Hls

[xGriffox]

That is such a slippery slope argument though, where do you draw the line? I noticed you didn't respond to my mainstream music example. You can't just say "well I disagree with it, so I have a right to stop it". That is not the way the real world works.

tell me then, how does the real world work? I am curious to know how it is I could be missing out on crucial elements of function in a world which I am very much involved with.

Protest it all you want, that is your legal right, but when it comes to breaking the law, you do NOT have that right.

why do you take the law to be inherently moral?

Also, as a nice aside, you are wrong here. If you protest or go undercover and expose abuse in the United States and cause economic damage through divestment to a company that happens to be involved with animal testing/slaughter/etc. you can be charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The act is vague so as to be able to be used in more than just the cases which involve personal harassment or threats to employees.

Nope, whether it comes from the left wing or the right wing, I am against extremism. Unless it is based on issues of human rights (racism, blatent corruption in government etc), breaking the law, being violent or trying to force your views on to others is ignorant and wrong. Peope have different beliefs and no one person's beliefs are held to a higher standard than anybody elses. Just because I happen to have a different opinion doesn't mean you have the right to negatively impact my life.

I don't understand. I only have the "right" to take action and break the law if it is to remedy the wrongs which you deem to be immoral? I thought breaking the law and taking action apart from legally sanctioned and cop-monitored "protests" was immoral and led only to activist-barbarism and unchanged minds? Why is your example of "human rights issues" any different apart from the fact that YOU think they are justified?

If I am unemployed, can't find work and I have a family to provide for and somebody offers me a job testing on animals, you are damn right I would take it. Human Life > Animal Life.

So if I am unemployed and someone offers me $20 for every dog I kill for their meat it is ok for me to go to the pound, adopt dog after dog, and shoot them to provide for my family? Would you feel comfortable doing this?

Do you support militant straight edge? Militant edgers feel really strongly about making sure nobody smokes or drinks, so does that give them the right to beat people up for smoking or to try to force their views on others?

Nope. But once again, I am about tangible effects of actions. Beating up drunks doesn't change the fact that alcohol is still produced and doesn't even stop those who are attacked from continuing to consume those substances. Rescuing animals, while not destroying the institutions which continually torture them, still makes tangible difference in the way in which they are able to live henceforth from that point on.

And I don't want your response to say anything about "oh well I don't condone violence so this is different", because it doesn't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law whether its graffiti, property damage, burglery or assault.

So all crime is equal? I really don't follow this point. I also find your worship of "law and order" to be a bit too fundamentalist for someone who has a degree in polisci.

In my view, breaking the law to try to force your beliefs on others is ignorant.

unless, as you pointed out above, it is in the interest of advancing causes of human rights against a "corrupt" government. Can you define that word "corrupt" for me and expound upon it as it pertains to "moral" actions which may or may not break the law in response to such an institution?

I am not even going to get in to how fucked up I think this is.

You should! It's just as fucked up to you, I'm sure, as defending those that continuously torture animals for cosmetics and household cleaners is to me. You callously say, "morally sanctioned by the law" and i say, "Death without reason". It really seems we are not on the same moral page, but hey! you've got the law on your side at least ;-)

The fact I am legally allowed to? That right IS established whether or not you agree with it.

All rights are established whether or not you agree with them because governments don't give you your rights, you have them inherently.

And the fact that not everybody holds the same view that animals and humans are equal.

...and not everybody holds the view that they are unequal. I don't see your point.

If 95% of the population beleived the same things you did then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place and you would have nothing to protest. I don't know why you think I am the wierd one here for not agreeing with your logic.

Because you are getting tripped up even within the framework of your own logic.

Your pretentious view of life, and the fact you think that your beliefs somehow put you on a higher plane of existence just blows my mind. This is why I have a problem with the extreme left wing. They make it seem as though everybody who disagrees with them is a bad person or is somehow evil.

I just don't play the moral relativist game; I think something is wrong and you don't, therefore I think you are wrong. I am not going to try to be some dipshit liberal who is "understanding" and "tolerant" of other people's viewpoints when I don't agree with them. That is not to say that I would attack you, that is not to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would not and will never play the game of concessions when it comes to my beliefs and thoughts on an ideological level.

The rest of the world manages to co-exist with people with different ideologies, so I don't understand why groups like these protestors, and the ALF can't do the same.

This just isn't true.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

[straightXed]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

So i guess theres not going to be any direct response to my post. Oh well, i have to say the way this post reads did put a smile on my face. Its been very interesting and enjoyable for me to read and try to assertain where you are comming from.

[xsecx]

This seems to be what we are at, Griff and i think rights inherent and not connected to the law. we also thinks some things are wrong, inherently (From the above). Some of you guys seem to think much morality is relative. We disagree. Do get over this debate we need to have a long philosophical one, and i guess i'm not that interested, because most people i meet think their are things that are objectively right and wrong, These are the people i want to convince of veganism. The rest of you we can try to show the pitfalls of relativism later. But with all the easily convertible out there, i don't want to waste my resource of time on relativists. Not that i won't devote time to yall when most of the easily converted are in agreement!

How else are you going to talk about rights? You can believe that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, but how is that really relevant when that's counter the law in a given place. You can talk about how you have the right to destroy property, but when you live in a society and are governed by those laws, it doesn't matter. The idea of absolutely morality only really works in a world where everyone thinks like you do. It's great when talking about things like rape or murder or incest. Things that everyone does actually agree one universally and for the most part always have. It of course falls apart in terms of things like open relationships, polygamy, homosexuality, abortion, property rights, etc. Just because you think you have a moral right to do something, doesn't mean you do. It's the easy way out. You disagree with something you feel like you have the right to act on it. Of course, if you live in a society with laws, you may not. You may actually be interfering with the other persons right to privacy and property rights. Disagreeing with something that at this point in time is legal somewhere doesn't give you the right to act on your feelings, no matter how much you think it should. We live in a society where the collective will is captured by laws. You don't agree with the laws and the rights those laws grant you, change them, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't apply to you and that you have a right to do whatever you feel like you should.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

How else are you going to talk about rights? You can believe that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, but how is that really relevant when that's counter the law in a given place. You can talk about how you have the right to destroy property, but when you live in a society and are governed by those laws, it doesn't matter. The idea of absolutely morality only really works in a world where everyone thinks like you do. It's great when talking about things like rape or murder or incest. Things that everyone does actually agree one universally and for the most part always have. It of course falls apart in terms of things like open relationships, polygamy, homosexuality, abortion, property rights, etc. Just because you think you have a moral right to do something, doesn't mean you do. It's the easy way out. You disagree with something you feel like you have the right to act on it. Of course, if you live in a society with laws, you may not. You may actually be interfering with the other persons right to privacy and property rights. Disagreeing with something that at this point in time is legal somewhere doesn't give you the right to act on your feelings, no matter how much you think it should. We live in a society where the collective will is captured by laws. You don't agree with the laws and the rights those laws grant you, change them, but don't kid yourself into thinking they don't apply to you and that you have a right to do whatever you feel like you should.

I know i said i was done..... but

Natural rights, most people think they are not rights cause they come from the state. we created the state whereas i think the rights we are talking about are beyond that. Call it kidding myself, or whatever but i do believe and i think i'm right in believing that if the law said slavery was ok or rape was ok, i would still consider every en-slaver and every rapist wrong, morally wrong, i would say they are violating a right we all have no matter how dark our skin, how smart we are, how good looking, whether we were born with a penis or vagina, or none or both, whatever. I would think that even in that state, that if you followed the laws and had your property be it a wife or a laborer you were morally wrong and violating a moral right. that's what ethics and philosophy has taught me. I'd try to convince you with arguments, but if you don't accept that, or say fuck it then im a racist or a sexist then you are wrong, i don't give to shits what your state says. If you want to buy into that hobbesian shit then go for it, but you are wrong. and thats that. try to prove me otherwise. try to explain to me how slavery or rape is ok if the law says it is, and just cause well all mostly agree now doesn't mean we did all that long ago so that point is moot.

and yea, i'm angry and sorry i'm not being an effective debater now but you are really going to sit their and tell me that all this shit is cultural relative? that if i lived somewhere where rape or slavery was okay that that is the final word. please....

[xsecx]

I know i said i was done..... but

Natural rights, most people think they are not rights cause they come from the state. we created the state whereas i think the rights we are talking about are beyond that. Call it kidding myself, or whatever but i do believe and i think i'm right in believing that if the law said slavery was ok or rape was ok, i would still consider every en-slaver and every rapist wrong, morally wrong, i would say they are violating a right we all have no matter how dark our skin, how smart we are, how good looking, whether we were born with a penis or vagina, or none or both, whatever. I would think that even in that state, that if you followed the laws and had your property be it a wife or a laborer you were morally wrong and violating a moral right. that's what ethics and philosophy has taught me. I'd try to convince you with arguments, but if you don't accept that, or say fuck it then im a racist or a sexist then you are wrong, i don't give to shits what your state says. If you want to buy into that hobbesian shit then go for it, but you are wrong. and thats that. try to prove me otherwise. try to explain to me how slavery or rape is ok if the law says it is, and just cause well all mostly agree now doesn't mean we did all that long ago so that point is moot.

and yea, i'm angry and sorry i'm not being an effective debater now but you are really going to sit their and tell me that all this shit is cultural relative? that if i lived somewhere where rape or slavery was okay that that is the final word. please....

You may want to read what I wrote and respond to it rather than responding emotionally with examples of rape, which I actually talked about. There is a fundamental difference between believing that someone is morally wrong and that giving you the individual the right to act against that person. If you think that having an abortion is wrong, do you as the individual have the right to stop a stranger from having one? Your use of extreme examples of things that are already illegal doesn't really illustrate your point. I'd just like for you to explain what you think natural rights actually gives you since the one thing they don't is legal protection. There is a fundamental difference between believing you have a moral obligation to act and believing you have the right to.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

You may want to read what I wrote and respond to it rather than responding emotionally with examples of rape, which I actually talked about. There is a fundamental difference between believing that someone is morally wrong and that giving you the individual the right to act against that person. If you think that having an abortion is wrong, do you as the individual have the right to stop a stranger from having one? Your use of extreme examples of things that are already illegal doesn't really illustrate your point. I'd just like for you to explain what you think natural rights actually gives you since the one thing they don't is legal protection. There is a fundamental difference between believing you have a moral obligation to act and believing you have the right to.

Again, like the french protests thing, i regret alot of what i said and i'm sorry, anger is no tool for a good debate.

I disagree about how fundamental a moral difference there is. If you are correct (and ill get to this in a second) about having a moral obligation then you have the right to do what that correct position tell you. That is the right i care about, not the law. If you are correct about raping being immoral, you have a right to stop it no matter what the Law says you can do about it.

the problem is that we are fallible human beings, and we are not even 100% sure about rape or slavery, i'd say we are at like 99.5 or whatever but the point is the same. We should try to convince people with rational arguments when we can. violence is a point of no return and that's whats wrong with doing it. I might be right about slavery, but it still might not be a good idea (utility wise) to start killing those who have slaves, for one i might die and not be able to explain my position to more people. Secondly, i might ruin the long term chances of creating a world without slavery cause my actions will be seen as to radical, i mean, though i think John Brown was prob right at Harper's Ferry it could be argued it was not helpful.

Finally, if you argue about abortion with me we will reach some sort of agreement or impasse. And i think their is a right answer about abortion and we can figure it out with enough discussion and agreement, it might take a long damn time, so did stuff like slavery etc.

anyways, i think having a moral obligation is to have a moral right. and that is the right i'm interested in.

again sorry about that stupid shit about slavery and rape and insinuating that you are ok with it.

[xsecx]

Again, like the french protests thing, i regret alot of what i said and i'm sorry, anger is no tool for a good debate.

I disagree about how fundamental a moral difference there is. If you are correct (and ill get to this in a second) about having a moral obligation then you have the right to do what that correct position tell you. That is the right i care about, not the law. If you are correct about raping being immoral, you have a right to stop it no matter what the Law says you can do about it.

the problem is that we are fallible human beings, and we are not even 100% sure about rape or slavery, i'd say we are at like 99.5 or whatever but the point is the same. We should try to convince people with rational arguments when we can. violence is a point of no return and that's whats wrong with doing it. I might be right about slavery, but it still might not be a good idea (utility wise) to start killing those who have slaves, for one i might die and not be able to explain my position to more people. Secondly, i might ruin the long term chances of creating a world without slavery cause my actions will be seen as to radical, i mean, though i think John Brown was prob right at Harper's Ferry it could be argued it was not helpful.

Finally, if you argue about abortion with me we will reach some sort of agreement or impasse. And i think their is a right answer about abortion and we can figure it out with enough discussion and agreement, it might take a long damn time, so did stuff like slavery etc.

anyways, i think having a moral obligation is to have a moral right. and that is the right i'm interested in.

again sorry about that stupid shit about slavery and rape and insinuating that you are ok with it.

You're still focusing on things that for the most part everyone agrees about. If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what? That's why laws exist. In your world you believe you can act because you think it's your right, but to do so you have to infringe on the rights of others and that's why the whole view that the law is irrelevant doesn't really make any kind of sense. The idea of universal right and wrong isn't really practical when you apply it to life. Telling me that you have the right to stop me will only be met with me telling you that you don't. We're then left pointing to the law since it's external from both of us as to see who has the right to do something. Individual morality doesn't dictate rights. Group morality does.

[xsecx]

around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

i'd like to see recent proof of this statement.

[xGriffox]

i'd like to see recent proof of this statement.

hmmm, can't find a really solid source on this or on anything really pertaining to the breakdown of percentages between either medical use or cosmetic. The numbers that keep coming up are 94% for cosmetics and 6% for Biomedicine. See if you can find anything though, I'm up to look at anything.

[xsecx]

hmmm, can't find a really solid source on this or on anything really pertaining to the breakdown of percentages between either medical use or cosmetic. The numbers that keep coming up are 94% for cosmetics and 6% for Biomedicine. See if you can find anything though, I'm up to look at anything.

it doesn't really make sense, that's why I asked. every day more and more brands and products are stopping animal testing so you'd think over time the percentage would/should decrease.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

You're still focusing on things that for the most part everyone agrees about. If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what? That's why laws exist. In your world you believe you can act because you think it's your right, but to do so you have to infringe on the rights of others and that's why the whole view that the law is irrelevant doesn't really make any kind of sense. The idea of universal right and wrong isn't really practical when you apply it to life. Telling me that you have the right to stop me will only be met with me telling you that you don't. We're then left pointing to the law since it's external from both of us as to see who has the right to do something. Individual morality doesn't dictate rights. Group morality does.

yea i just completely disagree, sure it might be harder to come to a consensus on what is right or wrong, hell we haven't really got their on things that nearly all of us agree on like rape, people still do that. The point is, i think the relying on group morality idea is not very good. cause 200 years ago american group morality was pro slavery. or the lawmakers, and the law is what we are supposed to look to you are suggesting, was serfdom in Russia. That's definitively not ok. Say what you will but group morality might usually be right, but i'm not throwing my bet on the herd. Reasoned argument, that's where i'm at.

[xsecx]

yea i just completely disagree, sure it might be harder to come to a consensus on what is right or wrong, hell we haven't really got their on things that nearly all of us agree on like rape, people still do that. The point is, i think the relying on group morality idea is not very good. cause 200 years ago american group morality was pro slavery. or the lawmakers, and the law is what we are supposed to look to you are suggesting, was serfdom in Russia. That's definitively not ok. Say what you will but group morality might usually be right, but i'm not throwing my bet on the herd. Reasoned argument, that's where i'm at.

you completely ignored the main part of my post.

If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what?

so what exactly do you completely disagree with? In your world, there's no point in coming to a consensus because you think you're right and therefore have the right to act as you see fit.

Again, you're back to focusing on extreme examples, if you want to have a reasoned argument, try sticking to examples that aren't extreme like rape, slavery, etc.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

you completely ignored the main part of my post.

If I believe that I have the moral right to do whatever I chose to with my property, and you believe that you have the moral right to destroy the concept of property rights, then who exactly is right? If you believe that animals should never be used in medical testing and I believe it's morally wrong not to, then who exactly has the moral right to act? If I believe I'm right, and you believe your right, then what?

so what exactly do you completely disagree with? In your world, there's no point in coming to a consensus because you think you're right and therefore have the right to act as you see fit.

Again, you're back to focusing on extreme examples, if you want to have a reasoned argument, try sticking to examples that aren't extreme like rape, slavery, etc.

one of us is wrong. thats the whole points. Both property rights and no property rights can be right. So we have to figure out who is right and who is wrong

you are confusing consensus with compromise. If i am right, and i come to consensus, i am still right, i just changed my opinion. In compromise, which i think is what you meant their, we still disagree but disagree on something else.

cause its easy to say morality is relative if we talk about stuff that we don't agree on. But the point is to say morality either is or isn't and i want you to agree it is before we really talk about moral issues.

[xsecx]

one of us is wrong. thats the whole points. Both property rights and no property rights can be right. So we have to figure out who is right and who is wrong

you are confusing consensus with compromise. If i am right, and i come to consensus, i am still right, i just changed my opinion. In compromise, which i think is what you meant their, we still disagree but disagree on something else.

cause its easy to say morality is relative if we talk about stuff that we don't agree on. But the point is to say morality either is or isn't and i want you to agree it is before we really talk about moral issues.

Why would we need to? You think you're right and have moral superiority to act, and so do I. What's the point of talking? Minds are already made up at that point, and the individual gets to decide whatever they want.

No, I'm not. If you're right, then there's no reason to come to a consensus or even really discuss morality. You're right. In your world where there's a universal right answer, then why would a consensus be necessary? Why would you change your opinion if you're right?

It's easy to say it's relative because it is. Talking morality like there's universal right and wrong, even though it's not possible to know what the universal right and wrong is, then what's the point of discussing it.

Assume that there is a right answer. That one of is right, and one of us is wrong. The fact that we both think we're right and therefore each feel like we can do what we need to do because of that entitlement. Given that there's no way to know which one of us is right, what's the point of seeing morality as universal?