Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Thank you for your thoughts. I think that your way of looking at this is very common. I think it comes from the postmodern teaching (conditioning) of moral relativism. When people believe that morality is subjective, or relative to a particular culture or individual… then you really can't speak out against anything. It gets to the point where people are so worried about not criticizing anyone else's morality, that they will turn a blind eye to even the most heinous of crimes.
The problem with that is, if we don't care about what is going on in this world that affects others, then that is a threat to freedom and justice everywhere.
But we're really getting off of the original topic here.
Well, AF made it clear that he didn't want to share his personal view.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
It just permanently moved to the White House.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
No.
"The State" has proven it's inability to discern husbandry from abuse, it's exhibited the will and ability to interfere with private enterprise under force of arms and finally it's court system is so entirely messed up that no such thing as a fair trial may be had...
So no, "The State" is not suited to even save kittens at this point in time.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. I guess some of the perception of abuse depends on the sophistication of the species. Higher order animals get more attention. I fish a lot. A fish out of water does not die right away. That seems to be worse than some mistreatment. I think that a fish slowly dying without water must be horrible, so I won't leave a fish on a stringer. Once caught, the fish is killed and put on ice. Most people will not do this. I won't interfere with anyone's fishing, but I don't fish with other people either. I won't eat fish that flop around on a boat and suffocate.
The whole thing really puzzles me sometimes. Why does nature (or God if you will) let the suffering happen? You see hyenas just rip into prey. Animals caught in spider's webs (small frogs and such) seem to not dye quickly from venom. Grizzly bears catch salmon and just rip them apart (I have to admit though that gives me a slight laugh ). Animals other than man are amoral, so why does this suffering happen? It's not because animals are abusive to one another.
Anyway, that's probably a whole different topic.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
My wife is from Philippines. She grew up in a remote area, but went to school outside Manila. She was a nanny to three kids.
One time, these two drunk neighbors beat this dog to death. Took a long time. The dog is just howling away. They later cooked up the dog and ate it. Sometimes common in this country.
So, the one little boy who my wife nannied starts crying. He was probably about 10 years old. It really tore him up to hear that dog crying. I guess nothing really happened. Kind of what they do.
Another story. People in the remote areas would screw their own farm animals. Not common, but maybe common enough. If someone saw you, then you were really, really shunned. Nobody would do business with you. As in, buy your animals.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
I agree with this. If you take my example of fishing, then someone could make the case that fish should not flop around on a boat. I would not be willing to do that.
Plus, I really don't see all these crazy cases. I am sure there are nut jobs out there, but they can be dealt with by individuals.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
In the case of the elephants in the circus.......
I said in the other thread that a smaller circus had their winter quarters just a few miles from the farm I grew up on and their critters were VERY well cared for, better than the human employees by a long shot.
Heated barns, no barb wire, in house vet, species specific diets.....
Yes, I know.
Yes, people disagree on morality, but your conclusion doesn't logically follow your premise.But I understand that other peoples morals and mine don't coincide...Which leads me to make the statement that morality is in fact subjective, if only to the individual.
Many people believe in a God that created this world, others are atheists. But a Creator God either exists or not. Mere disagreement doesn't make something subjective.
This actually doesn't make any sense. If you genuinely believe that all morality is subjective, why would you tell someone else they are wrong? You're going against your own self-professed belief that all morality is subjective, similar to which flavor of ice cream is best.That doesn't stop me from speaking, or acting out.
If morality is purely subjective, then no one morality is a better or more 'right' than any other. This means that the morality of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is not only not wrong, but it's not worse than the morality of someone like Mother Teresa.
It makes morality meaningless because if there is no true, objective moral standard, then there is no such thing as a true right or wrong, at all. And if there's no such thing as right or wrong, then it's baseless and illogical for you to object to anything anyone (including the government) does, because that's their morality and theirs is no better or worse than yours, if morality is subjective.
But again, we're getting off topic here.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
I think it can be more to do with order today than law, which are two very different concepts. Some of it also gets into people definitions and perceptions of abuse.
I think people against government intervention see too much arbitrary order that is not in line with law.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Acknowledging others beliefs doesn't subtract from your own.
I wouldn't tell someone else they're wrong, I will however express my beliefs and if the issue is of great enough importance to me I'll even enforce my beliefs.
Are you invoking mob rule or ecclesiastical morals here? I'm confused...
It may well be senseless but it's my windmill to tilt.
That's okay it's my thread..
Last edited by tod evans; 05-22-2017 at 05:39 PM.
Sometimes, you see these kops bust up a house when it's no more that some lady who has a zillion cats walking around. They take the cats Then, they try to adopt-out the cats. A few get a adopted, but then the luster of the newz story wears off and the other cats are gassed. Yeah, how long does it take for the gas chamber to suck the air from your body.
I was on a forum where a member discussed seeing a security guard torturing a bat. He was lighting the bat on fire with his lighter. I got mad just reading that second hand story. Now somebody like that needs the holy f*ck beat out of him.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
What you are talking about here is moral relativism, not moral subjectivism. They are not the same thing.
A moral subjectivist asserts that morality is arrived at subjectively (i.e., that there is no objectively "provable" moral code) - but this does not mean that the subjectivist does not believe that his code is "right" (or at least "better") compared to other codes. A moral relativist, on the other hand, asserts that no moral code is any "better" than any other (including his own). All moral relativists are also moral subjectivists, but not all moral subjectivists are also moral relativists.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Mmm, yeah, probably.
I certainly would not have been in favor of a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, that solidified the fedgov as the overriding authority of all the states, condoned Grant's "scorched earth" brand of warfare that killed even more, and opened the door for the horrors of 20th century warfare that said it was OK to wage war on the civilian population, among other things.
This is the problem with moral crusades. The solution is usually worse than the disease. Had nobody intervened, had nobody dictated what people could have done with their property, slavery would have died a natural economic death in another twenty or thirty years.
And had you avoided that war, you would have avoided everything from Cold Harbor to Jim Crow to Hiroshima.
No, they haven't.
They are right.
You must either fully anthropomorphize animals and assign them the same rights as human beings, or you do not.
You can't have it both ways: a dog is cute and cuddly and has "rights" therefore it is a free creature, a chicken is ill tempered, smelly and tastes good fried therefore it is "property".
Animals are property, or they are not.
If they are not, then you cannot morally slaughter them for food any more than you can torture them for entertainment or cage them for observation or inject them for testing.
And people better get their heads straight on this, otherwise the green creeps and earth nazis will win this argument, and in 50 years, you'll be surviving on nothing but soy sprouts and Soylent Green.
There should be enough soylent green for everybody for awhile .
All hashed out already, five years ago.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...stance-on-this
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
I assume you haven't seen how caged elephants will rock back and forth, or beat themselves against the cages. Elephant rehabs have lots of trauma to get them through. Plenty of documentaries about this. Not PETA propoganda, visit one of the rehab centers and you'll see it first hand.
I'm sure trainers love their animals. Then again the ass down the road will say he loves his dog... the same dog who lives his life on a short chain and there is a dug in path of the dog running in circles but never gets any attention or freedom.
Elephants are intelligent creatures, they're one of the few creatures who will self identify in front of a mirror. Locking them up and forcing performance should go away.
The circus as a choice for entertainment money just can't compete anymore. What used to be a spectacle can't stand up to the millions of hours of youtube, Virtual reality rigs, movies, or the multitude of theme parks.
If there are every ways to quantify sentience it will be interesting what will happen. Would another sentient being - elephant, dolphin, ape have basic rights too?
Last edited by kpitcher; 05-22-2017 at 10:44 PM.
“…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned
BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq
That there are such things as an 'elephant rehab' flabbergasts me...
The idea of 'basic rights' for animals is another concept that baffles me.
Where would the line be drawn? Could a fly swatter be a murder weapon? Would I need to bring along a priest on my next deer hunt to give last rights? Could I be tried for abuse because I make my hound speak for a biscuit?
Thing is, the circus crew setup their elephant conservation/retirement center over 20 years ago. I'd wager they know more about elephants, their behavior and proper treatment than any of the armchair conservationists that condemn them.
https://www.ringlingelephantcenter.com/about-cec/
Says who? Is this a religious thing?
Why can't there be a sliding scale based on intelligence? We don't assign full rights to mentally challenged humans or children. We don't allow them to enter into contracts or drive a car, but they have the right to life and not be tortured.
Connect With Us