[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by xSammyx
Animals have rights to a point,
but if everyone believed they did then everyone would be vegetarians wouldnt they?

Of course children have the same rights as adults.

I agree with your post.

But... I think people keep using "have" to mean "should have." Animals and children do not have rights as things are; the debate is whether or not they should.

[Sticks]

It has been a while since I started this thread

Re-cap on the proposition

Someone can only have rights if they have responsibilities

Since children and animals do not have responsibilities, therefore they do not have rights whatsoever. (Moral rights rather than "paper" legal rights some feel they ought to have)

However adults have a duty of care towards children and animals which is how they are protected.

So in theory, so the argument goes, a baby has no right to live, the most basic of these rights. However, adults have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, and to kill a baby or to allow it to die is counted as being against the law of the land, which protects the baby.

So the argument goes.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
It has been a while since I started this thread

Re-cap on the proposition

Someone can only have rights if they have responsibilities

Since children and animals do not have responsibilities, therefore they do not have rights whatsoever. (Moral rights rather than "paper" legal rights some feel they ought to have)

However adults have a duty of care towards children and animals which is how they are protected.

So in theory, so the argument goes, a baby has no right to live, the most basic of these rights. However, adults have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, and to kill a baby or to allow it to die is counted as being against the law of the land, which protects the baby.

So the argument goes.

Either you disagree with that stand or you've just pointed out a flaw in your own argument.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther

Either you disagree with that stand or you've just pointed out a flaw in your own argument.

Actually it was not mine, but one I came across a while back.

As a further recap, some have pointed out that various legal statutes purport to give rights to children and animals, so they have "legal Rights", but you could interpret them as legal duties on those who are seen to be caring for said children and animals.

In the US they have this thing known as the Bill of Rights, but I am not skilled in American Law, so if anyone is, that would be most useful.

Anyway, this argument I came across, referred to moral rights, rather than legal rights, if there is such a distinction, the the supposition was, you only had rights if you had responsibilities, but part of those responsibilities was to care for those who have neither.

[bigbr0ther]

The whole argument of "no rights without responsibilities" is flawed to begin with. People who are unemployed have rights. People who are unemployed and leeching off of a friend have rights. People who inherited their money have rights. The argument implies that all of these people should lose their right not to be slaughtered and sold for food because they do not have "responsibilities."

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
The whole argument of "no rights without responsibilities" is flawed to begin with. People who are unemployed have rights. People who are unemployed and leeching off of a friend have rights. People who inherited their money have rights. The argument implies that all of these people should lose their right not to be slaughtered and sold for food because they do not have "responsibilities."

All of the people you mention, still have responsibilities, even in law

The unemployed person has the responsibility to prove they are actively seeking employment to continue to receive JSA

The leech, has a responsibility to not break the law if they are not actively seeking employment like the first example. Their friends may ask them to do things. At the very basic level he has the responsibility to get themselves dressed in the morning, or noon whenever they get up.

The person inheriting money may have the responsibility to pay inheritance tax and may still have other responsibilities, like getting washed and dressed.

Responsibilities need not be things you would add to your CV

The quote, "No rights without responsibilities" is only half of the proposition.

It disputes primarily the existence of animal rights, because an animal can have no responsibilities in the human world.

(It could be argued that in the wild, some adult animals in animal groups will be doing things for the rest of the group, like the lioness hunting the food for the pride, and therefore have responsibilities with in lion-kind that just means they have a right to a position with in the pride, so perhaps this proposition may still hold in the animal kingdom)

However, responsibilities are encumbered onto those who come into contact with animals, either on an ongoing basis or a casual basis, to care for them and not mistreat them. Should an animal be destined for the pot, the slaughterer has a responsibility to kill the animal in a humane a manner as possible. Whether we should be eating animals is a totally different argument

Likewise with young children, the idea of "Children's rights" is disputed from the moral perspective, rather than the statute rights mentioned earlier. It could be argued that these statute rights are not really rights but responsibilities to be imposed on those who have a caring role for children.

Children however must be cared for and not mistreated, and the responsibility for that will fall on the carer.

So although according to this moral argument, animals and young children do not have any rights, including the most basic one the right to life, as they have no responsibilities, it is not open season on them, as there are adults, with rights who have the responsibility to protect them, care for them and keep them from harm.

No animal or young baby is put at risk by this assertion of no rights without responsibilities, because somewhere their welfare is the responsibility of someone.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
All of the people you mention, still have responsibilities, even in law

The unemployed person has the responsibility to prove they are actively seeking employment to continue to receive JSA

Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?

The leech, has a responsibility to not break the law if they are not actively seeking employment like the first example. Their friends may ask them to do things. At the very basic level he has the responsibility to get themselves dressed in the morning, or noon whenever they get up.

Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.

The perpson inheriting money may have the responsibility to pay inheritance tax and may still have other responsibilities, like getting washed and dressed.

Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)

Responsibilities need not be things you would add to your CV

The quote, "No rights without responsibilities" is only half of the proposition.

It disputes primarily the existence of animal rights, because an animal can have no responsibilities in the human world.

Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.

(It could be argued that in the wild, some adult animals in animal groups will be doing things for the rest of the group, like the lioness hunting the food for the pride, and therefore have responsibilities with in lion-kind that just means they have a right to a position with in the pride, so perhaps this proposition may still hold in the animal kingdom)

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.

However, responsibilities are encumbered onto those who come into contact with animals, either on an ongoing basis or a casual basis, to care for them and not mistreat them. Should an animal be destined for the pot, the slaughterer has a responsibility to kill the animal in a humane a manner as possible. Whether we should be eating animals is a totally different argument

Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.

Likewise with young children, the idea of "Children's rights" is disputed from the moral perspective, rather than the statute rights mentioned earlier. It could be argued that these statute rights are not really rights but responsibilities to be imposed on those who have a caring role for children.

What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.

Children however must be cared for and not mistreated, and the responsibility for that will fall on the carer.

So although according to this moral argument, animals and young children do not have any rights, including the most basic one the right to life, as they have no responsibilities, it is not open season on them, as there are adults, with rights who have the responsibility to protect them, care for them and keep them from harm.

No animal or young baby is put at risk by this assertion of no rights without responsibilities, because somewhere their welfare is the responsibility of someone.

So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?

They still have responsibilities to obey the law, responsibilities to at least feed themselves somehow

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.

A number of points here

As we get older and our cognition develops, we gain responsibilities and then rights follow, a child under a certain age, in law is not held accountable as they are not clinically capable of knowing right from wrong. This was once used as a plot device on CSI

Animals behave on instinct, they may attack on an instinct, like intrusion into territory, hunting for food, these are survival instincts needed for life in the wild. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise animals

An animal can of course be trained not to attack, or controlled by a human with responsibilities for that animal, which is a different matter.

Humans by contrast have a cognitive ability that develops as we get older, this separates us from the animals and is why we went on to develop the internet and they did not.

Animals being playful, that is more anthropomorphising again.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)

Paying death dues correctly is a heavy responsibility, as anyone who has been clobbered by the system. A comment like that betrays a certain viewpoint of certain people in a certain income bracket. Whether that viewpoint has any validity is moot I will grant that, but makes for a poor argument here. It is usually best to try and avoid letting one's emotions entering a debate.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.

In relation to humans, how?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.

Why, I am using an example from nature where instinctive and partly learned behaviour leads to animals to take on limited responsibilities with in their grouping, which gives them rights within that animal grouping. I was trying to show that the connection between rights and responsibilities is played out in nature, so how is that a logical fallacy?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.

Actually, you have the responsibility to obey the law, and in most cases, killing your neighbour is a violation of the law. Yet again this is anthropomorphising but in reverse, relating to the eating of meat, a totally different argument.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.

Emancipated? that means being set free. Are you thinking of the word orphaned? Children of the age of three trying to fend for themselves is tragic, and an indictment against those adults who have shirked their responsibilities to care for the weaker members of their community. Just because the child has been able to eek out a living does not detract from that responsibility in surrounding adults. Also why was the child orphaned in the first place, if you dig deeper who will find somewhere up the line, someone who did not live up to their responsibility.

But even so, all this shows is that the three year old, managed to develop their cognitive ability to take on the responsibility to keep themself alive.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.

I was using the old trick of arguing from the "in extremis" position. The right to life is such an "in extremis" fundamental right.

What I am getting at, is that connecting rights to responsibilities, means that a baby, with no developed cognitive ability, has no responsibilities and therefore does not have rights, which following to the in extremis logical conclusion includes the right to life. The right to vote is a right that comes way later so I could not use that one.

I am using the words,"Do Not" to indicate what the situation is, as opposed to any situation that might be proposed. To put it another way, it is telling it the way it is, not the way it might, should or could be, but the way it is.To use the word should is an emotive word here and unhelpful.

It is quite clear, from the law people are not allowed to murder children, and it is our responsibility to obey the law.

As for the probability of me having children, you are sailing close to the wind on "poisoning the well". Were I to have a wife, and then children, it would be my responsibility along with my wife, to look after, protect and care for my children and to teach them to be good citizens.

Like I said earlier, the connection of Rights to Responsibilities does not put anyone or any animal at risk.

[bigbr0ther]

I don't have time to write a long response right now (maybe I will later) but most of your argument is Appeal to Authority, another logical fallacy.

All living beings should have rights whether they also have responsibilities or not because it's impossible to decide what counts as a responsibility. Do you have a dog or a cat? If so, I'm sure you would agree that because of his species he is not capable of having responsibility, therefore he has no rights, therefore if someone decided to come over and kill him you should just shrug and decide that it was that person's right to do so.

Originally posted by Sticks

They still have responsibilities to obey the law, responsibilities to at least feed themselves somehow

A number of points here

As we get older and our cognition develops, we gain responsibilities and then rights follow, a child under a certain age, in law is not held accountable as they are not clinically capable of knowing right from wrong. This was once used as a plot device on CSI

Animals behave on instinct, they may attack on an instinct, like intrusion into territory, hunting for food, these are survival instincts needed for life in the wild. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise animals

An animal can of course be trained not to attack, or controlled by a human with responsibilities for that animal, which is a different matter.

Humans by contrast have a cognitive ability that develops as we get older, this separates us from the animals and is why we went on to develop the internet and they did not.

Animals being playful, that is more anthropomorphising again.

Paying death dues correctly is a heavy responsibility, as anyone who has been clobbered by the system. A comment like that betrays a certain viewpoint of certain people in a certain income bracket. Whether that viewpoint has any validity is moot I will grant that, but makes for a poor argument here. It is usually best to try and avoid letting one's emotions entering a debate.

In relation to humans, how?

Why, I am using an example from nature where instinctive and partly learned behaviour leads to animals to take on limited responsibilities with in their grouping, which gives them rights within that animal grouping. I was trying to show that the connection between rights and responsibilities is played out in nature, so how is that a logical fallacy?

Actually, you have the responsibility to obey the law, and in most cases, killing your neighbour is a violation of the law. Yet again this is anthropomorphising but in reverse, relating to the eating of meat, a totally different argument.

Emancipated? that means being set free. Are you thinking of the word orphaned? Children of the age of three trying to fend for themselves is tragic, and an indictment against those adults who have shirked their responsibilities to care for the weaker members of their community. Just because the child has been able to eek out a living does not detract from that responsibility in surrounding adults. Also why was the child orphaned in the first place, if you dig deeper who will find somewhere up the line, someone who did not live up to their responsibility.

But even so, all this shows is that the three year old, managed to develop their cognitive ability to take on the responsibility to keep themself alive.

I was using the old trick of arguing from the "in extremis" position. The right to life is such an "in extremis" fundamental right.

What I am getting at, is that connecting rights to responsibilities, means that a baby, with no developed cognitive ability, has no responsibilities and therefore does not have rights, which following to the in extremis logical conclusion includes the right to life. The right to vote is a right that comes way later so I could not use that one.

I am using the words,"Do Not" to indicate what the situation is, as opposed to any situation that might be proposed. To put it another way, it is telling it the way it is, not the way it might, should or could be, but the way it is.To use the word should is an emotive word here and unhelpful.

It is quite clear, from the law people are not allowed to murder children, and it is our responsibility to obey the law.

As for the probability of me having children, you are sailing close to the wind on "poisoning the well". Were I to have a wife, and then children, it would be my responsibility along with my wife, to look after, protect and care for my children and to teach them to be good citizens.

Like I said earlier, the connection of Rights to Responsibilities does not put anyone or any animal at risk.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Do you have a dog or a cat? If so, I'm sure you would agree that because of his species he is not capable of having responsibility, therefore he has no rights, therefore if someone decided to come over and kill him you should just shrug and decide that it was that person's right to do so.

Where I live I am not allowed a dog or a cat, but were I to have a pet, as I have responsibilities, the law recognises I have property rights, and that the destruction of my property by others would be unlawful.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
Where I live I am not allowed a dog or a cat, but were I to have a pet, as I have responsibilities, the law recognises I have property rights, and that the destruction of my property by others would be unlawful.

"Property" rights? So that's all your dog is to you. Just another piece of property. Another thing you own, for you to abuse as you please. Disgusting. People like you are the causes for animal abuse. A dog has consciousness. He has emotions and feelings. He has thoughts. He solves problems. But because he's not human, you think you have the right to own him. That is just sick.

[spitfire]

If something can feel pain then it has the right not to feel pain.


Yes,children and animals have rights.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
"Property" rights? So that's all your dog is to you. Just another piece of property. Another thing you own, for you to abuse as you please. Disgusting. People like you are the causes for animal abuse. A dog has consciousness. He has emotions and feelings. He has thoughts. He solves problems. But because he's not human, you think you have the right to own him. That is just sick.

You asked me what would happen if a hypothetical party killed a hypothetical dog I might own.

Pets, because in law, are classed as property (as are domestic animals that a farmer may own), so in law the offender would have to be done on those laws. Also, depending on the manner they killed this hypothetical animal they would be done under animal welfare legislation (Note Animal Welfare not animal rights)

Also note, if I owned a pet, those same animal welfare laws would also apply to me and it would be my responsibility in law to ensure the welfare of my animal. So I have a responsibility to not abuse any animal I may have in my lawful possession.

Animals may be clever, pigs are actually cleverer than dogs, but because they lack certain cognition skills, we are at the top of the food chain and are top predator. That is just the way it is.

As for a right to own an animal, that is actually a privilege rather than a right, since if anyone is found guilty of being cruel to an animal they can be banned from keeping them.

Yet again you are allowing personal feelings about how you feel things ought to be govern how you debate.

If I might ask a personal question here, are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

[bigbr0ther]

Your post is nothing but a combination of appeal to authority, appeal to common practice, and appeal to tradition, all of which are logical fallacies. And excuse me for allowing my personal opinions to come into play here... I thought that was the point of a debate.

Originally posted by Sticks
You asked me what would happen if a hypothetical party killed a hypothetical dog I might own.

Pets, because in law, are classed as property (as are domestic animals that a farmer may own), so in law the offender would have to be done on those laws. Also, depending on the manner they killed this hypothetical animal they would be done under animal welfare legislation (Note Animal Welfare not animal rights)

Also note, if I owned a pet, those same animal welfare laws would also apply to me and it would be my responsibility in law to ensure the welfare of my animal. So I have a responsibility to not abuse any animal I may have in my lawful possession.

Animals may be clever, pigs are actually cleverer than dogs, but because they lack certain cognition skills, we are at the top of the food chain and are top predator. That is just the way it is.

As for a right to own an animal, that is actually a privilege rather than a right, since if anyone is found guilty of being cruel to an animal they can be banned from keeping them.

Yet again you are allowing personal feelings about how you feel things ought to be govern how you debate.

If I might ask a personal question here, are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by spitfire
If something can feel pain then it has the right not to feel pain.


Yes,children and animals have rights.

Very well put.

[Sticks]

Emotions can motivate people to act rashly. In a debate you need to use reason, logic and evidence, so appealing to common practice can be argued as providing evidence to back up a position.

With this proposition it seems people can confuse rights with welfare.

If we talk about Animal and child welfare then we can see that children and animals are protected bye stringent welfare standards, especially in the UK. Rights are not required, as welfare standards are imposed by statute and common law. Animal welfare standards require us to look after animals and keep them from harm and needless suffering, (Which is why sometimes we have to put an animal down if it is suffering)

likewise child welfare standards also requires a child to be kept safe from harm, kept safe from abuse and neglect and other provisions.

Under welfare standards, and not rights, are children and animals to be kept from pain and suffering.

[bigbr0ther]

Appeal to common practice and appeal to authority are both logical fallacies and are thus irrelevant.

[amydropdead_x]

Any living being, has rights.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by amydropdead_x
Any living being, has rights.

Lettuce?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks

Lettuce?

Lettuce is not a living being.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Lettuce is not a living being.

When it is growing in the field it is, as is grass

They obey the rules of FRIGMER

Plants are living, so why do people not chant on about plant's rights?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks

When it is growing in the field it is, as is grass

They obey the rules of FRIGMER

Plants are living, so why do people not chant on about plant's rights?

Because plants are not conscious.

[Sticks]

But some research did show that plants felt pain

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
But some research did show that plants felt pain

Pardon my laughter. Would you be so kind as to provide some sort of reference for this? I'm not buying it.

[serensilver]

so basically helpless/dependant children and animals dont have any rights but criminals who rob/murder/rape etc cant be named/need to have play stations in their cells because they have rights!

i hate it as soon as they break the law their ********** rights GO OUT THE WINDOW!!!!!!:ma d:

dont you agree