Hello

[tjohnson]

What rights, as in natural empowerments, does any human possess at birth, irrespective of what society the human is born into?

I think rights are part of the fabric of a given culture, there is no such thing as "natural empowerment".

[Selene]

OK

Therefore, there is, in your opinion, no natural right as Locke, etc. posited?

Therefore, if right is defined as "...a noun, and taken in an abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law

or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin 'jus,' and services to indicate law in the abstract,

considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or

give it an ethical content."

This is from Black's Law Dictionary.

You would agree or disagree with the definition.

Adam

Edited May 1, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

There is no such thing as a right, even if people use a capital letter and call it a Right. A fetus has a right to life if the society it exists in deems it so. If society says it can be aborted in the first trimester then it has no rights until the 2nd trimester etc. We are free to change the laws if we want but there are no "Natural Laws" governing abortion in the sense that laws exist in physics, for example.

Well, are there or are there not "rights"? You say both. Make a choice so we can have a coherrent discussion.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Well, are there or are there not "rights"? You say both. Make a choice so we can have a coherrent discussion.

--Brant

There are statements of rights only. Whether they are adhered to or not is a different story.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are statements of rights only. Whether they are adhered to or not is a different story.

GS,

Are there only statements of adherence?

Michael

[Xray]

Adam,

I think it is under no circumstances acceptable to take the life of an entity without his / her / it's consensus, unless, as stated earlier in an arguing post, one entity has voided his / her / it's right to life.

Brad

Only persons have rights. That pretty well leaves out bugs and other vermin. I have no qualms about swatting a fly whether or not it is bothering me. I have no qualms about eating the flesh of a steer,deer,lamb,fowl or fish, even though the critter never threatened me. If the flesh is tasty when cooked I will eat it.

I assume you are a full bore vegetarian? Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

That only persons "have rights" is true from the legal standpoint in many countries. The animal rights movement's goal is to change that.

Some centuries ago, only a few persons "had rights" (members of the uppper crust - just look at how few in ancient Greece actually possessed those rights), excluding the rest of the population. No one would ever have thought of a slave having rights. Or women and children.

All this too has been changed, but a lot remains to be done in my opinion.

That pretty well leaves out bugs and other vermin. I have no qualms about swatting a fly whether or not it is bothering me. I have no qualms about eating the flesh of a steer,deer,lamb,fowl or fish, even though the critter never threatened me. If the flesh is tasty when cooked I will eat it.

Just curious: would you have qualms about eating the flesh of a dog or cat? In China for example, their flesh is considered a delicacy.

If yes, why would you have qualms?

Bottom line: there exist no "objective" values - every single discussion here offers proof of that.

I'm a member of PETA but this does not mean I consider my personal values as objective. For values can't be anything but subjective.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm a member of PETA but this does not mean I consider my personal values as objective. For values can't be anything but subjective.

You are aware, I assume, that PETA condones and encourages terrorist acts against private property. They are in the same class of pestiferous organizations as Whale Watch (a bunch of pirates and eco-terrorists).

Every cent in dues you pay into PETA funds criminal activities.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Correct Ba'al:

"I'm a member of PETA but this does not mean I consider my personal values as objective."

No, it basically makes you incredibly wrong, inconsiderate of property rights and a thug when you seek to enforce your "personal values" at the point of a government gun which is what People Eating Tasty Animals legislative program.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Don't you realize?

The values of animal are objective. They need to be protected.

The values of human beings are subjective. They need to be regulated.

Michael

[Xray]

I'm a member of PETA but this does not mean I consider my personal values as objective. For values can't be anything but subjective.

You are aware, I assume, that PETA condones and encourages terrorist acts against private property. They are in the same class of pestiferous organizations as Whale Watch (a bunch of pirates and eco-terrorists).

Every cent in dues you pay into PETA funds criminal activities.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We would have to discuss what exactly you consider as "terrorist" acts. For my (connotative) idea of what constitures a terrorist act may substantially differ from yours.

This btw is another excellent illustration of certain terms like e. g. "terrorism" being used exclusively in a connotative sense.

For let me put it drastically: one man's "terrorist" may be another man's hero.

I don't recall members of PETA having committed any murders during their activity. Do you?

"Terrorism", "freedom", "for the good of the country" these are all empty word shells which everyone can readily fill with their subjectve ideas. That's why politicians are so eager to use them.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

For let me put it drastically: one man's "terrorist" may be another man's hero.

I don't recall members of PETA having committed any murders during their activity. Do you?

They encouraged and perhaps even participated in the torching of research laboratories which used animal subjects. That is a kind of eco-terrorism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ok - x-ray how many questions will this generate rather than being honest and saying ...well I can't speak to the savages who burned down a freaking bird co-op, let alone some of the others mentioned.

So, here is a simple question: If the actions of PETA in funding the tactics mentioned in this "petition" are accurate, do you agree that PETA funds ELF which admits to being a terrorist movement?

PETA: time to reform.

avelSonic on Mar 21, 2003

Web site: http://www.afhb.net

Background (Preamble):

For those who DON'T know: PETA is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the largest animal rights group around. The problems that have been plaguing the world by the Animal Rights movement is constantly hurt more by this organization and people unwilling to see the lies, and the support of terrorists groups, phony organizations, and even committing violent acts.

PETA has been accused several times of supporting terrorism in the name of their political agenda. PETA has denied this, but PETA's IRS 990 forms show that PETA donated to the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, the largest domestic terrorist groups in the U.S, which has confessed of committing over $10,000,000 worth of damage to buildings, defacing property, even mailing death threats, to spread its political agenda. PETA's donations are as following: $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front in 2001, $45,200 to Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of burning down a research lab. Another $25,000 in an un-returnable loan went to his father the previous year, $2,000 to David Wilson convicted of firebombing a bird co-op, $5,000 to Josh Harper, convicted of assaulting police, a firing at a fishing boat, and $ 1,500 to Fran Trutt convicted of attempting murder of a medical Doctor. Yes, attempted murder.

Even though PETA tries to cover up/deny any of these donations, the lies show right through. Now their tax-exempt status is at risk because of these donations. This organization is also responsible for pulling off publicity stunts, such as the shocking "Got Beer?!" campaign, which is supposed to make people believe that beer is better than milk. Another example of their extreme campaign was the billboard in Europe that claims that feeding children meat is child abuse. PETA's head cheese, Ingrid Newkirk, Vegan coordinator Bruce Friedrich, and other top PETA members have said things that make you wonder what planet they are from, and clearly shows their hatred towards other humans, and support for terrorist actions in the name of Animal Rights. For example;

· "Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing, someone makes a threat, and it works." - Ingrid Newkirk.

· "I openly hope that it comes here." - Ingrid Newkirk referring to mad cow disease.

· "We're looking for good lawsuits that will establish the interests of animals as a legitimate area of concern in law." - Ingrid Newkirk

- "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

- "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

- "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." - John Bryant, PETA

· " I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to ground. If I had a more guts, I'd light a match." - Ingrid Newkirk, after an underground group mailed razor blade laced threats to medical researchers studying new drugs on primates.

· "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but 6 billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." - Ingrid Newkirk

· "To those people who say, 'My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say, 'Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live ... " - Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

-"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." - John Bryant, PETA

· "The discomfort of a human does not outweigh the right of the animal to live . . ." - Carol Burnett, PeTA spokesperson

· "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows… I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do It."

— Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, at the "Animal Rights 2001" conference

It's very disturbing to know that an organization like this could have so many heartening comments coming from their higher members. Bet you didn't know that Ingrid Newkirk admitted on a CNN interview that they [PETA] deliberately editing out certain portions of the videotape done at BoysTown in order to make it appear that the kitten in the video was suffering, when it was really coming out of anesthesia. You know that PETA runs large anti-meat/dairy/fishing/animals in medical research campaigns, but did you know that they get their information from a group called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (AKA PCRM), which claims to be a group of "Doctors and laypersons working together for compassionate and effective medical practice, research, and health promotion." Evidence from Activist Cash (http://www.activistcash.com/) shows that physicians make up only 5% of its membership, and that the group's only physicians represent less than 0.5% of America's doctors. They also want to abolish animal use in lifesaving research and try to promote (and extremely enforce) Veganism, going as far to suggest that meat, eggs, and dairy can be labeled as "Weapons of mass destruction". This is completely ridiculous and false. PETA also claims to help the animals, which is hypnotically because according to a July 26, 2000, Associated Press story, out of the 2,103 animals that PETA "rescued" during 1999, a whopping 1,325 of them were euthanized because they couldn't find homes and shelters for these animals. Considering PETA's yearly income of over $10,000,000, don't you think that they should have been able to build a few shelters? To add to their hypocrisy, PETA pledged after 9-11 not to do extreme campaigns, but recently cranked out the new "Terrorism at the Table" campaign, comparing turkey slaughter to terrorism, featuring a turkey holding up a supermarket urging them to go vegetarian. To add to the hypocrisy, PETA members have been seen eating meat/wearing leather and fur, and the celebrities supporting PETA in campaigns, have also supported what they were shown as against. To conclude, all we say is to think long and hard about this essay. You make the decisions, but your decision may affect the future, and whether PETA takes over and our freedoms and lifestyle become obsolete based on hearsay, and propaganda created to get some attention. The choice is yours. PETA, if you listen to us please stop the madness. You are hurting your cause, and your group. Stop the madness before it's too late.

I personally dealt with these thugs in Norfolk Virginia - unfortunately it did not work out well for the thugs - it seems that two of them, somehow, accidentally fell into a street light pole as they lunged at the folks that I was with.

****PETA is not an animal welfare organization.

PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,900 animals in 2003 alone -- that's over 85 percent of the animals it received. In fact, from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five animals every day. On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 expense for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

Adam,

Don't you realize?

The values of animal are objective. They need to be protected.

The values of human beings are subjective. They need to be regulated.

Michael

I know you are being ironic, Michael - no problem.

Nor do I want to spoil Selene's membership in the "people eating tasty animals" club. Enjoy your saltimbocca, Selene. Your values just happen to differ from mine.

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

One may have subjective values (in fact everyone has them), try to explain to others why one has them, even try to convince them with arguments to accept them as their own (if they so decide), but believing that one's values are "objective", i. e. that they exist independently of a subjective individual entity attributing value (or individual entities attributing value in case a group of people happens to have the same subjective values) is one of the most fundamental epistemological errors one can make.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"Your values just happen to differ from mine."

You just do not understand.

Your organization that you support, philosophically and financially, is actively engaged in passing legislation that will be enforcing your "values" at the point of a gun.

You initiate physical force.

I do not. Most of the folks here do not.

However, I, and many here, will respond with force, lethal if necessary, so when you go to throw blood on some persons fur coat, become a Catholic again because you will need to pray.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Adam,

Don't you realize?

The values of animal are objective. They need to be protected.

The values of human beings are subjective. They need to be regulated.

Michael

I know you are being ironic, Michael - no problem.

Nor do I want to spoil Selene's membership in the "people eating tasty animals" club. Enjoy your saltimbocca, Selene. Your values just happen to differ from mine.

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

One may may have subjective values (in fact everyone has them), try to explain to others why one has them, even try to convince them with arguments to accept them as their own (if they so decide), but believing that one's values are "objective", i. e. that they exist independently of a subjective individual entity attributing value (or individual entities attributing value in case a group of people happens to have the same subjective values) is one of the most fundamental epistemological errors one can make.

Like I said quite a while back, with this stuff anything goes. Hitler, yes or no. Just a subjective value preference.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

For let me put it drastically: one man's "terrorist" may be another man's hero.

I don't recall members of PETA having committed any murders during their activity. Do you?

They encouraged and perhaps even participated in the torching of research laboratories which used animal subjects. That is a kind of eco-terrorism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hitler, my hero. Or maybe Pol Pot.

--Brant

[Xray]

Adam,

Don't you realize?

The values of animal are objective. They need to be protected.

The values of human beings are subjective. They need to be regulated.

Michael

I know you are being ironic, Michael - no problem.

Nor do I want to spoil Selene's membership in the "people eating tasty animals" club. Enjoy your saltimbocca, Selene. Your values just happen to differ from mine.

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

One may may have subjective values (in fact everyone has them), try to explain to others why one has them, even try to convince them with arguments to accept them as their own (if they so decide), but believing that one's values are "objective", i. e. that they exist independently of a subjective individual entity attributing value (or individual entities attributing value in case a group of people happens to have the same subjective values) is one of the most fundamental epistemological errors one can make.

Like I said quite a while back, with this stuff anything goes. Hitler, yes or no. Just a subjective value preference.

--Brant

Identifying values as subjective does not imply that one has an "anything goes" attitude, Brant. Assuming this is a non-sequitur on your part.

Hitler, my hero. Or maybe Pol Pot.

As for Hiter, indeed he is consisered a hero in certain circles in the Arab world and among the neo-nazis.

I abhor Hitler. I added this explicitly so that you don't wrongly infer that I condone worshipping this figure just because I have stated a sad, hard fact - that he IS being worshipped by some.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Your values just happen to differ from mine."

You just do not understand.

Your organization that you support, philosophically and financially, is actively engaged in passing legislation that will be enforcing your "values" at the point of a gun.

You initiate physical force.

I do not. Most of the folks here do not.

However, I, and many here, will respond with force, lethal if necessary, so when you go to throw blood on some persons fur coat, become a Catholic again because you will need to pray.

Adam

I don't initiate physical force either, have never e. g. thrown any object at a fur coat-wearing person, nor would I want to do so.

I'm no fanatic.

Regarding your accusations against PETA, I'll do some research of my own on the issue.

You accuse this organization of using force but say of yourself you are prepared to kill anyone throwing blood at another person's fur coat?? Have I read you right?

And for becoming a Catholic (again) - just curious: why does one need to be in a club if one wants to pray?

Edited June 10, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I really think the issue is not objective vs. subjective, it's objectively right vs subjectively right. I think xray is saying there is no such thing as a universally (objective) proper or right value. Man has evolved away from animalistic beginnings (in some cases ) but we were wrong then? We like to think we are more civilized now and mostly we think that is right and probably it will lead to man's long term survival. But questions framed in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' are too simplistic to deal with these issues - there needs to be context. Right for what and wrong for what?

[ginny]

Wow, Selene, those statistics and quote are horrifying. If the quotes are serious, those people are crazy evil. Broil me a steak, won't you? Rare.

Ginny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

Xray,

I seem to remember you giving a similar opinion in the past, but I can't recall where...

Too bad you always fail to give that opinion grounds more solid than subjective bloviating and rhetorical questions to others.

Here's a thought. Let's go whole hog. All facts are subjective...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Adam,

Don't you realize?

The values of animal are objective. They need to be protected.

The values of human beings are subjective. They need to be regulated.

Michael

I know you are being ironic, Michael - no problem.

Nor do I want to spoil Selene's membership in the "people eating tasty animals" club. Enjoy your saltimbocca, Selene. Your values just happen to differ from mine.

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

One may may have subjective values (in fact everyone has them), try to explain to others why one has them, even try to convince them with arguments to accept them as their own (if they so decide), but believing that one's values are "objective", i. e. that they exist independently of a subjective individual entity attributing value (or individual entities attributing value in case a group of people happens to have the same subjective values) is one of the most fundamental epistemological errors one can make.

Like I said quite a while back, with this stuff anything goes. Hitler, yes or no. Just a subjective value preference.

--Brant

Identifying values as subjective does not imply that one has an "anything goes" attitude, Brant. Assuming this is a non-sequitur on your part.

Hitler, my hero. Or maybe Pol Pot.

As for Hiter, indeed he is consisered a hero in certain circles in the Arab world and among the neo-nazis.

I abhor Hitler. I added this explicitly so that you don't wrongly infer that I condone worshipping this figure just because I have stated a sad, hard fact - that he IS being worshipped by some.

I didn't have much doubt you abhorred Hitler. The problem is the next door neighbor who loves him. The problem is the multitudes who once loved him. That's not your problem for you can't do anything about them. As for PETA it doesn't matter if it does good works or bad or a mixture; you just walk in the door and pick and choose like any store selling good stuff and crap. Your good stuff is another's crap and vice versa.

--Brant

[Xray]

There exist no objective values, Michael. And everyone who considers their values as objective is in fundamental error.

Xray,

I seem to remember you giving a similar opinion in the past, but I can't recall where...

Too bad you always fail to give that opinion grounds more solid than subjective bloviating and rhetorical questions to others.

Here's a thought. Let's go whole hog. All facts are subjective...

Michael

Facts and values are two different animals. Facts are objective, while values are subjective.

Too bad you always fail to give that opinion grounds more solid than subjective bloviating and rhetorical questions to others.

I have written many posts with examples of alleged objective values (values which actually were purely subjective), and also, time and again, challenged others to present "objective" values here. The challenge still stands.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Facts are obejctive...

Xray,

Could you give me an example of an objective fact and explain what makes it objective?

Michael

[Xray]

Facts are obejctive...

Xray,

Could you give me an example of an objective fact and explain what makes it objective?

Michael

Facts can' be anything but objective. Can you think if a subjective fact?

Example: it is fact that on Sept Sept 11/2001, there was an attack on the Twin Towers resulting in their collapse.

As for the objectiveness: countless eyewitness watched the event, plus there is film documention supporting it. One could go to the grounnd zero site and see for oneself that there were no more Twin Towers etc..

Now your turn: name a "subjective" fact.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray