Wise One. <NOT being sarcastic  > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
<snip> > It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are > like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. <snip> As Pearl said, adult animals are adults, not children. Their personal and sexual orientation is set. It would certainly have been better to allow them to develop in freedom, with members of their own species, out of human control. But this does not happen with domestic animals or captive exotics; their lives are unnatural from birth. All this talk of "respecting" animals by preventing them from doing what they clearly want to do, in cases where they are oriented toward humans, reminds me of the sort of people who claimed allowing women to vote would drag them into the sordid world of politics, and treating women with "respect" meant keeping them from making any real decisions about their lives for themselves. That is not "respect" it is tyranny: "*I* know what's good for you, and what *you* think you want doesn't matter; I have power over you and I'll use it the way I want, "for your own good." If we really see animals as autonomous beings with the moral right to own their own lives, we must respect them by allowing *them* to make decisions about their own lives. That includes their sexuality. Of course, humans also have the right to own their own lives, and the vast majority of humans who are not zoophiles have every right to refuse the advances of human-oriented animals, just as they would to refuse the advances of a human with whom they did not want to have a relationship. But the concept of "respect" here is strictly a smokescreen. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
<snip> > Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > violations, That is correct. If there is no harm, no right is violated. > but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of > view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from > a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims > meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are > murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a > drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, > without knowing what has happened, the victim dies > painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the > wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim > suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders > are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account > for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the > victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended > to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm, and does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, or by painless injection. The difference between killing which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. In the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's *preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the animal is respected if we respect that preference, as long as no harm is done to the animal. > The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > the fundamental wrong." > Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > > As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > ><snip> > >> Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >> and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >> violations, > >That is correct. Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations and are not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our respectful treatment, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental wrong. >If there is no harm, no right is violated. That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. >> but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of >> view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from >> a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > >> "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims >> meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are >> murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a >> drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, >> without knowing what has happened, the victim dies >> painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the >> wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim >> suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders >> are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account >> for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the >> victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended >> to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? > >As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. >You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. No, I am not. >Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", then comes the harm. As usual your lack of understanding on these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like this back to front. > and >does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, >whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, >or by painless injection. How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation of it? >The difference between killing >which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which >Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of >painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is >the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. Correct. >In >the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's >*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the >animal is respected if we respect that preference, as >long as no harm is done to the animal. No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a total lack of respect. >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves >> the fundamental wrong." >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:14:37 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>William wrote: > ><snip> > >> It's not the harm or distress that matters, it's the lack of respect. Animals are >> like children, and adult humans are obligated to respect them. > ><snip> > >As Pearl said, adult animals are adults, not children. They are both moral patients and hold a moral right against moral agents who want to have sex with them. It's as simple as that. >All this talk of "respecting" animals by preventing them from doing >what they clearly want to do, That's not what William is saying. He's not trying to prevent animals from doing what they *seem* to want to do, he's trying to prevent evil, animal-abusing moral agents from doing what they want to do. You knew this, but that didn't stop you from trying to misinterpret William's argument. >But the concept of "respect" here is strictly a smokescreen. Your concept of it certainly is, and your attempt at misinterpreting William's is unfair. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >> Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > >> and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > >> violations, > > > >That is correct. > > Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations and are > not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where > "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what > makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs > the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our > respectful treatment, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral > patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental > wrong. > > >If there is no harm, no right is violated. > > That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." > What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as > a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make > rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions > are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. > > >> but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of > >> view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from > >> a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > > > >> "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims > >> meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are > >> murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a > >> drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, > >> without knowing what has happened, the victim dies > >> painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the > >> wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim > >> suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders > >> are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account > >> for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the > >> victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended > >> to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? > > > >As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. > >You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. > > No, I am not. > > >Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" > >and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is > >painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > > And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > then comes the harm. As usual your lack of understanding on > these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like > this back to front. > > > and > >does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, > >whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, > >or by painless injection. > > How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation > of it? > > >The difference between killing > >which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which > >Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of > >painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is > >the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. > > Correct. > > >In > >the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's > >*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the > >animal is respected if we respect that preference, as > >long as no harm is done to the animal. > > No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be > they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or > a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a > total lack of respect. > > >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > >> the fundamental wrong." > >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > >> > >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > > > >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. > > He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms > as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply > that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm > means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You > cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm > when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful > treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not > trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other. There are all sorts of situations where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see why it's given in these contexts, either. What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> > >> ><snip> >> > >> >> Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >> >> and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >> >> violations, >> > >> >That is correct. >> >> Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations and are >> not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where >> "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what >> makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs >> the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our >> respectful treatment, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral >> patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental >> wrong. >> >> >If there is no harm, no right is violated. >> >> That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." >> What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as >> a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make >> rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions >> are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. >> >> >> but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of >> >> view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from >> >> a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. >> > >> >> "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims >> >> meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are >> >> murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a >> >> drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, >> >> without knowing what has happened, the victim dies >> >> painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the >> >> wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim >> >> suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders >> >> are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account >> >> for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the >> >> victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended >> >> to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? >> > >> >As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. >> >You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. >> >> No, I am not. >> >> >Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >> >and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >> >painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm >> >> And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >> wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >> then comes the harm. As usual your lack of understanding on >> these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like >> this back to front. >> >> > and >> >does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, >> >whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, >> >or by painless injection. >> >> How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation >> of it? >> >> >The difference between killing >> >which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which >> >Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of >> >painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is >> >the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. >> >> Correct. >> >> >In >> >the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's >> >*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the >> >animal is respected if we respect that preference, as >> >long as no harm is done to the animal. >> >> No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be >> they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or >> a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a >> total lack of respect. >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves >> >> the fundamental wrong." >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. >> > >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. > >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >in a sexual context and no other. Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context. >There are all sorts of situations >where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to >which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). >If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see >why it's given in these contexts, either. It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when scratching them. Having sex with them certainly does carry a very serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. >What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? The degree of intimacy is much greater, and that kind of trespass requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are capable of giving. Hope that helps. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> > > >> ><snip> > >> > > >> >> Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > >> >> and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > >> >> violations, > >> > > >> >That is correct. > >> > >> Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations and are > >> not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where > >> "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what > >> makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs > >> the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our > >> respectful treatment, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral > >> patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental > >> wrong. > >> > >> >If there is no harm, no right is violated. > >> > >> That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." > >> What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as > >> a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make > >> rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions > >> are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. > >> > >> >> but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of > >> >> view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from > >> >> a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > >> > > >> >> "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims > >> >> meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are > >> >> murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a > >> >> drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, > >> >> without knowing what has happened, the victim dies > >> >> painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the > >> >> wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim > >> >> suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders > >> >> are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account > >> >> for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the > >> >> victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended > >> >> to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? > >> > > >> >As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. > >> >You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. > >> > >> No, I am not. > >> > >> >Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" > >> >and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is > >> >painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > >> > >> And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > >> wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > >> then comes the harm. As usual your lack of understanding on > >> these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like > >> this back to front. > >> > >> > and > >> >does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, > >> >whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, > >> >or by painless injection. > >> > >> How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation > >> of it? > >> > >> >The difference between killing > >> >which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which > >> >Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of > >> >painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is > >> >the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. > >> > >> Correct. > >> > >> >In > >> >the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's > >> >*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the > >> >animal is respected if we respect that preference, as > >> >long as no harm is done to the animal. > >> > >> No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be > >> they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or > >> a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a > >> total lack of respect. > >> > >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > >> >> the fundamental wrong." > >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > >> >> > >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > >> > > >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. > >> > >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms > >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply > >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm > >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You > >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm > >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful > >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not > >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. > > > >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >in a sexual context and no other. > > Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > in many areas as well in a sexual context. > "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment. On the other hand, we have our own institution of compulsory education. Is that consistent with respectful treatment? How about the practice of encouraging a child to attend a confirmation ceremony? Is that consistent with respectful treatment? > >There are all sorts of situations > >where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to > >which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). > >If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see > >why it's given in these contexts, either. > > It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or > children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries > no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when > scratching them. Oh, I don't know about that. I might get some pleasure out of scratching a dog's belly. Or consider the case of the child who is encouraged to attend the confirmation ceremony. The adults want the child to participate in their religion, and the child's capacity to give informed consent to this is might be plausibly said to be at least somewhat limited. > Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > > >What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? > > The degree of intimacy is much greater, and that kind of trespass > requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are > capable of giving. Hope that helps. Is the issue ever raised for non-sexual intimacy? Suppose I want to form an intimate non-sexual relationship with a child. Does that raise an ethical issue? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >><snip> >>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >>>violations, >>That is correct. > Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations No, Derek -- you are the one getting it backward here. A lack of respect is not a violation of a right. It is the motivation or pre-existing condition which allows a violation to occur. Suppose we have a racist who has no respect for black people. He has every right to hold this opinion as long as he does not act on it in ways which violate others' rights. He can think whatever he likes, but until he does something concrete which *harms* the person he does not respect, the person's rights have not been violated. It is the harm which is the violation, not the opinion. God forbid we start to believe a 1984-style "thoughtcrime" is a rights violation! That is a fundamental assault on our basic rights and freedom. > and are > not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where > "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what > makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs > the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our > respectful treatment No, again. No violation has taken place until the murder is actually attempted or carried out. If I sit and fantasize about murdering someone, but it never goes any further than fantasy, I have done nothing more than have a nasty daydream. I have not violated anyone's rights. , and the harm (murder or sex with a moral > patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental > wrong. The lack of respect may be a moral wrong, BUT there is no rights violation until actual harm takes place. There are two things here, two separate things, and while one can result from the other, a rights violation must be a concrete action. It cannot be an abstract opinion. >>If there is no harm, no right is violated. > That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." > What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as > a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make > rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions > are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. All harms are not rights violations either, as the case of euthanasia or, as you say, medical procedures, shows. The difference between murder and euthanasia is whether the action is done in the interests of, and for the benefit of, the subject. Violation of rights takes place when the victim involved becomes merely a means to an end for someone else, and not an end in himself; when he has only contingent value and not inherent value. <snip> >>As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. >>You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. > No, I am not. >>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > then comes the harm. Exactly. What you don't understand is that, while lack of respect is wrong, it is not a rights violation. The rights violation comes only when the harm occurs. > As usual your lack of understanding on > these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like > this back to front. >>and >>does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, >>whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, >>or by painless injection. > How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation > of it? Because Regan is talking about two actions, and why one action respects a being's rights, and the other action does not. He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred. He is *NOT* saying that thoughts violate rights. >>The difference between killing >>which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which >>Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of >>painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is >>the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. > Correct. >>In >>the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's >>*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the >>animal is respected if we respect that preference, as >>long as no harm is done to the animal. > No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be > they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or > a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a > total lack of respect. Why is sex completely different from killing? If we are willing to accept the validity of an animal's preference when we euthanize him/her -- a far more harmful and permanent action, surely -- why are we not willing to accept an animal's obvious preference when it involves sex rather than death? This is a cultural prejudice, a cultural squeamishness, not a rational position. To be logically and philosophically consistent, we must apply the same standard to both kinds of preferences. <snip> > You may not trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. Here's the basic issue again. Why has meaningful consent not been given by the animal? An animal can express meaningful consent to be killed, in Regan's view, your view, and my view. Why, again, does this apply to death, to the animal's very survival, but not to mating behavior? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
<snip> > That's not what William is saying. He's not trying to prevent animals > from doing what they *seem* to want to do, only "seem" to want? You can read their minds and know better than the one involved what he/she wants? > he's trying to prevent > evil, animal-abusing moral agents from doing what they want to do. *sigh* I'm not going to get into one of your hysterical, hyperbolic exchanges here, Derek. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"Derek" > wrote > The fundamental wrong occurs > the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our > respectful treatment You have treated me with a lack of respect for years, why are you committing fundamental wrongs? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
|
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: <snip> Glorfindel wrote: >>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. >>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm >>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >>>then comes the harm. Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* wrong ) but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place. The lack of respect and the violation of rights are two separate things which are, or may be, connected, but which are not the same. <snip> >>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>in a sexual context and no other. > Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > in many areas as well in a sexual context. True, but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact between a willing animal and a willing human. Respectful treatment is the same, in this context, in the case of animals as in the case of humans. >>There are all sorts of situations >>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to >>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). >>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see >>why it's given in these contexts, either. > It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or > children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries > no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when > scratching them. Really? I doubt that. Manhandling an animal against his/her objections in non-sexual ways is as much an assault as rape. Try scratching *my* belly without my consent, and I'll have you up on assault charges. > Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. Ipse dixit. Zoophiles would disagree, and make a very good case that a real zoophile (not an animal rapist ) has great respect for his non-human partner. >>What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? Nothing. <snip> > The degree of intimacy is much greater, > and that kind of trespass > requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are > capable of giving. I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent in some areas. There's no evidence that is so. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: > >>><snip> > >>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >>>>violations, > >>>That is correct. > >> Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations > >No, Derek Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped him away. "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong." Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 >A lack of respect is not a violation of a right. When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights violation. Take Harrison's grass fed beef, for example. According to your back-to-front concept of what makes for a rights violation: harm, while farmed in ideal bucolic settings no rights are violated because it isn't being harmed, even though the intention behind farming it in the first place is anything but respectful treatment. Farmed animals, whatever the conditions they are kept in, are not being treated with respect. They are being farmed for slaughter. Their right to our respectful treatment is violated. A lack of respect is by definition a violation of their right to our respectful treatment. >> and are >> not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where >> "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what >> makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs >> the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our >> respectful treatment > >No, again. No violation has taken place until the murder >is actually attempted or carried out. Wrong. The moment a decision is made to violate another's right to our respectful treatment, a rights violation has taken place, by definition. >If I sit and >fantasize about murdering someone, but it never goes >any further than fantasy, I have done nothing more than >have a nasty daydream. I have not violated anyone's >rights. A passing whim to throttle someone is not the same as deciding to kill him. >, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral >> patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental >> wrong. > >The lack of respect may be a moral wrong, It IS the ONLY moral wrong. Harms themselves are not wrong. Listen to Hume; "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for Instance. Examine it in all lights and see if you can find that matter of fact or real existence which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you as long as you consider the object. You never can find it till you turn your reflection into your own breast and find a sentiment of disapprobation which arises in you towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it." And, according to Regan, harms are only a consequence of a fundamental wrong, not the fundamental wrong themselves. "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves the fundamental wrong." Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 You simply cannot assume that harms are what make a rights violation. They don't. They are nothing but "a sentiment of disapprobation which arises in you towards [them]." The lack of respectful treatment is the ONLY moral wrong, and by definition is a violation of another's right to it. >BUT there is no rights violation until actual harm takes place. False. If I set out to kill you but am stopped, that threat is a violation of your right to my respectful treatment. Ergo, your rights are violated the moment I decide to kill you. >There are >two things here, two separate things, and while one can >result from the other, a rights violation must be a concrete >action. Attempted murder is a violation of your right to my respectful treatment. >It cannot be an abstract opinion. ALL rights are abstract concepts, Karen. >>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. > >> That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." >> What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as >> a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make >> rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions >> are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. > >All harms are not rights violations either, as the case of >euthanasia or, as you say, medical procedures, shows. I think it can be argued that no harms are rights violations. They are merely a consequence of them. The fundamental wrong occurs before harm and as such can ONLY BE the fundamental wrong. >The difference between murder and euthanasia is whether >the action is done in the interests of, and for the benefit >of, the subject. You cannot assert that an animal benefits from dying until you can provide information showing that one state is preferential to the other; you know nothing of death. That aside, when the decision is made to euthanize an animal for *our* benefit (after all, no one likes seeing an animal suffer) that animal has been given what's due to it: our respectful treatment. If, on the other hand a decision is made to kill an animal for its organs, that animal's right to our respectful treatment is violated the moment that decision is made. The harm comes later as a consequence of that rights violation. >Violation of rights takes place when the >victim involved becomes merely a means to an end for >someone else, and not an end in himself; when he has only >contingent value and not inherent value. Correct. ><snip> I just knew you would snip Regan's position on harm away leaving only your assertion that I've misunderstood it. >>>As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. >>>You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. > >> No, I am not. > >>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > >> And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >> wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >> then comes the harm. > >Exactly. Then you cannot continue to insist that harms are what make rights violations? They aren't. You've conceded at last that harm is but a consequence of a rights violation. Harms come after, not before, and they don't codify a rights violation. >What you don't understand is that, while lack >of respect is wrong, it is not a rights violation. Violating a being's right to our respectful treatment is by definition a rights violation, Karen. Hope that helps some. >The rights violation comes only when the harm occurs. Then, keeping cattle for slaughter is not a rights violation? Are you sure you want to pursue this line? >> As usual your lack of understanding on >> these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like >> this back to front. Karen, I can hardly believe you're pursuing this line. You've got it all back to front! >>>and >>>does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, >>>whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, >>>or by painless injection. > >> How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation >> of it? > >Because Regan is talking about two actions, and why one >action respects a being's rights, and the other action >does not. Nonsense! Neither action in Regan's examples shows a respect for the victims rights. Both are murdered, you old dolt! One is killed after prolonged torture and the other is murdered with a painless poison. Now, who's not understood what Regan is talking about, Karen? >He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering >is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred. NO, he is not. He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering is merely a consequence of the fundamental wrong in violating another's right to our respectful treatment. How on Earth can suffering (harm) be irrelevant to whether harm (suffering) occurred? What the heck are you talking about? Of course suffering or lack of suffering is relevant to whether harm has occurred. They are synonymous! >He is *NOT* saying that thoughts violate rights. A decision to kill violates the victim's right to our respectful treatment, and as such is a rights violation in itself. >>>The difference between killing >>>which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which >>>Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of >>>painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is >>>the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. > >> Correct. > >>>In >>>the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's >>>*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the >>>animal is respected if we respect that preference, as >>>long as no harm is done to the animal. > >> No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be >> they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or >> a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a >> total lack of respect. > >Why is sex completely different from killing? What a stupid question to ask. > If we >are willing to accept the validity of an animal's >preference when we euthanize him/her I don't. We euthanize them because we consider it to be respectful treatment. It's not for the animal's preference that we kill it. Animals don't prefer death to their current circumstances, at least, not as far as I can tell. It's for OUR benefit, Karen! Hope that helps. >-- a far more harmful >and permanent action, surely -- why are we not willing >to accept an animal's obvious preference when it >involves sex rather than death? Animals don't prefer death. To get your point accepted you need to provide information showing that an animal understands death, and that it finds it preferential to its current circumstances. >> You may not trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. > >Here's the basic issue again. Why has meaningful consent >not been given by the animal? An animal can express >meaningful consent to be killed, No, it cannot! WE decide to kill it because we consider it respectful treatment under appalling circumstances. >in Regan's view No, Regan does not claim that an animal can express meaningful consent to be killed. You're lying to get your point accepted now. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >> >>>><snip> >> >>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >>>>>violations, >> >>>>That is correct. >> >>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations >> >>No, Derek > > > Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped > him away. > > "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > the fundamental wrong." > Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > > >>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right. > > > When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights > violation. Karen is equivocating on "respect". > Take Harrison's grass fed beef, for example. According > to your back-to-front concept of what makes for a rights violation: > harm, while farmed in ideal bucolic settings no rights are violated > because it isn't being harmed, even though the intention behind > farming it in the first place is anything but respectful treatment. > Farmed animals, whatever the conditions they are kept in, are not > being treated with respect. They are being farmed for slaughter. > Their right to our respectful treatment is violated. A lack of respect > is by definition a violation of their right to our respectful treatment. > > >>>and are >>>not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where >>>"their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what >>>makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs >>>the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our >>>respectful treatment >> >>No, again. No violation has taken place until the murder >>is actually attempted or carried out. > > > Wrong. The moment a decision is made to violate another's > right to our respectful treatment, a rights violation has taken > place, by definition. > > >>If I sit and >>fantasize about murdering someone, but it never goes >>any further than fantasy, I have done nothing more than >>have a nasty daydream. I have not violated anyone's >>rights. > > > A passing whim to throttle someone is not the same as > deciding to kill him. > > >>, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral >> >>>patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental >>>wrong. >> >>The lack of respect may be a moral wrong, > > > It IS the ONLY moral wrong. Harms themselves are not > wrong. > Listen to Hume; > "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for > Instance. Examine it in all lights and see if you can find that > matter of fact or real existence which you call vice. In > which-ever way you take it you find only certain passions, > motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter > of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you as long > as you consider the object. You never can find it till you > turn your reflection into your own breast and find a > sentiment of disapprobation which arises in you towards > this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of > feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. > So that when you pronounce any action or character to > be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution > of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame > from the contemplation of it." > > And, according to Regan, harms are only a consequence > of a fundamental wrong, not the fundamental wrong > themselves. > > "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > the fundamental wrong." > Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > > You simply cannot assume that harms are what make a rights > violation. They don't. They are nothing but "a sentiment of > disapprobation which arises in you towards [them]." The lack > of respectful treatment is the ONLY moral wrong, and by > definition is a violation of another's right to it. > > >>BUT there is no rights violation until actual harm takes place. > > > False. If I set out to kill you but am stopped, that threat is a > violation of your right to my respectful treatment. Ergo, your > rights are violated the moment I decide to kill you. > > >>There are >>two things here, two separate things, and while one can >>result from the other, a rights violation must be a concrete >>action. > > > Attempted murder is a violation of your right to my respectful > treatment. > > >>It cannot be an abstract opinion. > > > ALL rights are abstract concepts, Karen. > > >>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. >> >>>That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." >>>What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as >>>a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make >>>rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions >>>are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. >> >>All harms are not rights violations either, as the case of >>euthanasia or, as you say, medical procedures, shows. > > > I think it can be argued that no harms are rights violations. > They are merely a consequence of them. The fundamental > wrong occurs before harm and as such can ONLY BE the > fundamental wrong. > > >>The difference between murder and euthanasia is whether >>the action is done in the interests of, and for the benefit >>of, the subject. > > > You cannot assert that an animal benefits from dying until > you can provide information showing that one state is > preferential to the other; you know nothing of death. That > aside, when the decision is made to euthanize an animal for > *our* benefit (after all, no one likes seeing an animal suffer) > that animal has been given what's due to it: our respectful > treatment. If, on the other hand a decision is made to kill an > animal for its organs, that animal's right to our respectful > treatment is violated the moment that decision is made. The > harm comes later as a consequence of that rights violation. > > >>Violation of rights takes place when the >>victim involved becomes merely a means to an end for >>someone else, and not an end in himself; when he has only >>contingent value and not inherent value. > > > Correct. > > >><snip> > > > I just knew you would snip Regan's position on harm away > leaving only your assertion that I've misunderstood it. > > >>>>As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. >>>>You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. >> >>>No, I am not. >> >>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm >> >>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >>>then comes the harm. >> >>Exactly. > > > Then you cannot continue to insist that harms are what > make rights violations? They aren't. You've conceded > at last that harm is but a consequence of a rights violation. > Harms come after, not before, and they don't codify a > rights violation. > > >>What you don't understand is that, while lack >>of respect is wrong, it is not a rights violation. > > > Violating a being's right to our respectful treatment is by > definition a rights violation, Karen. Hope that helps some. > > >>The rights violation comes only when the harm occurs. > > > Then, keeping cattle for slaughter is not a rights violation? > Are you sure you want to pursue this line? > > >>>As usual your lack of understanding on >>>these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like >>>this back to front. > > > Karen, I can hardly believe you're pursuing this line. You've > got it all back to front! > > >>>>and >>>>does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, >>>>whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, >>>>or by painless injection. >> >>>How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation >>>of it? >> >>Because Regan is talking about two actions, and why one >>action respects a being's rights, and the other action >>does not. > > > Nonsense! Neither action in Regan's examples shows a respect > for the victims rights. Both are murdered, you old dolt! One is > killed after prolonged torture and the other is murdered with > a painless poison. Now, who's not understood what Regan is > talking about, Karen? > > >>He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering >>is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred. > > > NO, he is not. He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering > is merely a consequence of the fundamental wrong in violating > another's right to our respectful treatment. How on Earth can > suffering (harm) be irrelevant to whether harm (suffering) > occurred? What the heck are you talking about? Of course > suffering or lack of suffering is relevant to whether harm > has occurred. They are synonymous! > > >>He is *NOT* saying that thoughts violate rights. > > > A decision to kill violates the victim's right to our respectful > treatment, and as such is a rights violation in itself. > > >>>>The difference between killing >>>>which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which >>>>Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of >>>>painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is >>>>the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. >> >>>Correct. >> >>>>In >>>>the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's >>>>*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the >>>>animal is respected if we respect that preference, as >>>>long as no harm is done to the animal. >> >>>No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be >>>they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or >>>a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a >>>total lack of respect. >> >>Why is sex completely different from killing? > > > What a stupid question to ask. > > >>If we >>are willing to accept the validity of an animal's >>preference when we euthanize him/her > > > I don't. We euthanize them because we consider it to be > respectful treatment. It's not for the animal's preference > that we kill it. Animals don't prefer death to their current > circumstances, at least, not as far as I can tell. It's for > OUR benefit, Karen! Hope that helps. > > >>-- a far more harmful >>and permanent action, surely -- why are we not willing >>to accept an animal's obvious preference when it >>involves sex rather than death? > > > Animals don't prefer death. To get your point accepted > you need to provide information showing that an animal > understands death, and that it finds it preferential to its > current circumstances. > > >>>You may not trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. >> >>Here's the basic issue again. Why has meaningful consent >>not been given by the animal? An animal can express >>meaningful consent to be killed, > > > No, it cannot! WE decide to kill it because we consider it > respectful treatment under appalling circumstances. > > >>in Regan's view > > > No, Regan does not claim that an animal can express > meaningful consent to be killed. You're lying to get > your point accepted now. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:37:38 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > ><snip> > >> That's not what William is saying. He's not trying to prevent animals >> from doing what they *seem* to want to do, > >only "seem" to want? You can read their minds and know better >than the one involved what he/she wants? You've failed to explain why you intentionally misinterpreted William's argument, Karen. That aside, it can ONLY be said that animals only *seem* to want to have sex. You cannot read their minds and assert they want to have sex with you. >> he's trying to prevent >> evil, animal-abusing moral agents from doing what they want to do. > >*sigh* I'm not going to get into one of your hysterical, hyperbolic >exchanges here, Derek. You've intentionally misinterpreted William's argument, and when tackled for it you run for the door. He's not trying to prevent animals from doing what the *seem* to want to do, he's trying to prevent evil, animal abusing moral agents from doing what they want to do. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>><snip> >>> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights >>>>>>violations, >>> >>>>>That is correct. >>> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations >>> >>>No, Derek >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped >> him away. >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves >> the fundamental wrong." >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right. >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights >> violation. > >Karen is equivocating on "respect". Well caught that man! |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > ><snip> > >Glorfindel wrote: > >>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. >>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > >>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >>>>then comes the harm. > >Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* >wrong ) It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad consequence of that fundamental wrong. >but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual >concrete harm takes place. No, because without a preceding decision to violate their right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not being violated. Way to go, Karen. Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin has all the faculties you have because you paid to have yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be violating her right to your respectful treatment. >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>in a sexual context and no other. > >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. > >True Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact >between a willing animal and a willing human. It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation of that animal's right to your respectful treatment. >>>There are all sorts of situations >>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to >>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). >>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see >>>why it's given in these contexts, either. > >> It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or >> children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries >> no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when >> scratching them. > >Really? Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag. >I doubt that. Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert. You might get a turn on from scratching your dog's belly, and that doesn't surprise me when I consider your depraved sex life, but don't presume everyone gets their thrills the way you do. >> Having sex with them certainly does carry a very >> serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > >Ipse dixit. Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that rule to animals. >Zoophiles would disagree Of course they would, because they want to suck off their dogs, and what not. Take those beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would disagree with me that a child holds a right against them, because they want young boys to continue sucking their cocks every day. "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on young boys. >and make a very good case that a real zoophile (not an animal rapist ) has >great respect for his non-human partner. Yeah, just like those old perverts from Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea would, for example. >>>What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? > >Nothing. > ><snip> > >> The degree of intimacy is much greater, and that kind of trespass >> requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are >> capable of giving. > >I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent >in some areas. Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives, Karen. Just say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful consent in some areas. That said, prove to me that they are capable of giving meaningful consent to sex, but before you make a start try to bear in mind that the same cannot even be extracted from a seemingly willing adult woman if it can be proven she was drunk at the time. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> ><snip> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > >> >> >> and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > >> >> >> violations, > >> >> > > >> >> >That is correct. > >> >> > >> >> Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations and are > >> >> not the fundamental wrong. The fundamental wrong is where > >> >> "their right to be treated with respect is violated; that is what > >> >> makes their murder wrong." The fundamental wrong occurs > >> >> the moment the decision is made to violate their right to our > >> >> respectful treatment, and the harm (murder or sex with a moral > >> >> patient) comes after as a consequence of that fundamental > >> >> wrong. > >> >> > >> >> >If there is no harm, no right is violated. > >> >> > >> >> That doesn't show "that harms are what make rights violations." > >> >> What it shows is that harms follow after a rights violation as > >> >> a consequence of it. If, as you say, "Harms are what make > >> >> rights violations.", pulling teeth and performing spinal fusions > >> >> are acts of human rights violations, and that's absurd. > >> >> > >> >> >> but she couldn't be any further from the AR point of > >> >> >> view, even if she'd tried. Read the following I extracted from > >> >> >> a passage written by Tom Regan on the subject of harm. > >> >> > > >> >> >> "People are murdered in a variety of ways. Some victims > >> >> >> meet their end only after prolonged torture; others are > >> >> >> murdered without having suffered at all. For example, a > >> >> >> drink might be laced with an undetectable lethal drug; then, > >> >> >> without knowing what has happened, the victim dies > >> >> >> painlessly, never having regained consciousness. If the > >> >> >> wrongness of the murder depended on how much the victim > >> >> >> suffered, we would be obliged to say that painless murders > >> >> >> are not wrong. But this is absurd. How, then, can we account > >> >> >> for why the murder of the innocent is wrong even when the > >> >> >> victims do not suffer? And how can this account be extended > >> >> >> to cases where those who are murdered suffer a great deal? > >> >> > > >> >> >As usual, Derek, you *almost* get it right, but not quite. > >> >> >You are misunderstanding what Regan is talking about here. > >> >> > >> >> No, I am not. > >> >> > >> >> >Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" > >> >> >and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is > >> >> >painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > >> >> > >> >> And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > >> >> wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > >> >> then comes the harm. As usual your lack of understanding on > >> >> these issues shines through when you get simple concepts like > >> >> this back to front. > >> >> > >> >> > and > >> >> >does show lack of respect, and that is what matters, > >> >> >whether the killing is done by mean of torture and pain, > >> >> >or by painless injection. > >> >> > >> >> How is that different to Regan's position and my explanation > >> >> of it? > >> >> > >> >> >The difference between killing > >> >> >which does not respect the animal, and euthanasia ( which > >> >> >Regan supports in this same book) is that in the case of > >> >> >painless euthanasia, the *preference* of the animal is > >> >> >the reason, and the animal's interests are respected. > >> >> > >> >> Correct. > >> >> > >> >> >In > >> >> >the case of a human-oriented animal, the animal's > >> >> >*preference* is to mate with a willing human, and the > >> >> >animal is respected if we respect that preference, as > >> >> >long as no harm is done to the animal. > >> >> > >> >> No. Moral agents do not have sex with moral patients, be > >> >> they children or animals. Having sex with a randy dog or > >> >> a child with a crush is always wrong because it shows a > >> >> total lack of respect. > >> >> > >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > >> >> >> the fundamental wrong." > >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > >> >> > > >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. > >> >> > >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms > >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply > >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm > >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You > >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm > >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful > >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not > >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. > >> > > >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> >in a sexual context and no other. > >> > >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. > > > >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the > >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the > >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of > >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the > >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the > >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not > >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The > >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs, > >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and > >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and > >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs > >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the > >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked > >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated > >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until > >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). > > > >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment. > > Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above > claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear > on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual > context and no other." That's not a claim. It's a question. > It clearly does arise in other contexts, so > you were wrong to suggest it doesn't. > It was an attempt at interpreting your position. Apparently it was a misinterpretation. So now what I want to know is when does the issue arise. > >On the other hand, we have our own institution of compulsory education. > >Is that consistent with respectful treatment? > > Yes, it is. > > >How about the practice of encouraging a child to attend a confirmation > >ceremony? Is that consistent with respectful treatment? > > Yes, it is if the child isn't sexually mutilated or made to perform > deviant acts while attending that ceremony. How many more > examples are you going to try while attempting to digress from > the issue of sex between moral agents and moral patients, such > as animals and children? > It's wrong to interact with someone in such a way that there's a significant risk of harm to which they don't or can't give informed consent. I think we can all agree on that. You apparently want to move beyond that, saying that whether there is a significant risk of harm is not the central issue, that certain types of interaction with those who allegedly can't give "meaningful consent" violate the right to respectful treatment. I am trying to get clearer about which types of interactions these are. At the moment I don't understand what the criterion is. Everything you've said so far is consistent with the criterion being that the interaction is a sexual one, but you've said that's not the criterion you're using. So I want to know what criterion you are using. It's not a digression. I'm trying to get you to clarify your position. > >> >There are all sorts of situations > >> >where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to > >> >which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). > >> >If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see > >> >why it's given in these contexts, either. > >> > >> It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or > >> children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries > >> no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when > >> scratching them. > > > >Oh, I don't know about that. I might get some pleasure out of > >scratching a dog's belly. > > You get sexual pleasure from scratching a dog's belly? No. I didn't mean sexual pleasure. > How > about young children; do you get sexual pleasure from > scratching their bellies as well? > > >Or consider the case of the child who is > >encouraged to attend the confirmation ceremony. The adults want the > >child to participate in their religion, and the child's capacity to > >give informed consent to this is might be plausibly said to be at least > >somewhat limited. > > Try sticking with the subject, Rupe: respectful treatment and > wrongful sex with animals and children. Can you do that? > You said the criterion was an "intent to have one's way". If this has a sexual meaning, then it looks like your criterion is that the interaction is a sexual one, contrary to what you said earlier. If it has a broader meaning, then my examples are relevant. > >> Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > >> serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > >> > >> >What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? > >> > >> The degree of intimacy is much greater, and that kind of trespass > >> requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are > >> capable of giving. Hope that helps. > > > >Is the issue ever raised for non-sexual intimacy? > > The issue of respectful treatment is raised in many different > contexts, but the context here is wrongful sex between > moral agents and moral patients. > I want to understand under what circumstances you think the issue is raised. You are saying that the issue of respectful treatment is not raised when we force a child to go to school or strongly encourage them to attend a confirmation ceremony, but it is raised when we engage in sexual activity with the child when there is no significant risk of harm and the child is happy to engage in it. I want to understand what the criterion is for distinguishing between these cases. > >Suppose I want to > >form an intimate non-sexual relationship with a child. Does that raise > >an ethical issue? > > No, it doesn't. So it looks like by "intimacy" you meant "sexual intimacy", which would imply that the criterion is whether the interaction is sexual, contrary to what you said. You say the issue is sometimes raised in non-sexual contexts, but you reject all of my examples. I am really having trouble understanding what the criterion is for when the issue is raised, if not whether the interaction is sexual or not. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >Glorfindel wrote: > > > >>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. > >>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" > >>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is > >>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > > > >>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > >>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > >>>>then comes the harm. > > > >Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* > >wrong ) > > It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad > consequence of that fundamental wrong. > > >but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual > >concrete harm takes place. > > No, because without a preceding decision to violate their > right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms > don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY > takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", > the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not > being violated. Way to go, Karen. > > Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so > you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin > has all the faculties you have because you paid to have > yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. > Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be > violating her right to your respectful treatment. > > >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >>>in a sexual context and no other. > > > >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. > > > >True > > Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful > treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? > I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not whether the interaction is sexual. > >but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact > >between a willing animal and a willing human. > > It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent > from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume > without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation > of that animal's right to your respectful treatment. > > >>>There are all sorts of situations > >>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to > >>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). > >>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see > >>>why it's given in these contexts, either. > > > >> It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or > >> children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries > >> no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when > >> scratching them. > > > >Really? > > Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag. > > >I doubt that. > > Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert. Try and stay civil. The confusion is arising here because we are not clear by when you say "intent to have one's way" you have an exclusively sexual meaning. If the meaning is not exclusively sexual, then our replies are to the point. If the meaning is exclusively sexual, then apparently the criterion is sexual after all, contrary to what you have said. If you would try and be a bit clearer about what you mean, then you wouldn't end up misinterpreting what we say as a confession of sexual desire towards animals (obviously whether we have such a desire or not is none of your business). > You might > get a turn on from scratching your dog's belly, and that doesn't > surprise me when I consider your depraved sex life, but don't > presume everyone gets their thrills the way you do. > > >> Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > >> serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > > > >Ipse dixit. > > Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows > a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful > treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that > rule to animals. > > >Zoophiles would disagree > > Of course they would, because they want to suck off their > dogs, and what not. Take those beliefs of the Sambia and > Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would > disagree with me that a child holds a right against them, > because they want young boys to continue sucking their > cocks every day. > > "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea > include the following: for adult males the presence in their > bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence > and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse > therefore involves the termporary loss of something important > (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not > yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this > ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. > The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from > these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of > seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate > older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio > insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the > donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the > boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the > masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple > of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." > (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). > > Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on > young boys. > > >and make a very good case that a real zoophile (not an animal rapist ) has > >great respect for his non-human partner. > > Yeah, just like those old perverts from Sambia and Etoro tribes > in New Guinea would, for example. > > >>>What is it about sex which makes it a special issue? > > > >Nothing. > > > ><snip> > > > >> The degree of intimacy is much greater, and that kind of trespass > >> requires meaningful consent which neither children or animals are > >> capable of giving. > > > >I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent > >in some areas. > > Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives, Karen. Just > say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful > consent in some areas. That said, prove to me that they are > capable of giving meaningful consent to sex, but before you > make a start try to bear in mind that the same cannot even be > extracted from a seemingly willing adult woman if it can be > proven she was drunk at the time. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to repeat the points I have already made again and again. You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan, who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me at this point. Derek wrote: <snip> >> a violation of rights only takes place when an actual >>concrete harm takes place. > ...without a preceding decision to violate their > right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms > don't occur. That is correct. But the decision to violate a right is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision* to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be no benefit until the animal actually exists. You have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I. If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit until they actually exist, and an action is done which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until a real action in the real world takes place. Saying a rights violation takes place without an action is exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place without an action. > If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY > takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", > the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not > being violated. Of course they are. Their right to own their own lives is violated, and their right to freedom is violated, because they are being kept captive merely for the benefit of their captors. They are being treated without respect for their right to autonomy, because they are being treated as property, as slaves, and not as ends in themselves. The captivity, the status as property, is as much a rights violation as the slaughter. This is exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights violation is still a violation because treating the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even though it does not involve ( or may not involve ) suffering. <snip> > Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so > you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin > has all the faculties you have because you paid to have > yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. > Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be > violating her right to your respectful treatment. Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action* because that action is a *harm* even though it does not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan is talking about, again. <snip> >>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very >>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. >>Ipse dixit. > Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows > a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful > treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that > rule to animals. >>Zoophiles would disagree > Of course they would, because they want to suck off their > dogs, and what not. Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument here. Take those beliefs of the Sambia and > Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would > disagree with me that a child holds a right against them, > because they want young boys to continue sucking their > cocks every day. > "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea > include the following: for adult males the presence in their > bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence > and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse > therefore involves the termporary loss of something important > (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not > yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this > ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. > The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from > these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of > seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate > older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio > insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the > donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the > boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the > masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple > of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." > (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture. The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity, which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful, or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture, almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own culture as adults. > Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on > young boys. In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not* participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts. <snip> >>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent >>in some areas. > Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives That was a perfectly grammatical construction. > Just > say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful > consent in some areas. I do. > That said, prove to me that they are > capable of giving meaningful consent to sex I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting. What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it, even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys, is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's interests before your own. At the same time, no one is obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to, or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are allergic ). Sexual activity is no different. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Karen Winter, liar, wrote:
> > > Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake > of argument, Karen, we know you will lie and dissmulate and dissemble endlessly, because you're a lying asshole. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: <snip> repeat of previous discussion > Attempted murder is a violation of your right to my respectful > treatment. Correct, because an action has taken place: an attempt at murder. *Contemplating* a murder does not violate the intended victim's rights until the attempt itself takes place. <snip> > when the decision is made to euthanize an animal for > *our* benefit (after all, no one likes seeing an animal suffer) That is not euthanasia; it is murder. It is only euthanasia when the death is carried out for the animal's benefit, not for ours. <snip> >>(Regan)He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering >>is irrelevant to whether harm has occurred. > NO, he is not. I'm afraid he is. > He is saying that suffering or lack of suffering > is merely a consequence of the fundamental wrong which is not a rights violation until it is acted upon. > in violating > another's right to our respectful treatment. How on Earth can > suffering (harm) be irrelevant to whether harm (suffering) > occurred? Because there can be more than one kind of harm, and all harm does not involved suffering. > What the heck are you talking about? Of course > suffering or lack of suffering is relevant to whether harm > has occurred. They are synonymous! Suffering is a harm, but not all harm involves suffering. <snip> > Why is sex completely different from killing? > What a stupid question to ask. Then give me a stupid answer, Derek.  >>If we >>are willing to accept the validity of an animal's >>preference when we euthanize him/her > I don't. Regan says that is one thing that is required for a killing to be euthanasia instead of murder. See _The Case for Animal Rights_; check "Euthanasia" in the index. You do have a copy, don't you? > We euthanize them because we consider it to be > respectful treatment. Correct > It's not for the animal's preference > that we kill it. Animals don't prefer death to their current > circumstances Wrong on both counts, according to Regan. <snip> > > Animals don't prefer death. To get your point accepted > you need to provide information showing that an animal > understands death, Not necessary. > and that it finds it preferential to its > current circumstances. The animal prefers an end to suffering to continued suffering without possibility of relief or end. Humans understand that, in some cases, death is the only way to respect this preference on the part of the animal. <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Rupert wrote:
> Derek wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>Glorfindel wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. >>>>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm >>> >>>>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >>>>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >>>>>>then comes the harm. >>> >>>Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* >>>wrong ) >> >>It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad >>consequence of that fundamental wrong. >> >> >>>but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual >>>concrete harm takes place. >> >>No, because without a preceding decision to violate their >>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms >>don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY >>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", >>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not >>being violated. Way to go, Karen. >> >>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so >>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin >>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have >>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. >>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be >>violating her right to your respectful treatment. >> >> >>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>>in a sexual context and no other. >>> >>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context. >>> >>>True >> >>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful >>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >> > > > I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I > apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my > examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm > changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your > criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not > whether the interaction is sexual. > > >>>but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact >>>between a willing animal and a willing human. >> >>It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent >>from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume >>without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation >>of that animal's right to your respectful treatment. >> >> >>>>>There are all sorts of situations >>>>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to >>>>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). >>>>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see >>>>>why it's given in these contexts, either. >>> >>>>It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or >>>>children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries >>>>no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when >>>>scratching them. >>> >>>Really? >> >>Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag. >> >> >>>I doubt that. >> >>Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert. > > > Try and stay civil. Karen Winter has put herself far beyond the bounds of civil discourse. So have you, rupie. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > > Derek wrote: > > > >>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >> > >>>Derek wrote: > >>> > >>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >>> > >>><snip> > >>> > >>>Glorfindel wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. > >>>>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" > >>>>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is > >>>>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm > >>> > >>>>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental > >>>>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", > >>>>>>then comes the harm. > >>> > >>>Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* > >>>wrong ) > >> > >>It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad > >>consequence of that fundamental wrong. > >> > >> > >>>but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual > >>>concrete harm takes place. > >> > >>No, because without a preceding decision to violate their > >>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms > >>don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY > >>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", > >>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not > >>being violated. Way to go, Karen. > >> > >>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so > >>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin > >>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have > >>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. > >>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be > >>violating her right to your respectful treatment. > >> > >> > >>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >>>>>in a sexual context and no other. > >>> > >>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context. > >>> > >>>True > >> > >>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful > >>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? > >> > > > > > > I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I > > apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my > > examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm > > changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your > > criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not > > whether the interaction is sexual. > > > > > >>>but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact > >>>between a willing animal and a willing human. > >> > >>It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent > >>from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume > >>without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation > >>of that animal's right to your respectful treatment. > >> > >> > >>>>>There are all sorts of situations > >>>>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to > >>>>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). > >>>>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see > >>>>>why it's given in these contexts, either. > >>> > >>>>It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or > >>>>children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries > >>>>no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when > >>>>scratching them. > >>> > >>>Really? > >> > >>Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag. > >> > >> > >>>I doubt that. > >> > >>Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert. > > > > > > Try and stay civil. > > Karen Winter has put herself far beyond the bounds of > civil discourse. So have you, rupie. This is rich coming from you of all people. If someone puts themselves beyond the bounds of civil discourse, as you have done, the decent thing to do is to stop replying to them. You know absolutely nothing about civil discourse and are not competent to say anything about it. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Rupert wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > >>Rupert wrote: >> >> >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>Glorfindel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>If there is no harm, no right is violated. >>>>>>>>>Harm remain harm, even if it does not involve *suffering" >>>>>>>>>and harming in this way is still harm, even if it is >>>>>>>>>painless. Taking a being's life unjustly is a harm >>>>> >>>>>>>>And that harm is a consequence of the antecedent fundamental >>>>>>>>wrong done to it: "a right to be treated with respect is violated.", >>>>>>>>then comes the harm. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but, as I said, the lack of respect is wrong ( not *a* >>>>>wrong ) >>>> >>>>It's THE wrong - the ONLY wrong. Harms are just a bad >>>>consequence of that fundamental wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>but a violation of rights only takes place when an actual >>>>>concrete harm takes place. >>>> >>>>No, because without a preceding decision to violate their >>>>right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms >>>>don't occur. If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY >>>>takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", >>>>the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not >>>>being violated. Way to go, Karen. >>>> >>>>Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so >>>>you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin >>>>has all the faculties you have because you paid to have >>>>yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. >>>>Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be >>>>violating her right to your respectful treatment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other. >>>>> >>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context. >>>>> >>>>>True >>>> >>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful >>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >>>> >>> >>> >>>I didn't imply that. It was my attempt at interpreting your position. I >>>apologize if it was a misinterpretation, but you've rejected all my >>>examples of how it might arise in a non-sexual context and claimed I'm >>>changing the subject. I'm really struggling to understand what your >>>criterion is for when the issue of respectful treatment arises, if not >>>whether the interaction is sexual. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>but respectful treatment does not rule out all sexual contact >>>>>between a willing animal and a willing human. >>>> >>>>It most certainly does. You cannot extract meaningful consent >>> >>>>from an animal for such an intimate trespass, and to presume >>> >>>>without knowing that you have that consent is a gross violation >>>>of that animal's right to your respectful treatment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>There are all sorts of situations >>>>>>>where humans and animals, or adults and children, interact in ways to >>>>>>>which both have no objection (scratching a dog's belly, for example). >>>>>>>If "meaningful consent" is not given in a sexual context, I don't see >>>>>>>why it's given in these contexts, either. >>>>> >>>>>>It isn't. Meaningful consent cannot be extracted from animals or >>>>>>children, but like you say, scratching a child's or dog's belly carries >>>>>>no objection because there is no intent to have one's way when >>>>>>scratching them. >>>>> >>>>>Really? >>>> >>>>Yes. When I scratch my dog's belly I'm not hoping for a shag. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I doubt that. >>>> >>>>Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert. >>> >>> >>>Try and stay civil. >> >>Karen Winter has put herself far beyond the bounds of >>civil discourse. So have you, rupie. > > > This is rich coming from you of all people. You'll take it, rupie, and you'll learn to like it. That's just how it is, pal. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: > >>>Derek wrote: > >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote: > >>>>>Derek wrote: > >>> > >>>>><snip> > >>> > >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of view...", > >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights > >>>>>>violations, > >>> > >>>>>That is correct. > >>> > >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations > >>> > >>>No, Derek > >> > >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped > >> him away. > >> > >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > >> the fundamental wrong." > >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > >> > >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right. > >> > >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights > >> violation. > > > >Karen is equivocating on "respect". > > Well caught that man! Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between which she is equivocating? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
Thanks
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:21:40 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote: > > >Okay, bear with me, I have not been here for long, but who is Goo again? I > >kind of lost track in between all the bickering. > > It's easy to lose track of who Goo is pretending to be, and that is > a deliberate/dishonest trick the Goober makes frequent use of. How > frequently only Goo knows for sure, but Goo dishonestly pretends to > be all of the following "people" and mo > > Jonathan Ball > Citizen > Benfez > Wilson Woods > Radical Moderate > Bingo > Edward > George > Bill > Fred > Mystery Poster > Merlin the dog > Bob the dog > > elvira > Dieter > "Dieter " > > > Abner Hale > Roger Whitaker > ****tard > Apoo > Ted Bell > > Jay Santos > > Rudy Canoza > Trappist > > Leif Erikson > S. Maizlich > SlipperySlope > Eden > Sylvia Stevens > > You would probably recognise Goo from pretending to be Leif Erikson, > and possibly also Eden and/or Sylvia Stevens. It's not unusual for Goo > to post as several different people in the same thread. Since this Goober > dishonestly pretends to be so many different people, it made sense to > come up with a way of referring to the individual regardless of who all > he is pretending to be at a given time, in order to help keep it straight. > Though Goo is apparently quite stupid he considers himself to be a genius, > so the name Goobernicus fits him perfectly, and allows for variations > such as Goob, Goober, or simpy Goo. A Google search for Goobernicus > confirms the above. > > If you doubt Goo's incredible stupidity I invite you to read through > this sampling of Goobal idiotics, to see if you can appreciate it in any > of the following examples of Goo's claims and beliefs: > __________________________________________________ _______ > Ron asked: > >So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance > >and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in > >the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of > >supplying the pet food industry? > > Goo replied: > Yes. > > Message-ID: et> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > __________________________________________________ _______ > Ron pointed out: > >You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become > >PET FOOD. > > Goo replied: > Some are. > > Message-ID: .com> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or > any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo > > "Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo > > "Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He > saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way, > hallucinating." - Goo > > "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing > benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals > benefit from farming." - Goo > > "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" > . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo > > "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude > than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo > > "When considering your food choices ethically, assign > ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to > eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo > > "I have examined the question at length, and feel > there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se, > is not a benefit." - Goo > > "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo > > "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo > > "Non human animals experience neither pride nor > disappointment. They don't have the mental ability > to feel either." - Goo > > "Anticipation requires language." - Goo > > "No animals anticipate." - Goo > > "The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of > the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo > > "Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than > the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo > > "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo > > "They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo > > "The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and > dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot > be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans." - Goo > > "Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is > going to be used entirely for human consumption, > entirely for animal consumption, or for some > combination; nor do they care." - Goo > > "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be > pet food. " - Goo > > "I'm right about all of it." - Goo > "I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo > "Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo > "I'm not stupid." - Goo > "I know exactly what I think" - Goo > "I educated the public" - Goo > "I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ...
> > > Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake > of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person > that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to > repeat the points I have already made again and again. > > You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights > violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan, > who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just > don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would > be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me > at this point. I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow. > Derek wrote: > > <snip> > >> a violation of rights only takes place when an actual > >>concrete harm takes place. > > > ...without a preceding decision to violate their > > right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms > > don't occur. > > That is correct. But the decision to violate a right > is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision* > to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison > and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be > no benefit until the animal actually exists. You > have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I. > > If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit > until they actually exist, and an action is done > which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that > a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until > a real action in the real world takes place. Saying > a rights violation takes place without an action is > exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place > without an action. Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct. It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant. Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted. Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be, DO -actively involve- animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence. That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires. > > If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY > > takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", > > the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not > > being violated. > > Of course they are. Their right to own their own > lives is violated, and their right to freedom is > violated, because they are being kept captive merely > for the benefit of their captors. They are being > treated without respect for their right to autonomy, > because they are being treated as property, as > slaves, and not as ends in themselves. > > The captivity, the status as property, is as much a > rights violation as the slaughter. This is > exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage > you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights > violation is still a violation because treating > the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even > though it does not involve ( or may not involve ) > suffering. > > <snip> > > > Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so > > you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin > > has all the faculties you have because you paid to have > > yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. > > Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be > > violating her right to your respectful treatment. > > Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action* > because that action is a *harm* even though it does > not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan > is talking about, again. > > <snip> > >>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > >>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > > >>Ipse dixit. > > > Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows > > a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful > > treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that > > rule to animals. > > >>Zoophiles would disagree > > > Of course they would, because they want to suck off their > > dogs, and what not. > > Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less > or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument > here. > > Take those beliefs of the Sambia and > > Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would > > disagree with me that a child holds a right against them, > > because they want young boys to continue sucking their > > cocks every day. > > > "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea > > include the following: for adult males the presence in their > > bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence > > and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse > > therefore involves the termporary loss of something important > > (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not > > yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this > > ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > > external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. > > The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from > > these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of > > seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate > > older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio > > insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the > > donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the > > boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the > > masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple > > of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." > > (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). > > This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture. > The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them > to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done > for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity, > which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if > the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy > the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful, > or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for > sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture, > almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural > requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our > culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own > culture as adults. But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter - whether they like it, or not. Horrific circumcision of both sexes could be similarly 'defended' on the grounds of 'cultural context' .... as can *all* abuses of humans and animals. But it is wrong! > > Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on > > young boys. > > In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not* > participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts. > > <snip> > >>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent > >>in some areas. > > > Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives > > That was a perfectly grammatical construction. > > > Just > > say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful > > consent in some areas. > > I do. > > > That said, prove to me that they are > > capable of giving meaningful consent to sex > > I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many > things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog > rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or > threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If > he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting. > What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a > dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it > is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's > belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he > is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing > respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it, > even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys, > is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's > interests before your own. At the same time, no one is > obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to, > or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are > allergic ). > > Sexual activity is no different. It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation. On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful. See Genesis. .> <snip> |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote: > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > Derek, I know that you will argue endlessly for the sake > > of argument, even if it is obvious to any rational person > > that you are making no sense. So I don't intend to > > repeat the points I have already made again and again. > > > > You are simply wrong. You don't understand what a rights > > violation is,and you certainly don't understand Regan, > > who frames his philosophical arguments at a level you just > > don't have the intellectual capacity to follow. Leif would > > be the first to agree with me, if you weren't attacking me > > at this point. > > I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow. > > > Derek wrote: > > > > <snip> > > >> a violation of rights only takes place when an actual > > >>concrete harm takes place. > > > > > ...without a preceding decision to violate their > > > right to our respectful treatment, those particular harms > > > don't occur. > > > > That is correct. But the decision to violate a right > > is not a violation of a right; it is only a *decision* > > to take an action in the future. It's like Harrison > > and his imaginary pre-existing cattle -- there can be > > no benefit until the animal actually exists. You > > have agreed with Leif on that point, and so do I. > > > > If you agree imaginary beings don't gain a benefit > > until they actually exist, and an action is done > > which benefits them, you *logically* must agree that > > a violation of a being's rights cannot take place until > > a real action in the real world takes place. Saying > > a rights violation takes place without an action is > > exactly the same as saying a benefit takes place > > without an action. > > Ok, but action stems from intent; that originates from thoughts > which should be culled from inception with the Knowledge of > Right and Wrong - understood with real education, and instinct. > It is Wrong, because it contravenes Natural Laws. It is deviant. > > Animals normally follow their instinct - but that can be perverted. > Zoophiles - however 'caring' they may be, DO -actively involve- > animals - 'grooming' them for what *we* *should* *know* to be > an *aberrant* activity, taking advantage of the animals' innocence. > That is disrespectful - and no different from the selfish attitude that > leads to and allows *all* other animal abuses for humans' desires. > > > > If, as you say, "a violation of rights ONLY > > > takes place when an actual concrete harm takes place.", > > > the rights of Harrison's grass fed beef animals are not > > > being violated. > > > > Of course they are. Their right to own their own > > lives is violated, and their right to freedom is > > violated, because they are being kept captive merely > > for the benefit of their captors. They are being > > treated without respect for their right to autonomy, > > because they are being treated as property, as > > slaves, and not as ends in themselves. > > > > The captivity, the status as property, is as much a > > rights violation as the slaughter. This is > > exactly what Regan is talking about in the passage > > you quoted ( without understanding it). The rights > > violation is still a violation because treating > > the cattle as property is a concrete *HARM* even > > though it does not involve ( or may not involve ) > > suffering. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Consider a situation where a twin is prepared for you so > > > you can gain from it in case of organ failure. Your twin > > > has all the faculties you have because you paid to have > > > yourself cloned, but she is kept ignorant of her purpose. > > > Even though your clone doesn't suffer you would still be > > > violating her right to your respectful treatment. > > > > Correct. You are violating her rights by your *action* > > because that action is a *harm* even though it does > > not involve suffering at the time. This is what Regan > > is talking about, again. > > > > <snip> > > >>>Having sex with them certainly does carry a very > > >>>serious objection because it shows a total lack of respect. > > > > >>Ipse dixit. > > > > > Having sex with an adult without meaningful consent shows > > > a total lack of respect to that person's right to our respectful > > > treatment. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to extend that > > > rule to animals. > > > > >>Zoophiles would disagree > > > > > Of course they would, because they want to suck off their > > > dogs, and what not. > > > > Well, certainly. But that does not make it any less > > or more true. You're engaging in an ad hominem argument > > here. > > > > Take those beliefs of the Sambia and > > > Etoro tribes in New Guinea, for example. They would > > > disagree with me that a child holds a right against them, > > > because they want young boys to continue sucking their > > > cocks every day. > > > > > "The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea > > > include the following: for adult males the presence in their > > > bodies, in the testicles, of semen is essential for the existence > > > and maintenance of their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse > > > therefore involves the termporary loss of something important > > > (so women are dangerous); the bodies of young boys do not > > > yet internally produce, and so they do not yet have, this > > > ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > > > external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. > > > The Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from > > > these beliefs, in which young boys, starting around the age of > > > seven to ten and lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate > > > older males to orgasm and ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio > > > insemination" ideally occurs daily. The masculinity of the > > > donors thereby passes to the beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the > > > boys become the men who are sucked and who provide the > > > masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated is the staple > > > of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until marriage." > > > (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). > > > > This is a perfectly moral action in the context of the culture. > > The action is done for the benefit of the boys, to enable them > > to become adult men. They are respected, and the action is done > > for their benefit. No doubt both parties enjoy the activity, > > which is fine, but there is no exploitation involved. Even if > > the adults did not enjoy the activity, or the boys did not enjoy > > the activity, it would still not be exploitative, non-respectful, > > or a violation of rights, because it is done, not primarily for > > sexual pleasure, but as a necessary rite of passage in the culture, > > almost what we would regard as a medical necessity or a cultural > > requirement, as going to school is a cultural requirement in our > > culture. It prepares the boys to take their place in their own > > culture as adults. > > But they are not adults, and they have no choice in the matter - > whether they like it, or not. Horrific circumcision of both sexes > could be similarly 'defended' on the grounds of 'cultural context' > ... as can *all* abuses of humans and animals. But it is wrong! > Children should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to participate in the activities that their culture encourages. It is the parents' obligation to provide for the child until they are able to care for themselves, and the parent has the right to impose some restrictions on the child's behaviour in return, but there are limits. A parent may not coerce a child into wearing any particular style of clothing outside the parents' house, or into undergoing any form of genital cutting (you probably have to be an adult to consent to so-called "female circumcision"). How much education the child should receive and whether or not the child should engage in sexual activity with other children or adults are issues that should be negotiated with the parents, not regulated by the state. > > > Perverts will dream up anything they can to get their hands on > > > young boys. > > > > In that culture, it would be the adults and the boys who did *not* > > participate who would be seen by their peers as perverts. > > > > <snip> > > >>I don't agree animals are not capable of giving meaningful consent > > >>in some areas. > > > > > Try to watch out for those sloppy double negatives > > > > That was a perfectly grammatical construction. > > > > > Just > > > say you agree that animals are capable of giving meaningful > > > consent in some areas. > > > > I do. > > > > > That said, prove to me that they are > > > capable of giving meaningful consent to sex > > > > I believe they can give meaningful consent to a great many > > things, including having their bellies rubbed. If a dog > > rolls over willingly, without compulsion, conditioning, or > > threat, to have his belly rubbed, he is consenting. If > > he growls, snaps, or runs away, he is not consenting. > > What's so difficult to understand about that? To hold a > > dog down and forcibly rub his belly because you enjoy it > > is as much a rights violation as rape. To rub the dog's > > belly because he obviously shows by his actions that he > > is willing, and would enjoy the exchange, is showing > > respect for the dog. To do it because the dog wants it, > > even if you would rather be typing on your computer keys, > > is a respectful action, because it is putting the dog's > > interests before your own. At the same time, no one is > > obligated to rub the dog's belly if they don't want to, > > or it is objectionable to them ( they hate dogs or are > > allergic ). > > > > Sexual activity is no different. > > It is. Sexual activity's PRIMARY function is procreation. > On another level, the act is Sacred and highly meaningful. > > See Genesis. .> > > <snip> |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
