Article

2006-05-11 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-05-11 10:05|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If you want to save Larry the Lobster, call the Italians.

Posted by Mike 2006-05-11 11:09|| 2006-05-11 11:09|| Front Page Top

#2 These guys have a solution.

/I don't think it's a parody site.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-05-11 11:39|| 2006-05-11 11:39|| Front Page Top

#3 But it's OK to hire an actor in a lobster costume to lay on the ice.

Posted by ed 2006-05-11 12:00|| 2006-05-11 12:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Here a good brief on the "animal rights" issue from the objectivistcenter.org:

"Many believe that animals have the right to be free from harm by people. In particular, they believe that animals should not be harmed in food production, clothing production, or medical research. This belief is the product of a misunderstanding of the nature of rights. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals can experience pain just as people can, animals also have the right to be free from harm. However, rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not.

Both people and animals seek values such as food and shelter to sustain their lives. However, they do so by different means. Animals pursue values in their environment automatically. For example, an animal scavenges and finds food around it. People, on the other hand, use their faculties of reason to produce values volitionally. For example, a person can choose to study how plants grow and choose to plant and grow his own food. Moreover, people trade values with each other. For example, if one person grows vegetables and another person weaves clothing, the former can give the latter vegetables in exchange for clothing to their mutual benefit.

People survive by producing for themselves without interference from others and by trading freely with other people. However, if others (either people or animals) use physical force against a person to stop him from producing and trading, his ability to use his reason to survive is impaired. Rights protect this ability. "A right," according to Ayn Rand, "is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person's freedom of action in a social context" ("Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness [New York: Penguin, 1964], 130). The rights to life, liberty, and property leave each person free to pursue his own self-interest through production and trade. Moreover, it is in a person's self-interest to respect the rights of other people so that they can freely use their own faculties of reason to produce values for which he can trade.

The value a person receives from other people depends on their freedom from physical force. However, the value a person receives from animals depends on their lack of freedom from physical force. While a person receives food, clothing, and medical knowledge from other people by allowing other people to freely produce these things and trade them, a person receives food, clothing, and medical knowledge (through research) from animals only through force. Moreover, disputes with animals cannot be resolved with discussion or the threat of legal sanction, as they can be with other people, and so to prevent animals such as lions, rats, and cockroaches from attacking a person's person or invading a person's property, his only option is to initiate force against them. This is why a person should refrain from initiating physical force against other people but not against animals, and this is why people have rights and animals don't.

The issues of gratuitous cruelty to animals and of vegetarianism are not fundamental philosophical issues. Nonetheless, Objectivist principles can be extended to provide a framework in which individuals can consider these issues themselves. Legally, since people have rights and animals don't, no form of force initiated against animals should be outlawed, even if it is gratuitously cruel or if it is used to produce food that is not necessary for a person's survival. Morally, however, gratuitous cruelty should be condemned because it reinforces the immoral habit of destroying other's lives rather than promoting one's own life. Moreover, such cruelty can be the product only of gross irrationality, for it is natural for a person to empathize with another living being to the extent that the two resemble each other. While such cruelty is emotionally offensive to many people and rightly so, this is not grounds for government intervention because the sole purpose of the government is to protect rights, and animals don't have rights."

Dumb-ass Euros. This used to be common sense.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-11 12:17|| 2006-05-11 12:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Food doens't have rights!

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-11 17:57|| 2006-05-11 17:57|| Front Page Top

#6 does he know about the boiling water? Heavens, Ethel! My organic pills!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-11 19:30|| 2006-05-11 19:30|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:57 anymouse
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:50 DMFD
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:46 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 trailing wife
23:44 Oldspook
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:43 Barbara Skolaut
23:39 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 Oldspook
23:32 11A5S
23:31 the Twelfth Imami
23:27 3dc
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:24 bombay
23:18 3dc
23:15 SteveS
23:03 trailing wife
23:02 AzCat
22:56 Robert Crawford
22:55 Frank G