|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 30, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
I suppose that if you look at it that way, then yes, actions that cause benefit to society are good, and those that harm it are evil. But that's not the point. What I'm saying is that self-interest can help society.
And not just humans are self-interested. From the lowest virus to the most enlightened human, all are self-interested. And humans are animals. They are smarter, but animals nevertheless.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 01, 2008 04:19 PM |
|
|
Tired from quote wars, will respond when I find time 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2008 05:49 PM |
|
|
Regarding what Moonlith said about luxuries.
The environment and animal rights are luxury goods. It is mostly rich and middle-class people in rich countries that care about either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
Animal rights or respect for life is not a luxury good... honetly... I can name a few : a private plane, 3rd beach house, swimming pool, diamond pearls. "goods" are meant as in "stuff" as in "material thingies". Please stop posting nonsense.
Respecting life is a fundamental issue in defining what we humans are like. It is more of a philosophical question. But to you, it is a luxury good. I am amazed at how much we are from different planets.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2008 09:01 PM |
|
|
Perhaps luxury good isn't the right word. Luxury service would perhaps define it slightly better.
But you have to realize that the poor of say, India, don't really care about the environment. The Supreme Court of Delhi once held a polluting factory in contempt. Its workers arose in protest.
Another example. Many people from rich countries care about preserving Africa's wildlife. Yet much of its wildlife causes destruction to the people's agriculute. Imagine what would happen if the reverse happened: if a lot of Africans took a sudden interest in preserving the rat in North America or Europe. I don't think we'd like that very much.
Animal rights are the same sort of thing. Sure, we enjoy protecting animal life, but when it comes down between starving and eating a factory chicken, most of us would pick the chicken.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 03:59 AM |
|
|
I agree with mvass.
It's generally only when people can afford to care about animal rights or the environment that they do.
While there are some die-hard people who will give their life for these things, most people, when pressed with either bankrupcy or reducing their carbon footprint or whatever, will choose financial security over the latter.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
While there are some die-hard people who will give their life for these things, most people, when pressed with either bankrupcy or reducing their carbon footprint or whatever, will choose financial security over the latter.
And wasn't this exactly the point? That most humans are selfish (i.e not the die-hard you mentioned)?
Of course they will choose financial security, and you see, that's the problem we're discussing
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 02:05 PM |
|
|
This was the point Mvass made, yes, I was agreeing with it...
I was disagreeing with this:
Quote:
Animal rights or respect for life is not a luxury good
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 02:00 PM |
|
|
|
TA, are human rights a luxury good as well? And hence, should be only applied when the economy is doing well enough?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 02:06 PM |
|
|
No. For a country to develop economically, it should have human rights. On the other hand, a country that is developed economically will have better human rights. So building the economy in third-world countries will improve human rights, up to a point. At that point, there has to be a way for the citizens of that country to get their government to respond.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 02:08 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 14:19, 05 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Perhaps luxury good isn't the right word. Luxury service would perhaps define it slightly better.
But you have to realize that the poor of say, India, don't really care about the environment. The Supreme Court of Delhi once held a polluting factory in contempt. Its workers arose in protest.
Consider the level of education these people have. Also the desperation of maintaining the job. Hence, it is a job for the goverment to pass laws that ensure the well being of animals.
Quote:
Another example. Many people from rich countries care about preserving Africa's wildlife. Yet much of its wildlife causes destruction to the people's agriculute. Imagine what would happen if the reverse happened: if a lot of Africans took a sudden interest in preserving the rat in North America or Europe. I don't think we'd like that very much.
Rat is not endangered...
Quote:
Animal rights are the same sort of thing. Sure, we enjoy protecting animal life, but when it comes down between starving and eating a factory chicken, most of us would pick the chicken.
Sure, I have no doubt about that. I don't think that is the issue we are talking about...
@TA
Then how come the tribes that live in the utmost poverty can afforf this "luxury good" of treating their animals with dignity?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 09:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider the level of education these people have.
Even an educated person would rather not starve.
Quote:
Hence, it is a job for the goverment to pass laws that ensure the well being of animals.
At the cost of jobs in a country that already has a high unemployment rate? Government of the animals, for the animals, by the animals?
Quote:
Rat is not endangered...
But if it were.
Quote:
Sure, I have no doubt about that. I don't think that is the issue we are talking about...
Not everyone can afford a non-factory chicken.
Quote:
Then how come the tribes that live in the utmost poverty can afforf this "luxury good" of treating their animals with dignity?
They don't have as good agriculture as the developed world, so they have to treat what they have better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 10:12 PM |
|
|
WTH??????? Really, are you two really arguing about this? Amazing!!
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 11:07 PM |
|
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 00:36, 06 May 2008.
|
I am perfectly aware that humans eat a lot of thing, whether they are too poor to eat anything else just because they like it. We differ there, that you belive that we humans are allowed to do what ever we want. You even consider animals as "things" or as "food", and nothing else. So it is a conflict between these ideas, so the continuing quote war is pointless.
Your last points are hardly anything I disagree with. Simply that I do not worship the god money, I do not want to sacrifice compassion and respect for life to its altar. Humans consume more than their share. Way more. You see nothing wrong with it, I most certainly do.
As this is a moral question, at least to me (to you it is economical) I won't defend the issue from monetary point of view. Sure it is more profitable to treat the animals the way they are treated today. I have never said otherwise. What I am saying is that it is WRONG. Yes, even the guys in India, who make mostly products for the western world (leather clothes for example) should have some regulations as to how the animals are treated. It is really hard, as the pressure to be "competetive" at the global markets is high.
And the ones that treat their animals well, seem to be excluded from global economy. Obviously, they have no need to produce massively more than what they need for themselves, as they trade very little with the neighbouring tribes.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 12:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Simply that I do not worship the god money, I do not want to sacrifice compassion and respect for life to its altar.
Money is nothing more but the unit of productivity.
Quote:
Yes, even the guys in India, who make mostly products for the western world (leather clothes for example) should have some regulations as to how the animals are treated.
These regulations put people out of jobs. And if they lose their jobs, they could easily starve.
Quote:
Obviously, they have no need to produce massively more than what they need for themselves, as they trade very little with the neighbouring tribes.
But if they traded, they could specialize, and be more productive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 12:54 AM |
|
|
|
Oh yes, treat that animal well and you will starve. Oh PLEASE. For most Indians, meat is a rarity! They are mostly vegetarian, for your information.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 12:56 AM |
|
|
I wasn't even talking about animal abuse in India. I was talking about a polluting factory.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 12:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I wasn't even talking about animal abuse in India. I was talking about a polluting factory.
You didn't think of mentioning that then? After all, you quoted my line where I was talking about animal abuse in India.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2008 01:26 AM |
|
|
To quote myself:
Quote:
But you have to realize that the poor of say, India, don't really care about the environment. The Supreme Court of Delhi once held a polluting factory in contempt. Its workers arose in protest.
And I quoted you because you were talking about it. I'm not the one who brought it up.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
