If were being idealistic, I would say because most people aren’t as bat shit crazy as hippies and intellectuals.
Back in the old good ol’ pagan days they would own both, starve the animal and feed their human slave to it, than eat the animal; all for a good day’s shits and giggles with merley the sentiment that it was better to be a master than a slave. Now instead of being pagans, everyone wants to be some uselss busy body mystic moralizer. I can’t say for certain what era would be worse to live in - but I can certainly say what era is more annoying.
Do you mean they would own both people and animals? and when you say “than eat the animal” do you mean that they would rather feed their human slave to the animal than eat the animal? Or did you mean that they would feed their human slave to the animal then eat it (presumably for shits and giggles)?
How can you say that the pagans weren’t mystic moralizers? Pythagoras, ahem, …? Pythagoras was a vegetarian, a mystic moralizer, and he wouldn’t let his proteges eat beans. i don’t know if your statement was meant to contrast the mystic moralizing of kant with the likes of greek pagans, but Pythagoras is both so…ultimately I’m not sure your what you are trying to say…
The post above perfectly demonstrates vive’s point.
Nope. But I don’t believe that animals are in a permanent vegetative state. Do you?
Do you mean they would own both people and animals? and when you say “than eat the animal” do you mean that they would rather feed their human slave to the animal than eat the animal? Or did you mean that they would feed their human slave to the animal then eat it (presumably for shits and giggles)?
They would own both - and eat the animal. All of them did this all the time, every day - no exceptions.
As for the main point, it’s probably nothing outside of a very superficial Nietzchean, Feuerbachian, Stirnerite look on things. And to further the quip here’s Fritz:
“Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial”
So, you meant THEN. NOT THAN. That is what I thought…then is temporal; than is comparative.
and also, “except for the vegetarians of the time.”
I don’t understand the last part of statement - there were no vegetarians, just pagans who ate animals fed off the meat of their slaves.
And I’m telling you that the Pythagoreans didn’t eat animals…
“What if this chimp prefers to live in a loving human home than in the wild?”
then you wouldn’t have to ensalve him or own him, it would be voluntary.
“Depends what the ownership entails I suppose. Are we talking about having a chimp as a pet, or owning a chimp so it can do chores around the house and sweep chimneys?”
I guess I’m talking about owning an animal, in that you can just sell it to another person at the drop of a hat. Let’s say, take a baby animal away from its mother and sell it to someone else.
Just curious, are you a vegan? Even the Hindus own animals as property and at one time the ancestors of domestic animals were wild animals snatched from nature. One could make an argument that owning animals is necessary to human health and domestic animals are better off for being owned (Hindus are vegetarians no vegans)
“just curious, are you a vegan?”
No. I eat animals. And use animal products and take my kids to go see locked up animals.
From another, similar thread:
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
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/a-question-for-speciesists/25562
"
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?
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
This conversation started on a stupid premise and now it has evolved into one of the stupidest conversations I have ever seen.
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.