Freedom of Life - Life without Freedom?

As it is of today, we are holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans. I wan't to be able to hit my dog without having animal activists on my back, I want to be able to watch bullfights on TV without beeing stamped as a horrific human (People watch far more grotesque stuff on the news), and I want to have seal skin on my coat if that makes me warm.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by RiCo
As it is of today, we are holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans. I wan't to be able to hit my dog without having animal activists on my back, I want to be able to watch bullfights on TV without beeing stamped as a horrific human (People watch far more grotesque stuff on the news), and I want to have seal skin on my coat if that makes me warm.

i think torturing animals is bad and shouldn't be allowed. but i'm not particularly against bullfighting, dogfighting, and PENISfighting.

i'm glad the activists keep you from hitting your dog, but some things they do seems kinder stupid. like they are pissed about the people who play tic-tac-toe with chickens. i mean, wtf? there's bunch of examples of stupid.

odd to me is how we all make fun of koreans et al for eating dogs. why is it that eating dogs, cats, and horses is disgusting, but eating any other mamals is cool? the koreans are desperately trying to end their dog-eating ways because they are embarassed, but i don't get why.

They eat dogs in China too.

[Marilyn Manson]

We do value animal life above that of human life sometimes. Can't see why anyone would want to go around making an arse out of themselves by generally being uneccesarily cruel to an animal, though. I can't see the pleasure in observing bullfighting or that sort of thing.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
We do value animal life above that of human life sometimes. Can't see why anyone would want to go around making an arse out of themselves by generally being uneccesarily cruel to an animal, though. I can't see the pleasure in observing bullfighting or that sort of thing.

Much in the same way that I can't stand to watch sports in general. I don't think it should be banned just because I don't like sports.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
Much in the same way that I can't stand to watch sports in general. I don't think it should be banned just because I don't like sports.

Mabye most people disagree with you. Hence this may lead to it's being banned.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Mabye most people disagree with you. Hence this may lead to it's being banned.

I got atleast 50 million spanish people upp my sleves that say's your wrong. Care to make a bet?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
I got atleast 50 million spanish people upp my sleves that say's your wrong. Care to make a bet?

Please re-read my post and look out for the word 'may'.

Although that's diverting from the central issue, which is (British) society will probably disagree with you on many other issues, such as hitting dogs and things like that. This is why they're against the law.

[Marilyn Manson]

My suggestion: move to Spain or some other such nation that is 'enlightened' in this regard.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Please re-read my post and look out for the word 'may'.

Although that's diverting from the central issue, which is (British) society will probably disagree with you on many other issues, such as hitting dogs and things like that. This is why they're against the law.

Okies.. Sorry.. I'm not British.. I'm 50/50 Spanish Norwegian..

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
Okies.. Sorry.. I'm not British.. I'm 50/50 Spanish Norwegian..

So where exactly do you live, some place where hitting dogs is banned, against the wishes of the enraged masses?

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
So where exactly do you live, some place where hitting dogs is banned, against the wishes of the enraged masses?

Nice misquotation sir. Altho I have to accept that the laws applicable is based on geography, how are we going to proceed in urging human rights before all, if such concepts still rule?

I want freedom of life wherever I might travel. Steal an orange in the middle-east and you go home with one hand.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
Nice misquotation sir.

It would have been if it had posed as a quotation in the first place.

Originally posted by RiCo
how are we going to proceed in urging human rights before all, if such concepts still rule?

Because animal welfare is up to individual states, whereas human rights are a fundamental set of agreed international principles that all states should adheer to?

You said yourself that humans should be above animals.

Originally posted by RiCo
I want freedom of life wherever I might travel.

Tough. Laws differ.

Originally posted by RiCo
Steal an orange in the middle-east and you go home with one hand.

Then don't steal a ****ing orange in the middle east.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Because animal welfare is up to individual states, whereas human rights are a fundamental set of agreed international principles that all states should adheer to?

How can this match =(Look for *) I don't have a dog, simply because I don't want a pet. And I would not hit it if I had, altho statistics say that more than 85% of dog owners has/will hit their dog during some phase of the ownership.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Tough. Laws differ.

*Based on human rights, they should not.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Then don't steal a ****ing orange in the middle east.

We are talking about the punishment, not the actual crime tho?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
altho statistics say that more than 85% of dog owners has/will hit their dog during some phase of the ownership.

Source?

Not that I can see how stats about the frequency of dog-beatings legitimises violence towards dogs.

Originally posted by RiCo
*Based on human rights, they should not.

No. Human rights are what states have agreed to uphold and adheer to. In effect, they are not laws, they are principles. Thus, states that genuinely believe in such principles attempt to adheer to them.

They are not being forced on states as a 'legal bind.' They are designed to protect what should not even, in a perfect world, have to be protected.

Originally posted by RiCo
We are talking about the punishment, not the actual crime tho?

I was merely observing that people should know that they run the risk of cruel punishments in the Arab world, should they commit crimes, which is basic common sense.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
No. Human rights are what states have agreed to uphold and adheer to. In effect, they are not laws, they are principles. Thus, states that genuinely believe in such principles attempt to adheer to them. They are not being forced on states as a 'legal bind.' They are designed to protect what should not even, in a perfect world, have to be protected.

Principles are very much useless, if not everyone support them. They will make equality unvalid, wich I believe, is one of those very principles.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I was merely observing that people should know that they run the risk of cruel punishments in the Arab world, should they commit crimes, which is basic common sense.

Ohh the humor.

[Sandsnake]

the question of course, is how do you intend to ENFORCE equal human rights around the world. The US was declaimed worldwide for using "the taliban violate human rights" as a justification for deposing them..The general reaction was "it's not our business."

The only way to force that concept down the world's throat is through military domination, which in itself brings pain, suffering, and all those "human rights violations" people so laud. To truly impose law on a land, it must first be conquered. This has been proven time and again.

Oh, and I remember reading an article several years ago concerning the secret service catching a woman intending to assassinate Reagan. Apparently, she was contracted to kill him and several others by an animal rights group. Extremists are wierd. It's as ironic as Abortion extremists committing murder...

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
The US was declaimed worldwide for using "the taliban violate human rights" as a justification for deposing them..

excuse!=justification

you wanted an excuse
maybe rightly so, but don't pretend it wasn't

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Ragnarak
excuse!=justification

you wanted an excuse
maybe rightly so, but don't pretend it wasn't

we didn't need an excuse. And besides, the argument "it's not our business" != "that's just an excuse."

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
we didn't need an excuse. And besides, the argument "it's not our business" != "that's just an excuse."

no sorry

what i meant was that saying you were 'declaimed' for using their human rights record against them isn't quite the case

you were 'declaimed' because you pretended that was the reason when it was only an excuse

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
the question of course, is how do you intend to ENFORCE equal human rights around the world. The US was declaimed worldwide for using "the taliban violate human rights" as a justification for deposing them..The general reaction was "it's not our business."

Something like this?
USADooD1: Those Afghans just sponsored an attack on our country
USADooD2: Clearly we need to come up with some excuse to invade them
USADooD1: I know! We'll say they violate human rights!

meanwhile, in yurop:

Yurop1: Those vile Americans think that violations of human rights in Afghania (you know, the country that just blew up a couple buildings in their biggest city) gives them a right to intervene!
Yurop2: That is so wrong! Human rights violations are none of their business! And they are fat and lazy and stinky and loud!
Yurop1: We just need to speak out and tell the world that intervening in foreign countries over human rights violations is wrong!

{six months later}

Yurop1: I heard a guy had seen a friend that knew about a video that showed Americans committing war crimes in Afghania. But he said it might also have been a Hong Kong bootleg version of 'Fight Club'
Yurop2: With human rights at stake, we have no choice but to intervene. Lets start an 'international criminal court.'

tbh i can't wait until this whole tub of crap shows up in an elementery school history textbook.

I mourne. Morality is dead.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by RiCo
As it is of today, we are holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans. I wan't to be able to hit my dog without having animal activists on my back, I want to be able to watch bullfights on TV without beeing stamped as a horrific human

Please justify the statement that society holds the life of pets higehr than suffering humans. In ever case you provide, society holds the rights of humans higher: You cannot arbitrarily hit an human without justification, you cannot watch humans actually kill each other on TV for sport (though UFC is getting close) and you cannot skin humans and wear them.

Yes, animals are held to a high standard gainst unecessary cruelty. But it is an enormous stretch to say that they have more rights than humans.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Three_Eyes_Open
Someones going to mention euthanesia (i cant spell)

Which will get them nowhere. The reason most countries have laws against mercy-killings or assised suicide is because of the extremely high value that the state places on the preservation of human life, in some cases more than the preservation of human dignity. Right or wrong, that is the origin of these laws.

No such problems exist with putting animals to sleep.

[Vermillion]

Well, I am playing Devil's Advocate here, as I do not necessarily agree with this, but the principle here is that while things like dignity, and other rights are important, none is or ever can be as important as the right to preservation of life, and that you create a very dangerous precident whenever you set any other right above that one.

Human dignity is undefinable, and if you would put it above the right to life, it must be defined. Otherwise some woman who slips and loses her bra in public, thus being terribly embarrassed and robbed of dignity, has every right to take her own life.

Loss of dignity is an internal perception, and one of the reasons we do not allow mercy killing (or suicide) in most countries is that many thousands of things, from bad luck to mental illness to manipulation of others, can affect how we percieve our own self worth and dignity.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Human dignity is undefinable, and if you would put it above the right to life, it must be defined. Otherwise some woman who slips and loses her bra in public, thus being terribly embarrassed and robbed of dignity, has every right to take her own life.

You're not talking about a "right to life". You're talking about an obligation to be alive, irregardless of how miserable one's life might be.

But irrespective of that, forget dignity, or suffering, etc. Nothing is more important than freedom. People have the "right" to commit suicide. I can imagine of nothing more nightmarish than desiring to end my own life but not physically being able to (due to paralysis or whatever) and my family being unable to help due to legal constraints put on them.

Obviously if someone is brain damaged, etc and their family choose to terminate their life then that's a different matter to suicide.

[JonnyBGood]

I feel more sympathy for certain animals than I do for humans. A fair percentage of 'unhappy' humans can only blame themselves for what their lives are like.










PS Verm, have you considered that a person who wants to commit suicide, assuming they're beyond the age of freedom of choice, might actually benefit society through remaining alive. If they want to die, and we won't lose anything, who are we to stop them? Who is it benefitting?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

PS Verm, have you considered that a person who wants to commit suicide, assuming they're beyond the age of freedom of choice, might actually benefit society through remaining alive. If they want to die, and we won't lose anything, who are we to stop them? Who is it benefitting?

No.

I speak now as the boyfriend of a practicing psychiatrist. About 8-10% of people who try and commit suicide actually want to die, the remainder do it as a desperate act, a plea for help, an attempt to matter, a result of mental illness or internalised perspective, whatever. If someone TRULY wants to die, then it is incredibly easy to end your own life in about a million different ways.


Now then, if you can come up with a law which can effectively and safely differentiate the 10% from the 90%, then I will accept it. However since that is utterly impossible, then it must remain illegal to attempt suicide so that we can help these people from themselves.

Assisted suicide is the same. yes there are some people who truly want to die. There are others who through depression, malaise, mental illness, poor coping mechanisms, or any one of a millon other reasons are at a desperate time, from whch if given the chance they will recover.

See my point about a law on suicides. Thus, assisted suicide and mercy killing is a crime.


I give you one example. When I was 17, my appendix burst. The appendicitis was agonising, but when it burst I realised what actual suffering was. I would have done anything, taken anything, said anything to make the pain stop. Would I have consented to end my life? Probably not, but what about someone who feels that pain for more than a few hours? Are they really capable of making that kind of decision? Maybe the pain can be cured, maybe not, but at that point they are unfit to make a decision.


I am NOT saying mercy killing or euthenasia or suicide is ALWAYS the wrong thing and should be prevented ALL the time. But most of the time it is, and we have no way of telling the right from the wrong until afterwards. So its illegal.

[JonnyBGood]

We are all in utter agony this very second. Unimaginable suffering, far beyond comprehension. The sheer magnitude is impossible to imagine. However we do not notice this because everyone else is in the same situation. But our thought processes are affected regardless and our actions are influenced in a fashion which is unproductive. We should all commit suicide, as this is the solution to our suffering. (I just felt like writing that, don't take it too seriously as my contribution to the debate heh).




There are so many other things you could do. Perhaps a law whereby psychiatric help is provided, and a minimum time period stated, before one is given permission? Perhaps they truly should end their own lives. Certainly we cannot give an absolute guarantee, but absolutes are uncertain in all areas of law such as this, one cannot prove totally that someone has committed murder, we just prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[W]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
We are all in utter agony this very second. Unimaginable suffering, far beyond comprehension. The sheer magnitude is impossible to imagine. However we do not notice this because everyone else is in the same situation. But our thought processes are affected regardless and our actions are influenced in a fashion which is unproductive. We should all commit suicide, as this is the solution to our suffering. (I just felt like writing that, don't take it too seriously as my contribution to the debate heh).




There are so many other things you could do. Perhaps a law whereby psychiatric help is provided, and a minimum time period stated, before one is given permission? Perhaps they truly should end their own lives. Certainly we cannot give an absolute guarantee, but absolutes are uncertain in all areas of law such as this, one cannot prove totally that someone has committed murder, we just prove beyond reasonable doubt.

OMG you're stupid

Originally posted by Vermillion
Please justify the statement that society holds the life of pets higehr than suffering humans. In ever case you provide, society holds the rights of humans higher: You cannot arbitrarily hit an human without justification, you cannot watch humans actually kill each other on TV for sport (though UFC is getting close) and you cannot skin humans and wear them.

Yes, animals are held to a high standard gainst unecessary cruelty. But it is an enormous stretch to say that they have more rights than humans.

It's very simple. Look at the meat production for instance. Corn, wich we could use to save the whole continent of Africa, go to the steak production instead, wasting loads of energy on it's path to end upp in our bellys. We are greedy by default, not thinking about other humans, while if you do something as petty as hit a dog or arrange bullfights, then all of a sudden your the scum of the earth. I have shot a couple of kittens, and it's really no different than you killing a deer, except you eat the deer. Do not tell me it's justified by eating it, as we all know you can get well along without that delicate meat.









NO! I'm not a ****ing veggie! I'm just making a point.

Originally posted by Vermillion
-snip- I speak now as the boyfriend of a practicing psychiatrist. -snip-

Have you heard about the people who has an abnormal relationship to certain body parts/limbs? They alienized a leg, for instance. If I'm not very mistaken, they went to Scottland to get them removed, and afterwards claimed it was the best thing that could happen to them.

[xtrasyn]

fat burgers and mink coats > tofu and palladiums

Originally posted by xtrasyn
fat burgers and mink coats > tofu and palladiums

Fat burgers > Human Lives ?
Mink Coats > Human Lives ?

[Geeza]

Originally posted by RiCo
It's very simple. Look at the meat production for instance. Corn, wich we could use to save the whole continent of Africa, go to the steak production instead, wasting loads of energy on it's path to end upp in our bellys. We are greedy by default, not thinking about other humans,

That has nothing to do with "holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans"

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
Principles are very much useless, if not everyone support them.

Errr, nobody supports every principle out there. They are things that should be strived for, though.

Originally posted by RiCo
Ohh the humor.

Of what?

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by RiCo
Fat burgers > Human Lives ?
Mink Coats > Human Lives ?

Yes

especially some lives


[que serious mode]
Listen, I don't know if you have ever been in Africa, where a life means as much as, "hey, if I kill this guy and stand on him, I can see more of the military parade" and people die of aids and other diseases you would not have to miss a week for in europe.

Don't overvalue life. It sometimes is nothing more than breathing.

Originally posted by xtrasyn
Yes

especially some lives


[que serious mode]
Listen, I don't know if you have ever been in Africa, where a life means as much as, "hey, if I kill this guy and stand on him, I can see more of the military parade" and people die of aids and other diseases you would not have to miss a week for in europe.

Don't overvalue life. It sometimes is nothing more than breathing.

I don't. Au contrare; I say one human life is worth to us Europeans, as much as a dogs or a cats. I want to see Humans ontop again.

Originally posted by Geeza
That has nothing to do with "holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans"

Look xtrasyns post for futher detail.

[Geeza]

I don't even see why you included the bit about human rights/value'ing human life - your basic argument is that people should be able to beat their dog and watch bullfights etc etc.

Human rights (or the lack of human rights) is not in any way related to the amount of animal rights we have.

heh.. ffs Zak. What so hard to understand?

One life in Africa is worth less than my european dog.

Simple enough?

[Geeza]

Originally posted by RiCo

Look xtrasyns post for futher detail.

I don't see what his post has to do with it......the only example you gave was that instead of giving grain to african people, we use it to feed animals so we can eat them.

That has nothing to do with "holding pet's life standard higher than many suffering humans"

Which was in your original post.

[Geeza]

Originally posted by RiCo
heh.. ffs Zak. What so hard to understand?

One life in Africa is worth less than my european dog.

Simple enough?

their not related though.

Removal of animal rights will not make it better for people in africa. So why remove those animal rights?

"because...." you probably have another reason, that reason might be valid, stating that we should remove animal rights because people in africa are suffering is not valid.

Simple enough?

Originally posted by Geeza
their not related though.

Removal of animal rights will not make it better for people in africa. So why remove those animal rights?

"because...." you probably have another reason, that reason might be valid, stating that we should remove animal rights because people in africa are suffering is not valid.

Simple enough?

Surly they are connected. The point of it is, it's so easy to look for moral obligations when they are indeed simple to follow, but when they are a few thousand km away we don't give a rat's ass what happens to humans. On the other hand; whaling in Japan and Norway is beeing chritizied, even taken action against. How come?

[W]

Originally posted by RiCo
Surly they are connected. The point of it is, it's so easy to look for moral obligations when they are indeed simple to follow, but when they are a few thousand km away we don't give a rat's ass what happens to humans. On the other hand; whaling in Japan and Norway is beeing chritizied, even taken action against. How come?

This is nonsense, not true at all. Distance does the same to human rights as it does to animal rights, you simply choose to focus on what the media tells you.

Originally posted by W
This is nonsense, not true at all. Distance does the same to human rights as it does to animal rights, you simply choose to focus on what the media tells you.

hahaha

[treelo]

why is it that eating dogs, cats, and horses is disgusting, but eating any other mamals is cool?

so eating people is ok?
thank god.....

Originally posted by treelo
so eating people is ok?
thank god.....

I hope you registerd your account today, just to bring us that, gratefull as we are, important clue.

Cheers.

[treelo]

indeed i did.......i just had to get my love of cannibalism off my chest......

Though this is somewhat off the current topic, I thought perhaps this has reference to the original post in this thread.

I have no doubt that I value my pet dog's life to that of my fellow humans living (or perhaps a more accurate description is 'dying')in, say, North Korea. That's why I feed my dog, rather than buying food and sending it to Korea. It may seem cruel, but I believe that people value life around them that they are most intimate with. Is it wrong? I don't know.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Errr, nobody supports every principle out there. They are things that should be strived for, though.

Agreed, but without a wider perspective than your own appartment, city, country, there's not really a change comming. We should strive, yes, and we would do fine without, but should we atlest not try to reach the ideal. Look out of your own cup of tea; there's a world out there.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Of what?

Your go at beein ironic.