Leave Michael Vick Alone...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everything that is "immoral" have to be illegal?

Can any of you PETA protesters think of a solution that doesn't involve massive government intervention? How about INSPIRING people toward empathy, peace and love?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the PETA supporters that want massive government intervention and the PETA protestors that don't.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I grunched the thread, but to address the argument that we place dogs on a pedestal above animals raised for slaughter, there are regulations requiring that animals slaughtered be killed humanely. They have to be killed quickly and with a minimum of pain. The same goes for dogs. So, the line with regards to the treatment of animals is: killing is ok, but making them suffer is not. It seems consistent to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that came to mind during this debate is that most people turn their dog into a pound when they don't want them anymore. Thus they're removed from any decision to kill the animal and transfer that decision to the state. Furthermore they can ignore the probability that it's highly likely the animal turned into the pound will be killed. Furthermore people can turn it into the pound and lie to themselves that the animal in question will probably be adopted. That situation has been encouraged to develop by government.

Of course there are many people that realize that turning in their unwanted dogs to the pound will more than likely result in the animal being killed in relatively short time frame. Thus they find an alternative and that usually involves turning the dog over to some rescue organization. There are also "no kill" rescue organizations btw. So we are seeing the situation being addressed at least to a degree by the private sector. I can tell you for a fact that bloodhound breed rescue organizations are unbelievably overwhelmed right now with bloodhounds that need a home. Breed rescues have their issues in the way they're run too. Just thought I'd try to shed some light on this.

I note that people involved with breeding fighting dogs don't have these option available to them and thus that's why they probably kill them themselves (not saying that they should have the options other dog owners have). If you breed a dog for fighting and you're only interested in it for fighting and it's not a particularly adept at fighting, it's probably going to be killed I would think. It's not going to be someone's pet and it's not going to be someone's fighting dog. It's only going to consume food and take up space.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the third one that is an assertion that has no foundation. The author attempts to distinguish man from animal here suggesting that the animals act purely on instinct and the man has no natural instincts. I think this is flatly untrue on both accounts (animals certainly have self-learned as well as taught behavior and man certainly has natural instincts.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see where Rothbard assumed that animals couldn't learn and what natural instincts do you think man has? Whatever they are, they probably pale in comparison to the instincts many animals have.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it is just an assertion that animals don't learn and that man has no natural instincts. He claims that man is "learning" when he puts food in his mouth, for example. Yet, why isn't a dog learning when he eats something foul then avoids that food in the future? Why does he not claim it instinctual of man to put anything in his mouth in the first place to satisfy his hunger pangs? It is only true because he asserts it to be so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, no mention of animals not being able to learn. I think Rothbard might say that animals do not reason, which may not be the same thing as learning.

[ QUOTE ]
There are many examples in nature of this as well. Animals have create simple tools (a primate eating ants off of a stick it puts into an anthill; an elephant swatting flies with a branch; animals piling up leaves/etc. for shelter.) This is not a uniquely human characteristic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you concede that the extent and complexity to which we do this is far greater than for any animal?

[ QUOTE ]
Lions learn that chasing the biggest/fastest antelope consumes too much energy. They teach this hunting fact to their young. The author would suggests that hunting the weak is instinctual and not learned.

[/ QUOTE ]
The lion could only have learned this by trying to chase the biggest, fastest antelope. Man seems capable of reasoning this out without having to try. A man could look at a spider web and realize that he too could build something like that to catch fish the way the spider catches flies. To me that indicates reasoning, which is something animals do not have.


For CMI:
[ QUOTE ]
The individual man, in introspecting the fact of his own consciousness, also discovers the primordial natural fact of his freedom: his freedom to choose, his freedom to use or not use his reason about any given subject. In short, the natural fact of his “free will.” He also discovers the natural fact of his mind’s command over his body and its actions: that is, of his natural ownership over his self.

Crusoe, then, owns his body; his mind is free to adopt whatever ends it wishes, and to exercise his reason in order to discover what ends he should choose, and to learn the recipes for employing the means at hand to attain them.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality).[5] In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.[6] Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let us now return to our analysis of Crusoe’s purposeful transformation of nature-given data though the understanding of natural laws. Crusoe finds virgin, unused land on the island; land, in short, unused and uncontrolled by anyone, and hence unowned. By finding land resources, by learning how to use them, and, in particular, by actually transforming them into a more useful shape, Crusoe has, in the memorable phrase of John Locke, “mixed his labor with the soil.” In doing so, in stamping the imprint of his personality and his energy on the land, he has naturally converted the land and its fruits into his property. Hence, the isolated man owns what he uses and transforms; therefore, in his case there is no problem of what should be A’s property as against B’s. Any man’s property is ipso facto what he produces, i.e., what he transforms into use by his own effort. His property in land and capital goods continues down the various stages of production, until Crusoe comes to own the consumer goods which he has produced, until they finally disappear through his consumption of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rothbard quoting Locke in Ch.4
[ QUOTE ]
[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to. . . .

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then when did they begin to be his? . . . And ‘tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done: and so they become his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? . . . If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that ‘tis the taking part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.

[/ QUOTE ]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where Rothbard assumed that animals couldn't learn and what natural instincts do you think man has?

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole article is about man's lack of instinct and his ability to "reason" a solution contrasting that with animals.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Rothbard might say that animals do not reason, which may not be the same thing as learning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would be interested to hear his definition of each concept and how they are significantly different.

re: toolmaking
[ QUOTE ]
Would you concede that the extent and complexity to which we do this is far greater than for any animal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Would you concede that the complexity of the tool is irrelevant?

[ QUOTE ]
The lion could only have learned this by trying to chase the biggest, fastest antelope

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that is true at all, but even if it is, that only suggests that the lion is capable of reasoning in future hunts that it is not a good choice to go after the biggest/fastest prey.

[ QUOTE ]
A man could look at a spider web and realize that he too could build something like that to catch fish the way the spider catches flies. To me that indicates reasoning, which is something animals do not have.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you over-estimate man's ability to reason a solution without experimentation and without the benefit of the knowledge/learning of his predecessors. I also think you discount too much animals ability to learn. It is reasoning (yes, simple reasoning) that would lead a lion to conclude that because chasing the weakest antelope worked, that same hunting strategy would also work with wildebeasts.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everything that is "immoral" have to be illegal?

Can any of you PETA protesters think of a solution that doesn't involve massive government intervention? How about INSPIRING people toward empathy, peace and love?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm feeling an inspiring chorus of Kumbaya coming on...

[CallMeIshmael]

BCPVP,

Alright this is getting kind of old. Perhaps you dont understand the concept of assumption in argumentation. All forms of argumentation rely on axioms that cannot be proven. Thats just the way it is it. Even statements like "two things that are equal to a third, are equal to each other" is an axiom. It cant be proven true.


[ QUOTE ]
The individual man, in introspecting the fact of his own consciousness, also discovers the primordial natural fact of his freedom: his freedom to choose, his freedom to use or not use his reason about any given subject. In short, the natural fact of his “free will.” He also discovers the natural fact of his mind’s command over his body and its actions: that is, of his natural ownership over his self.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that "when one has conmmand over his body and its actions, it is natrual fact that he has ownership over himself"

Beyond that, it does seem to assume free will, but thats for another debate.


[ QUOTE ]
It may well be asked why life should be an objective ultimate value, why man should opt for life (in duration and quality).[5] In reply, we may note that a proposition rises to the status of an axiom when he who denies it may be shown to be using it in the very course of the supposed refutation.[6] Now, any person participating in any sort of discussion, including one on values, is, by virtue of so participating, alive and affirming life. For if he were really opposed to life, he would have no business in such a discussion, indeed he would have no business continuing to be alive. Hence, the supposed opponent of life is really affirming it in the very process of his discussion, and hence the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]


Im not really sure why this is here. It seems to show that humans should continue to live. I dont think that was ever debated in this thread.

Though, it does suffer problems:

1. He claims to 'prove' an axiom. An axiom is a statement that, by definition, isnt proved. Once you prove it, it is no longer an axiom, but a conclusion (or in this csae sub-conclusion).

2. He assumes that a statement is proven true when those who set out to prove it false, in their attempt, are shown to agree with statements conclusion.

This isnt accurate. A statement is proven true, when it is proven true, not when a group of people fail to prove it false. In this case, he seems to ignore the people who disagree with him (ie. believe that we shouldnt opt for life) and then commit suicide. Given that some people opt to not live, it is difficult to call the furtherance of one's life an "uncontestable axiom"


[ QUOTE ]
Let us now return to our analysis of Crusoe’s purposeful transformation of nature-given data though the understanding of natural laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that looking at things through the understanding of natural law is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Crusoe finds virgin, unused land on the island; land, in short, unused and uncontrolled by anyone, and hence unowned.

[/ QUOTE ]

this assumes something can be owned or unowned.

[ QUOTE ]
By finding land resources, by learning how to use them, and, in particular, by actually transforming them into a more useful shape, Crusoe has, in the memorable phrase of John Locke, “mixed his labor with the soil.” In doing so, in stamping the imprint of his personality and his energy on the land, he has naturally converted the land and its fruits into his property.

[/ QUOTE ]

This not only assumes that something can be property, it assumes that this is the process by which property is transfered from unowned to owned.


[ QUOTE ]
[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an assertion. (one I agree with, but as assertion nonetheless)

[ QUOTE ]
The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, assumes something can be property, and then assumes the process by which somehting becomes property.

[ QUOTE ]
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his

[/ QUOTE ]


statments like "has certainly appropriated them to himself" are assertions. They are not backed up by proof, but assumed to be believed true by the reader. He fails to show where the act of "appropriating to himself" comes from, or give explicit instructions for when something has been appropriated. He assumes that the reader and he have reasonable agreement here.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask then when did they begin to be his? . . . And ‘tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done: and so they become his private right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do "private rights" come from.

[ QUOTE ]
And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? . . . If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved

[/ QUOTE ]


This assumes that something can be "his." I mean, If I were to ask you "does that dog own anything?" you would think it a queer question. Yet, you assume such a question is valid for man.

This quote fails to address the belief that simultaneously the man hasnt the need to address all of mankind to eat the food nor has be made it "his." Or, for that matter, prove that this cannot be the case (obviously, this really cant be proven, since it is true of animals)


[ QUOTE ]
notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that ‘tis the taking part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.

[/ QUOTE ]


Umm

1. Non-human animals dont have the concept of ownership
2. Animals live near trees with fruit
3. Animals seem to find use for these commons


Seems pretty clear he is making a false assertion here.

[CallMeIshmael]

BCPVP,

I believe elwood's point about assuming Rothbard's claim that animals cant reason is correct.

I mean, if it is reason from which we derive self-ownership, and he believes that animals do not have self ownership, is conclusion is only reached if he makes that assumption.


Im also curious to hear your thoughts on the questions posed to Will above. That is, if I find a human without the ability to reason because of a mental defect, one whose moral/reasoning ability is below that of the most advanced non-human primates, does this person still have the rights of other humans while the ape does not? Why/Why not?