I'll add that since we have sovereignty over animals, that means we are responsible for them, which to me means that we have an obligation to see that they are cared for and treated properly.
(on edit: not the Bible justification stuff, but animal rights and the rights of living things and stuff. The Bible can almost always be used to argue against itself. ;)
As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.
I- - Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge- - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance- - My love and my devotion.
To the Flag- - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
United- - That means that we have all come together.
States- - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic- - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
One Nation- - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible- - Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty- - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice- - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
For All- - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?
It sounds more like you got it from the Bible, than it being your personal belief. Did you come to believe it, and then just found out the Bible agrees, or did you first learn that opinion from the Bible?
Actually I'm not sure. Maybe a combination of both. I have never been a deeply religious person, but I have found a new born awaking lately. So, to tell you the truth, I am not sure how to answer you question.
As to the rest of your post. I do not think you can compare the laws of man with the laws of god. I do agree with what you posted though. To the point that we do have a responsibility to animals and their care. For example, trying to help endangered species from becoming extinct. I hope this help you see where I am coming from. If you have any other questions, I will try to answer the best I can.
I don't want to see endangered species die out, either. But there's something wrong when, as in the case of the spotted owl, the economy and jobs in a region are forced almost into nonexistence because one animal isn't very numerous there, even though it thrives in other places.
To the point that we do have a responsibility to animals and their care.
And if you believe that this responsibility is handed to us by God, and thus presumably is the way, the path, the universal truth, or whatever...doesn't that add up to animals having rights? Rights defined by God (or, as I believe, by the very system of nature itself)?
You've answered (or let the Bible answer for you) the "what makes humans so special?" part of my question. What about the "Why wouldn't all living things have rights?" part? Why wouldn't they? It seems to me like they should, and probably do.
What kind of rights do you think they should/do have? If you can define this or give an example, it would help me answer you. It maybe we are not far apart on this issue.
I don't want to see endangered species die out, either.
I had a long conversation with someone about how it doesn't make sense that an animal has certain special rights, only if it's considered endangered. We were discussing whether a wolf has rights like us (we were actually discussing whether wolves should have the presumed right to live), and my friend said it doesn't and shouldn't/can't really...but that if it was deemed "endangered," then we would have a responsibility to it.
This seems like a messed up morality to me. Either Bob the wolf has the right to live and exist peacefully, or he doesn't. His right is not dependent on how many of his type of wolf are in the area, or how many are living on the planet-- that doesn't make any sense. That means that Bob could have the right to live one day, and suddenly lose that right to live if his species gets better and off the endangered list. That's wack. Either Bob the wolf has certain rights, from cradle to grave, or he doesn't. We don't get to decide his rights annually based on population surveys. Well, we can, but I think we're breaking the rules.
(unless you buy into the "man is the designated (by God) landscaper of all living things" theory. even then, there must be common sense implied in our "dominion mandate")
What kind of rights do you think they should/do have?
This I don't know. I've got lots of points of discussion, but I don't feel like I've got the answers quite enough to make any solid rulings on the rights of animals. I'm groping for answers (not satisfied to just look in a book and go with what it tells me).
We could go in a few directions. One is the fact that over the millennia, man has been gradually waking up and recognizing the rights of living things. Speaking of the U.S.'s mentality, if there is such a thing, and legal system at least, we have added blacks, women, children, prisoners, mentally ill, albinos, and many other classifications of people to the "they have rights" category. We have even taken this further, and have begun to designate rights for animals, in the form of the endangered species act, the wildlife bureau, animal cruelty laws, and even more special rights for pets are entering the picture. We have begun to recognize the rights of plants, and of the earth and ecosystem in general, via EPA regulations.
We also are extending rights to children in new ways, and those rights are trying to work their way into the womb, and even into the sperm and eggs of people. Sperm and eggs have a vague set of legal rights in the U.S. These are single-celled organisms, and they are basically considered to be a living extension of their "owner". If a fertile egg is wrongly killed, a lawsuit could potentially ensue. Obviously, a woman's egg is of higher legal standing (has more rights) than, say, a bacteria, or even a fly. Or even a cow.
This issue goes way deep, and we'll be sorting it out for the next hundred years, at least, but I think we are definitely on a path toward recognizing that all living things have rights, and trying to define just how that all works. It's a slow shift from the "I am Man, so the world is mine for the offing" view (See Genesis, "dominion clause".)
That was only one of the directions. We could also talk about Koko the gorilla, and dolphins, and the intelligence of dogs and cats, and just what defines whether a being should have rights or not? Koko has an IQ of like 80 or something. Why wouldn't she have the same rights as a person with IQ 80? (like the right to be awarded the Presidency by the Supreme Court...just kidding ;)
Or there's the basic "does a wolf have the right to live?" approach, and if it does, under what circumstances does it retain those rights, and when can we curb those rights. If a wolf has a right to live, does it have a right to cross the road without being hit, like people do? Does it have the right to beg for food outside the supermarket? Does it have the right to eat people's pets for its survival?
I could go on for days. I won't, at least not right now. ;)
Under the campaign finance reform bill, if someone wants to hire air time to make a speech for or against a specific candidate, he may be forbidden to do so if he does it too close to the election. On the other hand, anyone wanting to burn a flag may do so at anytime because it's protected by the First Amendment. Flag-burning is thus considered to be "free speech," but making a speech is not. Get it?
"I'm getting worried about the economy," he told the young supporters, who paid $25 each to attend the event. "I was the first one laid off last year."- Al Gore at a fund raiser Friday.
no, people are a subset of animals, like it or not.
It is good to be at the top of the food chain.
If I come back as an animal I'd like to be a Lion. In the lion's world the male is king. The women hunt for the food, kill it, bring it back. The male gets first dibs on the animal, eating what he wants, the rest get the left overs. He takes a nap, wakes up, has sex 3-4 times a day with one of the lioness of his choosing, and then goes back to sleep until more food arrives. I never knew this about male lions until watching the discovery channel with the wife one night. She wasn't at all amused when I turned to her and said "You see hon, it's the natural order of things" :) The only thing missing for the male lion is cable t.v and Budwieser.
Better than the alternative. But on behalf of men everywhere, rob, you're making us look bad.
Male lions are nothing to admire. Bald eagles have bad reputations, too. They're scavangers. The ones that gather around Lake Pepin in the winter are only there when the weather is nice. If it's too windy they pick through the garbage in Red Wing.
I hpoe your father is doing well. I like your "real" comments. Natural or silicone? Hmmmm.... Well, here's my take on it. Nutrasweet tastes just like sugar!
You stated "with rights come responsibility." You did not say with "power comes responsibility." Please explain the former in relation to animals and any rights you say they have.
You stated "with rights come responsibility." You did not say with "power comes responsibility." Please explain the former in relation to animals and any rights you say they have.
Humans have reason whereas other animals do not (Although arguable). The inferior have a right to being treated humanely by the so called superior.
Humans have critical thinking. At least conservative humans do.
Many humans do not have critical thinking (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), are they inferior? Are they nothing more than your definition of animals? Do they have a right to be treated humanely? Do we have a responsibility to them?
Jethro, it's as simple as right and wrong and I would think you would understand that.
You know, "Black & White", "Right & Wrong".
Of course it's hard to reason with someone who believes abortion is killing and wrong, yet killing abortion doctors is not only ok, but perfectly justifiable.
You totally skipped all my points and queries, and then come in with the silly bit about "what are animals' responsibilities?"
You don't acknowledge they have rights, so isn't their corresponding responsibility irrelevant to you?
Humans have critical thinking. At least conservative humans do.
My dog has critical thinking. So do my cats. Birds can open and escape from cages. They can talk. Dolphins talk, play, and think just fine. Koko the Gorilla has a vocabulary of thousands of words (if I recall correctly).
However, as THX pointed out, Ronald Reagan, along with other droolers around the world, does not have critical thinking. Neither does a kid below the age of whatever it is (3? 4? 6?).
A person whose language is that clicking language has rights, but a dolphin, who could well be as intelligent, and has its own clicking language, has...oh, but wait. Dolphins do have rights. They are protected by law. Do you agree with that, Jethro?
Humans have reason whereas other animals do not (Although arguable). The inferior have a right to being treated humanely by the so called superior.
You still haven't answered the question. I know it is because there is no answer.
Many humans do not have critical thinking (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), are they inferior? Are they nothing more than your definition of animals? Do they have a right to be treated humanely? Do we have a responsibility to them?
You shouldn't make fun of a person's affliction.
Of course it's hard to reason with someone who believes abortion is killing and wrong, yet killing abortion doctors is not only ok, but perfectly justifiable. I didn't say this. I said there is an argument that can be made that it is justifiable. Abortion providers kill unborn babies.
Nicely argued, Lance.
I'll add that since we have sovereignty over animals, that means we are responsible for them, which to me means that we have an obligation to see that they are cared for and treated properly.
(on edit: not the Bible justification stuff, but animal rights and the rights of living things and stuff. The Bible can almost always be used to argue against itself. ;)
Based on that bible quote, those blaspheming rabbits are eating the "orange" carrots from my garden! Sshhhhh! Be vewy qwiet, I'm hunting wabbits!
by Red Skelton
As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.
I- - Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge- - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance- - My love and my devotion.
To the Flag- - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
United- - That means that we have all come together.
States- - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic- - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
One Nation- - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible- - Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty- - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice- - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
For All- - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?
Red Skelton
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,212622,00.html
Nope. It'd be the law, if you're talking about government schools. Not a pity.
Actually I'm not sure. Maybe a combination of both. I have never been a deeply religious person, but I have found a new born awaking lately. So, to tell you the truth, I am not sure how to answer you question.
As to the rest of your post. I do not think you can compare the laws of man with the laws of god. I do agree with what you posted though. To the point that we do have a responsibility to animals and their care. For example, trying to help endangered species from becoming extinct. I hope this help you see where I am coming from. If you have any other questions, I will try to answer the best I can.
Thanks, Wolvie.
I don't want to see endangered species die out, either. But there's something wrong when, as in the case of the spotted owl, the economy and jobs in a region are forced almost into nonexistence because one animal isn't very numerous there, even though it thrives in other places.
And if you believe that this responsibility is handed to us by God, and thus presumably is the way, the path, the universal truth, or whatever...doesn't that add up to animals having rights? Rights defined by God (or, as I believe, by the very system of nature itself)?
You've answered (or let the Bible answer for you) the "what makes humans so special?" part of my question. What about the "Why wouldn't all living things have rights?" part? Why wouldn't they? It seems to me like they should, and probably do.
What kind of rights do you think they should/do have? If you can define this or give an example, it would help me answer you. It maybe we are not far apart on this issue.
I had a long conversation with someone about how it doesn't make sense that an animal has certain special rights, only if it's considered endangered. We were discussing whether a wolf has rights like us (we were actually discussing whether wolves should have the presumed right to live), and my friend said it doesn't and shouldn't/can't really...but that if it was deemed "endangered," then we would have a responsibility to it.
This seems like a messed up morality to me. Either Bob the wolf has the right to live and exist peacefully, or he doesn't. His right is not dependent on how many of his type of wolf are in the area, or how many are living on the planet-- that doesn't make any sense. That means that Bob could have the right to live one day, and suddenly lose that right to live if his species gets better and off the endangered list. That's wack. Either Bob the wolf has certain rights, from cradle to grave, or he doesn't. We don't get to decide his rights annually based on population surveys. Well, we can, but I think we're breaking the rules.
(unless you buy into the "man is the designated (by God) landscaper of all living things" theory. even then, there must be common sense implied in our "dominion mandate")
This I don't know. I've got lots of points of discussion, but I don't feel like I've got the answers quite enough to make any solid rulings on the rights of animals. I'm groping for answers (not satisfied to just look in a book and go with what it tells me).
We could go in a few directions. One is the fact that over the millennia, man has been gradually waking up and recognizing the rights of living things. Speaking of the U.S.'s mentality, if there is such a thing, and legal system at least, we have added blacks, women, children, prisoners, mentally ill, albinos, and many other classifications of people to the "they have rights" category. We have even taken this further, and have begun to designate rights for animals, in the form of the endangered species act, the wildlife bureau, animal cruelty laws, and even more special rights for pets are entering the picture. We have begun to recognize the rights of plants, and of the earth and ecosystem in general, via EPA regulations.
We also are extending rights to children in new ways, and those rights are trying to work their way into the womb, and even into the sperm and eggs of people. Sperm and eggs have a vague set of legal rights in the U.S. These are single-celled organisms, and they are basically considered to be a living extension of their "owner". If a fertile egg is wrongly killed, a lawsuit could potentially ensue. Obviously, a woman's egg is of higher legal standing (has more rights) than, say, a bacteria, or even a fly. Or even a cow.
This issue goes way deep, and we'll be sorting it out for the next hundred years, at least, but I think we are definitely on a path toward recognizing that all living things have rights, and trying to define just how that all works. It's a slow shift from the "I am Man, so the world is mine for the offing" view (See Genesis, "dominion clause".)
That was only one of the directions. We could also talk about Koko the gorilla, and dolphins, and the intelligence of dogs and cats, and just what defines whether a being should have rights or not? Koko has an IQ of like 80 or something. Why wouldn't she have the same rights as a person with IQ 80? (like the right to be awarded the Presidency by the Supreme Court...just kidding ;)
Or there's the basic "does a wolf have the right to live?" approach, and if it does, under what circumstances does it retain those rights, and when can we curb those rights. If a wolf has a right to live, does it have a right to cross the road without being hit, like people do? Does it have the right to beg for food outside the supermarket? Does it have the right to eat people's pets for its survival?
I could go on for days. I won't, at least not right now. ;)
From the Daily Oklahoman:
To The Editor:
Under the campaign finance reform bill, if someone wants to hire air time to make a speech for or against a specific candidate, he may be forbidden to do so if he does it too close to the election. On the other hand, anyone wanting to burn a flag may do so at anytime because it's protected by the First Amendment. Flag-burning is thus considered to be "free speech," but making a speech is not. Get it?
"I'm getting worried about the economy," he told the young supporters, who paid $25 each to attend the event. "I was the first one laid off last year."- Al Gore at a fund raiser Friday.
Mo. Tiger Trafficking Case Reflects Growing Animal Smuggling Problem in the U.S.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/animal_trafficking020225.html
They are ANIMALS. People that support animal rights should turn their attention to the butchering of unborn children.
FYI: You are an animal, as are those unborn children.
Totally inane.
What's inane about truth?
Animals and people aren't the same.
Animals and people aren't the same.
no, people are a subset of animals, like it or not.
It is good to be at the top of the food chain.
If I come back as an animal I'd like to be a Lion. In the lion's world the male is king. The women hunt for the food, kill it, bring it back. The male gets first dibs on the animal, eating what he wants, the rest get the left overs. He takes a nap, wakes up, has sex 3-4 times a day with one of the lioness of his choosing, and then goes back to sleep until more food arrives. I never knew this about male lions until watching the discovery channel with the wife one night. She wasn't at all amused when I turned to her and said "You see hon, it's the natural order of things" :) The only thing missing for the male lion is cable t.v and Budwieser.
People are above animals.
"It is good to be at the top of the food chain. "
Better than the alternative. But on behalf of men everywhere, rob, you're making us look bad.
Male lions are nothing to admire. Bald eagles have bad reputations, too. They're scavangers. The ones that gather around Lake Pepin in the winter are only there when the weather is nice. If it's too windy they pick through the garbage in Red Wing.
so you're speaking on behalf of men everywhere ?
Geez,
It was a joke Rick, Not to worry, as I said, my
wife didn't find it funny either.
Animals and people aren't the same.
You're kind of right but mostly wrong.
Humans are a specific form of animal.
Humans are a specific form of animal.
So what?
"Humans are a specific form of animal. "
Some are more specifically animal than others.
So what?
My point exactly.
You have no point. Just an inane comment. Only an idiot would see animals and people as the same.
Nice Jethro.
Very nice.
IT'S BEEN "REAL"
I was on a date with a girl with fake boobs.
We were sitting on a ersatz-leather couch eating WOW chips.
I was totally full of BS.
Rumsfeld came on the TV and said his office of disinfo wouldn't "actually" tell lies.
Followed by a commercial for a $19.95 jar of juice that'd make you lose 10 pounds in 48 hours.
My hairpiece was getting really itchy.
Her violet contact lens had crept halfway up the white of her left eyeball.
Members of a cult came to the door to promote "true salvation".
I told them I didn't speak English.
A telemarketer called.
I told him I didn't speak English.
I whispered to my date that I really enjoyed being with a "natural" woman.
She replied that she appreciated my "sincere" qualities.
Just then Satan burst through the floor in a belch of fire and dragged us straight to Hell.
Only it was actually Bel Air, California.
I kid you not.
Hey Dennis,
How's your Father doing ? I hope everything is going o.k.
Touch and go.
The next few days will tell.
Thanks for your concern.
You'll be in my thoughts. Stay strong, Godspeed to him and your family.
Dennis:
I hpoe your father is doing well. I like your "real" comments. Natural or silicone? Hmmmm.... Well, here's my take on it. Nutrasweet tastes just like sugar!
Do you think animals and humans are the same, JT?
Do you think animals and humans are the same, JT?
Of course not. However, I believe that animals deserve better treatment than they are given.
Hell, I think humans deserve better treatment than they are given.
With rights comes responsibility. If humans have dominion over animals, they also have a responsibility to treat them humanely.
With rights comes responsibility.
amen!
However, I believe that animals deserve better treatment than they are given. Which animals in particular?
With rights comes responsibility What responsibility do animals have since apparently you believe they have rights?
Which animals in particular?
All animals deserve humane treatment.
What responsibility do animals have since apparently you believe they have rights?
None, for they have no power over us. All the power is in our hands.
What is it that makes you believe humans are superior to other animals?
You stated "with rights come responsibility." You did not say with "power comes responsibility." Please explain the former in relation to animals and any rights you say they have.
Humans have critical thinking. At least conservative humans do.
You stated "with rights come responsibility." You did not say with "power comes responsibility." Please explain the former in relation to animals and any rights you say they have.
Humans have reason whereas other animals do not (Although arguable). The inferior have a right to being treated humanely by the so called superior.
Humans have critical thinking. At least conservative humans do.
Many humans do not have critical thinking (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), are they inferior? Are they nothing more than your definition of animals? Do they have a right to be treated humanely? Do we have a responsibility to them?
Jethro, it's as simple as right and wrong and I would think you would understand that.
You know, "Black & White", "Right & Wrong".
Of course it's hard to reason with someone who believes abortion is killing and wrong, yet killing abortion doctors is not only ok, but perfectly justifiable.
You totally skipped all my points and queries, and then come in with the silly bit about "what are animals' responsibilities?"
You don't acknowledge they have rights, so isn't their corresponding responsibility irrelevant to you?
My dog has critical thinking. So do my cats. Birds can open and escape from cages. They can talk. Dolphins talk, play, and think just fine. Koko the Gorilla has a vocabulary of thousands of words (if I recall correctly).
However, as THX pointed out, Ronald Reagan, along with other droolers around the world, does not have critical thinking. Neither does a kid below the age of whatever it is (3? 4? 6?).
A person whose language is that clicking language has rights, but a dolphin, who could well be as intelligent, and has its own clicking language, has...oh, but wait. Dolphins do have rights. They are protected by law. Do you agree with that, Jethro?
Humans have reason whereas other animals do not (Although arguable). The inferior have a right to being treated humanely by the so called superior.
You still haven't answered the question. I know it is because there is no answer.
Many humans do not have critical thinking (Ronald Reagan comes to mind), are they inferior? Are they nothing more than your definition of animals? Do they have a right to be treated humanely? Do we have a responsibility to them?
You shouldn't make fun of a person's affliction.
Of course it's hard to reason with someone who believes abortion is killing and wrong, yet killing abortion doctors is not only ok, but perfectly justifiable. I didn't say this. I said there is an argument that can be made that it is justifiable. Abortion providers kill unborn babies.
If anyone wants to think I called them an idiot they can do so. But I didn't name any names.
ok, jethro, make the argument that its justifiable. i'd love to hear it. cuz you've lost all credibility by making that statement.
Already, a group of prominent black scholars and attorneys have announced they will sue those corporations they allege made money from slavery, even if indirectly. The reparations debate has the potential of replacing affirmative action as the most volatile race issue in America, with Americans deeply divided on the topic.