US dentist 'regrets' killing lion...

[gowlerk 1,944]

Quote

Maybe in Canada you believe your rights were given to you by the Queen. In America we believe that our rights were given to us by our Creator, and are inalienable. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the rights that we have ceded to the government.

Unforrtunately, many supposedly patriotic Americans don't understand that.

Your constitution was written by men, not God. You are the one lacking understanding.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,456]

>That is called poaching, and it is a crime against the State.

Nope. If you kill a manatee and just leave it there (i.e. you are not poaching the animal) you can still be found guilty of a crime. There are far more laws in the US that protect animals than just poaching laws.

>An entity can not have rights without responsibilities.

Of course they can. Newborn babies have rights. They have no responsibilities.

>They can and do torture each other in the most gruesome ways, with no
>consequences.

As have people.

[gowlerk 1,944]

Quote

Nope. If you kill a manatee and just leave it there (i.e. you are not poaching the animal) you can still be found guilty of a crime. There are far more laws in the US that protect animals than just poaching laws.

It is still poaching even if the kill is only for the thrill. Or in other words it is a crime against the laws of man, not against the manatee.

Quote

Of course they can. Newborn babies have rights. They have no responsibilities.

But their rights flow from being human, meaning they are a part of a society that has responsibilities. Even though they are too immature to actually be responsible. Or, society will sometimes hold the parents responsible, like when the 5 year shoots her sibling.

Quote

As have people.

People risk being held responsible, animals do not. The bear that attacks a human will typically be killed, but not for retaliation, only for prevention.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,456]

>It is still poaching even if the kill is only for the thrill.

Again, no, it's not. You can break poaching laws and you will go to jail. You can break the Animal Welfare Act laws of 1966 and go to jail, even though that is not poaching. You can break the California laws against animal abandonment and go to jail, even though that is not poaching.

In other words, there are a great many laws that protect animals - and most of them are not written as property crimes against another. Even if you own the animal, you can be prosecuted for being cruel to the animal or abandoning the animal. You are committing a crime against the animal, one that violates the applicable law.

>Or in other words it is a crime against the laws of man, not against the
>manatee.

Every (prosecutable) crime we see violates a law of man. There are, of course, things we call "crimes" against both humans and animals that do not, strictly speaking, run afoul of any laws.

>But their rights flow from being human, meaning they are a part of a society
>that has responsibilities.

Right. Just as animals can be put down for attacking humans - i.e. violating the implicit duties of a sheepdog (for example) to its owner.

> Or, society will sometimes hold the parents responsible, like when the 5 year
>shoots her sibling.

And often society holds owners responsible for the actions of their animals.

>The bear that attacks a human will typically be killed, but not for retaliation,
>only for prevention.

Exactly. Just as we sometimes kill humans that attack other humans - not for retaliation, but for prevention of future crimes.

[gowlerk 1,944]

Those are all laws the regulate how people must treat animals. And there are good points you are making that laws do provide protections to animals in some cases. But it does not alter the fact that animals don't have rights. I suppose the idea of "rights" is rather abstract in the end, and could have different meanings to different people. But the concept has absolutely no meaning to the animals. No animal, not even highly intelligent ones have ever been known to state or request or stand up for rights. It is a human concept. And nowhere in any of the laws you are citing is any reference made to rights. That is because rights are a human term that we only apply to ourselves, in the legal sphere.

We can and should behave in a way that infers rights to many animals in most circumstances. But in the end, they have none. And indeed, our own are often subject to being arbitrarily modified, suspended, or even taken away.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

Of course the Constitution was written by men. It would be hard for God to write it, since he doesn't exist.

The rights that people have they derive from being people. Not because some benevolent government grants them rights.

You can make the semantic argument about rights all you want. If you believe that the only rights people have are those granted them by their government, then you'd be correct. But since you are wrong on that very basic point, your whole argument is flawed.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,944]

Quote

The rights that people have they derive from being people. Not because some benevolent government grants them rights.

There is no force in the universe that gives humans natural rights. We have rights only because we are organized into societies that we collectively agree to be part of. We choose to give ourselves rights, and we also choose to be ruled by governments. They only exist because we are evolved to live in collective groups with rules. We only have the rights that we will fight for. None of them are given or natural.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

So I understand your position, are you saying that the only rights a person has are those granted that person by their government?

- Dan G

[jakee 1,267]

Quote

That is because rights are a human term that we only apply to ourselves, in the legal sphere.

But again:
A) Why?
B) Says who?

You're not actually making an argument here, you're just stating an opinion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[CornishChris 5]

For another perspective on the killing of the lion this is worth a listen:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/

It's about a person who paid to kill a rhino. Just to be clear I am totally against this but it is interesting to hear a relatively balanced piece on it, rather than the hysteria.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[gowlerk 1,944]

jakee

Quote

That is because rights are a human term that we only apply to ourselves, in the legal sphere.

But again:
A) Why?
B) Says who?

You're not actually making an argument here, you're just stating an opinion.

I suppose you are correct, on one level. Namely that rights in themselves are only ephemeral, and therefore can be called opinions. The concept of rights is a human construct. We have no inherent rights, just as life is not fair. That is not just an opinion, that is a fact. We do not for instance have a "right to live". The world could end in a cataclysm tomorrow and we could all be dead. No "rights" can change that.

In a legal sense we have rights. They are given us by our society, most often by a government. But if you are in a tribe without a "government" you would still have rights by the conventions of your society. But they would not be absolute. And those are all facts.

We give each other rights. By law, and by practice. No other force in the universe confers any rights upon us. None. We only have the rights that we agree to give each other, and we sometimes have even those removed arbitrarily.

We could agree to give animals rights, but I know of no society that has. It's hard enough to hang on to our own rights.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DougH 270]

CornishChris

For another perspective on the killing of the lion this is worth a listen:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/

It's about a person who paid to kill a rhino. Just to be clear I am totally against this but it is interesting to hear a relatively balanced piece on it, rather than the hysteria.

I was just going to share that link. I was listening to it last night, I thought it was balanced and well done piece.

An interesting fact that was claimed is that the animals targeted with approved hunting were older males that are no longer breeding AND were so aggressive that they were killing younger breeding black rhino's.

So this raised money for conservation, for game wardens, and anti-poaching units AND was potentially protecting other breeding pairs.

This guy could have just put 350,000 in as a donation and not taken the animal, but he contributed more to conservation that the people on social media whose idea of animal conservation was to send hate messages, including wanting his children and wife to be raped and killed while he watched.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[DanG 1]

Hmm, so we should stop complaining about human rights abuses by ISIS, since those people don't have any rights. Guess that makes killing non-Muslims okay, because they don't have a right to live anyway.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,944]

DanG

Hmm, so we should stop complaining about human rights abuses by ISIS, since those people don't have any rights. Guess that makes killing non-Muslims okay, because they don't have a right to live anyway.

Uh....no to all of that. What I said is that we have the rights we give ourselves through our social constructs. I demand my rights, and I also expect that the rights of others will be respected. But I understand that my rights, and your rights must be defended. And that even when they are they can disappear in a blink.

This is actually a debate about the rights of animals. My point is that we have not given rights to them, and they have not asked for them. It would be anthropomorphic for us to assume that they even want or have a concept of rights. That's why they don't have any. Society has a right to impose limits on how we treat them. But that is a limit on our rights, not an extension of rights to animals.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,456]

>What I said is that we have the rights we give ourselves through our social
>constructs.

Fair enough. So the social constructs we create (laws, rules, social mores) are what define our rights. That's a more practical approach than the natural-rights approach, the idea that everyone has inherent rights (from God, or from nature, or whatever) that government can only remove.

>This is actually a debate about the rights of animals. My point is that we have
>not given rights to them . . .

If we give rights to entities through laws, then we have indeed given them specific rights by passing laws protecting specific rights (freedom from abuse etc)

[gowlerk 1,944]

Quote

If we give rights to entities through laws, then we have indeed given them specific rights by passing laws protecting specific rights (freedom from abuse etc)

I would phrase it that we give certain protections to animals. not rights. (actually, largely to certain animals. Even the law you cited in an earlier post makes many exceptions) In many ways it is semantics whether you can call these protections rights. But in all the laws you cite, the word "rights" is not used. There was a NY court case where a lower court did allow rights to a chimpanzee, but it was very quickly overturned.

We do well when we push for more humane treatment of animals. But when we push up against the abstract concept of rights we are well beyond the bounds of our past experience.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,456]

>I would phrase it that we give certain protections to animals. not rights.

OK. But per your earlier definition, then we give ourselves protections, not rights, as well.

>In many ways it is semantics whether you can call these protections rights.

Probably true.

>But in all the laws you cite, the word "rights" is not used.

That's true of most laws that pertain to humans as well.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>I would phrase it that we give certain protections to animals. not rights.

OK. But per your earlier definition, then we give ourselves protections, not rights, as well.

>In many ways it is semantics whether you can call these protections rights.

Probably true.

>But in all the laws you cite, the word "rights" is not used.

That's true of most laws that pertain to humans as well.

Isn't that because there are only a very few rights we have been bestowed?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

My point is that we have not given rights to them, and they have not asked for them. It would be anthropomorphic for us to assume that they even want or have a concept of rights. That's why they don't have any. We can choose to impose limits on how we treat them. But that is a self imposed expectation of our behavior, not an extension of rights to animals.

This ^ as modified


at this point the counters just seem to be pointless semantics or gratuitous SC abuse, or constant confusion that law is required to control behavior or that rights are only codified by law rather than law being a reflection of the rights we accord to each other is only one means and one of the weaker ones - and those are less part of the discussion, as insight on the authors' mindsets

mostly semantics

YMMV
IMHO
RSVP
PDQ


and the strawman that someone who refuses to "call" it rights rather than something else must be an animal abuser is just nonsense - several examples here despite people stating otherwise about their intent


Frankly, the use of the term "animal rights" is a lazy oversimplification of something that is actually much more evolved and laudable. It would be great if we avoided the catch phrase and really understood what we are trying to accomplish in the protections and limitations we impose on ourselves for their sakes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,456]

>Isn't that because there are only a very few rights we have been bestowed?

If you follow the rationale that laws bestow rights (which is the opposite view of "we all have inherent rights and laws just limit them") then we have a great many rights bestowed by all our laws. Not sure I follow that rationale though.

[jakee 1,267]

Quote

at this point the counters just seem to be pointless semantics or gratuitous SC abuse,

So is his argument.

You evidently agree with this "My point is that we have not given rights to them, and they have not asked for them." but why? The first part is simply an opinion which carries no more weight than the opposite opinion, and the second part is irrelevant.

Quote

and the strawman that someone who refuses to "call" it rights rather than something else must be an animal abuser is just nonsense - several examples here despite people stating otherwise about their intent

You just made that up. There are zero such examples in this thread.

I wish you could argue your position without smearing the other side like that. Making people think your opponent is being mean isn't the same thing as showing he or she is wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

edit:

really no point extending any branches in the forums here

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,267]

Quote

pick one and argue it, enjoy - I tend to the point of view that rights are a comprehended arrangement -

Hang on, so now it's ok to pick either side, you just tend to favour the first one, but half an hour ago it was that the second one couldn't be defended by anything but 'pointless semantics or gratuitous SC abuse'?

Quote

Aside - i reread the posts that seemed accusatory - they are a bit more sideways than I thought. I'll give benefit of the doubt to the posters that the jabs weren't intentional and I'll withdraw the strawman accusation.

A bit more sideways? Benefit of the doubt?

There is no doubt. The posts you accused the pro animal rights posters of making do not exist. The strawman was asleep in his hayloft, entirely undisturbed by the current discussion.

Quote

but I'm a bit jaded at the debate style here lately,

Then do your part, and refrain from the gratuitous smears

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,944]

billvon

>I would phrase it that we give certain protections to animals. not rights.

OK. But per your earlier definition, then we give ourselves protections, not rights, as well.

>In many ways it is semantics whether you can call these protections rights.

Probably true.

>But in all the laws you cite, the word "rights" is not used.

That's true of most laws that pertain to humans as well.

I'm going to leave it here myself. Mostly because I don't feel I have anything more to contribute. I've enjoyed the discourse though. It hasn't changed the way I feel about animals, but I has made me examine just what I understand the idea of rights to be.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[turtlespeed 212]

[url http://www.americanews.com/story/social/2015/10/21/dog-makes-same-4-mile-trip-every-single-day-deliver-important-package-video] Proof that animals do not deserve rights[/url ]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun