Poor kitty-cat

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:24 pm

That is fine, but in a thread about rescueing a kitten and how I dislike people just abandoning such a young animal? How about a new thread is made in PACE to discuss how to use taxes. I already stated that the shelter out here gets its money from selling clothing/goods donated by people. Such a small town, not really enough taxes to be spread out. It is a good argument about whether or not to spend taxes on shelters, and how much we should. I don't disagree with that. It is other things being said and argueing here that I don't understand the point of.

(I didn't explain better in my previous post when saying no point in argueing.. I meant compared to what the thread started out as, not that it isn't a good argument overall)

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:52 pm

Meh, like I said. Internet forum, thread topic bleed-over/hijacking is going to happen. Not necessarily bad. This is a rants and raves board too, doesn't seem to garner the same type of, well, not moderation, but 'dicussions sticking to the original topic'-ness as say, PACE.

sneaky ninja · Post by **sneaky ninja** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:59 pm

Usually I hate it when people start arguing over crap like this, but the whole mouse thing got me thinking about mice's vital role in many ecosystems, and I ended up having a dream about a forest food web. I feel that much more prepared for my environmental bio midterm today. Thanks guys!

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:00 pm

Today's rescued mice are tomorrow's owl crap?

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:39 am

A mouse at through the wire's of my grandfather's car.. again.. they seem to live in a hole near their property.
I had some mice (and rats) as pets before, other then the smell of the mice, they were fun.

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:55 am

[quote="Deacon";p="683156"]Ignore HTRN. He's partially right, but for the wrong reasons

[/quote]

No, I'm basically right, but I may have worded it wrong. I was basically paraphrasing(badly perhaps) Carl Cohen's position on Animal Rights - I read his critical essay on "Animal Rights" ten years ago in a Philosophy class.

Here's a quote of his on Wikipedia:

[t]he holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked

I'll try to find a copy online of the essay.

HTRN

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:02 am

Children and retards are granted rights without any such capacity.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:07 am

[t]he holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked

But doesn't that mean that retards, vegetables, and really small kids don't have rights, either?

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:24 am

I'm having no luck finding an online copy of it, and I'm not about to sit down and type out a 5 page essay - if anybody is actually interested in reading it, it originally appeared in the Oct 86 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. The essay focus's on animal testing, and uses Kant's premise that Man is a moral creature, while the rest of nature is not. Man enforces rules on the collective group, while with animals, it's survival, and dominance by the fittest: the law of the claw.

Also, I'd like to point out that the mentally capacitated enjoy some rights, they don't have all the rights of an unimpaired adult, like say voting or owning firearms. Nor can they manage their own financial affairs - they generally have a guardian that oversees that if they have no parents.

HTRN

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:26 am

Huh. Well, I'd say he fails automatically, since he's basing his argument on Kant.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:36 am

[quote="HTRN";p="683627"]Also, I'd like to point out that the mentally capacitated enjoy some rights, they don't have all the rights of an unimpaired adult, like say voting or owning firearms. Nor can they manage their own financial affairs - they generally have a guardian that oversees that if they have no parents.[/quote]
I think you mean incapacitated. Regardless, the right to vote and own firearms and manage their own financial affairs is not denied to anyone who has not done something (i.e. committed a crime) that results in that, or if they're found to not be capable of managing their own estate, such as with those who suffer from Alzheimer's.

And really, it's all irrelevant, because we're not talking about people. We're talking about animals. Animals (especially those under our care) have the rights we bestow upon them and privileges in which we indulge them. Otherwise, lighting a stray cat on fire would not be a crime.

thejerseyminx · Post by **thejerseyminx** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:18 pm

Lightening a cat on fire wouldn't be a malum prohibitum crime, but it would sure as hell be a malum en se crime in my opinion. I understand that humans have been killing animals for as long as we both have been around- but lighting a cat (or any other animal) on fire just to light it on fire is morally wrong.

*edited because I be stupid*

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:02 pm

It is also legally wrong, as in illegal. The punishments are just far, far less than those involving human victims.

thejerseyminx · Post by **thejerseyminx** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:50 pm

Bigity, thanks but I'm not an idiot. I wrote that in response to:

Otherwise, lighting a stray cat on fire would not be a crime.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:04 pm

Sorry, the double negative in your post got me.

Real Life Forums

Poor kitty-cat

Who is online