"Animal rights" terrorists Arrested

[october_lost]

I don't believe in rights. Load of liberal codswallop

Our relationship with certain animals is, inherently, an exploitative one. Any relationship between a human being and a sheep (you at the back, stop sniggering ), for instance, can only really exist on the basis that the human keeps the sheep alive (they wouldn't exactly last long in the wild), while the human is able to take something useful from the sheep (wool, meat, etc.). Similarly, human beings maintain domestic cats and dogs, while the pet provides humans with something we want (companionship, something to kill pests, etc.). What other possible relationship could exist?

I dont believe in rights either, unless you count the right to be free, but you certainly cant enshrine that in a document. If I spoke correctly I would be speaking about Animal Liberation, but to most AL/AR are interchangable but rights is a concept people are more familar with.

Humans dont always have to exploit animals, we can potentially live in a society sustained with minimal animal products. And I think your definition of exploitation is incorrect a pet as you describe does not really fall into a pattern I would define as exploitative unless the animal was either being abused, or being used solely for the entertainment of the human in the example of horse-riding. It would be a mutual relationship based on historic circumstances. The Livestock issue is complex and takes a degree of planning. Livestock currently are numerous because they are artificially breed, there are several directions we could take them but it may take time to elaborate and break down the stages and priorities as I see them.

Whereas our relationship with the mentally disabled (otherwise normal human beings with an illness) and children, is fundamentally different.

For people who are mentally ill and people of different ethnic origin we have passed through historic periods of exploitation and oppression, (or misunderstanding) so too some extent children as they grow old and theyre demands are clearer to understand. There is no reason why animal liberation cant follow a similar trend. Just as most nation states had to pass through slavery and ethnic cleansing, we as humans had to exploit animals, but there will come a time when we have to correct this more and more, Im not saying its now, but Animal Liberation represents the pole of that arguement and will do so well into the future.

 

[Tom A]

By threatening, blackmailing, harassing, or firebombing people, you are nothing more than a thug. Some people on local activist mailing lists are say it's a shame people aren't protesting about this, but if you are going to be violent and use the above to justify your beliefs, then don't be surprised if the authorities take a dim view. I have never heard of cases where an New Labour MP's house has been firebombed cause he supported the war, so what is it about animal rights which attracts people who are all too willing to harm other people. With their logic anyone who isn't a fructarian should be against a wall. Peaceful demonstartions against animal rights abuses, yes. Fucktarded actions like those I have mentioned, no way. What I think about the recent events is dependent on whether or not they were committed to using non-violent means of achieving their aims, or resorting to the thggery I have just mentioned. If the former then they do have my solidarity, if the latter then I have no time for them.

 

[october_lost]

By threatening, blackmailing, harassing, or firebombing people, you are nothing more than a thug.

Go back and see where I endorsed this behaviour as the norm?

I have never heard of cases where an New Labour MP's house has been firebombed cause he supported the war, so what is it about animal rights which attracts people who are all too willing to harm other people.

This entirely depends which end you approach the equation, most ar people are peaceful but you wont talk about those nor will the press, but if you look at some of the campaigns that are ongoing for example the government supported HLS and the Guinea Pig breeders, you know that only clandestine tactics will surface and have any hope of triumphing in the short term.

Again read back where I state animal rights cant be won in short term.

 

[lights.out.london]

What would you accept as a convincing account of another sentient species ?

Goodness me. Great question, hardly unexpected.

Off the top of my head (I'm getting ready for a job interview) -

language* (I'll probably want to expand on this later)
self-awareness (not the Cartesian model, i.e.cogito ergo summa)
higher behavioural functions (avoiding the Turing trap/behaviourism/Putnam)
memory/recall
shared social history
use of tools/machines
leisure time, alone or within a group

Gotta hop. Will be back.

 

[october_lost]

So thats a no for seriouslly mentally disabled or children then.

 

[TAE]

language* (I'll probably want to expand on this later)

That assumes we can understand it. But I think whales may be good candidates. Also, dogs can learn certain words/commands. Heck even my cat has started to recognise certain sounds that we call words.

self-awareness (not the Cartesian model, i.e.cogito ergo summa)

How would you establish that?

higher behavioural functions (avoiding the Turing trap/behaviourism/Putnam)

Can't even sophisticated software do that?

memory/recall

Again, cats and dogs learn.

shared social history

What do you mean?

use of tools/machines

There are animals which use tools, but our biggest advantage in that area is AFAIK the fact that we have thmbs.

leisure time, alone or within a group

Cats, definitively.