All beings that feel pain deserve human rights

[DesertFox]

Richard Ryder
The Guardian
Saturday August 6, 2005

<center>Equality of the species is the logical conclusion
of post-Darwin morality</center>

The word speciesism came to me while I was lying in a bath in Oxford some 35 years ago. It was like racism or sexism - a prejudice based upon morally irrelevant physical differences. Since Darwin we have known we are human animals related to all the other animals through evolution; how, then, can we justify our almost total oppression of all the other species? All animal species can suffer pain and distress. Animals scream and writhe like us; their nervous systems are similar and contain the same biochemicals that we know are associated with the experience of pain in ourselves.

Our concern for the pain and distress of others should be extended to any "painient" - pain-feeling - being regardless of his or her sex, class, race, religion, nationality or species. Indeed, if aliens from outer space turn out to be painient, or if we ever manufacture machines who are painient, then we must widen the moral circle to include them. Painience is the only convincing basis for attributing rights or, indeed, interests to others.

Many other qualities, such as "inherent value", have been suggested. But value cannot exist in the absence of consciousness or potential consciousness. Thus, rocks and rivers and houses have no interests and no rights of their own. This does not mean, of course, that they are not of value to us, and to many other painients, including those who need them as habitats and who would suffer without them.

Many moral principles and ideals have been proposed over the centuries - justice, freedom, equality, brotherhood, for example. But these are mere stepping stones to the ultimate good, which is happiness; and happiness is made easier by freedom from all forms of pain and suffering (using the words "pain" and "suffering" interchangeably). Indeed, if you think about it carefully you can see that the reason why these other ideals are considered important is that people have believed that they are essential to the banishment of suffering. In fact they do sometimes have this result, but not always.

Why emphasise pain and other forms of suffering rather than pleasure and happiness? One answer is that pain is much more powerful than pleasure. Would you not rather avoid an hour's torture than gain an hour's bliss? Pain is the one and only true evil. What, then, about the masochist? The answer is that pain gives him pleasure that is greater than his pain!

More gibberish here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5256582-110650,00.html)

Dude done lost his mind

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Dude done lost his mind

Absotively & posilutely! http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_47.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZS)

[Suzie]

Except the unborn human type being ... Right?

[UnkHiram]

Apparently this guy got a hold of some very bad drugs. He done fried his brain.

[DoctorDoom]

Does that extend to blathering liberaloonies who ARE pains?

[2nd_Amendment]

Let's dwell awhile here, shall we? Think about the...term..."painient." I hesitate to call it a word because, frankly, I'm unsure it is one. Be that as it may, I'll accept it as a concept. Now, imagine what it must be like to be a person...if such he is...who can endeavor to tie all of living creation together by the fact they feel pain in somewhat similar ways. By the fact they feel pain at all.

For the love of Darwin let's not tie creation together because of a common Creator. Let's not tie it together by the common struggle to survive, live high and die well. Let's in no way tie it together according to success, failure and who's currently at the top of the heap. "Specieism"(is that a word, either?), don'tcha know. No, this masochistic dreamer wants to tie us to the tapeworm and every slithering mindless thing between via the most miserable aspect of all our existences, PAIN.

Not love. Not thought. Not dreams or hope or goals or success or experience or family or any of the ten thousand wonderful things about sucking air on this miserable ball of mud...

PAIN.

Forget whether the sad fool has lost his mind or not. The direction of his thoughts says more to me about the mindset of the extreme Left overall than anything else I've read in a long time.

[DesertFox]

You on a roll, 2A. Outstanding post.

[Teenager]

Well, I guess we must include trees too. They feel pain. They have a type of nervous system. Oh, and when they go to court, they need to be represented by a lawyer. Not only that, but we should give them full civil rights as any US citizen enjoys. We should talk to them too, that way they don't get lonely.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I just think, besides the teeming megalomaniacalism, the guy's just a wuss. Whether its Buddhism or Christianity, pain is, in the end, something to be accepted. And if one finally can accept it, then the spirit can ultimately overcome it.

As far as leftys go, 2A is spot on here. In their avoidance of pain as the ultimate virtue, the left translates it into all their obssesives, neuroticisms and policies. In trying to eradicate human suffering, they coddle the masses. One need look no farther than urban ghettos and the programs that make them viable to understand how the symbiotic disease works. Its a kind of enabling. Its the same with the WOT. Don't confront evil. Hush. Be quiet. It will go away. Avoid reality. Avoid pain. Its the same with abortion. Kill the 'thing'. Don't want to suffer. Its not fair. And the same with their anti-death penalty rubbish. Coddle them with love. The power of a lib's love is so powerful and strong (they think) that it can even overcome the hardest of hearts. Just smother them with love. Show them how nice you are. They will finally come around.

It is not lodged in reality. The coddled get worse, whether it is incubating terror or incubating urban ghettos. FDR's entire new deal was about how to avoid pain. It not only engendered suffering it expanded it, indeed, it enslaved the very people trying to escape from it. Its a form of madness and vanity. You cannot be everyone's superhero. Pain is life's lesson. Not masochism, but being spiritually informed about the human condition. Christ was in the end the suffering servant, not the crushing crusader.

[DesertFox]

Wow. Between 2A and Wyatt, this has become a Hall of Fame thread.

Nicely done, gentlemen.

[nene]

Physical pain is nothing. It can be maddening, but it's still nothing. There is another pain that partly makes us who we are. This pain matures as we age. This, like the physical pain, is necessary. It controls some people, others move on. I believe, that we alone have the capacity to feel this pain. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Lestat]

Sir can I marry my dog?
The dog feels pains the dog has rights.

Sir can I have an abortion?
The fetus feels no pain it got no rights!

So do we disconnect this guy from his life support system?
No pain no rights, turn it off.

Sir, God feels no pain..
The he got no fricking rights!

And on and on it goes. We are turning dumber and dumber as a sepecies, sure we have all sort of technological advancements but humanity has sank to an all time low. We are becoming brutes with a lot of power we lack the maturity to deal with.

We are up to the point of WANTING to be animals, WANTING to destroy thousands of years long traditions and customs, WANTING to disolve and destroy what makes us human and what makes us survive. Is this to what after 4 billion years of evolution *according to evolutionist* we came to? Is that for what we evolved?

Im dissapointed.

[UhUhNoWay]

2ndA and Wyatt are spot on and lemme add, that the avoidance of 'pain' is also an avoidance of maturity and responsibility. It's childlike and naive to believe that 'all we need is love' Pain physical and emotional are stimulants that encourage growth. Anyway...sure 'things' IE animals and plants etc, probably do feel 'pain' and I believe as humans we are to be good stewards, but in no way where they ever meant to be our equals as 'beings'
I love my pets, do whatever I can to care for them ease their suffering, make them secure and happy...but...if they ever harmed a human...(unless they were defending me or otherwise provoked by someone being a jerk) I'd put a bullet in their head in a second. (and I don't own a gun, so I'd have to push that bullet pretty darn hard)

[Geoffrey20005]

Wyatt, 2A, Lestat... can I ahve your autograph? :)

So scientifically, we know that amoebas know 'pain' because, when looked upon with a light-microscope, they will shudder away from the light. So we must now give rights to amoebas, perhaps set up meetings and special days when they can't be viewed? Maybe we should develope 'amoeba bars' where they can discuss with fellow amoebas what they like as dislike....

Hmm... everything that feels pain has rights... lets see...
I live on a farm, and I feel pain, therefore I have rights. I have the right to free speech. I use this right very often when my sheep break a fence down and run out of their pens. Now, this wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for that fact that there is one sheep that every time I fix a fence, she will simply ram another hole. Since she constantly does this, she probably doesn't feel pain, and therefore her rights have been revoked, which means the day she pisses me off enough I drag her to the ground, and vent my frustration, I am completely legal.

And just who is going to enforce these rights? Is someone going to drive out every day and poll my sheep, making sure they are getting the rights they deserve? ENough toilett paper? Cold enough water? Blankets in Winter?

I smell another government unoin job group organizing...

-Geo

[Warlady]

One of the important tenets of painism (the name I give to my moral approach) is that we should concentrate upon the individual because it is the individual - not the race, the nation or the species - who does the actual suffering. For this reason, the pains and pleasures of several individuals cannot meaningfully be aggregated, as occurs in utilitarianism and most moral theories. One of the problems with the utilitarian view is that, for example, the sufferings of a gang-rape victim can be justified if the rape gives a greater sum total of pleasure to the rapists. But consciousness, surely, is bounded by the boundaries of the individual. My pain and the pain of others are thus in separate categories; you cannot add or subtract them from each other. They are worlds apart.

This is insanity. Pure frickin insanity. Pure liberalism.

[Geoffrey20005]

And secondly, just how far do we define thar rights that are to be given? Should ever living creature that is considered a predator be stricken down, while every underdog is allowed to excel? What ever happened to eviolution? Not every animal is meant to have rights... for instance, ever hear the phrase 'breed like rabbits?' Thats because rabits are prey for so many animals, that in order for their species to survive, they have evolved to produce many offspring. Messing with nature, and giving them 'rights' could offset the entire balance of nature, as we know it.

-Geo

[Rink]

All beings that feel pain deserve human rights

All beings may feel pain, but not all beings are HUMAN.

now, onto a unique question, There is a syndrome IN Humans that make the sufferer feel no pain, it is a genetic condition that affects the person and that person does not feel pain, so with this kind or reasoning those human beings born with this syndrome are not human and do not deserve rights.

So how does this remedied? and who is determined to be 'human' and deserve 'human' rights in relation to pain?

Oyea what about cretacions? Dont think those bottom-feeders feel pain either.

Since after all they live, eat underwater, and sometimes near searing hot vents under the ocean, so I guess crabs, lobsters et all dont deserve 'human' rights, Toss em into the pot!!

Great that this guy has removed a significant amount of animals from their 'feel-good' animal rights = human rights with this 'pain' ideology

Yea I could go on, but I think you get the picture...

[GrocerySacker]

The funniest thing that I found was that a fundamental tenant of modern evolutionary theory is that humans in a previous form began eating lots of meat which supplied us with the protein needed to increase our brain mass. I guess all of that stops now, huh? If he likes being able to have the thought that harming animals is wrong, then he should thank his ancestors who were harming animals.

[dcanner]

but why do they feel so much pain? could it be symptomatic of our disconnected, divorce-happy, destroy-the-family culture?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I was just about to say something, but I see that 2A and Wyatt have said it all. So I'll just sit back and bask in their brilliance.

:cool:

[PrezLeefun]

I have three words for this guy- LSD

[Geoffrey20005]

Of course, everything could feel pain but most animals might not really have the mental power to understand why. Bears will still eat ants, even though the ants burn their tongue...

[DesertFox]

Well said, Lestat.

This thread has elicited some superlative commentary.

[PatrioticAmerican]

About the article: What a load of esoteric horse puckey.

I'm in pain knowing this guy gets paid to spread his liberals tripe.

[Melz]

I am too worn to even comment further than folks already have (and believe me, that does stop me from commenting, when someone has summed it up on subjects. When I simply have nothing more to add). But there have been moments in life which I wish to show other liberals (such as the author of this writing) what brilliant folks here say in rebuttle. I only wish to be able to do so, I can only commend though, every commentary the Freecers have posted here.

Well done mates :)

[DeclinetoState]

What are we supposed to do about the pain a zebra feels when it's being dragged down by a lion in the wilds of Africa? The lion is hungry, and doesn't give a damn about the zebra's pain.

Ah, well, all of the suffering in the world is George W. Bush's fault. I guess we just have to deal with it. :(

[Melz]

This is the ranting of a tree hugger. Pain is a fact of life. Don't these tree huggers believe in Darwin? Survival of the fittest? Those who can survive some "pain" (be it an Oak tree or human or your rose bush), are the survivors.

Why (and this could be another thread somewhere else) do these people complain about every downfall of everything (humans, trees, plants, grass, ants, oh I could go on), but then support evolution which supports that the strong will survive.

Is my thinking incorrect or are they arguing their own "theory"

[DoctorDoom]

This is far more insidious than the concept of pain. It's an attempt to eliminate the uniqueness of humanity by creating equations with non-human creatures. Ryder took his notion into the twilight zone, but it's part of a much wider mindset. The "animal rights" lunatics have epitomized the principle.

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children."
-- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, New York Times, January 14, 1989.

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."
-- Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.

Regan when asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the ocean: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."
-- Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983 -- Q&A session following a speech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 27, 1989.

"To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off."
-- Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."
-- Chris De Rose, Director, Last Chance for Animals

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
-- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader

"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Ingrid Newkirk is the poster person for "animal-rights" lunacy.

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA (Vogue, September, 1989).

"There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President (in The Washington Times August 29, 1999)

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
-- "National Animal Rights Convention" 6/27/97

“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
-- US News & World Report 4/8/02

“I will be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front].”
-- The New York Daily News 12/7/97

Peter Singer is considered the godfather of A-R.

"An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable."
-- Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd. edition, 1990.

"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans."
-- ibid

"There are some circumstances, for example, where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it's better that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong ... not like killing the chimpanzee would be. Maybe it's not wrong at all."
-- Peter Singer

"Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
-- Peter Singer

In this list of quotes, the intent of those who are quoted is not to elevate the status of animals to the level of humans, but to bring humans down to the level of animals, i.e., to erase the fundamental difference between us and other lifeforms. This same "thinking" can be found in other liberal agendas.

I won't quote the particular posts, but anyone following the threads on homosexuality is aware that one common "argument" used by the advocates of that perverse "lifestyle" is that homosexuality is found in nature in various animals. The persons who post that foolishness obviously see no difference between man and other species, and use the aberrant sexual behavior of animals to justify it amongst people.

Evolutionism espouses the same basic philosophy that the difference between animals and man is a matter of degree rather than of nature. We are merely highly-evolved pond scum with nothing that differentiates us from other creatures. They cite DNA similarities as "proof" that we are simply the most advanced accumulation of random mutations, and are basically the same as apes and sewer rats.

<hr>
What is behind these attempts to reduce mankind to the level of lower life forms? The answer is obvious: if we are not unique, not fundamentally different from the rest of life, there is no need to believe that we are the special creations of God. We are the products of chance and accidents, not beings made in the spiritual image and likeness of our Creator. Any by eliminating (so they assume) the need for God, they can philosophically reject Him. Man thus becomes the final arbiter of right and wrong, of good and evil. There is no external, absolute standard to govern the affairs of man. "If it feels good, do it!" is the only law, and the lusts of the flesh are given free rein. It is the triumph of sin over sanctity.

There is no possibility of mere coincidence in the concomitance of the sexual revolution, "gay" rights, animal activism, the moral collapse of American society, the devaluing of human life, and the other evils that we see every day. They are all manifestations of the obsession with driving God out of our country and our lives in order to "free" us from the restrictions of His laws.

History is littered with the corpses of nations and civilizations that destroyed themselves from within, and we are on the same path.

Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis:

(1) Increasing lawlessness;
(2) Loss of economic discipline;
(3) Oppressive bureaucracy;
(4) Decline of educational excellence;
(5) Weakening of cultural foundations;
(6) Loss of respect for tradition;
(7) Gross materialism;
(8) Gross immorality;
(9) Decay of religious belief; and
(10) Devaluing of human life.
-- Jim Brown, When Nations Die

Every nation, every civilization that fell by the wayside went through those stages, perhaps not in that order, but not missing any of them. We won't be the exception.

When nations wave their fists at God and shout, "Go away! You're not wanted here!" He will eventually reply, "Thy will be done!" and withdraw His hand of protection and blessings. When that occurs, the result is decay and death.

Man suffers from the delusion that true freedom requires being free of God. What arrant foolishness! Only in God can true liberty be found.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

We reject his true freedom for the world's illusion of freedom at our peril.

[Lestat]

I see, well if the likes of the PETA want to consider themselves as equal and even lower to animals. Then their arbitrary opinions have as much importance and significance as a dog barking on the street.

I wonder would they give up their jobs to a cat? Or would they let a fox drive their car? We are no different than animals and even lower than them, so there should be no problem. And besides, the animal feels pain..it has rights, remember? I wonder, will animals start to work and pay taxes?

Im sick and tired of people like this, with an over sensibility over animals when there are a plethora of humans who need help and and a plethora of human problems that are way more important than complaining about eating meat and whatever an animal feels.

The PETA should shut up and focus their energies on solving HUMAN problems.

[UhUhNoWay]

Yes Doctor Doom those people are fruit loops. They draw young naive children and young adults into their web of 'feel goodisms' and those kids are the ones who rally around, do fundraisers, vandalize labs etc...all the money they get through donations etc...does it go to actually HOUSE the animals they 'free'? Well of course not. I think I read somewhere that 80% of those animals they 'rescue' actually end up being put down. They are exploiting the animals AND the children. Doesn't that sound like so many other special interest groups with the victim of the month club? They are set up to 'save' something/someone when in fact they do little to nothing to help, just line their own pockets.
I have no problem donating to actual animal rescues, and in fact have adopted several retired racing greyhounds myself. Legitimate rescue organizations do not resort to violence. Do not resort to intimidation.

[Warlady]

Some of you guys need to proof your posts. I'm having hell trying to read em.

[aaron11]

I just think, besides the teeming megalomaniacalism, the guy's just a wuss.

Dude! good word...:grin:


2A, Wyatt...


nuff said...:thumb:

[Warlady]

You're so right UhUh.

[Warlady]

Physical pain is nothing. It can be maddening, but it's still nothing. There is another pain that partly makes us who we are. This pain matures as we age. This, like the physical pain, is necessary. It controls some people, others move on. I believe, that we alone have the capacity to feel this pain. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You're dead wrong about physical pain being nothing. Have you ever experienced it? I never have a waking moment without it anymore.

[PrezLeefun]

megalomaniacalism wtf?

[UhUhNoWay]

You're dead wrong about physical pain being nothing. Have you ever experienced it? I never have a waking moment without it anymore.I'm assuming NeNe meant that emotional pain is often worse...but I may have misunderstood her. Physical pain can be unbearable, but again I believe it encourages growth...usually spiritual in order to deal with it. I am sorry for your pain Warlady

[DoctorDoom]

megalomaniacalism wtf?The actual noun is "megalomania".

One entry found for megalomania.
Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "me-g&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

[Federal Farmer]

This essay reminded me of one in James Sire's book The Joy of Reading. The essay was originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 1976. In it Pamela McCorduck, an English professor, bewails that the humanities are still stuck in the old man-centered worldview. She begins by noting that in science literature writers like Carl Sagan and Lewis Thomas use the term "human chauvinism" in their writings. She then says, "...both scientists are saying that our exaltation of our own species is as parochial as the white man's burden-another notion that sprang from minds educated in the liberal, humanistic tradition. Not only is it parochial; this exaltation is wantonly destructive of other forms of life around us. And since we treat the life around us with such shortsighted irreverance, we deserve the destruction we are slowly bringing upon ourselves."

Later she writes,
"The humanities are demoralized because they are no longer adequate for us in the world as it is. We are hard up for a Copernican revolution, which will take man from the center of the universe and put him someplace more appropriate. There were some valuable things we learned when we were going through our humanist stage, and we surely want to carry those along with us (one of them being that a good replacement for the center of the universe is not a parental deity who's going to fix everything up for us in the end). We might want to restate humanist values in such a way as to extend them to all members of our species, and to members of other species besides. But some of our most cherised beliefs are the ones that must go: for a start, we are going to have to jettison the idea of human superiority and come to grips with the idea that complexity is not necessarily superiority, that might is not necessarily right."

She has no idea what the new center might be, but throws out the idea that we should try "various candidates" and it might just come from "some extraordinary invention of our own, an off-spring in the form of a computer program whose imagination, if I may use that word, has long outpaced that of its creators, as offspring will."

The human self loathing unto desperation for a new basis of ethics draws the author to the precipice where she cares not where she lands after taking a leap, so long as it is anywhere but in the arms of God, or man. Rather, let it be an R2-D2 even, but not either of the former. A Deity is like a parent, who demands that we be responsible; man is destructive, a cancer upon the earth. Something outside of man but of our own finding or invention will provide us freedom from a Deity, and nature respite from we the cancer cells. Nevermind that it is a self-refuting argument since man would still be the one "choosing" the new ethical foundation; we are hard up for a "revolution," and choices must be made even if we do live in an absurd world.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

This is far more insidious than the concept of pain. It's an attempt to eliminate the uniqueness of humanity by creating equations with non-human creatures. Ryder took his notion into the twilight zone, but it's part of a much wider mindset. The "animal rights" lunatics have epitomized the principle.



Just so, Doc. And I guess I will chime in after all.

Following Ryder's argument -- his religion -- to its logical conclusion would mean the enslavement of humanity by the state. We may look upon this man as a lunatic, an idiot, a fool, but the truth of the matter is that a significant segment of the political left takes this kind of reasoning seriously and is intent on making its nightmarish vision a reality, wherein we would be told what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot do with our lands, with our industries, in our homes. The advancement of medicine especially and other technologies would come to a screeching halt. We’ve already gotten a taste of the kind of outcomes that can be expected as a result of implementing the kinds of policies inspired by Ryder’s logic from the left’s mindless assaults on the lumber industry: whole communities destroyed by unemployment, the ridiculous price for lumber and the skyrocketing cost of housing, a diminution of affordable quality, an historically unprecedented spike in the scope and in the frequency of forest fires.

But if Ryder’s logic where to become comprehensively universal, humans would be compelled to vie with animals for habitat and resources as if both had equal claim everywhere. And in spite all their talk about animal rights and equality, it would necessarily be certain sentient animals -- read bureaucrats, the animals that would be more equal than others -- that would adjudicate such disputes. Massive starvation and pestilence would ensue. Oh, we'd all be made equal alright, howbeit in a world where the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest prevails. And those who insist that religion should be removed from the public square are Ryder’s nitwit accomplices.

There is no such thing as religious neutrality in the public square. No institution exists in an ideological vacuum. All institutions -- especially institutions of culture and education -- advance ideas or systems of thought of one sort or another. All the people must be free to bring their most cherished convictions to the table so that the majority, and therefore the wisest, opinion prevails and advances the general good within the public sphere, in accordance, of course, with those reasonable constraints which provide for the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups. But the enemies of liberty simply can't abide that, as they cannot prevail in accordance with the standard rules of the democratic process. Their madness can only be imposed from on high by courts, by decree . . . by the U.N.. What the separation-of-church-and-state crowd, for example, really mean by government neutrality is the removal of all vestiges of classical religious expression, that which insists on the uniqueness of humanity before God, placing it far above the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of moral and spiritual essence and value. All other "religious" expressions, of course, would be permitted. That's not neutrality! That's hostility and the artificial triumph of the lunatic fringe against the whole.

As I have said before, most atheists -- rabid evolutionists -- cannot be trusted to defend liberty. They routinely evince a deplorable lack of moral capacity or common sense. The sheep among them are especially incapable of comprehending that their science, sans any appeal to divinity, is a religious fanaticism with monstrous implications, hell on earth.

Finally, the animal rights movement's true goal is to destroy the common property rights of human beings. Their goal is the same as that of the environmental wackos, the same as that of every other leftist special interest/advocacy group from A to Z. Where property rights go, so too go the rest of our fundamental human rights and liberties. The animal kingdom consists of the wild and the domestic. Domesticated animals are the property of humans. Animals don’t have rights. End of discussion. In Ryder's world, we'd all become the property of the state. End of discussion. If the state can proclaim that all living creatures are of equal standing, bearing equal rights, then none but the keepers of the zoo would have rights. Though it would be just the beginning of our problems, shrieks of pain -- an incessant chorus -- would in fact go up everywhere.

The Ryders of the world are not merely stupid or insane, they're evil. Their names are Tyranny and Murder.

[DoctorDoom]

But if Ryder’s logic where to become comprehensively universal, humans would be compelled to vie with animals for habitat and resources as if both had equal claim everywhere.The infamous Endangered Species Act gives preference to animals, bugs and plants.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The human self loathing unto desperation for a new basis of ethics draws the author to the precipice where she cares not where she lands after taking a leap, so long as it is anywhere but in the arms of God, or man. Rather, let it be an R2-D2 even, but not either of the former. A Deity is like a parent, who demands that we be responsible; man is destructive, a cancer upon the earth. Something outside of man but of our own finding or invention will provide us freedom from a Deity, and nature respite from we the cancer cells. Nevermind that it is a self-refuting argument since man would still be the one "choosing" the new ethical foundation; we are hard up for a "revolution," and choices must be made even if we do live in an absurd world.


<font size=7>!</font>

Right on the head and eloquent.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The infamous Endangered Species Act gives preference to animals, bugs and plants.

"If the state can proclaim that all living creatures are of equal standing, bearing equal rights, then none but the keepers of the zoo would have rights. Though it would be just the beginning of our problems, shrieks of pain -- an incessant chorus -- would in fact go up everywhere."

[Lestat]

Just so, Doc. And I guess I will chime in after all.

Following Ryder's argument -- his religion -- to its logical conclusion would mean the enslavement of humanity by the state. We may look upon this man as a lunatic, an idiot, a fool, but the truth of the matter is that a significant segment of the political left takes this kind of reasoning seriously and is intent on making its nightmarish vision a reality, wherein we would be told what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot do with our lands, with our industries, in our homes. The advancement of medicine especially and other technologies would come to a screeching halt. We’ve already gotten a taste of the kind of outcomes that can be expected as a result of implementing the kinds of policies inspired by Ryder’s logic from the left’s mindless assaults on the lumber industry: whole communities destroyed by unemployment, the ridiculous price for lumber and the skyrocketing cost of housing, a diminution of affordable quality, an historically unprecedented spike in the scope and in the frequency of forest fires.

<--snip-->

The Ryders of the world are not merely stupid or insane, they're evil. Their names are Tyranny and Murder.

Well said. :claps:

What we are seeing today is the nighmarish vision that George Orwell so realistically portrays in his book 1984 turning reality. The goal of the atheists and the left is communism both when it comes to property, economy, and human thought and expression. It is the destruction of human identity and culture by lowering humans to mere animals who are expendable at will.

As far as goverment neutrality, there is no such thing, the separation of Church and state is an idea pushed forth by the atheists and communist because it supports their agenda.

[Federal Farmer]

Following Ryder's argument -- his religion -- to its logical conclusion would mean the enslavement of humanity by the state. We may look upon this man as a lunatic, an idiot, a fool, but the truth of the matter is that a significant segment of the political left takes this kind of reasoning seriously and is intent on making its nightmarish vision a reality, wherein we would be told what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot do with our lands, with our industries, in our homes.

Their madness can only imposed from on high by courts, by decree . . . by the U.N.. What the separation-of-church-and-state crowd, for example, really mean by government neutrality is the removal of all vestiges of classical religious expression, that which insists on the uniqueness of humanity before God, placing it far above the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of moral and spiritual essence and value. All other "religious" expressions, of course, would be permitted. That's not neutrality! That's hostility and the artificial triumph of the lunatic fringe against the whole.
So true. Their view must be imposed, and all others destroyed.

[DesertFox]

And the hits just keep on comin'.

:claps:

[Lestat]

As a side note I highly recommend the people here to go and rent the movie Equilibirum with Christian Bale. If you have not seen it, go rent it. It really illustrates to what type of society we are heading.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Will do. I recently rediscovered Christian Bale in The Machinist, as I did not remember him as the guy in American Psycho, a film I hated and struggled to get through, or as the little boy in Empire of the Sun, one of Spielberg's finest films wherein the child actor Bale gave an impressive performance. With Batman Begins, Bale will be on everybody's radar now.

[Warlady]

This essay reminded me of one in James Sire's book The Joy of Reading. The essay was originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 1976. In it Pamela McCurdock, an English professor, bewails that the humanities are still stuck in the old man-centered worldview. She begins by noting that in science literature writers like Carl Sagan and Lewis Thomas use the term "human chauvinism" in their writings. She then says, "...both scientists are saying that our exaltation of our own species is as parochial as the white man's burden-another notion that sprang from minds educated in the liberal, humanistic tradition. Not only is it parochial; this exaltation is wantonly destructive of other forms of life around us. And since we treat the life around us with such shortsighted irreverance, we deserve the destruction we are slowly bringing upon ourselves."

Later she writes,


She has no idea what the new center might be, but throws out the idea that we should try "various candidates" and it might just come from "some extraordinary invention of our own, an off-spring in the form of a computer program whose imagination, if I may use that word, has long outpaced that of its creators, as offspring will."

The human self loathing unto desperation for a new basis of ethics draws the author to the precipice where she cares not where she lands after taking a leap, so long as it is anywhere but in the arms of God, or man. Rather, let it be an R2-D2 even, but not either of the former. A Deity is like a parent, who demands that we be responsible; man is destructive, a cancer upon the earth. Something outside of man but of our own finding or invention will provide us freedom from a Deity, and nature respite from we the cancer cells. Nevermind that it is a self-refuting argument since man would still be the one "choosing" the new ethical foundation; we are hard up for a "revolution," and choices must be made even if we do live in an absurd world.

"He ain't heavy, he's my brother....." That's heavy man.

[Federal Farmer]

Will do. I recently rediscovered Christian Bale in The Machinist, as I did not remember him as the guy in American Psycho, a film I hated and struggled to get through, or from Empire of the Sun, one of Spielberg's finest films wherein the child actor Bale gave an impressive performance. With Batman Begins, Bale will be on everybody's radar now.
Ah, I knew the name but couldn't quite place it not having seen the latest Batman. That's two movies for the to see list.

[Venus de Smilo]

This is just about the most perfect snapshot of the leftist thinking process that I have ever seen.

[Venus de Smilo]

As for the McCurdock essay, all I can say is some people have WAY too much time on their hands, especially the severely depressed, and most especially severely depressed academicians. She needs psychotherapy and a heavy daily dose of Prozac. Given her morbid rant about mankind, I would not be surprised to learn she is an active domestic eco-terrorist.

Something needs to be done about these silly asses knocking down $80k a year to sit in their ivory towers cranking out this bilge.

[PaulRevere]

Many moral principles and ideals have been proposed over the centuries - justice, freedom, equality, brotherhood, for example. But these are mere stepping stones to the ultimate good, which is happiness; and happiness is made easier by freedom from all forms of pain and suffering
EXACTLY! That is why I ease the pain and suffering of my empty stomach with a piece of dead animal. Food, glorious food, fried roasted or stewed ...

[nene]

You're dead wrong about physical pain being nothing. Have you ever experienced it? I never have a waking moment without it anymore.You misinterpreted my post.

[nene]

I'm assuming NeNe meant that emotional pain is often worse...but I may have misunderstood her. Physical pain can be unbearable, but again I believe it encourages growth...usually spiritual in order to deal with it. I am sorry for your pain Warlady

Dude, I'm a he.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

For some reason we humans enjoy attributing human emotions to anything and everything. Yes animals feel pain, but do they interpret it like humans? No. An animal whose paw is caught in a trap will go to the extreme of chewing the limb off to get out of the situation. Yes, to us this appears sad (and it is horrible, I don't like animal traps such as this), but what would a human do in the same circumstance? Would they try to reason a way out -- find something to use as a tool to pry it open, call for help, etc.?

We are to be good stewards of the world we have been given -- that includes taking care of and treating the animals IN the world with a modicum of respect, however we ARE also in charge of those animals, and if they serve a purpose, we can and should use them. Most animal rights activists seem to think scientists ENJOY and revel in the use of animals for testing, without thought for what those very same animals would do to ANOTHER animal (fight it to the death, eat it). Animals do NOT respect other animals -- they are, in this way (among so many others), different from humans.

This is just a supremely bad case of reasoning, a faulty dissertation that borders on the utterly ridiculous.

[UhUhNoWay]

Dude, I'm a he. Oh sorry about that, and Dude..I'm a chick :smirky:

[nene]

:hahaha:

[Federal Farmer]

As for the McCurdock essay, all I can say is some people have WAY too much time on their hands, especially the severely depressed., and most especially severely depressed academicians. She needs psychotherapy and a heavy daily dose of Prozac. Given her morbid rant about mankind, I would not be surprised to learn she is an active domestic eco-terrorist.

Something needs to be done about these silly asses knocking down $80k a year to sit in their ivory towers cranking out this bilge.
I actually misspelled her name in that post transposing the o and u (I've corrected it). If you google Pamela McCorduck you'll find she gets some hits and has a website. She fits right in with Hilary and the rest of their gal pals (on her website, if you click on The Futures of Women on the left, then look at the bottom of that page, you'll see what I mean).

[Venus de Smilo]

Actually, I googled her before I posted and saw that. She teaches and writes. Geez, what a waste of money it is to pay people like this. I'd rather the paper-pushers spend it to fill warehouses with widgets than to pay people like this.

[Geoffrey20005]

Face it libs, its all a process of evolution and life. I didn't get to the top of the food chain just to eat grass.

-Geo

[Federal Farmer]

Actually, I googled her before I posted and saw that. She teaches and writes. Geez, what a waste of money it is to pay people like this. I'd rather the paper-pushers spend it to fill warehouses with widgets than to pay people like this.
Agreed. Education in this country is a mess and she epitomizes the "product" of that system.

[Keb]

the guy's just a wuss.I knew it after his first sentence. What guy daydreams while taking a bath? For that matter, what guy takes a bath???:bath:

[Warlady]

Posted by Homes Animals do NOT respect other animals -- they are, in this way (among so many others), different from humans.
Then terrorists are not human.

This is just a supremely bad case of reasoning, a faulty dissertation that borders on the utterly ridiculous.

Borders on the utterly ridiculous? I would say it crossed the border after the first sentence.

nene I don't know how I misinterpreted "physical pain is nothing". Oh well.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DesertFox]

what guy takes a bath??? I resent that! I take a bath once a year whether I need it or not.

[Keb]

I resent that! I take a bath once a year whether I need it or not.O-kay, o-kay.........but do you daydream?:wish4Z: :biggrin:

[S-T]

Yep. Let's all sit around in a circle wearing our hemp shirts, bang on some drums and sing kumbayah.

:whatever:

To answer the hippie's question, we can "justify our almost total oppression of all the other species" one of two ways.


"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=28&version=9&context=verse)
Natural law mandates "speciesism". Do lions have "moral concerns" when they attack their prey, rip the poor animal to shreds, and eat it? Do other predators? No? If you insist we are the same as animals, why are we on a higher moral plane than they are?
The hippie then goes on an idiotic rant about how utilitarianism justifies gang rape. But the issue is not utilitarianism, it is that humans, who are made in the image of God, are infinitely more valuable than animals. Furthermore, each human being is given rights by God; those rights are moral constants.

I think our hippie author is so educated he can't think (http://tibbs1973.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_tibbs1973_archive.html#1117805409226126 01).

For more:

The myth of "animal rights" (http://scott.sstibbs.com/blog/myth.html)
Humans are superior to animals (http://scott.sstibbs.com/blog/blogpost_2004_03_20.html)
Research must proceed (http://scott.sstibbs.com/opinion/column_01.html)
The ELF/ALF axis of evil must be destroyed (http://scott.sstibbs.com/opinion/2005_column_10.html)
Fish are food, not friends. (http://tibbs1973.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_tibbs1973_archive.html#1108475447535922 52)
PETA's "holocaust on your dinner plate" campaign is immoral (http://tibbs1973.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_tibbs1973_archive.html#1079797319552561 96)
Now I am in the mood to get a chicken dinner (from chickens no doubt raised in factory farms) at KFC.

[2nd_Amendment]

For some reason we humans enjoy attributing human emotions to anything and everything.

Actually I don't have a problem with this. If God is the Creator of all things then emotions are not "human", they are in fact sourced originally from God. Thus a logical extension is animals also feel essentially the same emotions. The point would be, does this make them our equals? Obviously not.

Yes animals feel pain, but do they interpret it like humans? No.

Again, I don't have a problem with the assumption they do, to the limits of intelligence of the specific animal in question. And again, so what? This also does not make them our equal...nor does it render OUR emotions, reactions and intelligence less superior.

An animal whose paw is caught in a trap will go to the extreme of chewing the limb off to get out of the situation. Yes, to us this appears sad (and it is horrible, I don't like animal traps such as this), but what would a human do in the same circumstance? Would they try to reason a way out -- find something to use as a tool to pry it open, call for help, etc.?
Ba-a-a-a-a-ad example. A lefty like the article's author would dive right into this. A human will gnaw his own hand off, or chop off his own leg, if that's what is required to get free. Just like an animal. The only difference is the human has several more options open to him prior to that extreme, thx to language, technology and the opposable thumb. Those advantages don't necessarily indicate any reasoning capacity on the part of the human in question(and considering some of the fools I have known...) nor does it mean the animal doesn't necessarily understand perfectly well what it needs to do. Since it can't though that possible realization is meaningless for the animal.

I thought I'd touch on the points above purely because to me it seems important to strike a middle ground on this. It's not necessary to believe animals are mindless, emotionless automatons, computers of meat, to see and accept the innate superiority of humans over those animals. It doesn't even matter, in logical thought, whether one is a Darwinist or a Believer. WE are the top of the heap by sheer numbers, brain power, aggression, whatever yardstick one wishes to use.

For a true Darwinist/Evolutionist that is enough. If he fails to accept this then he has just abandoned every functional aspect of the theory. For a Believer it's enough because God said so, and gave us a soul in addition. To see it otherwise is to deny God's intent. But neither view requires we dismiss the intelligence or emotional responses of lower animals and doing so too often gives even more fuel to the fires of already flaming extremists like the one we've been laughing at for several pages...

Now as for that author's intelligence and emotional capacity...I think we can go ahead and safely dismiss it... :)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I thought I'd touch on the points above purely because to me it seems important to strike a middle ground on this. It's not necessary to believe animals are mindless, emotionless automatons, computers of meat, to see and accept the innate superiority of humans over those animals.

Guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

I do NOT believe animals are capable of the emotions of humans, nor human cognitive reasoning or interpretation ability -- I think they (advanced emotions, higher cognitive reasoning and deep interpretation) were a unique endowment by our Creator to his highest earthly creation, mankind. I believe they (animals) have rudimentary emotional, reasoning and interpretive abilities, that may be human-like in some respects, but surely not a carbon copy. I don't believe there is a slim line between man and beast, I believe there is a great gulf of an expanse that cannot be easily broached. I do not believe animals to be mindless, emotionless automatons or computers of meat -- but I DO believe they were given TO man . . . as a source of companionship, meat, clothing, etc. I believe MAN assigns attributes to animals based upon a HUMAN desire to be compassionate, caring, and/or sympathetic. This is not in general a bad thing, but I think if one travels too far down that path it leads right to the animal-rights activists' doors and they WILL insist that animals aren't equal, but rather superior to man -- which is exactly what seems to be indicated from this article.

[DesertFox]

She needs psychotherapy and a heavy daily dose of Prozac. Prolly just needs a good, hard, all-night workout with a young -- never mind.

[Air-Warrior]

So when God instructed a Bull or a lamb to be slaughtered as a sacrifice, He was actually breaking man's law? :rolleyes: Huh? How the *#$! does that work?

[Kathy30]

The logic is so convoluted that it is clear that this liberal has followed his thinking right up his own alimentary canal.

All animals that feel pain deserve human rights, therefore all animals are human.

It's like the guy that says I'm a liar and everything I say is a lie. If he's a liar then everything he says is a lie it must be true that he's a liar, but it cannot be true because he lies!

Animals are animals, and if he doesn't believe me, he is free to sink himself in a shark tank or a lion's den where he will most certainly be dinner. Animals have no niceties such as captivity.

Certain animals have become elevated because of their close relationship to human beings and their value as more than mere food. Dogs, Cats, Horses and some other animals have become so closely associated with the human condition as to exhibit many human qualities themselves. These are deserving of the protection of the law.

[DesertFox]

The infamous Endangered Species Act gives preference to animals, bugs and plants.No doubt bacteria, fungi and virii are the next critters to displace man in importance.

[DoctorDoom]

We can eliminate one creature from "beings that feal pain": liberals. The sensation of pain requires a functioning brain.

[Air-Warrior]

The logic is so convoluted that it is clear that this liberal has followed his thinking right up his own alimentary canal.

All animals that feel pain deserve human rights, therefore all animals are human.

It's like the guy that says I'm a liar and everything I say is a lie. If he's a liar then everything he says is a lie it must be true that he's a liar, but it cannot be true because he lies!

Animals are animals, and if he doesn't believe me, he is free to sink himself in a shark tank or a lion's den where he will most certainly be dinner. Animals have no niceties such as captivity.

Certain animals have become elevated because of their close relationship to human beings and their value as more than mere food. Dogs, Cats, Horses and some other animals have become so closely associated with the human condition as to exhibit many human qualities themselves. These are deserving of the protection of the law.How does one charge a polar bear with killing a seal? How much prison time will that be? :D

[neglesaks]

Sapient beings have rights. Those that are merely sentient do not.

[BuckeyeMike]

This guy must not be one of those that feels pain then.....because he has to be ONE NUMB SON OF A BITCH!!!!