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.)
I don't think you are the only one. In my question (which I am not sure you really answered) I asked Does man have the right to control other animals? I talk about the pain the mothers go through when man takes the babies away from them. I have never been a big quote unquote animal rights lover. But that clip was disturbing and senseless. And so is this story.
There is a whole theological discussion that could be had here based on one understanding of Genesis from both the pre and post sin. I will leave it for now. Have to finish a post/review for the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.
I don't think you are the only one. In my question (which I am not sure you really answered) I asked Does man have the right to control other animals? I talk about the pain the mothers go through when man takes the babies away from them. I have never been a big quote unquote animal rights lover. But that clip was disturbing and senseless. And so is this story.
There is a whole theological discussion that could be had here based on one understanding of Genesis from both the pre and post sin. I will leave it for now. Have to finish a post/review for the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.
you're right. i didn't outright answer that question.
the issue with the question is the word "control". do i think that humans can and should just use animals in any way possible as long as it is a benefit to humans? no, i don't think that is morally justified (yes, i think morality can extend to animals in this regard).
do humans have the right to "control" animals by regulating them to proper and adequate natural reserves where they can live and flourish without the overt possibility of human interference? yes, in fact i think this is an obligation for humans to act this way towards all other living species (and yes, that includes plant life as well).
we are stupid to think that the extinction of various animal and plant species will not effect us in the long run. biodiversity and our ecosystems are very delicate and we as living organism that can think and consider future events have an obligation to the entire planet to care for them, not only for our own futures, but the planet as a whole.
so, i think humans should have "control" over animals in order to better all our situations, not just to benefit humans. however, we tend to be a greedy bunch.
EDIT: and i'm excited to read that ham-nye response!
My question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...
What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.
Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.
My question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...
What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.
Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.
my assumption would be that they would be against dog fighting rings, but not for the sake of the animals (because if it was for the animals, that would suggest that they have some (ahem) rights to not be harmed and killed needlessly). so i'm guessing it would be for the monetary gains from an illegal enterprise.
now why is dog fighting and the like illegal in the first place according to those who think animals don't/shouldn't have rights? i have no idea how they'd answer this to be honest. if animals don't deserve any rights, even the most basic, i don't see why we don't have professional animal fighting rings. maybe someone who agrees with this can offer some opinions.
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.
I take the issue of Rights to be referential to human beings, exclusive of other life on this planet.
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.
I do not mean to come across as "hostile", but I have argued with enough animal "rights" types who WOULD equate their dogs life with my daughters, and it does frustrate me to no end. That frustration should not be directed at anyone in this thread, and I apologize ifg it came across that way.
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)?
For want of a better term, it is because we are the apex life form on this planet. That may sound like hubris, but it is fact. I will stipulate that some of it probably comes from Catholic upbringing, but the fact remains that we, as a species, have a unique ability to affect this planet that encumbers us with a duty to make sure that this planet survives for ALL species.
And, to answer Brent's question directly, "yes".
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.)
My question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...
What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.
Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.
Then you obviously did not read my previous posts. Just because I refuse to subscribe to the idea that animals should have "Rights", does not mean that I do not think they should be afforded protection under the Law. We already have statutes on the books that deal with these sorts of crimes, otherwise Michael Vick would not have gone to jail (and rightly so).
A human being has the right to life - if we agree to limit the discussion to post-birth humans I'm sure we can all agree with that statement. If you are a death penalty proponent, you might say that that right can be forfeited but nevertheless it exists.
So, an innocent human has the right not to have his life ended by another human. His other rights include liberty and property.
An animal does not have rights, not as a human does. The antelope does not have the right to not be killed by the lion, nor the trout by the bear, nor the cow by the human.
So without the right to life, why not have dog fighting rings?
I think it can be wrong to be subjected to cruelty without necessarily being granted "rights". Or maybe all living things do have the right to be cruelty-free?
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.
god is all good. god created everything. everything god created is good. god created animals. hence animals are good. but it's still okay for humans to slaughter animals at will if they want? aren't you supposed to rejoice in god's creations or something like that, not just use them for your own gains?
i question gods existence and therefore i don't see animals as something necessarily good that has been created by my god that i should/must have at least some respect for.
between us, you have some obligation to care animals it would appear, whereas my beliefs don't hold me accountable in the least, yet i'm the one suggesting that we should be caring for the animals more than we already do.
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.
this is definitely a big issue obviously. idk where to draw the line to be honest.
god is all good. god created everything. everything god created is good. god created animals. hence animals are good. but it's still okay for humans to slaughter animals at will if they want? aren't you supposed to rejoice in god's creations or something like that, not just use them for your own gains?
Except that, if you are going to follow those tenets, you would also acknowledge that God gave Man dominion over the Earth and all the creatures on it.
i question gods existence and therefore i don't see animals as something necessarily good that has been created by my god that i should/must have at least some respect for.
between us, you have some obligation to care animals it would appear, whereas my beliefs don't hold me accountable in the least, yet i'm the one suggesting that we should be caring for the animals more than we already do.
idk, it's ironic...isn't it?
I do not find it ironic. You simply place more value on animal life than I do. And you have made a slight error in how you phrase a theist's position viz. animals.
A human being has the right to life - if we agree to limit the discussion to post-birth humans I'm sure we can all agree with that statement. If you are a death penalty proponent, you might say that that right can be forfeited but nevertheless it exists.
So, an innocent human has the right not to have his life ended by another human. His other rights include liberty and property.
An animal does not have rights, not as a human does. The antelope does not have the right to not be killed by the lion, nor the trout by the bear, nor the cow by the human.
So without the right to life, why not have dog fighting rings?
Because we, as a society have deemed that certain types of animals are "special" and deserving of legal protections that we have agreed upon. The "ugly" or "tasty" animals do not merit this sort of consideration, but that's how it goes.
I think it can be wrong to be subjected to cruelty without necessarily being granted "rights". Or maybe all living things do have the right to be cruelty-free?
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.
and those are the animal welfare types that I find so annoying . . . they will weep for a bear in a circus, but not shed a tear for the children living in squalor in the Third World (since we are avoiding the unborn).
I do not find it ironic. You simply place more value on animal life than I do. And you have made a slight error in how you phrase a theist's position viz. animals.
can you clear it up for me? i did phrase it as a question.
and those are the animal welfare types that I find so annoying . . . they will weep for a bear in a circus, but not shed a tear for the children living in squalor in the Third World (since we are avoiding the unborn).
okay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?
this is definitely a big issue obviously. idk where to draw the line to be honest.
I think that we have sufficient laws on the books to protect our four-legged friends. So, in my opinion, we have drawn a sufficient line. Now we just need to extend that line so it covers areas we have grown to realize are no longer tolerable (Sea World, Zoos, what have you).
I do not regret giving my daughter a chance to experience dolphins up close and personal when we were in Cuba. Would I call their conditions cruel? I don't know, particularly as one of the handlers made mention of the fact that many of the younger dolphins actually "escape" the facility for days at a time, only to return again.
okay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?
Well, there are certainly many people who give money to various animal charities. Not all of those people give equal (or any) money to charities for humans. This would be evidence that there are indeed people who think that way.
“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi
Well, there are certainly many people who give money to various animal charities. Not all of those people give equal (or any) money to charities for humans. This would be evidence that there are indeed people who think that way.
i think i have to disagree with this statement. following this logic, if i only donated to children's charities that means i don't care about adults. if i only donate to cancer charities, i don't care about people with other diseases. (and i'm phrasing it "don't care about" as opposed to the harsher way Milo phrased it).
“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi
On the topic of the giraffe that was killed in Copenhagen, I came across a good article today. It was posted by a friend of mine who worked at the Toronto Zoo this past summer.
In it they discuss an interesting philosopical/moral difference between North American and many European zoos: The Copenhagen zoo does not allow contraception, as they consider mating and child-rearing to be a healthy part of the life of an animal, though they will cull offspring that need to be. Most zoos here will either castrate or drug animals to prevent such offspring.
On the topic of the giraffe that was killed in Copenhagen, I came across a good article today. It was posted by a friend of mine who worked at the Toronto Zoo this past summer.
In it they discuss an interesting philosopical/moral difference between North American and many European zoos: The Copenhagen zoo does not allow contraception, as they consider mating and child-rearing to be a healthy part of the life of an animal, though they will cull offspring that need to be. Most zoos here will either castrate or drug animals to prevent such offspring.
very interesting article. i didn't even know giraffes were endangered (had to look it up - apparently there's only 80,000-ish total across all giraffe species whereas a decade ago there were 140,000+).
i still have to say though, that all of these issues could have easily been avoided if we didn't have zoos for our own personal entertainment.
it kind of baffles my mind that the writer of the article (and the zoo obviously) is arguing that the zoo is trying to protect these endangered species. if they were truly interested in protecting endangered species they'd 1) not be housing animals in cages and taking money from people to come gawk at them, and 2) they'd find some way to keep a perfectly healthy animal alive even if they didn't have room for it (lol room for it - get rid of the fucking zoos/cages, there's plenty of room in the wild you morons!)
the contraception/castration thing is interesting as well. i didn't know that we did that in north america (i guess i just assumed they were kept separate or someone just kept an eye on them to stop breeding). idk, but i don't like it. getting my cat/dog fixed is one thing, but getting all wild animals in a zoo "fixed" is a little different.
at the same time, i think it's funny that the zoo in question argues that allowing them to breed is the only real issue for the animals acting like they would in the wild. it's like saying that i'll lock you in a room for the rest of your life with maybe 5 of your buddies, but once a week i'll send in someone to fuck you. i'm sure you'll be acting just like everyone else on the outside - no difference whatsoever.:o
finally, the free biology lesson - lol. i took biology in high school and i had to dissect a fish, a worm, a locust, and a fetal pig. did i want to? no, not really. did i learn something? yeah sure, why not. would i do it again? hell no. would i bring my young child to watch the dissection of a large, wild animal? ffs no. the young child can read a book or wait until he/she is in high school and can dissect one. did the zoo do anything wrong in offering this though? i don't think so, but i wouldn't want to see it.
I’m sitting around bored at the moment so I thought I’d write this up (even though I’m assuming pkrfce9 most likely doesn’t care, but I still find it interesting).
This is in response to the following comments between the two of us in reference to Fred Phelps’ recent passing:
pkrfce9:
Where's the love?
Where's the forgiveness?
The gays have turned the other cheek in a matter of speaking.
me:
i think forgiveness is overrated. most people forgive for selfish reasons anyway i.e. in order to just let things go so i can relax and forget about my stress i choose to forgive the morons.
in general, i don't think people actually, truly forgive in most situations. it's similar to the "i forgive but i never forget" comment which makes absolutely no sense to me.
pkrfce9:
no sense? forgive me for asking but aren't you supposed to be the philosophy guy?
me:
(thread derail) i'm not saying i don't understand what people mean (or think they mean) when they say that comment. i'm saying that i don't think it makes sense logically. i can explain if you want.
pkrfce9:
It makes perfect sense
Well pkrfce9, here is why I think it doesn’t make sense:
First off, we have to consider what we mean by “forgive”. I’m simply copying and pasting from wiki the following:
Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as revenge, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.
The important point here is the second half which refers to letting go of negative emotions and even going as far as wishing the offender well. Now, for the most part, many people do not feel that way when they “forgive” someone. I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s very rare for someone to truly forgive in this sense.
Now when someone uses the phrase “I forgive but I never forget”, we can assume that the “I forgive” part is referring to the definition written above, but what about the “I never forget”. What exactly are they never forgetting? That’s where I have issues with this statement.
If all one means is that “I forgive you but I have a good memory and therefore I will literally just have this memory of what you did to me in my mind simply because I can’t force myself to forget it”, well that’s just kind of a strange thing to say in this context. After all, forgiving does not necessarily mean that the incident in question must be completely wiped from memory. Therefore, if this is what one means, it’s pretty much a pointless comment and quite a strange one to make in this context of forgiveness.
On the other hand, if instead what one means is “I forgive you but I will always remember this incident and therefore in the future if I am put into a similar situation with you, I will act differently because I remember what you did to me in the past”, well then that is not truly forgiving now is it. If you truly forgave that person (as in the definition above), you’d have absolutely no issues dealing with that person again, even in the same or a similar situation as the original incident that caused you pain or stress. You would have no hard feelings or negative feelings, and you’d want the other person to do well and succeed. So why would you be reluctant to be in the same situation with that person if you actually forgave them?
Hence, when someone says “I forgive but I don’t forget”, they are either making pointless statements, or they are not actually forgiving the person at all. At best they are choosing to ignore and/or act civil around the person, but for all intents and purposes, they are not going to ever get into a similar situation with that same person again (i.e. they didn’t truly forgive).
Joe fools around with Bob's girlfriend . . . They do not speak for months and, without forgiveness, never will. Bob eventually "forgives" Joe and the friendship resumes. Said friendship is altered, however, by the circumstances that have been "forgiven" and, though the two remain friends, it is not the same relationship as in the past. Bob has been forgive his transgression, but that does not mean that Joe has to be a complete doofus.
Joe fools around with Bob's girlfriend . . . They do not speak for months and, without forgiveness, never will. Bob eventually "forgives" Joe and the friendship resumes. Said friendship is altered, however, by the circumstances that have been "forgiven" and, though the two remain friends, it is not the same relationship as in the past. Bob has been forgive his transgression, but that does not mean that Joe has to be a complete doofus.
that would be an example of ignoring the problem and forgiving for selfish reasons (i.e. i still want some semblance of a friendship). also, it's not letting go of negative emotions as Bob still harbors negative feelings. that's why the relationship is "altered" now as one, or both, can't get over their emotions.
in this example, Bob is not truly forgiving, and really he's just "forgiving" because he's selfish and still wants to have some benefits of Bob and Joe's relationship. do you really think he's forgiving Joe purely for Joe's sake and not his own? no, he's doing it because he doesn't want to throw their relationship away. that's a personal, selfish reason. he's not forgiving Joe to make Joe feel better (even though that might be a side effect). forgiving someone to make yourself feel better isn't truly forgiving.
for the record, i'm not saying that these two should never talk or be friends ever again. i'm just saying that people don't use the term properly or act accordingly when they forgive. i never said that two people can't still be friends or still carry on a relationship even though there was an incident between them and that one has never truly forgiven the other.
in fact, i think you'd be hard pressed to find any relationship where not one of the people still harbour resentment for something the other person has done even though it's been discussed and "forgiven". it's very hard to do that obviously. that's why forgiveness is so difficult and considered a virtue. no one said it was easy. we just throw the word around all the time, but in the majority of cases, we don't mean it in the true sense of the word.
Actually, could not the relationship be "altered" more from Joe's end than Bob's?
For the record, I think the things that we truly forgive, are the things we actually forget about, going forward. The small slights, the times we've been left in the lurch, etc. I do not think that, using your criteria, anyone EVER forgives the big stuff. I think we just move past it.
what is your philosophy on shoving or calling off your stack?
13 players left.
1st gets 10K 2nd-10th split another 10k.
you are the small blind a have 15 bb. utg+3 raises enough to put you all in. you see that you have 22 and it is fold to you.
Do you call and hope they stand up or do you wait and shove the first chance you get a chance to shove?
i'm probably folding here. what is average stack? 15BBs is still decent. i think 22 is not strong enough to call here. i may push with it depending though.
Okay, I know I’m a big loser, but I am very excited that I finally got this book called “The Pig That Wants to be Eaten”. It is a very basic philosophy book full of 100 thought experiments based on various philosophical arguments. It doesn’t outline specific theories or anything like that (although it does provide sources for further reading if you’re interested). It just introduces the idea to get you thinking about the topic. Since I have absolutely no one to talk to about this stuff (usually because I’m told to shut up because I’m making people’s heads hurt), I figured I’d rehash some of them here every once in a while maybe to spark some debate.
The first one comes from Rene Descartes and is used as one of his premises in his famous writing Meditations (remember “I think, therefore I am”).
The Evil Demon:
Is anything so self-evident that it cannot be doubted? Are our lives real or are we just dreaming? Is everything just a figment of our imaginations? These questions may sound foolish to some, but it is conceivable that we can have doubt even about our physical world around us.
Some ideas, we may argue, are self-evident. For example, two plus two equals four, or all triangles have three sides. However, what if it was all just a big trick? Descartes imagined what he referred to as an evil genius that controlled all that happens in our world. This evil demon has the power to make us think and see and experience whatever he wants us to in any situation. If such a demon existed, is there anything which is beyond doubt?
Philosophers are always trying to provide reasons for us to doubt things we take for granted every day - God, goodness, the physical world, time, etc. In order for them to do this, they need to use the one thing they can’t afford to doubt: the capacity to think rationally. Using rational thought, we can recognize the logical contradictions and therefore we can justify our doubts.
However, if we were under the influence of an evil, all-powerful, deceiving demon, then could we still assume the truth of these basic logical principles? They may seem obvious and self-evident, but that is not a strong enough argument to accept them as absolute truths.
If the evil demon hypothesis is too much to handle, the same doubts can still be introduced by other means. For example, we could just be mad or insane and that blinds us to the fact that others see the world differently than us. Maybe evolution provided us with a false set of principles and all our minds are flawed. Furthermore, maybe we are better adapted to survive if we are to assume the truth about certain falsehoods. Maybe the demon is encoded in our DNA.
What makes this thought experiment so interesting is that in order to judge its plausibility, we have to rely on the one thing it is pulling into question and testing: our capacity to think reasonably. That is, we have to reason whether we think well by thinking as well as we can. It is like using a questionable scale to weigh itself to test its own accuracy.
So where does this leave us? Well, we must assume our basic capacity to reason for any serious thought to be undertaken at all. Particular pieces of reasoning can be doubted after we think hard about it, but we cannot doubt our general capacity for reason. Now ask yourself, is that enough to vindicate rationality, or is the capacity to achieve truth weakened?
Comments
I don't think you are the only one. In my question (which I am not sure you really answered) I asked Does man have the right to control other animals? I talk about the pain the mothers go through when man takes the babies away from them. I have never been a big quote unquote animal rights lover. But that clip was disturbing and senseless. And so is this story.
Denmark zoo kills baby giraffe, has children watch as it's skinned and fed to lions
There is a whole theological discussion that could be had here based on one understanding of Genesis from both the pre and post sin. I will leave it for now. Have to finish a post/review for the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.
you're right. i didn't outright answer that question.
the issue with the question is the word "control". do i think that humans can and should just use animals in any way possible as long as it is a benefit to humans? no, i don't think that is morally justified (yes, i think morality can extend to animals in this regard).
do humans have the right to "control" animals by regulating them to proper and adequate natural reserves where they can live and flourish without the overt possibility of human interference? yes, in fact i think this is an obligation for humans to act this way towards all other living species (and yes, that includes plant life as well).
we are stupid to think that the extinction of various animal and plant species will not effect us in the long run. biodiversity and our ecosystems are very delicate and we as living organism that can think and consider future events have an obligation to the entire planet to care for them, not only for our own futures, but the planet as a whole.
so, i think humans should have "control" over animals in order to better all our situations, not just to benefit humans. however, we tend to be a greedy bunch.
EDIT: and i'm excited to read that ham-nye response!
What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.
Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.
(my father just happened to email me this link today
my assumption would be that they would be against dog fighting rings, but not for the sake of the animals (because if it was for the animals, that would suggest that they have some (ahem) rights to not be harmed and killed needlessly). so i'm guessing it would be for the monetary gains from an illegal enterprise.
now why is dog fighting and the like illegal in the first place according to those who think animals don't/shouldn't have rights? i have no idea how they'd answer this to be honest. if animals don't deserve any rights, even the most basic, i don't see why we don't have professional animal fighting rings. maybe someone who agrees with this can offer some opinions.
No . . . what does one have to do with the other?
Then you obviously did not read my previous posts. Just because I refuse to subscribe to the idea that animals should have "Rights", does not mean that I do not think they should be afforded protection under the Law. We already have statutes on the books that deal with these sorts of crimes, otherwise Michael Vick would not have gone to jail (and rightly so).
So, an innocent human has the right not to have his life ended by another human. His other rights include liberty and property.
An animal does not have rights, not as a human does. The antelope does not have the right to not be killed by the lion, nor the trout by the bear, nor the cow by the human.
So without the right to life, why not have dog fighting rings?
I think it can be wrong to be subjected to cruelty without necessarily being granted "rights". Or maybe all living things do have the right to be cruelty-free?
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.
god is all good. god created everything. everything god created is good. god created animals. hence animals are good. but it's still okay for humans to slaughter animals at will if they want? aren't you supposed to rejoice in god's creations or something like that, not just use them for your own gains?
i question gods existence and therefore i don't see animals as something necessarily good that has been created by my god that i should/must have at least some respect for.
between us, you have some obligation to care animals it would appear, whereas my beliefs don't hold me accountable in the least, yet i'm the one suggesting that we should be caring for the animals more than we already do.
idk, it's ironic...isn't it?
this is definitely a big issue obviously. idk where to draw the line to be honest.
I do not find it ironic. You simply place more value on animal life than I do. And you have made a slight error in how you phrase a theist's position viz. animals.
and those are the animal welfare types that I find so annoying . . . they will weep for a bear in a circus, but not shed a tear for the children living in squalor in the Third World (since we are avoiding the unborn).
can you clear it up for me? i did phrase it as a question.
okay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?
I think that we have sufficient laws on the books to protect our four-legged friends. So, in my opinion, we have drawn a sufficient line. Now we just need to extend that line so it covers areas we have grown to realize are no longer tolerable (Sea World, Zoos, what have you).
I do not regret giving my daughter a chance to experience dolphins up close and personal when we were in Cuba. Would I call their conditions cruel? I don't know, particularly as one of the handlers made mention of the fact that many of the younger dolphins actually "escape" the facility for days at a time, only to return again.
The more extreme among them . . . definitely.
fair enough.
Well, there are certainly many people who give money to various animal charities. Not all of those people give equal (or any) money to charities for humans. This would be evidence that there are indeed people who think that way.
Of interest though, as I googled an example of an animal charity, was coming upon this quote:
“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi
i think i have to disagree with this statement. following this logic, if i only donated to children's charities that means i don't care about adults. if i only donate to cancer charities, i don't care about people with other diseases. (and i'm phrasing it "don't care about" as opposed to the harsher way Milo phrased it).
haven't read that quotation before. nice.
The Death of Marius
In it they discuss an interesting philosopical/moral difference between North American and many European zoos: The Copenhagen zoo does not allow contraception, as they consider mating and child-rearing to be a healthy part of the life of an animal, though they will cull offspring that need to be. Most zoos here will either castrate or drug animals to prevent such offspring.
very interesting article. i didn't even know giraffes were endangered (had to look it up - apparently there's only 80,000-ish total across all giraffe species whereas a decade ago there were 140,000+).
i still have to say though, that all of these issues could have easily been avoided if we didn't have zoos for our own personal entertainment.
it kind of baffles my mind that the writer of the article (and the zoo obviously) is arguing that the zoo is trying to protect these endangered species. if they were truly interested in protecting endangered species they'd 1) not be housing animals in cages and taking money from people to come gawk at them, and 2) they'd find some way to keep a perfectly healthy animal alive even if they didn't have room for it (lol room for it - get rid of the fucking zoos/cages, there's plenty of room in the wild you morons!)
the contraception/castration thing is interesting as well. i didn't know that we did that in north america (i guess i just assumed they were kept separate or someone just kept an eye on them to stop breeding). idk, but i don't like it. getting my cat/dog fixed is one thing, but getting all wild animals in a zoo "fixed" is a little different.
at the same time, i think it's funny that the zoo in question argues that allowing them to breed is the only real issue for the animals acting like they would in the wild. it's like saying that i'll lock you in a room for the rest of your life with maybe 5 of your buddies, but once a week i'll send in someone to fuck you. i'm sure you'll be acting just like everyone else on the outside - no difference whatsoever.:o
finally, the free biology lesson - lol. i took biology in high school and i had to dissect a fish, a worm, a locust, and a fetal pig. did i want to? no, not really. did i learn something? yeah sure, why not. would i do it again? hell no. would i bring my young child to watch the dissection of a large, wild animal? ffs no. the young child can read a book or wait until he/she is in high school and can dissect one. did the zoo do anything wrong in offering this though? i don't think so, but i wouldn't want to see it.
This is in response to the following comments between the two of us in reference to Fred Phelps’ recent passing:
pkrfce9:
me:
pkrfce9:
me:
pkrfce9:
Well pkrfce9, here is why I think it doesn’t make sense:
First off, we have to consider what we mean by “forgive”. I’m simply copying and pasting from wiki the following:
The important point here is the second half which refers to letting go of negative emotions and even going as far as wishing the offender well. Now, for the most part, many people do not feel that way when they “forgive” someone. I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s very rare for someone to truly forgive in this sense.
Now when someone uses the phrase “I forgive but I never forget”, we can assume that the “I forgive” part is referring to the definition written above, but what about the “I never forget”. What exactly are they never forgetting? That’s where I have issues with this statement.
If all one means is that “I forgive you but I have a good memory and therefore I will literally just have this memory of what you did to me in my mind simply because I can’t force myself to forget it”, well that’s just kind of a strange thing to say in this context. After all, forgiving does not necessarily mean that the incident in question must be completely wiped from memory. Therefore, if this is what one means, it’s pretty much a pointless comment and quite a strange one to make in this context of forgiveness.
On the other hand, if instead what one means is “I forgive you but I will always remember this incident and therefore in the future if I am put into a similar situation with you, I will act differently because I remember what you did to me in the past”, well then that is not truly forgiving now is it. If you truly forgave that person (as in the definition above), you’d have absolutely no issues dealing with that person again, even in the same or a similar situation as the original incident that caused you pain or stress. You would have no hard feelings or negative feelings, and you’d want the other person to do well and succeed. So why would you be reluctant to be in the same situation with that person if you actually forgave them?
Hence, when someone says “I forgive but I don’t forget”, they are either making pointless statements, or they are not actually forgiving the person at all. At best they are choosing to ignore and/or act civil around the person, but for all intents and purposes, they are not going to ever get into a similar situation with that same person again (i.e. they didn’t truly forgive).
Joe fools around with Bob's girlfriend . . . They do not speak for months and, without forgiveness, never will. Bob eventually "forgives" Joe and the friendship resumes. Said friendship is altered, however, by the circumstances that have been "forgiven" and, though the two remain friends, it is not the same relationship as in the past. Bob has been forgive his transgression, but that does not mean that Joe has to be a complete doofus.
that would be an example of ignoring the problem and forgiving for selfish reasons (i.e. i still want some semblance of a friendship). also, it's not letting go of negative emotions as Bob still harbors negative feelings. that's why the relationship is "altered" now as one, or both, can't get over their emotions.
in this example, Bob is not truly forgiving, and really he's just "forgiving" because he's selfish and still wants to have some benefits of Bob and Joe's relationship. do you really think he's forgiving Joe purely for Joe's sake and not his own? no, he's doing it because he doesn't want to throw their relationship away. that's a personal, selfish reason. he's not forgiving Joe to make Joe feel better (even though that might be a side effect). forgiving someone to make yourself feel better isn't truly forgiving.
for the record, i'm not saying that these two should never talk or be friends ever again. i'm just saying that people don't use the term properly or act accordingly when they forgive. i never said that two people can't still be friends or still carry on a relationship even though there was an incident between them and that one has never truly forgiven the other.
in fact, i think you'd be hard pressed to find any relationship where not one of the people still harbour resentment for something the other person has done even though it's been discussed and "forgiven". it's very hard to do that obviously. that's why forgiveness is so difficult and considered a virtue. no one said it was easy. we just throw the word around all the time, but in the majority of cases, we don't mean it in the true sense of the word.
For the record, I think the things that we truly forgive, are the things we actually forget about, going forward. The small slights, the times we've been left in the lurch, etc. I do not think that, using your criteria, anyone EVER forgives the big stuff. I think we just move past it.
13 players left.
1st gets 10K 2nd-10th split another 10k.
you are the small blind a have 15 bb. utg+3 raises enough to put you all in. you see that you have 22 and it is fold to you.
Do you call and hope they stand up or do you wait and shove the first chance you get a chance to shove?
i'm probably folding here. what is average stack? 15BBs is still decent. i think 22 is not strong enough to call here. i may push with it depending though.
shoving. i don't like calling my whole stack off in general.
The Evil Demon:
Is anything so self-evident that it cannot be doubted? Are our lives real or are we just dreaming? Is everything just a figment of our imaginations? These questions may sound foolish to some, but it is conceivable that we can have doubt even about our physical world around us.
Some ideas, we may argue, are self-evident. For example, two plus two equals four, or all triangles have three sides. However, what if it was all just a big trick? Descartes imagined what he referred to as an evil genius that controlled all that happens in our world. This evil demon has the power to make us think and see and experience whatever he wants us to in any situation. If such a demon existed, is there anything which is beyond doubt?
Philosophers are always trying to provide reasons for us to doubt things we take for granted every day - God, goodness, the physical world, time, etc. In order for them to do this, they need to use the one thing they can’t afford to doubt: the capacity to think rationally. Using rational thought, we can recognize the logical contradictions and therefore we can justify our doubts.
However, if we were under the influence of an evil, all-powerful, deceiving demon, then could we still assume the truth of these basic logical principles? They may seem obvious and self-evident, but that is not a strong enough argument to accept them as absolute truths.
If the evil demon hypothesis is too much to handle, the same doubts can still be introduced by other means. For example, we could just be mad or insane and that blinds us to the fact that others see the world differently than us. Maybe evolution provided us with a false set of principles and all our minds are flawed. Furthermore, maybe we are better adapted to survive if we are to assume the truth about certain falsehoods. Maybe the demon is encoded in our DNA.
What makes this thought experiment so interesting is that in order to judge its plausibility, we have to rely on the one thing it is pulling into question and testing: our capacity to think reasonably. That is, we have to reason whether we think well by thinking as well as we can. It is like using a questionable scale to weigh itself to test its own accuracy.
So where does this leave us? Well, we must assume our basic capacity to reason for any serious thought to be undertaken at all. Particular pieces of reasoning can be doubted after we think hard about it, but we cannot doubt our general capacity for reason. Now ask yourself, is that enough to vindicate rationality, or is the capacity to achieve truth weakened?