Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Slavery of Animals
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Will (most) humans one day look back at the 21 century treatment of animals the way we look at 18th century slavery?

Yes

[ 4 ]

Probably

[ 3 ]

Maybe

12%

[ 7 ]

Nothing will change

[ 2 ]

No, not at all

24%

[ 14 ]

That's nuts!

35%

[ 20 ]

I hope so

12%

[ 7 ]

Total Votes : 57

Author

Message

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:42 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

I'm concerned with minimising cruelty as much as possible.

Why should we?

That's a matter for you and your conscience, for the moment. If a big enough portion of the population start to find something personally unacceptable, laws will be enacted to criminalise practices that have begun to be seen as 'wrong.' We all have different ideas about what is 'wrong' and these vary along temporal or geographical lines. Personally, I hope that harming animals unnecessarily will eventually be considered very 'wrong' by enough of us, some time in my lifetime

There are men out there who don't really feel it is 'wrong' to rape and kill. You might tell them it's wrong, and they might ask "why?" Your answer probably will not satisfy them. In their minds it's not wrong, and they might be able to argue very cleverly why that is so. Thankfully, most people do consider that behaviour to be 'wrong' and our laws are written accordingly.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:48 am Post subject:

Thunndarr wrote:

Personally, I find it amusing when someone laments the immaturity of another, yet continues with the grade-school namecalling. Pretty hard to walk the high road when you're stuck in the gutter with everyone else.

True, and that is why it is best to avoid certain company if one doesn't wish to be regularly pulled down into the gutter. Ne c'est pas?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:48 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

The fact remains that human slavery ended because enough people were persuaded it ought to. It existed throughout both continents of the New World at one time or another, and England and other European countries benefited from the trade of sentient beings. People were persuaded it should end, and it did. Only in the US did it the abolition play a part in a bloody civil war - and contrary to most of what people will say, the abolition was not the cause of the war, but ultimately the solution to it.

People in North and South America and Europe spoke and acted with words and deeds, motivated by conscience, and yes, at the time it was a fringe ideology - but the whole comparison is irrelevent, anyway. Know why? Animals can never be given the same rights as humans because they lack any moral sense of the sort of some folk employ to try to "liberate" them.

Animals cannot have rights because they cannot be called upon to exercise responsibilities. You gonna put a snake up on the dock and answer for the crime of biting someone?

As far as I know, a young child, despite having rights, can kill someone, but not necessarily be tried for murder. I don't see how rights are bound up with responsiblity there. How about a person in a deep coma. Perhaps they have lost their rights? Can we go jumping on them and raping them and mutilating them for fun because they are no longer able to exercise responsibilities? Your argument doesn't make any sense to me. There are already some laws to assist in animal welfare. People can already be prosecuted for neglect and cruelty. Unfortunately, as of yet, the punishments are not as harsh as I would have them. 'Rights' are something we invented for ourselves. I don't see why we can't invent them for animals too, if we so fancy.

You will also find that as science probes deeper into the minds of animals, we're going to find that they are much closer to us than we once thought. As people become more aware of scientific findings in this regard, and it becomes harder and harder to ignore that many animals can think and feel with varying degrees on the same level as young humans, they are going to feel less and less comfortable with animals suffering. Especially when that suffering is unnecessary for our survival, and even our comfort. When I buy cosmetics, for example, I (and many other women) choose carefully, and I may now paint myself up like a right whore satisfied that no animal has been harmed by it. Wink

Quote:

Show me an animal that understands that the consequences of its actions result in pain to another being like itself, and that this pain is something it can avoid inflicting if it wants to avoid adding to the pain in the world

I'm pretty sure there is scientific research that indicates this is in fact so. If I come across a related article, I shall bring it to your attention.

A bloody pedant wrote:

We ought to reduce the amount of the pain that exists in the world, among animals and humans - but NOT because animals have some "right" not to feel pain. We should do it because humans are better creatures as a species the more we decide to limit the amount of pain floating around in the world.

Now you've admitted that improving the lot of animals is something we should do. All this rambling about rights is just a w@nky distraction. Who gives a bloody toss if it is their 'right' or what have you, so long as the end result is the same. Who cares whether new laws are drawn up on the basis of 'rights' or not - so long as things are improved and animals are no longer forced to suffer excruciating misery. That's just a lot of academic w@nk if you ask me.

Quote:

Persuade me, and anyone else you can. Defintely do that. Do not coerce me to be like you, and do not force me to think as you do or behave or eat as you do, though.

Bobster, how am I going to force you to do anything? That just sounds overly dramatic and daft, quite frankly.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Big bird, why should dogs and cows enjoy any human rights, beyond a purely moral choice? Human win rights for themselves by fighting for those rights. People with the guns accord human rights based on the willingness of others to fight for them. Cows can't pick up guns or go to ballot boxes. Why do you think they deserve some human rights besides your own personal moral choice?

What about if you are hit by a car mindmetoo, and are paralyzed from the neck down. Do you then lose your rights because you can't wave a gun around? People have rights because the majority have decided it's a 'nice idea'. At some point middle class people, whose own children lived priviledged lives, decided it was a 'nice idea' not to force other peoples's little four year olds to work down mine shafts, even though they were not able to fight for these rights themselves. Eventually, the majority might consider it a 'nice idea' to stop inflicting unimaginable misery on other helpless creatures, despite their non-human status. There certainly is a movement slowly gathering in that direction. I feel optimistic that (at least in the West) things will slowly improve for animals, if more and more people become aware of the horrific suffering quietly going on away from prying eyes.

Quote:

I'm happy you don't eat meat but you're happy with enslaving dogs and making them entertain you in return for the flesh of another dead animal. I'm happy to eat your dog or any other animal put before me.

Dogs are omnivores. You'd be better using the example of cats, who need to eat meat to survive. I don't need to eat meat to survive. If I did, I would not hesitate to do so. I'm happy to feed my cat meat however, so long as it is the flesh of a creature that lived a natural life - not an unnatural and tortured one.

As I said before, I don't necessarily believe a cat or a dog is 'enslaved.' I think they can live as good a life with me as they would 'in the wild' so I'm satisfied I haven't destroyed the quality of their life if I care for them properly. However, a pig spending it's life in a small iron cage is something altogether very different.

Quote:

You say comforting things to your fat friend. I say insulting things to my fat friend. I may not be a nice person in your view but as far as I can tell there are no laws against saying hurtful things.

Well, you're not much of friend, and your fat buddy might turn around one of these days and whack you in the goolies. Wink

Quote:

Both example cause pain and are moral choices. You want to impose laws in both cases?

Without laws, it becomes merely a moral choice whether or not to murder or rape. Leaving the welfare of animals up to the moral codes of those that would exploit them doesn't seem an acceptable option if you believe that animal suffering is a terrible thing. If one believes as I do, then one surely must support imposing laws that will prevent this suffering.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

...the abolution of human slavery...The advocay of women's sufferage.

True, some things from the fringe become mainstream.

But, on the other hand, I do not believe, in this particular case, that the issue you raise is analogous to the above ones. Both of them deal with Homo sapiens, for one thing.

I see it as a progression. Once upon a time, we only cared about our immediate family. Then the clan. Over time, we've started to extend our view of whose welfare is important. It's been extended to women, to children, to other races etc. I don't see why eventually a more enlightened society wont view the welfare of other species as 'right.'

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:52 am Post subject:

Many great points, BB. I'm too busy to jump into the fray right now ... and besides, if certain posters still don't get it after all you've written, and if they can't be bothered to follow the links and actually try to undertsand what the discussion is all about, there may not be much hope for them.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject:

BB, thanks for all the typing you did, and we all appreciate your effort your fingers exerterd here. You ignored a central question I asked. If an animal has rights, does it also have responsibilities? Can I go to Oz and sue the pit bull that inflicted a scar on my lady's leg, and while doing so made her forever fearful of every dog larger than a toaster? Will you support such legislation? Because I think there are a lot of people who would like to see these dogs pay for their crimes. Oh, wait, just remembered. The "companion humans" are the ones who are REALLY responsible. Right? So, let's get this straight : animals have rights, but only humans have responsibility. Just so we''re all clear on that.

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

BB, thanks for all the typing you did, and we all appreciate your effort your fingers exerterd here. You ignored a central question I asked. If an animal has rights, does it also have responsibilities? Can I go to Oz and sue the pit bull that inflicted a scar on my lady's leg, and while doing so made her forever fearful of every dog larger than a toaster?

Will you support such legislation? Because I think there are a lot of people who would like to see these dogs pay for their crimes.

Oh, wait, just remembered. The "companion humans" are the ones who are REALLY responsible. Right?

So, let's get this straight : animals have rights, but only humans have responsibility. Just so we''re all clear on that.

She explained it. She explained it very clearly, so clearly that even you should have no problem understanding. If you still don't get it, why don't you do some research? You could try Googling "Animal Rights FAQs," for a start.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:20 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Once upon a time, we only cared about our immediate family. Then the clan.

Got evidence to back that claim? Seems to me we've lived in troops since our monkey days and our ethics have always been based on the troop/group.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:30 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

What about if you are hit by a car mindmetoo, and are paralyzed from the neck down. Do you then lose your rights because you can't wave a gun around?

I'm speaking of rights won be a group. And yes in some societies I would have lost my rights.

Quote:

People have rights because the majority have decided it's a 'nice idea'.

Women got the right to vote because people simply thought it was a nice idea? Blacks? The British gave up India because it was a nice idea?

Quote:

I'm happy to feed my cat meat however, so long as it is the flesh of a creature that lived a natural life - not an unnatural and tortured one.

Errr. Maybe you'd like to explain where that meat comes from.

Quote:

As I said before, I don't necessarily believe a cat or a dog is 'enslaved.'

They can be bought and sold. They have no say in their future. That's slavery. Racists claim bringing the blacks over to the USA was doing them a favor. The blacks today in America owe them a debt. They get to be born in America and have a wonderful life instead of dying of malaria in Africa. Does that justify slavery?

If you extend human rights to an animal, then it should also enjoy the right not to be treated as property and bought and sold, regardless how nice you think you are to it.

If I made the argument "but we can raise cows on nice farms, provide them nice lives unlike cows in the wild, and then painlessly put them to sleep and death", would you still have a problem with me eating meat?

Maybe you'd make the argument that the reality is slaughter houses are not humane places. And the reality of pet ownership is puppy mills, people who abuse and neglect pets.

Quote:

I think they can live as good a life with me as they would 'in the wild'

That's your assumption. Did you ask them?

Quote:

Without laws, it becomes merely a moral choice whether or not to murder or rape.

This is physically hurting a human being. We recognize our rights don't extend to the body of any other person. Everything else is a moral choice.

Animals are not humans. You don't want us to eat them but you have made the moral choice that treating them as property is no problem.

Quote:

Leaving the welfare of animals up to the moral codes of those that would exploit them doesn't seem an acceptable option if you believe that animal suffering is a terrible thing.

So what? That's freedom. People are going to make moral choices you find reprehensible.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:01 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Once upon a time, we only cared about our immediate family. Then the clan.

Got evidence to back that claim? Seems to me we've lived in troops since our monkey days and our ethics have always been based on the troop/group.

I think you might want to check the meaning of clan. Pay particular attention to the 3rd definition.

Quote:

clan n.
1. A traditional social unit in the Scottish Highlands, consisting of a number of families claiming a common ancestor and following the same hereditary chieftain.
2. A division of a tribe tracing descent from a common ancestor.
3. A large group of relatives, friends, or associates.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:07 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

What about if you are hit by a car mindmetoo, and are paralyzed from the neck down. Do you then lose your rights because you can't wave a gun around?

I'm speaking of rights won be a group. And yes in some societies I would have lost my rights.

Quote:

People have rights because the majority have decided it's a 'nice idea'.

Women got the right to vote because people simply thought it was a nice idea? Blacks? The British gave up India because it was a nice idea?

Yes frankly. People have gained new rights by fighting for them. People have also gained new rights because the practicality of it. And in other cases people have gained rights because it became a 'nice idea.' For example, in Sweden, a film in the early 20th century was made about the unfortunate experiences of woman who had children out of wedlock. People were so touched by their plight, it became a 'nice idea' to change things. It didn't come about by these women fighting for their rights. Rather, by the rest of society deeming it fit that these women and their offspring were treated better. A lot of people are beginning to think it would be a 'nice idea' to stamp out torture in Guantanomo Bay. Not just the people affected by it, but people comfortably outside the experince of it, yet feeling appalled by it. In the same way, many people (sometimes the same people) are becoming appalled by the experiences of animals in factory farms.

Quote:

I'm happy to feed my cat meat however, so long as it is the flesh of a creature that lived a natural life - not an unnatural and tortured one.

Errr. Maybe you'd like to explain where that meat comes from.

Meat from animals that have lived in the wild, or in farms that allow the animals to range freely. Although, for the most part, I'd prefer the cats just ate what they caught. They're still going to kill anyway. Perhaps it's better that they ate what they caught, instead of just killing it for fun. I'd want to research this more however, before I advocated not feeding the cats supplementary food.

Quote:

As I said before, I don't necessarily believe a cat or a dog is 'enslaved.'

They can be bought and sold. They have no say in their future. That's slavery.

I lived on a farm as a child. The cats and dogs had freedom to roam for miles, and they did. But they always came back to the house and they always wanted to be patted. Some more than others - they had different personalities. If their contact with me and my human family was unpleasant they wouldn't have sought us out day after day. When a dog lives with an abusive owner, I would consider that a form of enslavement. I also don't believe a cat or a dog can consider their future as we would, nor lament that (as long as they were placed as kittens or puppies) that they had been sent to this human instead of that. Human children are also forced to live with adults they did not choose. They also have little say in their future until they reach a certain point, and that point is not reached until they have long surpassed the most intelligent of animals.

Quote:

Racists claim bringing the blacks over to the USA was doing them a favor. The blacks today in America owe them a debt. They get to be born in America and have a wonderful life instead of dying of malaria in Africa. Does that justify slavery?

The experience of a human being forced to live under the dominion of other humans is not going to be the same as that of a pack animal evolved to know his/her place in the pack. A human is a substitute alpha wolf for a dog. If that 'alpha wolf' is loving and kind, makes sure the dog has much affection and is fed and properly exercised and otherwise cared for, I don't think the dog will be feeling 'enslaved.' If cats have a catflap and are free to leave at anytime and are treated with respect in the home, I do not see this as 'enslavement.'

Quote:

If you extend human rights to an animal, then it should also enjoy the right not to be treated as property and bought and sold, regardless how nice you think you are to it.

I wouldn't advocate treating a child as an adult. Nor have I advocated giving identical rights to animals. You talk as if there can only be black and white absolutes. That's not so.

Quote:

If I made the argument "but we can raise cows on nice farms, provide them nice lives unlike cows in the wild, and then painlessly put them to sleep and death", would you still have a problem with me eating meat?

You haven't bothered to read my posts or you would already know my answer to that. I've already explained that my original objection to eating meat was the horrendous life they led, not necessarily that they were killed.

Quote:

Maybe you'd make the argument that the reality is slaughter houses are not humane places. And the reality of pet ownership is puppy mills, people who abuse and neglect pets.

Yes. That is my personal feeling. There is no necessity for us to eat meat or own pets. However, I am most interested in minimising the evil of it, as I do not feel that there is any hope of erasing meat eating or pet owning in my lifetime. I'm content to leave those issues for future generations to consider and deal with (or not deal with). But in my lifetime, I am concerned with minimising the horrific misery inflicted on thinking feeling creatures like the wonderfully intelligent pig, in factory farms and research laboratories. Nor am I convinced that keeping pets is necessarily such a bad thing for certain animals, provided certain guidelines are rigidly observed.

Quote:

I think they can live as good a life with me as they would 'in the wild'

That's your assumption. Did you ask them?

See my previous discussion of my experiences of animals on the farm.

Quote:

Without laws, it becomes merely a moral choice whether or not to murder or rape.

This is physically hurting a human being. We recognize our rights don't extend to the body of any other person. Everything else is a moral choice.

Let me repeat - without laws there would be much more murder and rape. It would be a moral choice. Therefore, if we are going to protect animals, we have to take away the 'choice' to hurt them.

Quote:

Animals are not humans. You don't want us to eat them but you have made the moral choice that treating them as property is no problem.

I've already explained why I don't think it is clear cut that a pet is 'property.' And with property you can do what you like with it. If I have a chair, I can smash and burn the chair. A pet should be a very different thing indeed. The human companion should only be allowed to take an animal companion if they follow very strict guidelines that guarantee the happiness and quality of life for the creature concerned.

Quote:

Leaving the welfare of animals up to the moral codes of those that would exploit them doesn't seem an acceptable option if you believe that animal suffering is a terrible thing.

So what? That's freedom. People are going to make moral choices you find reprehensible.

Then take away this freedom. No-one has the freedom to f**K young pre-pubescent boys up the arse. We've taken away that freedom. Let's take away the freedom to inflict a lifetime of unimaginable misery on other creatures. That involves legislation. I believe this legislation may come about as the population begins to learn more of what is involved in 'farming' and as science shows us that animals have much more in common with humans than we have previously believed.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:19 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Bobster, I've already spent a whole post addressing this. Any more of your nonsense and I'm going to send my badassed baby to punch you on the snout.

You know he's up for it!

Quote:

Can I go to Oz and sue the pit bull that inflicted a scar on my lady's leg, and while doing so made her forever fearful of every dog larger than a toaster?

Will you support such legislation? Because I think there are a lot of people who would like to see these dogs pay for their crimes.

Oh, wait, just remembered. The "companion humans" are the ones who are REALLY responsible. Right?

So, let's get this straight : animals have rights, but only humans have responsibility. Just so we''re all clear on that.

I think you will find that parents are held somewhat responsible for the behaviour of their young offspring. If my badassed baby becomes a badassed prepubescent and starts kicking you in your shins and throwing beer bottles at you as you walk past my house, I believe it will be me who is held to be accountable. And this is the same for people who choose to bring animals to live amongst us. If they bring a dangerous animal into an urban environment, they need to ensure that animal does no harm to other humans. That doesn't mean we can't have laws that demand that animal is treated properly by humans.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:13 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Once upon a time, we only cared about our immediate family. Then the clan.

Got evidence to back that claim? Seems to me we've lived in troops since our monkey days and our ethics have always been based on the troop/group.

I think you might want to check the meaning of clan. Pay particular attention to the 3rd definition.

Quote:

Yes. I'm questioning the notion modern humans ever had a time when they only thought about family. I suggest since the morality that evolved out of the nature of the monkey troop has always been part of human survival schemes, there never was a time when it was family vs family and we some how became more enlightened to include a larger "clan".

Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

No-one has the freedom to f**K young pre-pubescent boys up the arse.

Those are humans, not cows.

Quote:

Let's take away the freedom to inflict a lifetime of unimaginable misery on other creatures. That involves legislation.

Yeah. Legislation is always used to restrict freedoms. And you'll be fought every step.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe