General

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

gravyten577 — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:02:16 GMT

What do people think about inhumane butchering and skinning animals alive? In a libertarian society if a business was perceived as being unnecessarily brutal would they be embargoed, thus encouraging more humane methods.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

Clayton — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:27:48 GMT

@limitgov: Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't being hostile, I was flabbergasted as I didn't realize you were restricting "animals" to mean only pets/domesticated animals.

Clayton -

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

gotlucky — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:26:23 GMT

Clayton, you are heartless. Those are violent animals, and we should ostracize them at the very least.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

limitgov — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:25:52 GMT

@limitgov: WTF, are you serious?? So, I suppose, according to you, we "should" starve all lions, wolves, ant-eaters, etc. to death???

Clayton -"

I've never seen hostility from you before, Clayton. This is unusual. No, I would never suggest that. I guess the context of my last answer was taken out of context. The user was talking about an owner's dog killing a cat, or something....and I was merely thinking of that situation. If you had a dog that was killing people's cats, you would want to prevent that from happening.

As far as nature's way, animals kill. That is nature's way. That is perfectly fine.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

Clayton — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:19:40 GMT

@limitgov: WTF, are you serious?? So, I suppose, according to you, we "should" starve all lions, wolves, ant-eaters, etc. to death???

Clayton -

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

limitgov — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:09:37 GMT

"Do you think it is right if an animal destroys another animal?"

If it can be prevented, then I suppose try and prevent it. I wouldn't kill an animal because it killed another animal, though.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

gravyten577 — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:16:46 GMT

A friend posted this on their facebook page, it is very graphic the Chinese fur trade. PETA is a stupid organization though I don't see how they think they are going to stop anything

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4547148485974&set=vb.144430455596216&type=3&permPage=1

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

banned — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:39:25 GMT

well without a biological understanding of what governs rational faculty this is pretty much a speculative philosophy. Kant really just assumed animals cannot universalize maxims because they cannot communicate on a meaningful level with human philosophers.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

vive la insurrection — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:41:22 GMT

Challange:

Link 3 conversations about rights on any public political message board that aren't batshit crazy.

It can be done, but it isn't easy.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

Aristophanes — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:42:11 GMT

This conversation started on a stupid premise and now it has evolved into one of the stupidest conversations I have ever seen.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

Vanitas Nomen — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:36:36 GMT

"I don't think it is right to destroy an animal."

Do you think it is right if an animal destroys another animal?
For instance, my neighbor's dog will kill stray cats(and leave them to rot, that is he doesn't kill the cat for survival) if they happen to find themselves on the grounds.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

dude6935 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:57:29 GMT

I tend to agree. I think if A and B are capable of cooperation, then they have rights with respect to one another. This is regardless of species. As long as cooperation is possible, rights exist. That is what argumentation is after all, basic cooperation.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

limitgov — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:47:49 GMT

"Ownership implies the right to destroy. So if you think it is morally right to destroy an animal, then it is probably right to own it, and vise versa."

I don't think it is right to destroy an animal. I do it occasionally with insects, but I certainly don't think it is right with more intelligent animals.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

dude6935 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:43:58 GMT

My question should have been, is it moral to take ownership of an animal?

Ownership implies the right to destroy. So if you think it is morally right to destroy an animal, then it is probably right to own it, and vise versa.

Re: Why is It ok to Own an Animal, but not a Human?

limitgov — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:36:07 GMT

We've had quite a few threads on animal rights in the past. The defining distinction is the ability to argue. If someone or something is not able to argue (e.g. a young child, a senile person, a comatose person, a mentally retarded person, an insane person, etc.), then they are a legal non-entity, that is, they are not able to "stand at law". They are incompetent. Hence, in order for them to have rights, someone who can stand at law (competent) must be willing to advocate on behalf of the incompetent individual.

However, we must be clear that, in terms of "rights", the advocate is only ever speaking of his own rights. For example, let's say Alice beats her dog. Let's say that Bob decides to become a legal advocate for Alice's dog. Bob sues Alice and claims that her beating of the dog is unlawful. The only basis on which Bob can make this claim is that he must show how Alice is violating his rights in the dog's welfare. This means he must show that he actually has such rights. -Clayton"

My question should have been, is it moral to take ownership of an animal?