Juan: I take it you are a vegetarian ?
No, he's already said that he doesn't care if something, seemingly more brutal than mutilation, is committed against an animal. All that matters to him is the emotional response evoked by the actions. I suppose if the act of cuddling an animal angered him enough, he might justify himself in slaughtering anyone he found doing such a thing.
As to the idea that animal-mutilators are sub-human, that's an absolute load of shit. Humanity (in a societal sense) is defined by sentience: the ability to make decisions, and evaluate options. There is nothing about animal mutilation that hampers such an ability, and there's nothing about humanity that requires one to be empathetic to other animals, or value something in some prescribed way.
Harry Felker:British are indeed not to be trusted LOL!!!!
You know why the sun never sets on the British empire?
God doesn't trust them in the dark.
(I got that from my favorite Marxist, George Galloway)
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Or a vegetable.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
wilderness:"After Silas Deane's death, his heirs sued the American government for compensation, and received $35,000. When archives of King George's letters were released in 1867, however, it was revealed that Deane had in fact been working as a British informant for the whole of the Revolution, holding regular midnight meetings in France at the Place Vendome with agent Paul Wentworth (who described the American contingent in Paris as 'Dr. Franklin is taciturn, deliberate, and cautious; Mr. Deane is vain, desultory, and subtle; Mr. Arthur Lee, suspicious and indolent'). It is unclear whether or not Deane knew that his secretary, William Bancroft, was also working as a British spy, for four hundred pounds a year."
While not an expert in 18th century espionage, I think this is confused. I have never heard of a William Bancroft, however I have heard of an Edward Bancroft. Edward Bancroft was a spy employed by Ben Franklin while working as a secretary for the American Commission in Paris, however he was also a double agent working for the British.
wilderness:lol... I don't believe it.
I'm not sure I do either.
wilderness:I wonder what proof Richard Deacon has.
Well Deacon isn't the only one to posit the view, another well respected historian Cecil Curry wrote a book about the possibility. (though the Time article is rather dismissive of the theory)
Juan:It's almost impossible for most people to even fathom defending the man, but advocating punishing him in a better and more effective way - though perhaps not violent - seems entirely reasonable. I take it you are a vegetarian ?
It's almost impossible for most people to even fathom defending the man, but advocating punishing him in a better and more effective way - though perhaps not violent - seems entirely reasonable.
Nope. Just reasonably empathetic and interested in the well being of puppy dogs and kitty cats.
existence is elsewhere
banned:No, he's already said that he doesn't care if something, seemingly more brutal than mutilation, is committed against an animal. All that matters to him is the emotional response evoked by the actions. I suppose if the act of cuddling an animal angered him enough, he might justify himself in slaughtering anyone he found doing such a thing.
Well, yes, most people do tend to justify their actions.
Well that's not a very good definition for humanity. Animals often evaluate their options and make decisions. After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection.
In all actuality, I think emathy is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings; at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living.
banned: As to the idea that animal-mutilators are sub-human, that's an absolute load of shit. Humanity (in a societal sense) is defined by sentience: the ability to make decisions, and evaluate options. There is nothing about animal mutilation that hampers such an ability, and there's nothing about humanity that requires one to be empathetic to other animals, or value something in some prescribed way.
I didn't see anybody "prescribe" it. It's my opinion. I think the person is horrible.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Lord Shore-Twilly: wilderness:"After Silas Deane's death, his heirs sued the American government for compensation, and received $35,000. When archives of King George's letters were released in 1867, however, it was revealed that Deane had in fact been working as a British informant for the whole of the Revolution, holding regular midnight meetings in France at the Place Vendome with agent Paul Wentworth (who described the American contingent in Paris as 'Dr. Franklin is taciturn, deliberate, and cautious; Mr. Deane is vain, desultory, and subtle; Mr. Arthur Lee, suspicious and indolent'). It is unclear whether or not Deane knew that his secretary, William Bancroft, was also working as a British spy, for four hundred pounds a year." While not an expert in 18th century espionage, I think this is confused. I have never heard of a William Bancroft, however I have heard of an Edward Bancroft. Edward Bancroft was a spy employed by Ben Franklin while working as a secretary for the American Commission in Paris, however he was also a double agent working for the British.
I don't think it is confused. Sounds like two people to me.
Lord Shore-Twilly: wilderness:I wonder what proof Richard Deacon has. Well Deacon isn't the only one to posit the view, another well respected historian Cecil Curry wrote a book about the possibility. (though the Time article is rather dismissive of the theory)
"...about the possiblity." I was talking about King George's letter's as proof in Deane's case. But this is seemingly more a causal chat.
Wilmot of Rochester: Well that's not a very good definition for humanity. Animals often evaluate their options and make decisions. After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection.
I think many animals such as all kinds of insects operate with nothing more than instinct. And they're more successful in terms of population size and longevity than nearly any other creature on earth.
Rothbardians, proudly beating animals since 1982, in the name of reason. Seriously, there's few people that piss me off more than animal rights groups and vegetarians. But I can't say I have much patience for people who defend the right to "beat your dog". I wonder though, by Rothbardian standards if children can show they "own themselves" by running away, why can't dogs?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Wilmot of Rochester:Well, yes, most people do tend to justify their actions.
The statement held no implication against that. You've ignored the dependent clause so you could address the independent one, verbatim.
Wilmot of Rochester:After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection.
This is a supposition, not a proof. It's not a valid demonstration of rational choice within non-homo sapiens.
Wilmot of Rochester:In all actuality, I think emathy is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings.
This failed to address anything. You've just loaded the identity of "kindness towards animals" into the word empathy and asserted that in order to be human, you must respect other animals.
Empathy (emotive drive) is a requirement in humanity and and is also a demonstration of sentience. It is an integral part of human action, while prescribed values are not.
Wilmot of Rochester:at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living.
So, given this, I suppose Anti-semitism was necessary requirement for human beings in Nazi Germany?
GilesStratton:But I can't say I have much patience for people who defend the right to "beat your dog".
How about the right to eat your dog? Or euthanize your dog? Or cage your dog? Or leash your dog?
Anyways, you don't have a right to do something, you have a right from others initiating force against you.
GilesStratton:I wonder though, by Rothbardian standards if children can show they "own themselves" by running away, why can't dogs?
Lovely straw man.
banned:Lovely straw man.
You're a lovely strawman.
Well, you're a beaner straw man.
Harry Felker:And the UK has never had a higher crime rate than the US, even when it was allowed weapons, there must be something else causing it...
Well I would agree it hasn't had such a high murder rate, because even when guns were widely available we lacked the gun cluture enshrined into law that you in the US possess. But this doesn't really matter because correlation does not equate causation so this is all academic, however you argue that British crime figures are high because we lack guns, yet in the case of murder and rape the US with all its guns has a more substancial problem. As I said, your argument doesn't work.
Harry Felker:That is funny, the article cites English Records that say you are wrong...
No, it doesn't. It tells us, misleadingly that hand gun crime has rocketed. What it doesn't tell you is that any increase in gun crime would be, by comparison, massive. All gun crime in the UK, including the most minor incidents, comes only to round 10-11,000 each year. It also doesn't tell you that while gun crime may have increased crime generally, including violent crime generally, has decreased to the lowest it has been for years. Taken from the British Home Office Statistical Bulletin 'Crime in England and Wales 2007-2008: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime', p. 80:
Harry Felker:Again, since England has not had as high a crime rate as the US ever, there is something missing from your proof....
Nope. You claim that more guns = safer society. America has millions of guns, yet is still less safe than Britain which has few guns. Thus guns are obviously not the root of a safe society, as you yourself have admitted "there must be something else causing it".
Under reporting admission
And Another
And yet Another
Lord Shore-Twilly:You claim that more guns = safer society.
No I claimed that I do not trust people are not allowed the implementations for their personal security, I made no such claim about the "Safety" of either society...
And since the consensus I found relayed that you can't even be trusted in reporting facts honestly, I seem to be justified in that claim...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: Under reporting admission And Another And yet Another
I think it fair to conclude that you didn't give these links a lot of thought, these are five flaws I spotted almost as soon as I opened them:
Firstly, two of the 'sources' you provide are Fleet Street papers. They have a vested interest in selling news paper, sensationalism sells papers. So what they say, especially in their headlines, isn't necessarily the way things are, or are reported in a manner designed to evade the full picture. To provide an example, the Independent notes that thirteen police authorities have under-reported crime. It fails to tellus by how much, and also fails to point out that this means that the other thirty two authorities did not under-report crime. The Telegraph's article, more ellusively still tells uinitially that authorities have been under reporting crime, in the very next sentence that certainty implied by 'have' is replaced by the far less decisive 'may have'. Again we are not told by how much this under-reporting has distored figures.
Secondly, the most interesting of your sources, the academic paper, was written a full decade ago, pertains to data long preceeding even that, and discusses only a small portion of crime on the whole, burglary. Hardly that relevent.
Thirdly, all the sources fail to take into account that there are at least two sources of data which offset each other and reduce the impact of flaws in the data. So one source may be in error, and that is what is picked up on in your link, but they then fail to take into account that the data that the home office employs to produce the kind of graph I provided, employs multiple sources limiting potential for a single source to misrepresent the overall picture.
Fourthly, even if we assume that crime is constantly under-reported (via all sources), as your links suggest, then that is hardly going to make a massive difference to a graph like the one I provided which shows massive fluctuation in general crime trends over a period of time. In other words even if in each instance crime has been under reported, and in fact all crime has been around say 20% above the reported figures, the trend would remain largely the same.
Fifthly, this is something of a moot point. We all know that crime statistics are likely to under-represent crime. Not all victims report crimes, not all crimes are discovered and the police may be doctoring their figures to present themselves in a better light. Crime surveys face the dual challenge of A. not being able to survey everyone and under reporting crime. B. they face the possibility of gathering false positives and over reporting crime. This is why you offset the two sources of data against each other in the hope of eliminating problems with the data. But still it is obvious that crime is geneally likely to be under reported. And that is a universal fact. Which is why the graph I provided is important, because it doesn't just represent data in individual years but over a period of time presenting us with trends. So you are positing a repost to an argument nobody has made.
With a little more thought, doubtless I could find still more problems.
Harry Felker:No I claimed that I do not trust people are not allowed the implementations for their personal security, I made no such claim about the "Safety" of either society...
You are quite correct, I apologies. But tell me what correlation is there between the legal status of fire arms and national honesty? What an idiotic thing to suggest.
Secondly, in the UK you are in fact at liberty to use a wide variety of 'impliments' in your defence.
Harry Felker:And since the consensus I found relayed that you can't even be trusted in reporting facts honestly, I seem to be justified in that claim...
I have reported the facts perfectly honestly, and in doing so provided you with ample aid, and opportunity, to conduct your own independent research to verify my statements.
Unfortunately this is the result of Rothbard's rejection of utilitarian ethics. The utilitarian standard for moral culpability rests on the persons causing of pain. If the man had anesthetized the dog first, I would see nothing wrong with the act as dogs are not self aware and therefore the act causes no pain. Had the act been done to an human, then it would always be immoral. The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism. Amoralists and utilitarians have the only real solution to this dilemma. The Kantians certainly don't.
chrisgeorge: Unfortunately this is the result of Rothbard's rejection of utilitarian ethics. The utilitarian standard for moral culpability rests on the persons causing of pain. If the man had anesthetized the dog first, I would see nothing wrong with the act as dogs are not self aware and therefore the act causes no pain. Had the act been done to an human, then it would always be immoral. The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism. Amoralists and utilitarians have the only real solution to this dilemma. The Kantians certainly don't.
'Spieciesism'? What a ludicrous idea. While certainly I'm not opposed to the notion of protecting animals from unnecessary suffering at the hands of weirdo individuals who get their kicks from mutilating animals, the idea of spieciesm is nonsense. It assumes a level of equality between spiecies that clearly defies reality.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap