Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 394: Espionage a Trois

(+) Yeah! (+)

what the fuck

Elon got owned so hard yesterday hes dropping the Twitter lawsuit and going through with the purchase, lol.

Dancedreamer posted...

Do you get why it should be illegal to hurt humans?

Because we have created a society where it is detrimental to the entire concept if we are allowed to hurt each other without provocation

Rights come from cultures of people figuring out how to live together for the benefit of all. There are no such thing as natural rights.

yes. there are no natural rights. rights are a concept humans created. and it is reasonable to create rights that serve a deeper purpose than a borderline sociopathic desire to protect society. we are PEOPLE, not drones that serve a hive at the expense of any other consideration, moving on a psychohistorical treadmill we have no say over

But other animals arent people, and are in fact moving on a psychohistorical treadmill they have no say over

I guess my question is, what deeper purpose does granting rights to animals serve?

Jakyl25 posted...

But other animals arent people, and are in fact moving on a psychohistorical treadmill they have no say over

Maybe, but things like dogs have emotions that we can very easily understand.

I mean I kind of get what JaKyL is saying even though I don't agree with it. Just think about the fact that we're allowed to lay out various traps to maim, poison, and kill animals in our yards and homes and there's nothing illegal about it.

FoolFantastic posted...

How did someone manage to outdo "animal research is just a thing everyone assumes everyone does" as the most baffling statement here?

Yeah I was not expecting this big of a plot twist

It really shouldn't need to be explained that there is a difference between killing an animal for food or to protect your home than there is to harm an animal just because you feel like it.

Jakyl25 posted...

I guess my question is, what deeper purpose does granting rights to animals serve?

Pain is bad. We should not inflict unnecessary pain on anything that can feel pain because that means something that can feel pain felt pain and that's bad, unethical, immoral, whatever fucking descriptor you want. You can make it a spectrum if you want and throw in nuance, but I don't understand how the basic concept of empathy is that hard to get across

like maybe you don't experience empathy but you have to understand by now other people do, right? the only other conclusion I can draw is you're a religious extremist that thinks only humans have souls and that's the absolute dividing line between men and beasts

Only humans have reason, and thats the dividing line between man and beast

you say pain is bad but that implies a universal morality outside of the rights we grant as a society. Where does the concept that pain is bad come from if you dont believe in natural rights?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Maybe, but things like dogs have emotions that we can very easily understand.

Only because they evolved to make us understand them

Jakyl25 posted...

Only humans have reason, and thats the dividing line between man and beast

you say pain is bad but that implies a universal morality outside of the rights we grant as a society. Where does the concept that pain is bad come from if you dont believe in natural rights?

and reason has nothing to do with the ability to sense and experience and feel

Jakyl. I speak the same language as you and we come from comparable cultures. Please stop pretending this is a foreign concept. It really looks like you reasoned yourself so deep into a philosophical rabbithole you can't see the light anymore. I don't have to believe in a concept of natural rights or God granting morality or anything to look at an animal in pain and think "Huh, I wish it wasn't suffering".

Who fucking cares at the ultimate root cause of where that belief comes from? I'm not even going to entertain that fucking argument anymore. Your apparent slack-jawed amazement and incomprehension that people have this belief and would then come to different conclusions than you personally leading them to enact laws is as much bullshit as I can tolerate now

Accept that the answer to the question "why are there laws against animal cruelty?" is "people have empathy and don't want animals to experience unneeded suffering (*caveats **kwargs)" and that you lack that empathy[?] and let's be done

"the dividing line between man and beast" is such a weird phrase tbh

Xeybozn posted...

Good point. We all know that everybody who might vote for a Republican makes that choice solely because they are creatures of pure evil who are actively trying to increase the amount of suffering on Earth.

you said it not me

That last paragraph makes total sense. I obviously disagree, but there are plenty of other laws I disagree with.

I originally asked for the logic behind the laws, and I guess the logic is people value animals not having to feel unnecessary pain more than they value whatever psychological or material gain the person/people causing the pain are getting from it

Fair statement?

I dont play Monster Hunter games, but are there people in that universe who are like yo this culture is fucked up

Jakyl25 posted...

Only humans have reason, and thats the dividing line between man and beast

But does lack of reasoning justify denying non-human animals moral consideration?

Grimlyn posted...

"the dividing line between man and beast" is such a weird phrase tbh

I recently read an Expanse short story where a similar concept was used with somebody arguing that animal testing is less moral than testing on people. They probably used a better phrase but idk I talk weird

Jakyl25 posted...

That last paragraph makes total sense. I obviously disagree, but there are plenty of other laws I disagree with.

I originally asked for the logic behind the laws, and I guess the logic is people value animals not having to feel unnecessary pain more than they value whatever psychological or material gain the person/people causing the pain are getting from it

Fair statement?

yeah. keep in mind "unnecessary" carries a lot of weight and means different things to different people

No offense Jakyl, but Im getting a strong you cant have morals without God vibe from your position and at a certain point you cant really argue with someone who genuinely believes that because their position on existence is just so different.

Buffy_Summers posted...

But does lack of reasoning justify denying non-human animals moral consideration?

In my mind yes, at least legally.

You dont want to hear my views on post birth abortion!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

No offense Jakyl, but Im getting a strong you cant have morals without God vibe from your position and at a certain point you cant really argue with someone who genuinely believes that because their position on existence is just so different.

Well morals definitely arent real, in that sense. Rational creatures collectively define morality whole cloth.

Saw a poll while walking past a TV playing a news station that Oz has closed the gap since July

Jakyl25 posted...

In my mind yes, at least legally.

Okay but then why do Republicans get to vote

Jakyl25 posted...

Well morals definitely arent real, in that sense. Rational creatures collectively define morality whole cloth.

Wouldn't that make the morals quite real after they are defined?

red_sox_777 posted...

Wouldn't that make the morals quite real after they are defined?

Define real.

Its the inverse of the question whether we create math or we discover math. We create morality, and it only exists ephemerally as long as we do. Like a language

Jakyl25 posted...

you say pain is bad but that implies a universal morality outside of the rights we grant as a society. Where does the concept that pain is bad come from if you dont believe in natural rights?

ok what is jakyl smoking

Pain is the evolutionary and universal "this is not okay" sign!

Do we know where the line is between animals that feel pain and those that dont?

or even animals who are aware theyre alive and those that dont?

Jakyl25 posted...

Define real.

Its the inverse of the question whether we create math or we discover math. We create morality, and it only exists ephemerally as long as we do. Like a language

We discover math by creating it. It is real for all times and places.

Jakyl25 posted...

Only humans have reason, and thats the dividing line between man and beast

I don't think this is even true unless you mean, like, "higher reason", in which case the argument is kind of circular

red_sox_777 posted...

We discover math by creating it. It is real for all times and places.

Right, which is why I said this is the inverse of that

I mean its true that some lower forms of life do not feel pain. But a simple worm is already quite capable of that feeling if only as a simple reflex.

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

ok what is jakyl smoking

Jakyl is just positing subjective morality it's nothing too complicated. I mean, my take on this matches up with NFUN in that I don't think the root cause matters so much as the fact that clearly we as a society have decided that animal cruelty is bad and should be illegal (caveats again, etc.)

Ok, so does that mean the only reason we feel more empathy for a dog in pain than a bug is because of how they express it?

Jakyl25 posted...

Where does the concept that pain is bad come from if you dont believe in natural rights?

From stubbing my fucking toe

Jakyl25 posted...

Ok, so does that mean the only reason we feel more empathy for a dog in pain than a bug is because of how they express it?

Also size. Think about people who dont want to squish a big bug because they can feel the innards getting crushed.

Thorn posted...

Jakyl is just positing subjective morality it's nothing too complicated.

but why?

i'm a bit confused on how jakyl brought the argument from "dr. oz is an idiot" to "why is pain bad"

I cant speak for others, but I at least feel somewhat guilty when I smash a mosquito against the wall.

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

but why?

i'm a bit confused on how jakyl brought the argument from "dr. oz is an idiot" to "why is pain bad"

It was basically "Dr. Oz is evil because he causes pain" to "why is pain bad"

Jakyl25 posted...

Ok, so does that mean the only reason we feel more empathy for a dog in pain than a bug is because of how they express it?

Generally, when someone squashes a bug, it is because the bug is being a nuisance and there is no real method of getting it to stop being a nuisance (though some people do put in effort to get the bug back outside). Additionally, many bugs historically tend to spread disease, so letting them just exist in your home can be dangerous. Like, you squash roaches in your home because they spread salmonella, etc.

Beyond that, I do think most of us look down on people who kill bugs just because they want to for fun. It's psychopathic behavior.

Catch & release of a spider is a pretty typical cliche to demonstrate a character being a kind person.

I feel like sometimes its easier to get a bug to fly back outside than to squash it <_<

I guess I have psychopathic tendencies them because I enjoy when I get the chance to; for example, put a live bug in the toilet and then flush it

When I was a kid I would split grasshoppers in half and then try to reassemble them wrong just to see what would happen (the answer is nothing)

Maybe I should go back to my therapist!

Jakyl25 posted...

Well morals definitely arent real, in that sense.

Social constructs do not have to be metaphysically or empirically "true" to be "real." They're social constructs. That's a real thing.

I dont like to kill stuff if I can avoid it. I put spiders back outside a lot because as gross as they are they still have a right to live too. I just get a glass cup, piece of paper and catch them that way since theyre almost always on a flat surface