Animal rights and freedom

[Who is like God arbour]

Imagine, an alien arrives on earth and can neither understand humans nor animals. It's own language is too complex compared to our own languages and for it, we are only barking.

Now explain, why it is supposed to recognize that humans are something special on earth.

You cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants. Animals and even plants could get at best some minimal rights to be protected from abuse, unlawwful cutting of forests etc. that sort of thing but there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either. Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob in my opinion.

Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.

Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal or plant.

Animals are not sentient, they think but they cannot rationalize and are not self aware as we are [...]

Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.

Define what rationalistic means and prove that humans can rationalize and animals can not.

Define what self awareness means and prove that humans are self aware and animals are not.

Animals don't write poetry, they never ask their place in the universe, only we do that.

Define what poetry is and prove that animals don't do it.

Prove that animals don't ask their place in the universe.



Furthermore, show that all these abilities are somehow important for the question, if animals should have their own rights and that these are not arbitrary chosen criteria.

A chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 - 5 years old child [1, 2, 3].

If a chimpanzee does not has its own rights because he lacks certain mental abilities, does that mean, that a child also does not have its own rights because it also lacks certain mental abilities?

The only difference between a plant and an animal is a brain. Plants just don't go anywhere.

Explain, why that difference is supposed to be irrelevant.

[PunkMaister]

OK just off the top of my head there are quite a few obvious signs that Humans are above all other animals. Our very numbers and expanse across the planet is a tell tale sign to anyone that we are the dominant species.

2. Radio, TV signals traveling all the way to space also a sign that we are above all other species when it comes to intelligence.

3. Tons of human created debris and artificial satellites orbiting the planet another sign...

They may not understand us or see us at the same level as they are and probably we would not be anyway but they would never see us in the same level as all the other animals in the Earth because it is crystal clear that we are not!

I'm curious as to why instead of posting this question in the thread about freedom you choose to make a separate thread entirely,


Tell me something Arbour since you broough this up. (Yes you were the one that created a whole new thread just about Animal right entirely) Do you feel personally that there is no difference between a composer like Mozart and a shrimp in the bottom of the river? Again just curious.

[Who is like God arbour]

Please answer the asked questions from above.

When you have done that, you can address the following points:

• 1. There are 10.000.000.000.000.000 ants distributed over the whole planet and only 6.000.000.000.000 humans. Ants are living in nations, wages wars, take prisoners, have gardens and are able to construct buildings. They were already there, when we were still climbing in trees and they will probably be here when we are already extinguished. Why again are we the dominant species on this planet? What is the objective criteria to say, what species is the dominant species of a planet?
  2. It is not disputed that humans have their own characteristics which are making them different from other species. Intelligence may be such a characteristic. But each species has different characteristics.
     Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated. Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.
  3. What you have described are the accomplishments of a whole species. That does not necessary mean, that their individuals are intelligent. There is still collective intelligence and considering that all the things you have described are the accomplishments of the whole species and that nobody alone would be able to build a rocket without help and without the knowledge of others, it is not really a proof for intelligent human individuals.
  4. Prove that an alien would not think:
     • »Stupid humans. They can't be intelligent. They are polluting their own habitat, wage wars and are killing millions of themselves and are not able to ensure that each of them has what is necessary to survive although their planet has enough resources. There is a not irrelevant probability that they will destroy themselves. On the other side, the animals on this planet have to be intelligent because they are able to live in harmony with nature.«

I'm curious as to why instead of posting this question in the thread about freedom you choose to make a separate thread entirely

Because that could derail that thread. It has nothing to do with the question, what freedem means to me.

Tell me something Arbour since you broough this up. (Yes you were the one that created a whole new thread just about Animal right entirely) Do you feel personally that there is no difference between a composer like Mozart and a shrimp in the bottom of the river? Again just curious.

Let's say I'm only playing devil's advocate.
What I think is irrelevant. I'm only interested to make sure that you begin to think and critically analyse the flowery phrases you are using.

[PunkMaister]

[*]It is not disputed that humans have their own characteristics which are making them different from other species. Intelligence may be such a characteristic. But each species has different characteristics.
Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated. Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.

Not just intelligence we humans are the only creatures on this planet that question the reason for our existence and our place in the universe and the scheme of things. Ants just respond to chemical messages hardly the same thing, until you prove a single ant can create poetry, write a song make a sculpture or paint a picture you cannot compare us to them. Ants build "cities" and wage "wars" but they do not have music, they do not have art. Artistic expression is one thing that clearly distinguishes us from the rest of the creatures of this planet.

[*]What you have described are the accomplishments of a whole species. That does not necessary mean, that their individuals are intelligent. There is still collective intelligence and considering that all the things you have described are the accomplishments of the whole species and that nobody alone would be able to build a rocket without help and without the knowledge of others, it is not really a proof for intelligent human individuals.

Art,. music etc are created by individuals they are not the product of a collective as you claim. It was Mozart alone that created his musical masterpieces. It was Leonardo Davinci alone that he created his masterpieces as well. The list goes on and on...

[*]Prove that an alien would not think:

• »Stupid humans. They can't be intelligent. They are polluting their own habitat, wage wars and are killing millions of themselves and are not able to ensure that each of them has what is necessary to survive although their planet has enough resources. There is a not irrelevant probability that they will destroy themselves. On the other side, the animals on this planet have to be intelligent because they are able to live in harmony with nature.«

[/list][/list]

Being war like and even savage is not proof of lack of intelligence I'm pretty sure that there other civilizations that might be 10 times more advanced than we are and yet just as savage if not more as well.

Because that could derail that thread. It has nothing to do with the question, what freedem means to me.

Oh but it does! This question arose when someone posted whether or not animals should be afforded the exact same rights as human beings something even the poster considered ridiculous but obviusly given what you have posted you do not...

Let's say I'm only playing devil's advocate.
What I think is irrelevant. I'm only interested to make sure that you begin to think and critically analyse the flowery phrases you are using.

Actually what you are showing is that you see no difference whatsoever between humans and animals, between a shrimp or an ant and a composer, poet or scientist. The truth is if that is the case then to you is all irrelevant. To you there is no difference between a doctor, or an engineer and a drug addict that slowly kills himself or herself in a street corner, In short you are a Nihilist.

[Who is like God arbour]

• Before you repeat your flowery phrases, you should answer the asked questions from above!
  
  And when you have done this,
  • define what art is and
  • explain why only humans but no animals can do art and
  • why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.
  Then define what nihilism is and show me where I have said that I think things that are showing that I'm a nihilist.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Imagine, an alien arrives on earth and can neither understand humans nor animals. It's own language is too complex compared to our own languages and for it, we are only barking.

Now explain, why it is supposed to recognize that humans are something special on earth.

Art, cities and nukes.

And animal rights start where our remorse begins.

[Kane Starkiller]

Gotta love how Who is like God arbour latched onto "art" of all things because he knows it's the most loosely defined human activity. There are plenty other human activities demonstrating our superiority: mathematics, physics, technology etc. When ants set up an internet forum debating whether they should treat humans with more respect let me know.

[PunkMaister]

Imagine, an alien arrives on earth and can neither understand humans nor animals. It's own language is too complex compared to our own languages and for it, we are only barking.

Now explain, why it is supposed to recognize that humans are something special on earth.

Art, cities and nukes.

And animal rights start where our remorse begins.

Do not bother Mr O according to him we have to define what each of those things are! To him a city like Rome or Athens is no different than an anthill! To him a painting, music or poetry is no different than the quack of a duck.

And Arbour a Nihilist is someone who thinks values are irrelevant because they are falsely created abstractions. That there is no difference between saving lives and mass murdering because is all the same anyways from that point of view.

The fact that you see absolutely no difference between humans and shrimp point to that fact...

The fact is I could give tons of examples of artwork, poetry, music going back centuries from all over the world and you would not be able to give me in return a single piece of art, painting poetry done by any other creature on the face of this planet but it does not matter because to you such a thing is irrelevant. Because you basically believe life has no intrinsic value and basically nothing does anyway...

[GStone]

Imagine, an alien arrives on earth and can neither understand humans nor animals. It's own language is too complex compared to our own languages and for it, we are only barking.

To a degree, I agree. Take the orian arm rpg, I think it's called. They have 'species' of varying levels of intelligence, both natural and AIs. One's perspective can shift one's views. A deeper understanding of reality can create a different idea of what it means to be aware of oneself and one's capacities.

Now explain, why it is supposed to recognize that humans are something special on earth.

If there are some that would think we're not sapient or sentient enough to warrant importance, there's a chance that some do. They might base it on not necessarily their ability to understand the specifics of our langauges and other intricacies, but it might be based on our emotions and how we interact with other humans and other plant and animal life, as well as the environment.

Explain, why that difference is supposed to be irrelevant.

Both eat, drink, reproduce, expel unwanted/waste material, interact reflexively with the external environment (in the case of some plants, some eat meat, like venus fly traps). The only difference is how much proaction takes place. That is dependent mostly on the presence of a brain.

Both have a nervous system. Plants just have a cellular level one that involves not so much actual nerve tissue, but chemical receptors and pheramones/hormones, but there is some action potential. Chemicals that get into the air can spread to other similar plants to make them act the same way when the first plant reacts to something in the environment, like ants speaking chemically with other ants.

[GStone]

Gotta love how Who is like God arbour latched onto "art" of all things because he knows it's the most loosely defined human activity.

I'd hardly call art loosely defined. It's just the one that's got the largest degree of variation for expession.

[Who is like God arbour]

Gotta love how Who is like God arbour latched onto "art" of all things because he knows it's the most loosely defined human activity.

Gotta love how Kane Starkiller latched onto one single question although there are several other still unanswered questions.

Besides I demand a definition of art because it is, if at all, loosely defined. I'm not the one who says that it is important to the question which individuals of which species are entitled to their own rights and which are not.

There are plenty other human activities demonstrating our superiority: mathematics, physics, technology etc. When ants set up an internet forum debating whether they should treat humans with more respect let me know.

It is not disputed that our society has made great technology advancements.

But the questions remains why that is supposed to be relevant for the question, which individuals of which species are entitled to their own rights and which are not.

The Romans didn't have internet.

In the Middle Ages most people couldn't read, write or calculate and there was no scientifical research.

Does this mean that the humans from then wouldn't be entitled to their own rights?

What is with primitive tribes in the tropical rain forest?

Art, cities and nukes.

See above.

Define what art is and explain why only humans but no animals can do art and why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.

Why is the ability to build cities relevant? And as PunkMaister has said, Ants, termites, bees and other insects are also building cities. What is the objective qualitative difference that is making human cities relevant?

Many nations don't have the ability to build nukes. Our ancestors didn't have the ability. Does this mean, that they are not or weren't entitled to their own rights?

And animal rights start where our remorse begins.

That could be the beginning of an honest approach to that topic.

...

Stop lying and begin to read that thread. Your fallacies are embarrassing (for you) - although you may not be able to notice it.

As was said already several times: Before you repeat your flowery phrases, you should answer the asked questions from above!

[PunkMaister]

Gotta love how Who is like God arbour latched onto "art" of all things because he knows it's the most loosely defined human activity.

I'd hardly call art loosely defined. It's just the one that's got the largest degree of variation for expession.

Precisely and as such it cannot be defined in any specific way, Arbour knows this and he simply used it to propel his Nihilistic views across.

[GStone]

Except that is how art is defined. The next largest subjects would be philosophy and science. And just like these 2, art has subsets and further subsets with greater and greater specifics and definitions. Art, philosophy and science are areas of knowledge that are broad categories. You don't take the specifics of electrochemistry and compare it to the general idea of art. You'd be comparing apples and oranges. You'd compare the general idea of science with the general idea of art. To compare to electrochemistry, go with indoor wall paint design. There is a shitload of varying colors for each color of the rainbow. And it's not about comparing importance. It's about comparing the level of detail and specificity.

You don't even find any of these three in any of these three. You don't find science in art or philosophy, you don't find art is science or philosphy and you don't find philosophy in art or science. You can take combinations of 2 or 3 of these subjects to make something else, but that takes them out of their singular natures.

[GStone]

The fact is I could give tons of examples of artwork, poetry, music going back centuries from all over the world and you would not be able to give me in return a single piece of art, painting poetry done by any other creature on the face of this planet but it does not matter because to you such a thing is irrelevant. Because you basically believe life has no intrinsic value and basically nothing does anyway...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't some gorillas and/or chimps in captivity done drawings/painting during studies of them?

[PunkMaister]

The fact is I could give tons of examples of artwork, poetry, music going back centuries from all over the world and you would not be able to give me in return a single piece of art, painting poetry done by any other creature on the face of this planet but it does not matter because to you such a thing is irrelevant. Because you basically believe life has no intrinsic value and basically nothing does anyway...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't some gorillas and/or chimps in captivity done drawings/painting during studies of them?

Not really they have given pencils and paper or even ink and canvasses to gorillas, chimps and even elephants and they just smear around paint. There is no abstract thinking or anything to what they are doing other than smearing paint on a canvas or emptily doodling on a paper. There is no depth, no perspective no nothing. Yet because they are colorful smears made by animals the zoos sell them to people. But I would never call an empty devoid of depth, perspective or character doodle or smear of paint a work of art.