thanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much
thanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much
thanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much
Best of luck in your new location . . . and don't worry about being "gone". We'll still be talking about the same crap when you get back . . .
I guess I will ask the question, does man have the right to control other animals. The above clip is about a documentary called BLACKFISH. It was gripping tale of the whale industry from capture to millions of dollars at the gate and a breeding program set up by Sea World.
Two things that caught my eye in this film. First, the torment and grief a mother orca goes through when her baby calf is taken from her. The cries and screams she lets out. And you see this twice. Two, the whale kills a trainer more than once and Sea World goes to great lengths and expense to protect the animal. And yet if a dog kills someone, he is automatically put down because he has the taste of blood is his brain and there is fear he will do it again. (The above whale has been involved in 3 deaths)
Don't get me wrong, I love Marine Land. Have been there several times. I think it is important for children to learn and I have no problem even being entertained by animals.
I understand you play with animals that big things are going to happen. But taking the baby from its mother was really a disturbing scene to watch. Does man have the right to control other animals? And if so, should they have better facilities to live in than the small quarters they currently have? And maybe talk about the dangers of keeping the species in captivity.
Exploitation of the workers? Well, if they have agreed to work for the wages on offer, they are no longer being exploited are they? Rather they have entered into a mutually beneficial contract. The Employer gets labour, and the employees earn income. should they ever feel they are no longer being compensated adequately, they can quit (or renegotiate).
This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages). And even furthermore, this problem is made even worse when the business pulls out of the country leaving everyone unemployed because the business found an even cheaper country to produce products in. This happens all the time (again it is even made even more worse!! when you consider the tax breaks that countries give to the businesses to persuade them into coming into their country – i’m not getting into this though, but Naomi Klein explains it well in no logo if you’re interested).
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.
Capitalists who develop AIDS medications make profits, and I am reasonably certain those who take them are happier for it. The incentive of "accumulation" is not necessarily a negative. As Gordon Gecko said . . . "Greed, for lack of a better term . . . is good."
AIDS medications are helpful, fine. What about all the other crazy meds that are being created and pushed upon us year after year. Mental disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and it’s not necessarily because we’re all going crazy. It’s because the psychiatric profession redefined a ton of mental conditions, and changed which ones require meds. Years ago, if you had an issue you’d have to talk about it with someone. Nowadays, you have an issue, pop a pill. Medical companies are rolling ass-back in the money now and it sure is not “good” for the people of society.
But the proletariat, through investment of their wages, can acquire sufficient ownership shares of those means of production to live quite comfortable and happy lives.
Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).
This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages).
....
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.
The horrible thing that non-capitalists think is that people would rather have no job than a poor paying job. Why would people work for a dollar a day wage if that wasn't better than what they had before?
If capitalism didn't allow companies to open factories in low-wage countries, those workers would be even poorer, and the rich american worker would be even richer. That seems wrong somehow, no?
Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).
I’ll think about it
The "poverty line" in America is at a living standard so far above what the poor people in the rest of the world live at it's almost a joke. It's a completely subjective measure. The government could redefine it tomorrow and have 50% of the people below the poverty line if they wanted to.
And the poor person in America might have a very difficult time becoming wealthy, sure. But not even close to as hard a time as a person in a truly poor country. Why is this? Because America has historically been capitalist.
Think about it - would you rather be poor in America, or upper middle-class in Haiti?
The horrible thing that non-capitalists think is that people would rather have no job than a poor paying job. Why would people work for a dollar a day wage if that wasn't better than what they had before?
i already answered this. they have no choice in jobs. they must take what they can get. who said they'd rather have no job? i didn't.
If capitalism didn't allow companies to open factories in low-wage countries, those workers would be even poorer, and the rich american worker would be even richer. That seems wrong somehow, no?
again, you are not giving me facts. you are just saying that this is true. please read no logo and you will not have an issue with this problem anymore. this is one of the myths of capitalism btw. one of the bigs ones (along with the trickle down effect which literally does not happen!!)
The "poverty line" in America is at a living standard so far above what the poor people in the rest of the world live at it's almost a joke.
fact? quote? please? i don't think that's true.
It's a completely subjective measure. The government could redefine it tomorrow and have 50% of the people below the poverty line if they wanted to.
umm...well yes they could. not sure what that means though.
And the poor person in America might have a very difficult time becoming wealthy, sure. But not even close to as hard a time as a person in a truly poor country. Why is this? Because America has historically been capitalist.
Think about it - would you rather be poor in America, or upper middle-class in Haiti?
agreed that acquiring wealth is easier in a wealthy country. not sure how that disagrees with my opinion though.
this is probably last comments about the capitalism debate as we are just going in circles it seems. i don't mean any disrespect, but it kinds of seems that the comments that disagree with me are just saying i'm wrong but not offering examples or suggestions as to why i'm wrong. that's fine, and i'm not expecting you guys to do research or anything, but it's kind of forcing me to just repeat myself and i don't really want to do that. it also makes me sound like i'm an arrogant prick that just keeps saying the same thing and is like 'why the fuck don't you agree', and i don't want to do that either.
i think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, but that's obviously fine. the point of this thread is to discuss, and discuss we did! so i'm sorry if anyone feels like i didn't fully deliver on this one topic.
if anyone wants to write up why capitalism is great (i.e. distribution of wealth, trickle down effect, etc.) i'll most likely comment on it. however, i don't think that i will keep defending in this debate.
I guess that for this one I have to plead some kind of ignorance because I don't see how this violates someone's autonomy as long as they have free choice. If McDonald's is using Shaun the cashier only to make profit by making money (as it did in '93-96), how is my autonomy violated? And am I not using McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit - get money and job experience?) The customer is using me and McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit -get food)? So we're all evil? Is Kant's point that restaurants are evil? What?!?
autonomy is the ability for someone to act freely. when someone is used for a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves), you are violating one's autonomy. kant had a very complicated argument about why limiting one's freedom is morally wrong, but i'm assuming you don't want to hear all that. let's just say that using people for your own goals is immoral (not evil - there's a big difference!), and capitalism uses everything and everyone for their own goals (of profit). hence, kant would say they are acting immoral.
it's fine if you don't understand the argument or you disagree. however, it's clearly immoral according to his theory, that's all i'm saying here to be honest.
Ok, so if capitalism was created, who created it?
i don't know. i'm too lazy to work the google on the internet machine to check it out.
Capitalism doesn't encourage anything. It allows people to accumulate wealth in the extreme. It also allows people to accumulate wealth and give it away. Or to never accumulate wealth, but spend it all as they earn it.
please offer some suggestions here. i'm assuming this is just your opinion, but may i have some reasons/examples? capitalism does encourage many things. it doesn't just "allow" like you say. businesses must keep making money. stocks must keep going up. they can't just stay the same and everyone is happy. it encourages constant growth and wealth accumulation (hell, it demands it ffs). i really don't understand how you can just simply say it doesn't. again, some facts to back you up would be nice.
And how does this person/corporation go about amassing all this wealth? By making people happy. Not necessarily in the smiliing/ laughing sense, but by meeting their needs and making them better off than they were previously - as they see it.
again, some examples/facts?
no, they don't make money by making people happy. they make money by using people and manipulating people. in fact, they even slowly kill people (by pollution and cancer causing agents in manufacturing, etc.). maybe the average consumer buys things to make them happy, but the business doesn't give a shit why people buy things. pharmaceutical companies in fact hope you are unhappy (depression meds are friggin' huge right now). do you really think that people need to work for 40+ years or whatever it is so they can save up enough money to support themselves? hell no, they have to work that long so they can continue to participate in the conspicuous consumption of pointless products. are you suggesting that money = happiness? i'd obviously disagree with that one.
I don't know if you've got kids, but I do.
fuck no.
The day that McDonald's stops making enough people happy, they will go out of business.
this is exactly my point. no they won't. they'll just start selling something else or offering another service. the stock owners will still all be rich, and the cashier will still be making minimum wage (unless he gets a better education! which capitalism also makes very hard for him to do with privatized universities who are constantly increasing tuition fees every year for no other reason than to make money - see the rich/poor gap and how many who are smart enough still can't afford post secondary educations!).
What do you mean by infinite growth rate? I think you are in error here but I need to know exactly what you mean by that statement. Ever expanding progress is not impossible, because wealth is not finite but can be created; I'm not sure that's what you mean.
infinite growth is necessary in capitalism (there are capitalists that say it isn't, but there arguments seem to have huge holes in them from what i've read).
quickly googled and found a very simple explanation (although it obviously gets way more complicated than this). and no, you can't just "create wealth" if you mean printing more money. it doesn't work like that.
"Capitalism does require infinite growth because of one simple concept ... interest on loans. Because of interest, there will never be enough money to repay all loan debts in society. The only way to remedy this void is to increase the money supply. When the money supply is increased, more capital is available for loans, so more loans (and thus interest) is added to the equation. The only ends to this vicious cycle are to devalue currency (where smaller amounts of money have more value) or economic collapse. When you increase the money supply without regard to supply/demand for goods and services, that is a certain to be disaster."
Capitalism does not benefit just the few, it benefits all. Doesn't the McDonald's employee benefit by having a job?
this is the argument by capitalists, yes. i disagree and i stated why previously (and i'd rather not just repeat myself). please offer me a reason for your side as opposed to just a rhetorical question.
The proletariat (can I just say that I love that we're having a conversation that can include the word proletariat) does indeed receive wages that decrease, but this is the fault of inflation, not of capitalism. (If you think inflation is caused by capitalism - it's not. I can explain why if you'd like later on.)
inflation is the only reason why only lower paying job wages decrease? examples/facts to back that up? i already mentioned reasons as to why this is not the case.
Profit and loss isn't exactly reward and punishment (because not getting a reward isn't the same as getting punished). I guess I don't have much of a response to this except to say that we're not increasing in unhappiness (if we even are?) because of capitalism. Even if we were in a fully capitalist system, correlation is not causation.
again, you disagree but give no reasons. so i don't really have a response other than, i also disagree with you (as supported by previous examples that i will not repeat here).
rereading this before posting it and it really makes me sound like a huge asshole. sorry if i came off that way. not my intention. maybe it's just me, idk.
This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages). And even furthermore, this problem is made even worse when the business pulls out of the country leaving everyone unemployed because the business found an even cheaper country to produce products in. This happens all the time (again it is even made even more worse!! when you consider the tax breaks that countries give to the businesses to persuade them into coming into their country – i’m not getting into this though, but Naomi Klein explains it well in no logo if you’re interested).
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.
I might still have a copy of NO LOGO around somewhere . . . typical socialist drivel. Klein is not even a very good writer . . .
AIDS medications are helpful, fine. What about all the other crazy meds that are being created and pushed upon us year after year. Mental disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and it’s not necessarily because we’re all going crazy. It’s because the psychiatric profession redefined a ton of mental conditions, and changed which ones require meds. Years ago, if you had an issue you’d have to talk about it with someone. Nowadays, you have an issue, pop a pill. Medical companies are rolling ass-back in the money now and it sure is not “good” for the people of society.
That is not the fault of "Capitalism". the fault, Horatio, is in ourselves. At least as far as your example is concerned. People like the quick fix, so it is a case of supply and demand.
Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).
I dislike terms like, "the poverty line" . . . who decides? I have seen some alleged "poor" people, with a better apparent lifestyle than I have. Lots of flat screens and cellies in the hands of people below that line, if you ask me.
i already answered this. they have no choice in jobs. they must take what they can get. who said they'd rather have no job? i didn't.
Everyone has a choice to either not work or work. Yes, the consequences of not working may be very unpleasant, but the choice remains.
If there are jobs to be had, they are there because of capitalism.
You didn't explicitly say that you don't want people to have a job. You did strongly imply that corporations are exploiting foreign workers by offering only low paying jobs. My point is that if the jobs weren't low paying enough, they wouldn't exist in that country (at a certain price point they'd be in back in North America). If they didn't exist in that country, then indeed, they would have no choice in jobs, they'd be stuck on a subsistence farm or whatever they were doing before a company came and offered them the opportunity to work for $1/day. Which at any point they would be free to quit and go back to anyway.
this is probably last comments about the capitalism debate as we are just going in circles it seems. i don't mean any disrespect, but it kinds of seems that the comments that disagree with me are just saying i'm wrong but not offering examples or suggestions as to why i'm wrong.
We are going in circles to some extent. I do not feel disrespected, and I hope you don't either, but I think to some extent the problem goes like this:
Trigs offers an opinion unsubstantiated by facts (profit is immoral, unhappiness is increasing).
Shaun replies with a response also containing an opinion (profit is amoral, people are making choices that make them happy).
Trigs demands facts.
We are both guilty to some extent, though I generally assume you're offering opinion and I'm trying to rely on reason/logic to make my points because primarily this is a philosophy discussion and not an economics one.
Indeed, I think I've offered decent evidence/ made points in some posts that you did not respond to, specifically #80, #85, and #87. I totally understand that missing replies is easy when debating in this format.
Hey, I get that we will most likely eventually have to agree to disagree. I didn't ever expect to turn you into an anarcho-capitalist over the course of two weeks.
autonomy is the ability for someone to act freely. when someone is used for a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves), you are violating one's autonomy. kant had a very complicated argument about why limiting one's freedom is morally wrong, but i'm assuming you don't want to hear all that. let's just say that using people for your own goals is immoral (not evil - there's a big difference!), and capitalism uses everything and everyone for their own goals (of profit). hence, kant would say they are acting immoral.
it's fine if you don't understand the argument or you disagree. however, it's clearly immoral according to his theory, that's all i'm saying here to be honest.
Ok, lets leave aside the idea of which person is using who when it comes to employment. And I already stated my opinion that if you're free to quit you maintain your autonomy.
I want to look at the statement that I've bolded, because it's important. It's important because I absolutely agree with it. Limiting the freedom of another person (when they are not themselves violating someone's rights) is indeed immoral.
And it's precisely why capitalism is not immoral while all other systems are! Other systems require - require! - much more violation of freedom than capitalism. Typically they require violence or threat of violence. If you want evidence of this, please supply me a list of which economic systems you want me to compare freedom-wise with capitalism.
Autonomy is protected by capitalism and destroyed by all others!
I agree very much that this discussion has been great. We over-reached perhaps, in what we attempted to do here. Really, we could spend 10x as much time discussing just the morality of profit, or the idea of autonomy!
Remind me to ask if you want your two hours back. Seriously, just get the Coles notes version on-line, along with rebuttals, although you could probably rebut Klein in your sleep, which will be oddly appropriate.
Remind me to ask if you want your two hours back. Seriously, just get the Coles notes version on-line, along with rebuttals, although you could probably rebut Klein in your sleep, which will be oddly appropriate.
Remind me to ask if you want your two hours back. Seriously, just get the Coles notes version on-line, along with rebuttals, although you could probably rebut Klein in your sleep, which will be oddly appropriate.
Ha! Nevertheless I will find it and read it. I'm as guilty as anyone for tending to read only things that will reinforce my own viewpoints/beliefs. Plus, if I don't read No Logo, how could I ever ask trigs to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism?
I bought the book, I read it . . . twice. She articulates a point of view without any offer of solution. To top it all off, she turned herself into such a media darling that she herself has become somewhat of a "brand" . . . oh the ironing. Sorry if my distaste for Ms. Klein strikes you as close minded, but it is a stance born of familiarity.
Ha! Nevertheless I will find it and read it. I'm as guilty as anyone for tending to read only things that will reinforce my own viewpoints/beliefs. Plus, if I don't read No Logo, how could I ever ask trigs to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism?
You could just gift him a subscription to the Ron Paul youtube channel . . .
I bought the book, I read it . . . twice. She articulates a point of view without any offer of solution. To top it all off, she turned herself into such a media darling that she herself has become somewhat of a "brand" . . . oh the ironing. Sorry if my distaste for Ms. Klein strikes you as close minded, but it is a stance born of familiarity.
I guess I will ask the question, does man have the right to control other animals. The above clip is about a documentary called BLACKFISH. It was gripping tale of the whale industry from capture to millions of dollars at the gate and a breeding program set up by Sea World.
Two things that caught my eye in this film. First, the torment and grief a mother orca goes through when her baby calf is taken from her. The cries and screams she lets out. And you see this twice. Two, the whale kills a trainer more than once and Sea World goes to great lengths and expense to protect the animal. And yet if a dog kills someone, he is automatically put down because he has the taste of blood is his brain and there is fear he will do it again. (The above whale has been involved in 3 deaths)
Don't get me wrong, I love Marine Land. Have been there several times. I think it is important for children to learn and I have no problem even being entertained by animals.
I understand you play with animals that big things are going to happen. But taking the baby from its mother was really a disturbing scene to watch. Does man have the right to control other animals? And if so, should they have better facilities to live in than the small quarters they currently have? And maybe talk about the dangers of keeping the species in captivity.
i'll try to comment on this either today or tomorrow. i should have some time to do so.
I guess I will ask the question, does man have the right to control other animals. The above clip is about a documentary called BLACKFISH. It was gripping tale of the whale industry from capture to millions of dollars at the gate and a breeding program set up by Sea World.
I watched it about a month ago . . . made me very angry.
Two things that caught my eye in this film. First, the torment and grief a mother orca goes through when her baby calf is taken from her. The cries and screams she lets out. And you see this twice. Two, the whale kills a trainer more than once and Sea World goes to great lengths and expense to protect the animal. And yet if a dog kills someone, he is automatically put down because he has the taste of blood is his brain and there is fear he will do it again. (The above whale has been involved in 3 deaths)
That whale (Tillikum?) should be euthanized, not bred.
Don't get me wrong, I love Marine Land. Have been there several times. I think it is important for children to learn and I have no problem even being entertained by animals.
If you have followed the Star's articles, Marineland is not much better.
I understand you play with animals that big things are going to happen. But taking the baby from its mother was really a disturbing scene to watch. Does man have the right to control other animals? And if so, should they have better facilities to live in than the small quarters they currently have? And maybe talk about the dangers of keeping the species in captivity.
I think that zoos do a lot of good in terms of species survival and education of the masses. That said, there are huge issues with captivity that simply cannot be addressed (see Toronto Zoo and elephants). I, too, have enjoyed visits to the Zoo, and to Marineland, though I will never set foot on the latter's property again. I am undecided as to the "viability" of Zoos in this day and age, simply because I am unsure as to whether or not the research that goes on could or would be accomplished in the absence of a structure like a zoo.
I do feel that there is something wrong with the idea of taking a creature that is used to a habitat of thousands of square miles, and restricting it to even a hundred or 2 hundred acres. It alters what these animals are, and not necessarily for the better, imo.
This should not be interpreted to say that animals "have Rights". They do not. Animals do however deserve to be afforded certain protections by we humans, which is not exactly the same thing.
I am strongly against zoos and the capture and containment of animals for many reasons.
First, zoos use cramped cages and enclosures. This severely restricts the movement and also the behaviour of the animals. This causes them to have physical and mental frustrations which can lead to abnormal and sometimes even self-destructive behaviour. Basically, they can’t act how they normally act in their natural habitat, and some even turn to hurting themselves or other animals.
Second, zoos breed animals because baby animals are cute and this draws in visitors. Once they outgrow their cuteness, the zoos breed more. Not all these baby animals are well accepted by the parents but the zoos are not concerned about this. What then occurs is that zoos become overcrowded with adult animals that people don’t want to see (or the zoo doesn’t have room for). These animals are then “warehoused” (i.e. left in tiny cages behind the scenes where visitors can’t see them), sold to animal dealers, let lose into the wild, etc.
Third, zoos still import animals from the wild and some even dump animals into the wild after the animals have been in captivity. Importing animals from the wild is a problem because most of the time it is from illegal poachers and illegal trafficking of the animals. Returning animals to the wild after years of captivity is a problem because the animals don’t know how to survive and fend for themselves in the wild and many end up dying.
Fourth, it is a myth that zoos protect species from extinction. Zoos always prefer the large and charismatic animals because these are the ones that visitors want to see. Therefore, zoos ignore the less popular species that also need to be protected. They are not in the business of saving animals from extinction, and for many animals at risk, zoos just don’t give a shit because the visitors aren’t interested in seeing such animals. Furthermore, the majority of animals in zoos are not actually endangered. On top of all of this, confining animals to keep them alive does nothing to protect their populations and habitats (which is how we should be trying to protect them from extinction).
Finally, the point I disagree with Milo on is that I think animals should have rights, but not equal rights with humans. The fact is animals do have rights. If you torture your dog, you can get fined and even jailed for animal cruelty (also, see football guy who ran a dog fighting business, wtf was his name?). Obviously, they can’t have equal rights to humans, but they definitely need some rights to survival and basic necessities.
EDIT: so personally, i do not like zoos or marineland or anything like that. I won't go to those places because i don't want to support them. natural reserves and reproducing the natural habitats for animals is the best way to help them.
Finally, the point I disagree with Milo on is that I think animals should have rights, but not equal rights with humans. The fact is animals do have rights. If you torture your dog, you can get fined and even jailed for animal cruelty (also, see football guy who ran a dog fighting business, wtf was his name?). Obviously, they can’t have equal rights to humans, but they definitely need some rights to survival and basic necessities.
The bolded comment is false. Animals do NOT have Rights, nor should they. The cruelty you describe and the punishment of that cruelty is a result of the legal protections that we as a society have afforded to our pets. To equate the value of an animal, even a beloved pet, with that of a human being is something that really gets under my skin.
In your questions earlier, we had to decide between killing one person, or three, in one of the scenarios provided. Change that question to a choice between three dolphins (the most intelligent animal I can think of, atm) and one human, and there is no debate. The dolphins die, every time. Why? Because human life is worth more than an animals.
I have no problem with the legal protections we afford animals, and think that in some case they should be strengthened . . . but Rights? Hell no.
The bolded comment is false. Animals do NOT have Rights, nor should they.
yes, they don't have legal rights. it's more like a social contract.
To equate the value of an animal, even a beloved pet, with that of a human being is something that really gets under my skin.
i did not do this.
In your questions earlier, we had to decide between killing one person, or three, in one of the scenarios provided. Change that question to a choice between three dolphins (the most intelligent animal I can think of, atm) and one human, and there is no debate. The dolphins die, every time. Why? Because human life is worth more than an animals.
agreed. i made no comments about this point though.
I have no problem with the legal protections we afford animals, and think that in some case they should be strengthened . . . but Rights? Hell no.
call them what you will as long as the animals are protected and helped to thrive.
call them what you will as long as the animals are protected and helped to thrive.
No, not "call them what you will" . . . the term "Right(s)" has very specific meaning and application in Law. therefore, it should not be tossed about lightly, nor applied to things that do not meet the criteria.
As stated, I am all for the protection of animals as a point of law, but this is a far different thing than ascribing Rights to our four legged (or finned) friends.
No, not "call them what you will" . . . the term "Right(s)" has very specific meaning and application in Law. therefore, it should not be tossed about lightly, nor applied to things that do not meet the criteria.
As stated, I am all for the protection of animals as a point of law, but this is a far different thing than ascribing Rights to our four legged (or finned) friends.
when you use the term "rights" it always implies humans? i wasn't aware of this fact.
what's the criteria? where is this written? i'm interested.
Check with Kofi Annan . . . I think he can help you out.
Nope, ol Kofi talks about human rights, not just rights... Therefore if there are human rights as Kofi says are there not also animal rights? Not necessarily equal but nonetheless rights...
I waited a while to get into this but wanted to make this point... Oh and I am of the same opinion as the two of you. Zoo's, marinelands, etc do nothing to protect any species imo..
I was referring to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for the idea that "if there are human rights, are there not also animal rights?", my answer would be "no", for the reasons I have explained. I mean, should I be brought up on charges for violating a mosquitoes "rights" because I swat them? What about cattle ranchers? Dairy farmers? Fishing fleets? No.
I was referring to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for the idea that "if there are human rights, are there not also animal rights?", my answer would be "no", for the reasons I have explained. I mean, should I be brought up on charges for violating a mosquitoes "rights" because I swat them? What about cattle ranchers? Dairy farmers? Fishing fleets? No.
pretty sure we agree milo and we're just arguing semantics. would you consider the declaration of rights and freedoms as protective laws for our personal liberties?
i really don't recall ever reading that "rights" is a blanket term that can only refer to humans. i could be wrong but i don't know where to look and you are not giving me the info of where you heard/read this.
btw, are you being serious lately or are you just trolling? you seem to be bringing a lot of hostility to this thread lately. nothing personal but when you disagree with me you seem to be upset about it.
EDIT: instead of telling me why i'm wrong, maybe i'd understand better if you told me why you are right. why are all rights only for humans? are animals not even allowed to have the basic right to life? how does protecting animals in this manner harm humans (if that's what your concern is, idk)?
EDIT 2: am i the only one who finds it a little ironic/funny that the agnostic (as opposed to the theist) is the one arguing for more and better protections for animals? (keep in mind that i did outright state that animals should not have equal rights to humans, but they should have some basic rights.)
Comments
Probably too much time on a "gambling" site ^-^
I will miss our conversations.
Best of luck in your new location . . . and don't worry about being "gone". We'll still be talking about the same crap when you get back . . .
I guess I will ask the question, does man have the right to control other animals. The above clip is about a documentary called BLACKFISH. It was gripping tale of the whale industry from capture to millions of dollars at the gate and a breeding program set up by Sea World.
Two things that caught my eye in this film. First, the torment and grief a mother orca goes through when her baby calf is taken from her. The cries and screams she lets out. And you see this twice. Two, the whale kills a trainer more than once and Sea World goes to great lengths and expense to protect the animal. And yet if a dog kills someone, he is automatically put down because he has the taste of blood is his brain and there is fear he will do it again. (The above whale has been involved in 3 deaths)
Don't get me wrong, I love Marine Land. Have been there several times. I think it is important for children to learn and I have no problem even being entertained by animals.
I understand you play with animals that big things are going to happen. But taking the baby from its mother was really a disturbing scene to watch. Does man have the right to control other animals? And if so, should they have better facilities to live in than the small quarters they currently have? And maybe talk about the dangers of keeping the species in captivity.
This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages). And even furthermore, this problem is made even worse when the business pulls out of the country leaving everyone unemployed because the business found an even cheaper country to produce products in. This happens all the time (again it is even made even more worse!! when you consider the tax breaks that countries give to the businesses to persuade them into coming into their country – i’m not getting into this though, but Naomi Klein explains it well in no logo if you’re interested).
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.
AIDS medications are helpful, fine. What about all the other crazy meds that are being created and pushed upon us year after year. Mental disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and it’s not necessarily because we’re all going crazy. It’s because the psychiatric profession redefined a ton of mental conditions, and changed which ones require meds. Years ago, if you had an issue you’d have to talk about it with someone. Nowadays, you have an issue, pop a pill. Medical companies are rolling ass-back in the money now and it sure is not “good” for the people of society.
Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).
I’ll think about it
The horrible thing that non-capitalists think is that people would rather have no job than a poor paying job. Why would people work for a dollar a day wage if that wasn't better than what they had before?
If capitalism didn't allow companies to open factories in low-wage countries, those workers would be even poorer, and the rich american worker would be even richer. That seems wrong somehow, no?
The "poverty line" in America is at a living standard so far above what the poor people in the rest of the world live at it's almost a joke. It's a completely subjective measure. The government could redefine it tomorrow and have 50% of the people below the poverty line if they wanted to.
And the poor person in America might have a very difficult time becoming wealthy, sure. But not even close to as hard a time as a person in a truly poor country. Why is this? Because America has historically been capitalist.
Think about it - would you rather be poor in America, or upper middle-class in Haiti?
i already answered this. they have no choice in jobs. they must take what they can get. who said they'd rather have no job? i didn't.
again, you are not giving me facts. you are just saying that this is true. please read no logo and you will not have an issue with this problem anymore. this is one of the myths of capitalism btw. one of the bigs ones (along with the trickle down effect which literally does not happen!!)
fact? quote? please? i don't think that's true.
umm...well yes they could. not sure what that means though.
agreed that acquiring wealth is easier in a wealthy country. not sure how that disagrees with my opinion though.
i think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, but that's obviously fine. the point of this thread is to discuss, and discuss we did! so i'm sorry if anyone feels like i didn't fully deliver on this one topic.
if anyone wants to write up why capitalism is great (i.e. distribution of wealth, trickle down effect, etc.) i'll most likely comment on it. however, i don't think that i will keep defending in this debate.
autonomy is the ability for someone to act freely. when someone is used for a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves), you are violating one's autonomy. kant had a very complicated argument about why limiting one's freedom is morally wrong, but i'm assuming you don't want to hear all that. let's just say that using people for your own goals is immoral (not evil - there's a big difference!), and capitalism uses everything and everyone for their own goals (of profit). hence, kant would say they are acting immoral.
it's fine if you don't understand the argument or you disagree. however, it's clearly immoral according to his theory, that's all i'm saying here to be honest.
i don't know. i'm too lazy to work the google on the internet machine to check it out.
please offer some suggestions here. i'm assuming this is just your opinion, but may i have some reasons/examples? capitalism does encourage many things. it doesn't just "allow" like you say. businesses must keep making money. stocks must keep going up. they can't just stay the same and everyone is happy. it encourages constant growth and wealth accumulation (hell, it demands it ffs). i really don't understand how you can just simply say it doesn't. again, some facts to back you up would be nice.
again, some examples/facts?
no, they don't make money by making people happy. they make money by using people and manipulating people. in fact, they even slowly kill people (by pollution and cancer causing agents in manufacturing, etc.). maybe the average consumer buys things to make them happy, but the business doesn't give a shit why people buy things. pharmaceutical companies in fact hope you are unhappy (depression meds are friggin' huge right now). do you really think that people need to work for 40+ years or whatever it is so they can save up enough money to support themselves? hell no, they have to work that long so they can continue to participate in the conspicuous consumption of pointless products. are you suggesting that money = happiness? i'd obviously disagree with that one.
fuck no.
this is exactly my point. no they won't. they'll just start selling something else or offering another service. the stock owners will still all be rich, and the cashier will still be making minimum wage (unless he gets a better education! which capitalism also makes very hard for him to do with privatized universities who are constantly increasing tuition fees every year for no other reason than to make money - see the rich/poor gap and how many who are smart enough still can't afford post secondary educations!).
infinite growth is necessary in capitalism (there are capitalists that say it isn't, but there arguments seem to have huge holes in them from what i've read).
quickly googled and found a very simple explanation (although it obviously gets way more complicated than this). and no, you can't just "create wealth" if you mean printing more money. it doesn't work like that.
"Capitalism does require infinite growth because of one simple concept ... interest on loans. Because of interest, there will never be enough money to repay all loan debts in society. The only way to remedy this void is to increase the money supply. When the money supply is increased, more capital is available for loans, so more loans (and thus interest) is added to the equation. The only ends to this vicious cycle are to devalue currency (where smaller amounts of money have more value) or economic collapse. When you increase the money supply without regard to supply/demand for goods and services, that is a certain to be disaster."
this is the argument by capitalists, yes. i disagree and i stated why previously (and i'd rather not just repeat myself). please offer me a reason for your side as opposed to just a rhetorical question.
inflation is the only reason why only lower paying job wages decrease? examples/facts to back that up? i already mentioned reasons as to why this is not the case.
again, you disagree but give no reasons. so i don't really have a response other than, i also disagree with you (as supported by previous examples that i will not repeat here).
rereading this before posting it and it really makes me sound like a huge asshole. sorry if i came off that way. not my intention. maybe it's just me, idk.
Oh good.
If there are jobs to be had, they are there because of capitalism.
You didn't explicitly say that you don't want people to have a job. You did strongly imply that corporations are exploiting foreign workers by offering only low paying jobs. My point is that if the jobs weren't low paying enough, they wouldn't exist in that country (at a certain price point they'd be in back in North America). If they didn't exist in that country, then indeed, they would have no choice in jobs, they'd be stuck on a subsistence farm or whatever they were doing before a company came and offered them the opportunity to work for $1/day. Which at any point they would be free to quit and go back to anyway.
We are going in circles to some extent. I do not feel disrespected, and I hope you don't either, but I think to some extent the problem goes like this:
Trigs offers an opinion unsubstantiated by facts (profit is immoral, unhappiness is increasing).
Shaun replies with a response also containing an opinion (profit is amoral, people are making choices that make them happy).
Trigs demands facts.
We are both guilty to some extent, though I generally assume you're offering opinion and I'm trying to rely on reason/logic to make my points because primarily this is a philosophy discussion and not an economics one.
Indeed, I think I've offered decent evidence/ made points in some posts that you did not respond to, specifically #80, #85, and #87. I totally understand that missing replies is easy when debating in this format.
Ok, lets leave aside the idea of which person is using who when it comes to employment. And I already stated my opinion that if you're free to quit you maintain your autonomy.
I want to look at the statement that I've bolded, because it's important. It's important because I absolutely agree with it. Limiting the freedom of another person (when they are not themselves violating someone's rights) is indeed immoral.
And it's precisely why capitalism is not immoral while all other systems are! Other systems require - require! - much more violation of freedom than capitalism. Typically they require violence or threat of violence. If you want evidence of this, please supply me a list of which economic systems you want me to compare freedom-wise with capitalism.
Autonomy is protected by capitalism and destroyed by all others!
I agree very much that this discussion has been great. We over-reached perhaps, in what we attempted to do here. Really, we could spend 10x as much time discussing just the morality of profit, or the idea of autonomy!
Wow, thanks for the open minded comments Milo.
Ha! Nevertheless I will find it and read it. I'm as guilty as anyone for tending to read only things that will reinforce my own viewpoints/beliefs. Plus, if I don't read No Logo, how could I ever ask trigs to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism?
A decade later, does 'No Logo' still matter? | Toronto Star
I would answer that it never mattered in the first place, because . . .
Pro Logo vs. No Logo - WNYC
or . . .
Face value: Why Naomi Klein needs to grow up | The Economist
I bought the book, I read it . . . twice. She articulates a point of view without any offer of solution. To top it all off, she turned herself into such a media darling that she herself has become somewhat of a "brand" . . . oh the ironing. Sorry if my distaste for Ms. Klein strikes you as close minded, but it is a stance born of familiarity.
You could just gift him a subscription to the Ron Paul youtube channel . . .
thanks for the links. i'll check them out.
i'll try to comment on this either today or tomorrow. i should have some time to do so.
I think that zoos do a lot of good in terms of species survival and education of the masses. That said, there are huge issues with captivity that simply cannot be addressed (see Toronto Zoo and elephants). I, too, have enjoyed visits to the Zoo, and to Marineland, though I will never set foot on the latter's property again. I am undecided as to the "viability" of Zoos in this day and age, simply because I am unsure as to whether or not the research that goes on could or would be accomplished in the absence of a structure like a zoo.
I do feel that there is something wrong with the idea of taking a creature that is used to a habitat of thousands of square miles, and restricting it to even a hundred or 2 hundred acres. It alters what these animals are, and not necessarily for the better, imo.
This should not be interpreted to say that animals "have Rights". They do not. Animals do however deserve to be afforded certain protections by we humans, which is not exactly the same thing.
I am strongly against zoos and the capture and containment of animals for many reasons.
First, zoos use cramped cages and enclosures. This severely restricts the movement and also the behaviour of the animals. This causes them to have physical and mental frustrations which can lead to abnormal and sometimes even self-destructive behaviour. Basically, they can’t act how they normally act in their natural habitat, and some even turn to hurting themselves or other animals.
Second, zoos breed animals because baby animals are cute and this draws in visitors. Once they outgrow their cuteness, the zoos breed more. Not all these baby animals are well accepted by the parents but the zoos are not concerned about this. What then occurs is that zoos become overcrowded with adult animals that people don’t want to see (or the zoo doesn’t have room for). These animals are then “warehoused” (i.e. left in tiny cages behind the scenes where visitors can’t see them), sold to animal dealers, let lose into the wild, etc.
Third, zoos still import animals from the wild and some even dump animals into the wild after the animals have been in captivity. Importing animals from the wild is a problem because most of the time it is from illegal poachers and illegal trafficking of the animals. Returning animals to the wild after years of captivity is a problem because the animals don’t know how to survive and fend for themselves in the wild and many end up dying.
Fourth, it is a myth that zoos protect species from extinction. Zoos always prefer the large and charismatic animals because these are the ones that visitors want to see. Therefore, zoos ignore the less popular species that also need to be protected. They are not in the business of saving animals from extinction, and for many animals at risk, zoos just don’t give a shit because the visitors aren’t interested in seeing such animals. Furthermore, the majority of animals in zoos are not actually endangered. On top of all of this, confining animals to keep them alive does nothing to protect their populations and habitats (which is how we should be trying to protect them from extinction).
Finally, the point I disagree with Milo on is that I think animals should have rights, but not equal rights with humans. The fact is animals do have rights. If you torture your dog, you can get fined and even jailed for animal cruelty (also, see football guy who ran a dog fighting business, wtf was his name?). Obviously, they can’t have equal rights to humans, but they definitely need some rights to survival and basic necessities.
EDIT: so personally, i do not like zoos or marineland or anything like that. I won't go to those places because i don't want to support them. natural reserves and reproducing the natural habitats for animals is the best way to help them.
The bolded comment is false. Animals do NOT have Rights, nor should they. The cruelty you describe and the punishment of that cruelty is a result of the legal protections that we as a society have afforded to our pets. To equate the value of an animal, even a beloved pet, with that of a human being is something that really gets under my skin.
In your questions earlier, we had to decide between killing one person, or three, in one of the scenarios provided. Change that question to a choice between three dolphins (the most intelligent animal I can think of, atm) and one human, and there is no debate. The dolphins die, every time. Why? Because human life is worth more than an animals.
I have no problem with the legal protections we afford animals, and think that in some case they should be strengthened . . . but Rights? Hell no.
yes, they don't have legal rights. it's more like a social contract.
i did not do this.
agreed. i made no comments about this point though.
call them what you will as long as the animals are protected and helped to thrive.
No, not "call them what you will" . . . the term "Right(s)" has very specific meaning and application in Law. therefore, it should not be tossed about lightly, nor applied to things that do not meet the criteria.
As stated, I am all for the protection of animals as a point of law, but this is a far different thing than ascribing Rights to our four legged (or finned) friends.
when you use the term "rights" it always implies humans? i wasn't aware of this fact.
what's the criteria? where is this written? i'm interested.
Check with Kofi Annan . . . I think he can help you out.
Nope, ol Kofi talks about human rights, not just rights... Therefore if there are human rights as Kofi says are there not also animal rights? Not necessarily equal but nonetheless rights...
I waited a while to get into this but wanted to make this point... Oh and I am of the same opinion as the two of you. Zoo's, marinelands, etc do nothing to protect any species imo..
pretty sure we agree milo and we're just arguing semantics. would you consider the declaration of rights and freedoms as protective laws for our personal liberties?
i really don't recall ever reading that "rights" is a blanket term that can only refer to humans. i could be wrong but i don't know where to look and you are not giving me the info of where you heard/read this.
btw, are you being serious lately or are you just trolling? you seem to be bringing a lot of hostility to this thread lately. nothing personal but when you disagree with me you seem to be upset about it.
EDIT: instead of telling me why i'm wrong, maybe i'd understand better if you told me why you are right. why are all rights only for humans? are animals not even allowed to have the basic right to life? how does protecting animals in this manner harm humans (if that's what your concern is, idk)?
EDIT 2: am i the only one who finds it a little ironic/funny that the agnostic (as opposed to the theist) is the one arguing for more and better protections for animals? (keep in mind that i did outright state that animals should not have equal rights to humans, but they should have some basic rights.)