Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Isaac's 4th reply, Part I

Expand Messages
  • wclark1046
    >> Human is a biological category, not a moral one. >> Actually, it s both. >>You are entitled to nothing just because you are
    Message 1 of 6476 , Feb 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>"Human" is a biological category, not a
      moral one. >><br><br>Actually, it's
      both.<br><br>>>You are entitled to nothing just because you are
      human, just as you are entitled to nothing just for
      being an animal.>><br><br>I most certainly am.
      Read tne Constitution.<br><br>>> Perhaps being
      human strongly correlates with reasons to have rights,
      but I see no moral philosophy that could justify
      granting moral rights intrinsically just because of a
      particular species membership (or any other biological
      category membership).>><br><br>I can't tell you how
      glad I am that yours is a minority view, Isaac. Taken
      to its extreme, that could be used to justify all
      manner of
      atrocity.<br><br><snip><br><br>>>Ward, good for you for recognizing this crucial
      distinction. The way I see it, suffering happens at the level
      of individuals. You want people to treat YOU
      morally, YOU get angry when YOUR rights are violated. The
      individual is a very important entity, and should be
      respected as such. >><br><br>You also seem to be
      fixated on the concept of "suffering." Why? What
      "suffering" are you referring to?<br><br>>>To represent
      an individual as just part of a large group is the
      best bridge to atrocity- no one cares about
      populations because no one can empathize with
      them.>><br><br>Nice platitude, but it won't fly. It is because we
      care about populations of animals that we look at the
      big picture.<br><br>>> This is why Susanne
      Sommers always shows us individual starving kids, not
      numeric figures of starvation or panned shots of
      thousands of suffering kids where you can't make out
      anyone's faces.>><br><br>And her efforts ultimately
      make things
      worse.<br><br><snip><br><br>>>Non-shared end: I mean that the individual who is paying the
      price- who is being used as the means- gets nothing of
      the rewards- the end.>><br><br>Ok,
      so?<br><br>>> Societies have always found a way to exploit the
      powerless, and have often justified it morally. But what no
      one can do is discount the value and importance of
      sympathy in (at least) human motivation. There is no
      rational reason to discount it. Can you name
      one?>><br><br>You're wandering afield. Oh what value is your sympathy
      when it's misplaced, what of your compassion when you
      embrace an agenda that ultimately does more harm than
      good? <br><br>>>And given the lack of a good
      reason to discount it, the only way such exploitation is
      accepted by societies at large is by desensitization and
      ignorance- ignorance that the victims do indeed possess the
      characteristics that will evoke sympathy from us- and a desire
      not to harm- if we let
      them.>><br><br>Perspective. You claim society is "desensitized." I claim that
      you're being hypersensitive.
    • whitewolf2025
      Here s a new debate topic - animal rights v. animal welfare. Excuse me if it s already been taken. I m just bored and need something to do. Personally, I
      Message 6476 of 6476 , Feb 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's a new debate topic - animal rights v.
        animal welfare. Excuse me if it's already been taken.
        I'm just bored and need something to do. Personally,
        I support animal welfare. I think groups like PETA
        and HSUS definately need to sort out some problems -
        don't think I that I think adopting animals and
        everything is wrong, because I adopted a dog from our local
        shelter last Feb., but look at the statistics (found from
        <a href=http://littlegems.hypermart.net/1/ARA.html target=new>http://littlegems.hypermart.net/1/ARA.html</a>) - PETA sent Rodney Coronado's "support
        committee", the guy who bombed the animal research place,
        $45,200, which is 15 times as much as they donate to
        animal shelters every year. Less than .03% ($5,000)of
        PETA's $13.4 million dollar budget was given to shelter
        spay/neuter programs in the US. 90% of PETA's donation money
        was spent on it's new satellite offices in Germany.
        HSUS does not operate a single shelter, even though
        they have a 40 million dollar budget.That's enough to
        operate at least one good shelter in every state, plus
        they'd have enough money left over to feed, spay,
        neuter, and save the lives of thousands of dogs and cats
        every year. But they did manage to pay it's president
        and vice president a combined amount of $446,882.
        Something seems a little fishy, maybe they're really not
        devoted to animal rights, just lots of $?<br>Whitewolf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.