Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Friday Funnies (Eww, Not Ha Ha)
A 24-year-old woman faces two Class-D felony counts.
Presumably, she violated Sec. 14 (2) and Sec. 14 (3) of Indiana
code C35-46-3-14.
Ok, ok, ok. Too much legal mumbo-jumbo.
C35-46-3-14 deals specifically with bestiality. From one of the best snoopers on the web:
Concerned that an ex-boyfriend had used her laptop to search for child pornography, the Indiana woman asked police to search the computer for illegal images, but had her plan backfire when cops discovered two videos of her engaged in illicit acts with a dog. [Michelle] Owen, 24, was charged last week with two felony bestiality counts in connection with the video files, which a detective found in the laptop's "recycle bin."
It looks like Owen could be in the dog house for six months to three years because of one bad (inebriated) decision. Poor Owen has been shamed enough. Prosecutors should drop all charges and instruct her to get a cat. Owen's crime is victimless. She didn't violate any rights.
Here's a good snippet from Reason Contributing Editor Cathy Young's 2001 piece:
As philosopher Tibor Machan argues in a 1991 essay on animal rights, human beings have rights because they are ''moral agents,'' capable of distinguishing and choosing between right and wrong. There is, writes Machan, ''no valid intellectual place for rights in the nonhuman world ... in which moral responsibility is for all practical purposes absent.''
Maybe Owen makes poor personal choices. But that's not reason enough for a felony.
In case you were curious, it was a beagle. His name is Toby.
High Five: Jonathan Turley
Brian Sorgatz|3.20.09 @ 7:15PM|#
I think Toby was asking for what he got. He runs around naked, licking his balls in public. He should expect that humans will get horny and not be able to restrain themselves.
Lefiti|3.20.09 @ 7:21PM|#
I have to say, it's issues like this where libertarians shine. Forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on stupid fucking dogs.
Joel|3.20.09 @ 7:27PM|#
the Indiana woman asked police to search the computer for
illegal images...
She...Did...WHAT??? Never mind the dog, that's just
bizarre behavior.
No sympathy here. Stupidity brings its own reward.
|3.20.09 @ 7:28PM|#
Animals may not have rights in the libertarian sense of the
word, but that does not mean we have no moral responsibility for
their welfare. Pushing radical objectivism to its extreme is a sure
fire way to chase people away from libertarianism. Not all of
morality fits into neat tidy box of the non-aggression
principle.
Is it okay to beat your horse to death? I know some
anarcho-capitalists who have argued that it's a perfectly moral
thing to do. How about torturing kittens? I don't care how neat and
orderly your ethical system is, if it allows that it's
flawed.
I'm not arguing that bestiality is on the same level as animal
abuse, nor am I arguing that this lady should be put in jail. But
the implication that just because animals don't have legal rights
means we have no responsibility to them is ridiculous.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.20.09 @ 7:29PM|#
And they called it puppy love
Oh i guess they'll never know
How a young heart how it really feels
And why i love her so
And they called it puppy love
Just because we're seventeen
Tell them all oh please tell it isn't fair
To take away my only dream
|3.20.09 @ 7:30PM|#
I have to say, it's issues like this where libertarians shine. Forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on stupid fucking dogs.
As a thirty year libertarian, I've gotta agree with lefttitti on
this one. It's arguments like this that keep the LP at 0.5% of the
vote.
|3.20.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Lefiti: "What??!! What about the Fucking Dog?®™"
(ftfy)
Precisely. Seems like he got the better part of the deal. Now he
even has a title as you point out.
|3.20.09 @ 7:35PM|#
brotherben sez Toby was quoted as saying, "my name is Kunta
Kinte."
Nahh, what Toby actually said was "the bitch set me up".
Lefiti|3.20.09 @ 7:35PM|#
Wait a minute, Brandyfuck, I don't think you understood my point. I mean the silly libertarian economic shit is what's keeping you fuckwits down. Defending bestiality gives you some pinache. Do your lips get sore when you read?
Paul|3.20.09 @ 7:38PM|#
I don't think you understood my point.
You do have a point, leftiti, but don't worry, your hair will grow
over it.
And on second thought, if no one defended bestiality, you'd never
get any.
mark|3.20.09 @ 7:41PM|#
There is a bit of karma in this case, as the woman was trying to screw over her ex-husband in a child custody battle, but still, this is a miscarriage of justice. How about imposing a fine rather than spending all the money to lock this woman up for a felony?
jtuf|3.20.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Owen's crime is victimless.
No, the dog could not consent. I consider beastiality a form of
animal abuse. Still, Austrailia (the first country on the results
page when I googled for animal cruelty penalties) fines $11,000 or
gives up to 2 years in prison for animal cruelty. For a first
offense, I think a hefty fine makes more sense than burdening the
public with the cost of jail.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.20.09 @ 7:54PM|#
The man is into pedophilia & the woman is into bestiality. I hope for the childrens sake they both lose custody.
Cool Cal|3.20.09 @ 8:00PM|#
Ah, the old "porno in the recycling bin" trick.
Alas, no longer the best hiding place.
Oh, and Dormouse ... you say animals can't give consent. True
enough in certain cases. But I'd say that a big fat dog boner
accompanied by repetitive doggie thrusts, for lack of human speech,
suffices nicely.
Not that I condone that sort of thing.
Jim Henley|3.20.09 @ 8:10PM|#
Dear Jeff Winkler: You're new here. You should be aware that when you are resting a claim on the twin authorities of Tibor Machan and Cathy Young, you are standing on the shoulders of Stupid.
Popeye\'s Goiter|3.20.09 @ 8:11PM|#
"I dunno, I still say it's better than the usual Friday
Funnies."
Here's what I find funny. Jay Leno asked Barack about the
"Portuguese Water Head" dog that the Obama's are getting. Both
Barack and Jay then joked about "Portuguese Water Heads".
Water head is slang for mentally retarded.
And no one seems to notice. That's what I find funny.
If I were Portuguese, retarded, or both, I'd feel slighted.
Popeye\'s Goiter|3.20.09 @ 8:13PM|#
"I have to say, it's issues like this where libertarians shine.
Forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on stupid fucking
dogs."
I think you meant forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate
on fucking stupid dogs
PSA|3.20.09 @ 8:17PM|#
"Animals can't give consent..."
Because if it's against its will it'is against the law.
|3.20.09 @ 8:19PM|#
There is a bit of karma in this case, as the woman was
trying to screw over her ex-husband in a child custody
battle
Exactly. Bummer, sweetheart. When you use the government as a
weapon against people, don't be too surprised when it turns on
you.
DG|3.20.09 @ 9:14PM|#
If a man did it to a female dog, that's one thing, but this is a woman doing it with.... a male dog??..... that implies some consent on fidos part........I'd need to know exactly what she did and didn't do. It sounds more like she did a strip tease with the dog, then just petted him, or whatever......
tnomeralc toys design|3.20.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Cute and cuddly instead of funny fridays. i hope he won't bite like I had with the dog who's temper that day was bad.
|3.20.09 @ 9:32PM|#
Hmmmm, odd that the beagle is named Toby. When it talks, does it sound suspiciously like Tobey McGuire as Lou the Beagle in 2001's Cats & Dogs? If so, I'd consider having sex with it, too.
|3.20.09 @ 9:37PM|#
ktc2, thanks for breaking it down to such a discrete ingredient that your point becomes immaterial. Because we live in a pro-choice culture, human embryos have no rights, either. Do embryos equal property? No, but that's where your reductivism leads.
Lefiti|3.20.09 @ 9:47PM|#
Oh my God. Carl...non, Tucker Carlson just said "libertarian" on CNN! Holy fuck, this is big. When will there be a post on it? Shit, the tide is turning now. Libertarian! On CNN!
|3.20.09 @ 10:01PM|#
As philosopher Tibor Machan argues in a 1991 essay on animal
rights, human beings have rights because they are ''moral agents,''
capable of distinguishing and choosing between right and wrong.
There is, writes Machan, ''no valid intellectual place for rights
in the nonhuman world ... in which moral responsibility is for all
practical purposes absent.''
So, as infants have no moral sensibility, they have no rights
either?
Pretty much everybody (even libertarians!) recognizes that there
are entities which lie somewhere between property and
fully-autonomous-human-being on the rights spectrum: children. Why
is it such a big deal to put animals in this gray area as well
(obviously not as high as children, but above chattel
property).
Jeremy Bentham|3.20.09 @ 10:17PM|#
The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?
|3.20.09 @ 10:22PM|#
Do all animals have rights or only cute, cuddly ones? Did the turkey I ate part of today have rights? If it did, was I an accomplice to murder?
Ex-libt yet still deluded|3.20.09 @ 10:31PM|#
You are deceiving yourselves! You talk of property rights,
objective morality, non-aggression, economic theories that you do
not understand. Cut the nonsense out. Humans do not believe stupid
things through rational thought processes. You do not believe in
your philosophies, you believe in... something else. Maybe you are
a libertarian because it's cool to be one, your friends are all
one, or because you just hate Obama. Whatever. But you aren't one
because you believe in some abstract idea like property
rights.
So stop pretending and be honest about what you really do believe
in: yourself. Be selfish. Oh, wait. I'm not even sure humans even
believe in themselves. Well, all there's left is fate, and yet that
might not even be predetermined either. Everything could be an
illusion. I would say nihilism is where it's all at, but there's no
reason to be a nihilist, or to not be a nihilist either. So just do
whatever happens. It's not like you have a choice anyway. And have
fun. :)
(And trying to analyze woman-dog love in terms of property rights
totally sucks the fun out of an otherwise amusing woman-dog love
story.)
|3.20.09 @ 10:47PM|#
A) Is there any evidence whatsoever that the dog was being
"abused" (as opposed to "enjoying it")? No? Then I don't see the
problem from an animal rights perspective.
B) She was having the police check the laptop not because she was
afraid her ex was shooting, or even distributing, child porn, but
because she was afraid he might have SEARCHED for it? Screw
her.
|3.20.09 @ 10:49PM|#
I would say that vertebrates have the right not to have
unnecessary pain inflicted upon them. Food is a necessary purpose;
testing cosmetics on the other hand isn't.
As far as this stuff goes, I don't know. It's icky as hell but if
it doesn't cause the animal pain then I don't see a justification
for it being illegal.
awful song|3.20.09 @ 10:52PM|#
You and me baby
Ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do
On the Discovery Channel
Weasels Ripped My Flesh|3.20.09 @ 11:05PM|#
The dog licked the drunk chick's gash in front of a camera and
it's being passed off as animal abuse?
Words fail me.
|3.20.09 @ 11:07PM|#
Popeye's Goiter | March 20, 2009, 8:13pm | #
"I have to say, it's issues like this where libertarians shine. Forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on stupid fucking dogs."
I think you meant forget the stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on fucking stupid dogs
Actually, in my mind I added a word "the" to get Forget the
stupid fucking dogmas and concentrate on the stupid, fucking
dogs.
And this lady was stupid! Not so much for the dog thing,
but for the computer/cop thing!
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|3.20.09 @ 11:27PM|#
"So, as infants have no moral sensibility, they have no rights
either?"
Yes, they do, but only because they are of our own species, and we
have made it a point to give them those rights. I don't see the
problem with certain arbitrary distinctions, especially when it
involves a fetus, or animal of another species. You can't simply
rely on slippery slope arguments all the time.
I'm certainly for animal welfare, but Animal Rights is a dead end
argument for the same reason that abortion is a dead end argument:
Not every human being applies the same value to a fetus, or to a
particular animal. The compromise is animal welfare, and promising
to respect the existence of babies who have already been born. You
see people wasting years debating the topic of personhood, as if it
ultimately matters.
What I think is becoming more, and more apparent is that the manner
in which human beings determine many things cannot always be based
on absolute principle, or some kind of golden rule. These concepts
only go so far, and sometimes attempts to codify moral
responsibility become these endless arguments based on variations
in what human beings deem to be moral. Culture becomes an even more
difficult factor to resolve. Some things will forever be
debatable.
Orange Line Special|3.20.09 @ 11:34PM|#
Friday Not-so-funnies: BHO supporters might be coming to your door tomorrow. At least there's one thing libruhtarians aren't as bad as BHO on: they couldn't even organize a [insert your own hyperbolic example here].
The Bearded Hobbit|3.20.09 @ 11:44PM|#
When I was an impressionable teen back in the 60's I was working
in a gas station* with a guy who told me about him, as a tender
youth, milking a cow. As a lusty teen himself and far from female
companionship of his own species, thought that cow looked pretty
good. He whipped down his shorts and pleasured himself with
unrecorded responses from the cow.
Now, what this story has to do with the thread at hand is the fact
that what I had taken for all of these years as a tender act of
love was indeed a vile and violent rape. Apparently this cow was
now as outcast in bovine society and scarred forever from claiming
her dutiful dowry (or something).
I guess I have the same amount of outrage in this case (ie:
none).
Goats, on the other hand**. . .
* Yeah, I actually had a job pumping $0.329 per gallon gasoline
into cars.
** Just kidding.
.. Hobbit
Lefiti|3.21.09 @ 12:04AM|#
Off topic--well, actually, Tucker Carlson is cute as a puppy--but doesn't anybody care? I think Tucker said he IS a libertarian. He said it on CNN!!! I mean, that is fucking big
Ex-libt yet still deluded|3.21.09 @ 12:04AM|#
Cabeza De Vaca,
Everyone is deluded. Some in one way, some in another way.
Libertarianism is one such delusion. However, rebuking it has
likely not made me any less deluded. I feel that I have merely
replaced with another, equally deluded set of ideas.
Maybe you should figure out if some cherished ideas you hold happen
to be delusions as well.
SIV|3.21.09 @ 12:05AM|#
ktc2 | March 20, 2009, 9:23pm | #
Animals are property.
Property has no rights.
Holy shit!
A libertarian? On my Reason Hit @Run comments?
Magic Is Almost Magical|3.21.09 @ 12:15AM|#
"Ex-libt yet still deluded, I agree you are deluded."
Actually, he's probably closer to the truth than you are.
Ideologies are for the intellectually shallow. It's more like a
crutch that many people turn to organize religion for. In general,
Existentialist philosophers got it right long ago, and we've had to
suffer through repeats of the debate in large part due to the
influence of religious Conservatism; which is pretty much
mainstream Conservatism.
People forget how absurdly close Creationism was to gaining
traction in the U.S. until strong resistance was finally mounted.
Why? Well, the mood of the country during that period was
influenced by who was in the alpha male position, and it influenced
what some people thought that they could could get away with. The
timing was calculated, just like it often is in primate
politics.
That's what many Libertarians don't understand. By standing by
religious conservatism, they may get their precious tax break, but
the damage that is often done intellectually, and therefore,
culturally to the population is way overpriced.
cuernimus|3.21.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Hyperactive male dogs are notorious for humping peoples legs, their stuffed animals, and just about anything they can assume the position on. I'm having difficulty trying to see the animal cruelty here, though I will concede that woman's vagina is probably a whole lot dirtier than that dog's mouth.
Markets Are Almost Magical|3.21.09 @ 12:30AM|#
"Maybe you should figure out if some cherished ideas you hold
happen to be delusions as well."
Uh, we've tried that.
Apparently, Libertarians are omniscient as well as being incredibly
successful, handsome, and misunderstood. They're all around bad
asses who live in the shadows in order to avoid the negative
influence of the peasantry.
We're lucky that they even tolerate us.
"Uber Mench" doesn't even begin to describe their transcendence. If
it wasn't for the albatross-like tax codes championed by obvious
Marxists, then they could finally afford that private island that
welfare mothers have been denying them... or maybe they can finally
afford their cable bill. I guess fiscal responsibility only applies
to people without money.
Oh, and they believe in silly folk tales like the absolute
existence of free will.
Philosophy. Who needs it?
Cassandra|3.21.09 @ 12:35AM|#
they believe in silly folk tales like the absolute existence
of free will
I knew you were going to say that, I just knew it.
Thomas Jefferson|3.21.09 @ 1:34AM|#
Markets Are Almost Magical, I read your critique on everything I believe, and now I realize I am just an isolated, bitter old fuck clinging to ego and denial. I will now go hang myself. Thank you for setting me free.
Jumbie|3.21.09 @ 1:39AM|#
I don't ever remember asking consent from my steak.
Or from that horse that pulled my carriage round central park that
one time.
But it abuse to have a dog lick a pussy?
Samual Adams|3.21.09 @ 1:45AM|#
It pains me so to read your unvarnished truth Mr Markets Are Almost Magical. I will drown my sorrows away with a keg or three until my liver blows out. I leave it all to you now. Obviously, we were wrong with our cockamanie idea that liberty be the highest political ideal. We deceived ourselves. Without Socialism, and bureaucrats in Washington watching over our collective good, without The federal government in Washington providing economic security and stability for the country as a whole, without Washington correcting our errant ways, we could not survive. You, Barack, Nancy and Harry know what is best. Leave me to die the wretched death I deserve.
Samual Jackson|3.21.09 @ 2:01AM|#
Ideologies are for the intellectually shallow. It's more like a
crutch that many people turn to organize religion for. In general,
Existentialist philosophers got it right long ago, and we've had to
suffer through repeats of the debate in large part due to the
influence of religious Conservatism; which is pretty much
mainstream Conservatism.
Check out the big brain on Brad!
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 2:16AM|#
"Maybe you are a libertarian because it's cool to be one, your
friends are all one"
Ex-Libt,
That was the comment I found to be delusional. Maybe there is a
place in this world where people become libetarians out of peer
pressure, but it isn't where I live. My friends are all liberals
& marxists. I'm an libertarian leaning anarchist that doesn't
believe that anarchism works or any other political system in a
just way. So I guess I agree with you for the most part.
|3.21.09 @ 3:16AM|#
Markets...Magical, re:your 12:30 am post, I've been wobbling
back and forth for a couple days trying to get a feel for you and
decide if I liked you found you offensive. Then you go and say
something like this. It is IMO the most accurate portrayal of many
of the serious regulars here.
Bravo I say, Bravo!
|3.21.09 @ 9:01AM|#
Wow, Hit and Run baby, hit and run! Gotta love it dude.
RT
www.online-privacy.pro.tc
MNG|3.21.09 @ 9:21AM|#
This is stupid. Having sex with a dog is wrong in the same way
that having sex a child is wrong: they cannot give an effective
consent to something that they barely understand.
The whole idea of rights is a pretty incomprehensible one, as I've
argued and not seen effectively refuted here before. When people
say they have a "right" to something they seem to be saying they
have some moral claim (it would be morally wrong for you to deny me
x, or it would be morally right for you to honor my claim of y)
that would apply to all others similarly situated and command the
same to acknowldge my claim. Well, duh, Kant (rightly) said that is
just a feature of a moral claim a couple of centuries ago.
So the question is, can animals have moral claims, or to put it
another way, are they due weight in a moral calculus? And the
answer seems plainly that they do, at least in the same way that,
say, an infant does. An infant cannot "take on moral
responsibilities" (however the hell that is supposed to be the
criteria for what gets moral weight), they cannot reason better
than a dog, they both feel pain and suffering to some equal degree,
etc..
Saying an animal is just property is no answer. Perhaps they are.
Who could give a shit, morally? Perhaps they belong to a class of
property that has some moral weight. I mean, if you look at a couch
(property) and you look at something with obvious moral weight (a
human being), most animals certainly seem to not be like the couch
in many important ways and like the human in many important ways,
which would make one think that while they have less moral weight
than a human, they have more than a couch. This view has the
advantage of fitting with most people's common sense idea of right
and wrong (that you can do things to an animal you can't to a
human, but not anything).
So fuck your couch, by all means. But fucking an animal is
wrong.
MNG|3.21.09 @ 9:22AM|#
Of course one human being that has no moral weight, and can and should be tortured at whim, is the anonymity spam bot demon. DAMN YOU, SPAMBOT, DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!
MNG|3.21.09 @ 9:30AM|#
I think I was the first person on H&R to use the phrase "the
Magical, Mystical Market" in snark. I see now that I have created a
Frankenstein's monster, or Frankenstein's Market.
I think it's idea on animal rights is deluded. Infants have rights
because we give them right, animals because we don't. Nice try, but
the thing we are arguing about is should we humans recognize (give)
animals rights like we do infants, so it's pretty silly to give as
an argument against that "they don't have rights because we don't
give them rights."
Also, where do you get the idea that libertarians side with
religious conservatism? Have you seen any H&R thread on
religion? If anything, H&R posters are pretty hard on
religion...
RTFA|3.21.09 @ 9:42AM|#
This is stupid. Having sex with a dog is wrong in the same way that having sex a child is wrong
It would also be stupid to describe a dog licking food off a person
as "fucking a dog"
MNG|3.21.09 @ 10:05AM|#
RTFA
You have a Clintonian definition of what "sexual relations" are I
guess. It might be sloppy for me to use the word "fuck" and "have
sexual relations" with interchangeably, but I was making a general
point about all relations with parties that cannot give true
consent, so don't hpreventilate. That may involve something not
specifically mentioned in teh article, eh? bMy general point is
that "sexual relations" got without the effective consent of both
(or all three, four, whatever) parties is wrong. As you say,
putting food on your privates to entice another party to lick it
off is surely more than a bit deceptive and wrong. The other party
is just following an instinct it is hard for it to ignore and does
not understand what it is being tricked into doing, the party that
put the food on their privates surely knew what they were tricking
the other party into doing.
SOOOO, if you have some intelligent point to make, we're all
waiting...
Joe\'s Garage|3.21.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Dogs ain't "parties".
What's this "we" shit?
Speak for yourself.
Intelligent points are overrated.
especially on Saturday mornings.
|3.21.09 @ 11:16AM|#
So fuck your couch, by all means. But fucking an animal is
wrong.
MNG, if I concede all your points regarding animals having moral
weight, they don't explain why fucking an animal is wrong but
playing "fetch" with an animal is all right. Do you think it's
wrong to play fetch with your dog?
This is stupid. Having sex with a dog is wrong in the same way
that having sex a child is wrong: they cannot give an effective
consent to something that they barely understand.
No, that's no right, for dogs or children. The fact they cannot
give effective consent is not a reason, by itself, to make some
form of interaction with them wrong. Infants barely understand (or
more likely don't understand at all) why eating is necessary, so by
your definition, they can't give effective consent to being fed.
But it's not wrong to feed infants, or animals.
|3.21.09 @ 11:27AM|#
To the accused, I have only one thing to say...
...Shift-click is your friend :)
Leto|3.21.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Ideologies are for the intellectually shallow. It's more
like a crutch that many people turn to organize religion for. In
general, Existentialist philosophers got it right long ago, and
we've had to suffer through repeats of the debate in large part due
to the influence of religious Conservatism; which is pretty much
mainstream Conservatism.
So, Existentialist are correct because their
reasoning is more ambivalent than other schools of thought? Is this
the methodology they teach in Graduate studies these days?
|3.21.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Brandybuck-
This anarcho-free enterprise-individualist does not condone beating
one's pet to death.
Chapter 3. Offenses Relating t|3.21.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Didja know that, according to the Indiana legal code, dog mouth to human vagina is a felony, but killing a dog in a decompression chamber, or by electrocution is but a misdemeanor? Little hung up on sex, huh?
|3.21.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Epi at 8:19 pm and Brian24 at 10:47pm-
Kudos! You guys addressed THE PRIMARY POINT!
His Holiness the Puppy Pope Re|3.21.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Chapter 3
Electrocution does not imperil one's canine dignity. Licking the
genitalia of non-canine animals does.
|3.21.09 @ 1:42PM|#
There are many things that a moral person won't do. Sexual activities with animals is on the list. So is getting falling down drunk. That something is immoral is insufficient reason to enact statutes proscribing it.
Ex-libt yet still deluded|3.21.09 @ 2:02PM|#
"That was the comment I found to be delusional. Maybe there is a
place in this world where people become libetarians out of peer
pressure, but it isn't where I live."
So why is it that people who grow up in conservative households
tend to be conservatives? Or how can it be that white male computer
geeks have such a reputation for being libertarian? Or why
Grad-schoolers are more liberal than the rest of us? Or why
libertarian ideas are much more common in individualist cultures
instead of collectivist ones?
People are not rational. Flashing a picture of a smiley face before
you look at a picture of one butterfly will probably make you like
that butterfly more than one that is shown without flashing a
smiley face first. Nodding
or shaking your head may even influence your own thoughts, study
finds.
I think that ideologies are things we invent to justify our
preexisting beliefs. These beliefs are derived unconsciously and
are partially hardwired into your brains. The rest comes from
things like social pressure and seemingly irrelevant things like
whether you exercised that morning. Not from armchair
philosophy.
And that is why I find discussions of the moral potential of dogs
vs couches that frequently appears on these comments to be
annoying. Why don't you just say that you don't support bestiality
because it grosses you out, or that you don't like torture because
seeing a cute animal in pain makes you sad and hurt inside?
But there is a place for reason in this. Like that old tale of how
"they came for the jews, and i didn't stop them because I wasn't a
jew. Then they came for the [insert controversial group here], and
i didn't stop them because i wasn't one either. But then they came
for me, and there was nobody left to stop them." If it is that kind
of reasoning that underlies the libertarian idea of letting others
do things you find disagreeable as long as they don't do any harm,
then I support it. But if you only believe that because you think
everyone has rights or as an axiom, then I think you're
deluded.
I also think that most libertarians do not believe in their
philosophy axiomatically. If you took any of the commenters on this
site and made them ruler of the world, I doubt very many of them
would turn down the offer, and they would likely turn into tyrants.
Very quickly. I think I would do that too.
Governmint Make Jobs Good|3.21.09 @ 2:17PM|#
We need governmint to make jobs.
Ecomonist's
agree, it is a science-cansensus.
|3.21.09 @ 3:56PM|#
@MNG
"This is stupid. Having sex with a dog is wrong in the same way
that having sex a child is wrong: they cannot give an effective
consent to something that they barely understand"
alright mate
think about it who knows the most about animal rights?
PETA obviously
and those sick bastards love animals
I mean they really love them
Like those videos she made probably look like early Andrew Blake
movies compared to the hardcore bestiality orgies that go on at a
PETA get together
|3.21.09 @ 4:00PM|#
"how can it be that white male computer geeks have such a
reputation for being libertarian?"
higher IQ
|3.21.09 @ 4:03PM|#
doh!
that would be refering to Computer geeks in general!
obviously white males are stupider that other social
demographic
That fat commie bloke taught us that!
Mad Max|3.21.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Every dog has its day.
You can't teach an old dog to turn new tricks.
It's a doggone shame.
Lie down with dogs, get up with crabs.
It's a dog-eat . . .
Wait, don't go, I haven't finished with my puns yet!
Elemenope|3.21.09 @ 4:15PM|#
"how can it be that white male computer geeks have such a
reputation for being libertarian?"
higher IQ
There are plenty of smart people who are liberals, old-school
conservatives, fascists, and communists. The vicissitudes of
political opinion rely upon other wacky defects of human intellect
than intelligence.
Computer geeks (I am one in a lay sense, and I have worked with
many who are professionals) tend to be poorly socialized,
self-sufficient, and extremely poor at seeing non-quantifiable
systems as systems rather than collections of individuals, though
they tend to be geniuses at seeing quantitative systematic
connection). I suspect a different part of the brain handles the
heuristic for fuzzy thought than for boolean logic; these parts
develop differently in different individuals.
How shocking that they would see human society best organized
around the primacy of individuality at extreme tension with the
collective (many of whom even deny the validity of the concept of
society or collective except as a descriptive aid).
This is my shocked face. :-|
Kush|3.21.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Watching Barack Obama try to govern, it's like the Special
Olympics Goes To Washington or something.
Can we get a reset button for the election? I'm already tired of
being overcharged.
Oh well, at least the teleprompter-in-chief wouldn't do anything
really stupid, like try to make veterans pay for their war wounds
or spend billions to buy AIG and then trash it publicly.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Ex-libt but still deluded,
I completely agree most people conform to the beliefs of their
family & friends in order to fit into the group. That's the
reason most people in Iran are Shiite Muslims & most people in
Utah are Mormons. I don't think most people become libertarians for
that reason though. The point I was trying to make before is that
there aren't a lot of libertarians out there. It's not a political
choice that is probably going to make you very popular with your
friends,family & most of society. Maybe libertarians tend to be
anti-social or already are prone to thinking independently. So they
seek out a political philosophy that supports that way of
thinking.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 4:45PM|#
"I also think that most libertarians do not believe in their
philosophy axiomatically. If you took any of the commenters on this
site and made them ruler of the world, I doubt very many of them
would turn down the offer, and they would likely turn into tyrants.
Very quickly. I think I would do that too."
I agree, I think most people would throw away most of what they
believe in in order to maintain power. I would refuse power for
that very reason. Not because I'm a better person than most people,
but because I know I would do horrible, wicked things to people.
What good does it do a man to gain the whole world, but lose his
own soul.
Philosophy 101|3.21.09 @ 4:58PM|#
I think that ideologies are things we invent to justify our
preexisting beliefs.
Nice justification of your preexisting belief there, Matey.
|3.21.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"I completely agree most people conform to the beliefs of their
family & friends in order to fit into the group"
That's sort of like the argument for why gay people shouldn't be
able to bring up children eh?
Gay parents means gay kids etc
and I believe the counter-argument for that reasoning works with
both cases
I got into Libertarianism after living in the most statist country
in Europe (10% of the population work for the state)
The only capitalists I've met are the people I've "evangelized",
basically my possibly ex-lefty girlfriend, who god bless her has to
listen to me ranting about commies all day and has at least stopped
arguing, and a few mates down the pub!. I find explaining
capitalist ideas using Marxist rhetoric works extermely well.
Like corporation tax is a tax on the working classes etc
A person's choice of political ideology is probably far more
complex that any one factor
I'll admit that conformity is one
but that kind of ties in to laziness,
Everyone I know personally, says they're a Marxist
I actually read Marx when I was a teenager and so start a
conversation and I've still not actually met a Marxist who's read
any Marx
Its just a Latin country with a fascist history where its a social
norm and Marxism is synonymous anti-fascism
That being said if people held deep seated beliefs just to agree
with the people around them,
then there would be universal consensus on politics
and by the same logic no gay people
rational animal|3.21.09 @ 5:11PM|#
putting food on your privates to entice another party to
lick it off is surely more than a bit deceptive and wrong. The
other party is just following an instinct it is hard for it to
ignore and does not understand what it is being tricked into doing,
the party that put the food on their privates surely knew what they
were tricking the other party into doing.
A cild enjoys the tickle when her dog eats food out of her hand.
This is different how?
I like to watch the fish shimmy up the the surface of the tank when
I feed them. This is different how?
Every animal ever observed in a psychological experiment,
unwittingly enticed to perform for the gratification of human
curiosity, is different how?
Carrier pigeons? Mousers keeping the barn vermin-free?
There was also an evolutionary-biology book out a few years ago
about how dogs as a species have manipulated human beings, by
flattery and the like, into taking care of them.
Eric Haskell|3.21.09 @ 5:12PM|#
"If you took any of the commenters on this site and made
them ruler of the world, I doubt very many of them would turn down
the offer, and they would likely turn into tyrants. Very quickly. I
think I would do that too."
That's kind of a main point of libertarianism. Even if it is
theoretically possible to centrally plan an economy/people's lives,
it will never happen, because there will never be anyone with the
moral fortitude to do it without being corrupted. Everyone is
susceptible.
This is a great example of
that.
ex-libt yet still deluded|3.21.09 @ 5:22PM|#
elemenope
I don't think it has to do with brain areas involved with
heuristics vrs. logic. But culture
does influence brain function. In that link, asians and
americans had to judge the length of an object, either in absolute
terms or relative to another object. In previous studies, Americans
did better on absolute, asians on relative. So in this study they
gave them a task that was easy enough they both groups could do it
right and then did a fMRI. Americans used the higher-attention
areas of brain on the relative task, and asians used that part of
the brain on the absolute task. Different patterns of brain
activation were found when americans did the absolute and asians
the relative task. Also, those who identified with their culture
stronger responded more strongly to their culture's pattern of
brain activation.
So what might be happening is that people who are more
individualist happen to be better at computers than more
collectivist people, and this makes such people more likely to
enter into a computer-related career. But maybe it is the other way
around: maybe the computer culture is strongly individualistic, and
those who enter it become more individualistic and this makes an
individualist philosophy more appealing to them. It might also be
that computer people are are only slightly more libertarian than
most people, and it just so happens that they have been stuck with
this stereotype. They certainly have been stuck with the geeky, no
social skills stereotype that you seem to believe, so it doesn't
seem like a stretch. And maybe it started out as such a stereotype,
but now that it is established and people believe it, people who
like a libertarian are more inclined to go into computers. Math's
geeky status draws people away from it, afterall.
I don't know about any of that. It would be nice if I had 50 hours
in a day so I could find the time to investigate it. But one thing
nags at me: what about chinese and indian (from India) computer
geeks?
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"Gay parents means gay kids etc"
Sexual preference is different than political or religious beliefs.
Only if the gay parents were brain washing a straight kid to be gay
the whole time he was growing up would this have chance of
happening. This actaully happens in reverse quite often were gay
kids are brought up in fundamentalist christian,muslim,Jewish
homes. They are taught that homosexuality is evil & know that
they will be disowned if they come out to their families. Some gays
even get married and pretend to be straight their whole lives.
Others eventually get tired of acting and come out of the
closet.
Naga Sadow|3.21.09 @ 5:54PM|#
So this Toby is getting as much action as me but with younger women?!?! Dammit! I feel like a failure!
Toby the Beagle|3.21.09 @ 5:59PM|#
They certainly have been stuck with the geeky, no social
skills stereotype that you seem to believe, so it doesn't seem like
a stretch.
Just ask me.
Off the internet, everyone knows I'm a dog.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 6:01PM|#
"That being said if people held deep seated beliefs just to
agree with the people around them,then there would be universal
consensus on politics"
"and by the same logic no gay people"
MaterialMonkee,
I said MOST people form their belief system to conform with friends
& family. It didn't say all people conform to their
surroundings.
"I'll admit that conformity is one
but that kind of ties in to laziness"
That is the the key most people don't want to spend the time
researching every political philisophy to learn witch is the best
one. If being conservative or communist is good enough for mom
& dad I'll believe that way too. Once they have chosen &
invested in that belief system a lot(not all) will refuse to change
their mind about it.
ex-libt yet still deluded|3.21.09 @ 6:05PM|#
So to recap:
People insist that they believe what they do because they have
reasoned it out and feel it is correct. That is not actually how
they made up their mind. People believe what they do mostly because
of:
* social pressures
* personality
* access to information
* cognitive constraints
* and seemingly unrelated factors that embarrass us to acknowledge
such as if you were nodding your head when you heard an
argument.
* anyone know of any other reasons?
Once those things are set in, you just chose whichever ideology
best satisfies those demands. In other words, that day you sat
around thinking "A is A" is not what made you a libertarian or
whatever (objectivist for nitpickers).
And because of that, it is untruthful to say you oppose torture
because people have rights that need to be defended or because
torture is simply bad. It would likely be more accurate to say you
oppose torture because (when?) it makes you sad to see someone in
pain or because it is being used on your allies or by your enemy.
Indeed, even people who say they are against torture often say
things like "Let's waterboard Bush and see how he likes it!".
And thus we might be better classified as selfish bastards than as
any other -ism, but even that is not quite true because we
frequently do things that are not in our best interests and also do
a lot to help other people.
And because of this, we should realize that we are all alike and
just get along and peace out. Why can't we all just get along? (OK,
this last part is BS).
Warty|3.21.09 @ 6:05PM|#
So I'd say they wrapped up Battlestar Galactica with a minimum of gayness, but I'm annoyed that they didn't tell us what Starbuck was.
|3.21.09 @ 6:35PM|#
* anyone know of any other reasons?
contarianism?
I was at an anarchist riot years ago with my old flat mate
lots of "creative destruction" to use a more elegant and probably
less honest phrase was being done to a new ASDA
(ASDA is the UK subsidary of the US company wall-mart)
We were really high,
it was the ninties :)
but basically my flat mate said something that always sounds
cool
"you know if the world was run by anarchist's we'd be running
around building McDonalds"
Elemenope|3.21.09 @ 7:24PM|#
So I'd say they wrapped up Battlestar Galactica with a
minimum of gayness, but I'm annoyed that they didn't tell us what
Starbuck was.
STFU Warty! :) Some of us unfortunates are tied to HULU like a
cruel mistress. I usually use sidereel when I have a need to see
something not yet on HULU, but their links have all failed me in
this instance.
Elemenope|3.21.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Now where is Episiarch to chat about Terminator?
*spoilers and speculation follow*
The implication being in the last episode that there is more than
one Skynet and that they are at war but neither wish to ally with
puny humans...?
Warty|3.21.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Use the Pirate Bay, LMNOP. It's your friend.
No more spoilers from me. I don't want to get Epi all hot and
bothered...or do I?
Naga Sadow|3.21.09 @ 7:52PM|#
Oh. You meant "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". My bad. I apologize for my ignorance . . . that show sucks!!! Discuss THAT among yourselves!
Elemenope|3.21.09 @ 8:05PM|#
Naga,
I had once been of your opinion. I thought the first season of the
show was pretty forgettable. But the second season really kicked it
up a notch; these days it really is quality. Since it is on FOX,
I'm gonna go with network interference.
While on the subject of FOX cock-ups, Dollhouse is getting a
helluva lot better too. (And there were explicit reports of
meddling in the first few episodes. This is my surprised face. :-|
) Yesterday's episode is more what I've come to expect from Whedon,
and next week's is the one where it looks like the wheels come
tumbling off and the fun really begins.
Elemenope|3.21.09 @ 8:06PM|#
And, FWIW, the new trailer for the Terminator film about to come out actually looks decent as well.
Just Plain Brian|3.21.09 @ 8:08PM|#
So I'd say they wrapped up Battlestar Galactica with a minimum of gayness, but I'm annoyed that they didn't tell us what Starbuck was.
We already know that, Starbuck was a dirty, dirty whore
Naga Sadow|3.21.09 @ 8:47PM|#
Elemenope,
I saw that trailer! It did look cool but I'm ready to watch some
futuristic warfare dammit! I'm tired of the backdrop! I just wanna
see the human race battle bad ass machines in 2029(or is it 2032?)
for roughly an hour and half and be done with it. That's usually
all Michael Bay really does anyway. Lots of sfx with a little bit
of plot.
jester|3.21.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Chickens became delicious to entice humans into giving them a place at the farm with free food.
|3.21.09 @ 9:37PM|#
So, as infants have no moral sensibility, they have no rights either?
In Tibor Machan's antiseptic philosphical construct, they don't.
Unfortunately, a great deal of libertarians agree with him. Nothing
creepier than hearing some asocial nerd at an LP con ranting about
legalizing infanticide.
Wyzwal An\'puhr, God of Lost R|3.21.09 @ 9:56PM|#
Creepier things are there than baby killers, Harare
Brandybuck...
.
.
.
.
Sam Grove|3.21.09 @ 10:56PM|#
the Indiana woman asked police to search the computer for
illegal images...
She...Did...WHAT??? Never mind the dog, that's just bizarre
behavior.
No sympathy here. Stupidity brings its own reward.
Dumber:
She recorded it on video and had it on her laptop.
anarch|3.21.09 @ 10:59PM|#
Creepier, I'd warrant, would be a social nerd ranting about legalizing infanticide.
alan|3.22.09 @ 3:29AM|#
I don't have an easy answer to this one. I'm torn by at least
three compelling arguments. There is the classical anarchist
position of Lysander Spoon that says we should not mistake vices
for crimes, and putting people away as wards of the state only
spreads the injustice to the rest of us who have to fork over the
dough to pay for her meals.
There is the Minarchist part of my soul that doesn't sweat the
details of how states are ran so long as punishment and taxation
are no more excessive than a minimum need for those things.
And then there is the Latin part of my soul that just wants to
screw any and every reasonably attractive female before I die, and
here we have a case of a woman who because of the social
stigmatization involved with bestiality is desperate for even the
slightest hint of social acceptance from the rest us, hence she is
even more vulnerable than most females.
Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.
|3.22.09 @ 6:17AM|#
You know, before the animal lovers get too worked up, you should
read the complaint. It's not like she got her strap-on and reamed
poor Spot's anus while he squealed in agony.
She put some stuff, probably stuff doggie liked to eat, on her
twat, and doggie came over and licked it off. She (the woman)
seemed to like it. She did it twice, about 30 seconds each
time.
I imagine from the dog's point of view, it was no more "sexual"
than if the silly woman put some peanut butter on her fingers and
let the dog lick it off.
There's definitely some backstory here. Maybe the cops wanted to
teach her something about trying to screw her boyfriend out of
custody. But whatever it is, this is one of the worst abuses of
authority I've ever heard. Put a woman in the poky for 18 months,
and give her a felony sex offender classification -- you know what
that means, a lifetime of scarlet letter hell -- because she put
honey on her twat and giggled while doggie licked it off? That's
four square insane. It's the kind of thing the mullahs do in
Iran.
Mr. Chartreuse|3.22.09 @ 12:11PM|#
The thing about consent though, is that animals don't give their
consent for anything we do. When the Dirty Jobs guy fists a cow on
the Discovery Channel in order to put bull semen in her, so that
she can get pregnant or when a pig is being led to the
slaughterhouse, I doubt either of them would consent to being
involuntarily impregnated or killed.
Deliberate animal torture is wrong and honestly I'm not sure
there's any freedom being lost there if there are laws against it.
However, a lady getting down with a beagle or any sort of
"inter-species erotica" as Kevin Smith would say, doesn't really
rise to that level and this woman shouldn't be thrown in jail
(unless of course she used her neighbor's beagle without their
permission, but that just might be a case for the civil
courts).
Lefiti|3.22.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Amazing! This shit elicits more than 130 comments. That says something about the state of libertarianism, or at least about the state of this stupid site.
|3.22.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Lefiti | March 22, 2009, 1:23pm | #
Amazing! This shit elicits more than 130 comments. That says something about the state of libertarianism, or at least about the state of this stupid site.
Leftitty, your postings equal about 4% of the total (so far) -
thanks for your contribution.
MNG|3.22.09 @ 4:27PM|#
"MNG, if I concede all your points regarding animals having
moral weight, they don't explain why fucking an animal is wrong but
playing "fetch" with an animal is all right"
Er, probably for reasons similar as to why it is OK to play ball
with kids but not to have sex with them.
"PETA obviously
and those sick bastards love animals
I mean they really love them"
Interesting argument MM.
1. PETA believes in animal rights
2. PETA is stupid
3. Therefore animal rights is stupid
Did I say interesting? I meant stupid.
"I imagine from the dog's point of view, it was no more "sexual"
than if the silly woman put some peanut butter on her fingers and
let the dog lick it off."
Try the same argument but with kids. Yeah, pretty stupid isn't
it?
Here's why:
"animals don't give their consent for anything we do"
Because the reason why consent is normally important is because it
respects the other party's autonomy (uses them as an end, not a
means to our own ends). Now, some things, like dogs and infants,
cannot give consent, AND will have to have their autonomy limited
by their "wards" (we don't ask kids whether they want to play in
the busy street or not), but that exercise of limiting is, to be
morally correct, guided by an overall concern for the ends of the
party being guided.
This certainly does not qualify. It was a classic example of using
another as an ends in a way that totally does not respect whatever
modicum of autonomy they have.
VM|3.22.09 @ 6:32PM|#
hay fucking dickhead. maybe you need to get laid like this...
actually don't
(oh go fuck yourself, you homophobic little fuck)
i don't care if you get laid or not. just stop fucking with other
people with your narrow minded, ignorant, overly-zealot views. you
fucking puke. go fucking bite off your own face.
and have a nice day, y'hear?
|3.22.09 @ 7:04PM|#
Try the same argument but with kids. Yeah, pretty stupid
isn't it?
It's stupid because the kids grow up and realize to their horror
that they've been used in a disgusting manner. Toby's never going
to have that experience.
What's really stupid is equating dogs with kids. That kind of
thinking leads you to conclude that, if it's OK to have the corpse
of your dead dog hauled off by the sanitation department, then it
should be equally OK to do the same when your toddler dies. The
reason we reject that reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with
the ability of either corpse to give valid consent.
Elemenope|3.22.09 @ 7:15PM|#
What's really stupid is equating dogs with kids.
Obviously. They are comparisons of the relative similarities of
obviously dissimilar things. The argument is not "you may treat a
child every way you may treat a dog, and vice versa", but rather
"in this certain finite set of parameters, a dog is like a child
and so they should be treated similarly in the context of those
parameters".
Shorter: To the extent to which things are not the same, they are
different. But to the extent that they are the same, they are the
same.
Mr. Chartreuse|3.22.09 @ 7:22PM|#
This certainly does not qualify. It was a classic example of
using another as an ends in a way that totally does not respect
whatever modicum of autonomy they have.
Again, the cow in farm would most likely not want to be used as a
broodmare and the pig would likely not want to be made into
sausage, ham, and bacon ("Oh sure, Lisa, they all come from one
magical animal"). In some countries a farm raised Toby, losing his
status as a protected animal that he has in the US, would be put on
the menu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat). Domesticated
animals only have the autonomy and "rights" we give them, none of
which involves their consent.
Open Mic|3.22.09 @ 9:01PM|#
A Republican walked into a bar and asked the bartender, "Isn't
that Jesus over there?" When the bartender said "Yes," the
Republican sent over a drink. "Put it on my tab," he said.
A little later a Libertarian walked in. "Say," he said, "Isn't that
Jesus sitting over there?" The barman said, "Yes," so the
Libertarian sent over a hamburger.
Presently a Democrat showed up, noticed Jesus and sent over a plate
of french fries.
Jesus soon left. On his way out he stopped to talk to the
Republican. "Thanks for the drink," he said; "It was really good.
Is there anything I can do for you?" "Well," said the Republican,
"I'm facing knee surgery..." "Don't say another word," said Jesus
as he laid a hand on the man's knee. "You are healed."
Jesus came to the Libertarian and said, "Thanks for the hamburger.
It was really good. Is there anything I can do for you?" "Well,"
said the Libertarian, "I have cataracts..." Jesus placed his
fingers on the man's eyes and said, "You are healed."
Finally, Jesus came to the Democrat. He thanked him for the fries
and offered him any help he needed. "Don't touch me!" shouted the
Democrat, "I'm on disability!!"
MNG|3.22.09 @ 9:33PM|#
LMNOP gets what Seamus does not.
You don't have to think it would be equally wrong to do what she
did to a kid and a dog to think it would be wrong to do it to
either, and for similar basic reasons. And Seamus' suggestion that
the only thing that would make it wrong is the later horror of the
victim is pathetic: so if it happened to a terminally ill kid who
would never reach that age and realization it would be OK,
huh?
Mr. Chartreuse, uh, what is your point? My stance would probably
find most animal slaughter for food wrong. Yes.
And the fact that some cultures, including our own, think something
is hunky-dory does not make it so (think: slavery).
"Domesticated animals only have the autonomy and "rights" we give
them, none of which involves their consent."
I guess you didn't read upthread, this is stupid for two
reasons:
1. The very thing we are debating is what rights we SHOULD give to
domesticated animals, so to try to answer that question with "we
don't give such rights to animals" is pretty stupid, eh?
2. You could take out the words "domesticated animals" and replace
them with the words "young children" and you would, as a
descriptive matter, be just as right.
And yet you'd still have said nothing about what rights either
group should have.
See?
jester|3.22.09 @ 10:39PM|#
Groups don't have rights, individuals do. You will never get it, will you MNG?
Elemenope|3.22.09 @ 11:03PM|#
Groups don't have rights, individuals do. You will never get
it, will you MNG?
Nations don't have the right to use force in defense of
territory and citizenry? Huh? Last I checked, nations are
groups.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Is this the root of the idea that household pets need to be
covered by employer health insurance? Sounds like crazy talk to
me.
My constitution memorizing friends frequently point(ed) out to me
that our nation does not have rights, it has powers. Individuals
have rights. They are quite correct.
When I think about it I am glad to live in a nation of individual
rights rather than one of collective "rights".
Mr. Chartreuse|3.23.09 @ 12:36AM|#
Mr. Chartreuse, uh, what is your point? My stance would
probably find most animal slaughter for food wrong. Yes.
You earlier said that animals could not give consent to sexual acts
(wow, did I pick a helluva topic to have a discussion about :)),
therefore it should be against the law. My point is that animals
can't give to consent to anything, which would rule out animal
slaughter as well as wool from sheep, oxen pulling carts, and eggs
from chickens. I don't think that the animal not being able to give
consent is a factor in the legality of the act. As I stated
earlier, deliberate animal abuse shouldn't be allowed, but what
happened in the article isn't even close to the same thing as dog
being hit with a baseball bat.
2. You could take out the words "domesticated animals" and
replace them with the words "young children" and you would, as a
descriptive matter, be just as right.
No, young children have rights and protections by virtue of being
human, dogs (and other animals) don't have that automatic "Pass Go,
Collect $200" card. Would a drunk driver get the same punishment
hitting a dog as hitting a young child? I think not. Additionally ,
as pointed out by Seamus, is that a young child would be mentally
injured by what happened, Toby the beagle would not.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 12:59AM|#
Mr. Chartreuse,
Do not discount the word games that people with horrible arguments
like to use. It can be fun.
Let us imagine the dog is of adult size. That is about one year old
for a dog?
Now, let us replace the dog in the story with "twenty year old
woman".
See? Pretty story now.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 1:22AM|#
For an even prettier story, the woman could be on a collar and
leash!
Everybody can play, don't be shy.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 3:32AM|#
I wonder how many times Elemenope has asked this question but
still continues to ask anybody who does not think as he
proscribes.
Just a hunch that I am not the first.
MNG|3.23.09 @ 7:49AM|#
"Mr. Chartreuse,
So what about "being human" gives the infant rights but not the
dog? DNA? Or is it the ability to reason, or exercise autonomy, or
to feel pain. Whoops, dogs can do all the latter. And so they might
have some moral weight. Watch out.
Again, it's unhelpful for you to use as an argument "the law
currently protects children more than dogs." Sure. But it does
protect dogs. And that's the point I was making, that it should.
Dogs are not like children (they don't deserve all the moral
respect a child does), but they are not like couches either (which
get no moral respect).
"My point is that animals can't give to consent to anything"
Ok, I get it, as I said upthread consent is important in that it
protects things from being used as a means to another's ends rather
than as an end itself. Yes, as I said upthread, while often consent
is a sign of respecting a creatures ends it is not always going to
be so. It's the respect that is important morally, and it's missing
here.
"I wonder how many times Elemenope has asked this question but
still continues to ask anybody who does not think as he
proscribes."
I wonder how many times Suki has just thrown an incredibly
controversial concept like "rights" out there as if everyone
automatically knew what the hell he was talking about. I'm betting
this is not the first time.
"Groups don't have rights, individuals do."
Look, someone taught jester a line to say! Over and over.
So jester, the individuals making up the abstract concept of a
"group" have rights. So yes, only individual animals have rights,
but when talking about what we owe animals, in general, as animals,
I use the phrase animal rights. Just like when one speaks of rights
for women in general one is actually refering to the aggregated
rights of all individuals sharing this trait: gender of
woman.
But all people who weren't being stupidly nitpicky knew this
already...
TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Are most of the peopel on this thread playing stupid or are they
truly unaware that pets are just like people?
MNG is right again and he has spanked you all.
|3.23.09 @ 8:36AM|#
"MNG, if I concede all your points regarding animals
having moral weight, they don't explain why fucking an animal is
wrong but playing "fetch" with an animal is all
right"
Er, probably for reasons similar as to why it is OK to play
ball with kids but not to have sex with them.
Well, if you are explicit about why it's OK to play ball with kids
but not to have sex with them, we can see if those reasons apply to
dogs. You originally claimed that the reason sex was wrong (in both
cases) was that the child/dog couldn't give effective consent. Now
you are implicitly accepting there something beyond "effective
consent" we need to consider, but you don't say what it is.
You've sidestepped my point that there are other things done to
children/dogs that they can't give effective consent to either, but
virtually no one considers it wrong to do. That doesn't mean having
sex with either one is right, but it does suggest that "effective
consent" doesn't determine the question, as you claimed that it
did. Are you conceding that argument, or just ignoring it?
TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 9:02AM|#
MNG,
I think that Suki poster is a womyn, at least the link portrays her
that way.
You may have a point that gender identification is old fashioned,
but until our language evolves into something modern, sticking with
the masculine in undefined cases seems wrong.
|3.23.09 @ 10:08AM|#
LMNOP gets what Seamus does not.
You don't have to think it would be equally wrong to do what she
did to a kid and a dog to think it would be wrong to do it to
either, and for similar basic reasons. And Seamus' suggestion that
the only thing that would make it wrong is the later horror of the
victim is pathetic: so if it happened to a terminally ill kid who
would never reach that age and realization it would be OK,
huh?
I never said that "the only thing" making child rape immoral was
the later horror of the victim. If you'd read my comment to the
end, you'd have seen that I made a point about corpses (animal and
human) that, just as it doesn't depend on consent, doesn't depend
on the horror of the victim, either. There is yet another
consideration, that of the human dignity of the victim--something
that Toby doesn't have, and thus can't have violated. Michelle Owen
violated her own human dignity when she let Toby lick her, so she,
not Toby is the only "victim" here. I'm not willing to put her in
jail for that. (Similarly, I'd want the law to leave her alone if
she'd donned a strap-on and sodomized Toby's corpse, I would want
the law to leave her alone, but not if she had done the same to the
corpse of her (ex-)boyfriend.)
Elemenope|3.23.09 @ 3:00PM|#
I wonder how many times Elemenope has asked this question
but still continues to ask anybody who does not think as he
proscribes.
Just a hunch that I am not the first.
Actually, Suki, I'm just curious. We've had several discussions
about the metaphysics of rights here on H&R, and it always
helps to know when diving into another exactly where everyone is
coming from.
And the word you were looking for is "prescribes", the word that
indicates a normative command to possess. 'Proscribes' is the verb
describing the status of being forbidden by a person. I have no
intent nor ability to forbid you to think anything you like, after
all. Know your antonyms!
TofuSushi|3.23.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Elemenope,
Why are you falling for the bait of someone who wants to dehumanize
dogs?
Suki|3.23.09 @ 8:02PM|#
just sayin',
Aw! Such a good boy catching my misusage from 3:30am-ish sleep
deprived time. I really meant prescribes, as you politely pointed
out. (rubbing behind your friskey ears)
And for the bad, bad Elemenope and MNG. Ignoring my whole comment,
even the Constitution part? Bad, bad boys. No peanut butter for
you!
Oh, MNG, that person of your same mind is correct, I am female, but
I spell "woman" with the "a".
Hope I did not make any typos to keep you up late!
just sayin\'|3.23.09 @ 10:10PM|#
Disinterested comment: Not everyone who misuses words does so because they are sleep-deprived, nor is it the case that everyone who reads such misused words knows better.
Ironic|3.23.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think anyone has yet compared dogs to retarded people yet. The difference between children and retarded people is that a child (who is not retarded at least) WILL grow up to be an adult who can consent one day but has not yet reached that point. I think a retarded person is a much better comparison. So, ask yourself, would it be moral to have sex with a very severely retarded adult human who's IQ is comparable to that of a dog? Why or why not?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245