'Proof Of Life'

[Votto]

Sure. I'm okay with some rights for animals but this is only evidence of the subjective nature of laws not the efficacy or rationality of them.

I'm suggesting that human life while it is gestating inside another and not yet viable on its own shouldn't have the same rights (if any) as someone who does have a viable, independent life.

But that is not how laws are today

So you have a problem with outlawing eagle eggs

Is this right?

 

[Curried Goats]

But that is not how laws are today

So you have a problem with outlawing eagle eggs

Is this right?

What's the problem? That's how laws work. A large enough segment of society wants to protect the eggs of endangered animals but doesn't care to protect non viable, gestating human babies. What the issue? What are you confused about?

 

[Votto]

What's the problem? That's how laws work. A large enough segment of society wants to protect the eggs of endangered animals but doesn't care to protect non viable, gestating human babies. What the issue? What are you confused about?

Although you are evading my questions, from what I have gathered from talking to you is.

1. There is no such things as natural rights, the Founding Fathers were wrong. Rights are random based upon societal whims and these whims should be decided by the majority vote.

2. This includes whether humans and animals should have rights. Human beings are merely glorified animals after all. There is no real difference between humans and animals that should secure more rights for people than for animals. Again, its all just subjective.

Am I right so far?

 

[Curried Goats]

Although you are evading my questions, from what I have gathered from talking to you is.

Which questions have I evaded? I've answered all of yours. It's you who hasn't answered mine.

1. There is no such things as natural rights, the Founding Fathers were wrong. Rights are random based upon societal whims and these whims should be decided by the majority vote.

Of course there are no such thing as natural rights and the Founders were slavers and human pieces of shit, why would I even care what those ignorant fucks believed?

2. This includes whether humans and animals should have rights. Human beings are merely glorified animals after all. There is no real difference between humans and animals that should secure more rights for people than for animals. Again, its all just subjective.

Am I right so far?

Of course there are differences. Cognitive differences, differences in the ability to flexibly cooperate. It's why we're at the top of the food chain despite animals generally being stronger, faster and better able to survive individually in the wild.

As for rights well there is no evidence of there being anything in nature called natural rights. There are legal rights and yes they are entirely subjective.

 

[Votto]

Which questions have I evaded? I've answered all of yours. It's you who hasn't answered mine.

Of course there are no such thing as natural rights and the Founders were slavers and human pieces of shit, why would I even care what those ignorant fucks believed?

Of course there are differences. Cognitive differences, differences in the ability to flexibly cooperate. It's why we're at the top of the food chain despite animals generally being stronger, faster and better able to survive individually in the wild.

As for rights well there is no evidence of there being anything in nature called natural rights. There are legal rights and yes they are entirely subjective.

As I thought.

So, for you it is Ok to use animals as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for human entertainment, or kill and eat them, simply because you are at the top of the food chain.

If so, then humans who are mentally deficient, for whatever reason, and mentally equivalent to that of a dog, lets say, should be treated the same as a dog, all based on their mental capacity to defend themselves against the master race like yourself.

 

[Curried Goats]

As I thought.

So, for you it is Ok to use animals as beasts of burden, lock them up in zoos for human entertainment, or kill and eat them, simply because you are at the top of the food chain.

Yes. That's what subjective means. I get that this hurts your feelings but that doesn't make it wrong.

If so, then humans who are mentally deficient, for whatever reason, and mentally equivalent to that of a dog, lets say, should be treated the same as a dog, all based on their mental capacity to defend themselves against the master race like yourself.

Is that your subjective opinion?

 

[Votto]

Yes. That's what subjective means. I get that this hurts your feelings but that doesn't make it wrong.

Is that your subjective opinion?

My opinion is that mankind it made in the image of God, and as such, has natural rights over the animal kingdom.

That means humans should never be treated as animals no matter their mental capacity or ability to protect themselves from thugs like yourself.

This is what you reject and rely instead on the subjective whims of various people no matter if they have the moral fiber of someone like Hitler.

But your average cookie cutter despot is a Left wing loon that wishes to herd people around like animals, because that is how they view them.

 

[Curried Goats]

My opinion is that mankind it made in the image of God, and as such, has natural rights over the animal kingdom.

So long as you recognize it as your opinion and not a statement of verifiable fact.

That means humans should never be treated as animals no matter their mental capacity or ability to protect themselves from thugs like yourself.

According to your opinion.

This is what you reject and rely instead on the subjective whims of various people no matter if they have the moral fiber of someone like Hitler.

You don't have the option of living under a system of natural rights because such a system doesn't exist.

But your average cookie cutter despot is a Left wing loon that wishes to herd people around like animals, because that is how they view them.

It's your beloved Founders, the originators of natural rights who treated people like livestock.

 

[Votto]

Yes. That's what subjective means. I get that this hurts your feelings but that doesn't make it wrong.

Is that your subjective opinion?

Not many people know this, but Charles Darwin believed in God, although he rejected Christianity.

Here is what he said.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Darwin admits to two things here.

1. If you bred animals, you only let the strongest and smartest breed, and kill off the rest. This is scientifically based reasoning.

2. You could also do this with the human race, but that would be "WRONG" since it does not adhere to "CIVLIZED MEN" and the "NOBLEST" part of their nature.

He is basically admitting that letting the weaker humans breed and exist is bringing down the rest of humanity, but there is a higher order of things to consider, namely, what is right and wrong in terms of treating human beings.

The Nazis were heavily influenced by such scientists are Darwin and opted to discard the talk about morality and nobility and brush it aside, so they tried to eradicate the weak and sick and build their master race, much like the Nazis tried breeding the human race.

And according to you, so long as the majority agreed, then all would be well.

Would you have made a good Nazi?

 

[Votto]

So long as you recognize it as your opinion and not a statement of verifiable fact.

According to your opinion.

You don't have the option of living under a system of natural rights because such a system doesn't exist.

It's your beloved Founders, the originators of natural rights who treated people like livestock.

Not all the Founders agreed with slavery and even some refused to sign the Constitution if it did not free slaves, like George Mason.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to include the slaves in the Declaration of Independence, even though he owned slaves, but was made to take it out so that South Carolina would join the union.

And although slavery was allowed, it divided the nation until the Civil war did away with slavery. The majority never agreed.

The words in the Constitution would not allow slavery to stand because it was inherently opposed to it. The problem was not with the Constitution and the reasoning by the people who wrote it, rather, the problem was their inability to do what they knew was right and to abide by its words. Their own document they created condemned their behavior.

Men like Ben Franklin knew this and fought to end slavery immediately after signing the Constitution.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not many people know this, but Charles Darwin believed in God, although he rejected Christianity.

Pretty much everyone knows that.

Here is what he said....


Darwin admits to two things here.

1. If you bred animals, you only let the strongest and smartest breed, and kill off the rest. This is scientifically based reasoning.

2. You could also do this with the human race, but that would be "WRONG" since it does not adhere to "CIVLIZED MEN" and the "NOBLEST" part of their nature.

Anything Darwin felt was wrong was simply an expression of his subjective feelings not evidence that there is such a thing as objective wrong.

He is basically admitting that letting the weaker humans breed and exist is bringing down the rest of humanity, but there is a higher order of things to consider, namely, what is right and wrong in terms of treating human beings.

That's a Bingos understanding of evolution. Advantages are situational. What's an advantage in one environment might not be an advantage in another or if the environment changes.

The Nazis were heavily influenced by such scientists are Darwin and opted to discard the talk about morality and nobility and brush it aside, so they tried to eradicate the weak and sick and build their master race, much like the Nazis tried breeding human beings.

You're going to be surprised to learn that the Nazis where fucking stupid when it came to understanding biology.

And according to you, so long as the majority agreed, then all would be well.

Well is a subjective judgment. I'd say convincing the majority is a good way to get laws passed but whether or not I think those laws are good or bad is another matter entirely.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not all the Founders agreed with slavery and even some refused to sign the Constitution if it did not free slaves, like George Mason.

George Mason was one of the largest slave owners at the time. He was the second largest slave owner is Fairfax County right below George Washington.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to include the slaves in the Declaration of Independence, even though he owned slaves, but was made to take it out so that South Carolina would join the union.

Thomas Jefferson started raping his teenage slave and the half sister of his wife when he was 40 years old and she was 15.

And although slavery was allowed, it divided the nation until the Civil war did away with slavery. The majority never agreed.

Which really damning evidence as far as natural rights are concerned.

The words in the Constitution would not allow slavery to stand because it was inherently opposed to it.

Except it allowed it to stand for a hundred years.

The problem was not with the Constitution and the reasoning by the people who wrote it, rather, the problem was their inability to do what they knew was right and to abide by its words. Their own document they created condemned their behavior.

It was also the reasoning which is stupid and nonsensical.

Men like Ben Franklin knew this and fought to end slavery immediately after signing the Constitution.

Which still doesn't mean he was completely ignorant and wrong about natural rights.