12 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, one of them doesn't think dolphins should be granted rights. One of them thinks dolphins have rights. There's a very important difference. If you can grant other peoples' rights, you can choose not to grant other peoples' rights. The whole point of rights is that other people (e.g. King George) cannot decide you don't have them any more. I know you and wolfgang find this distinction pointless and my bringing it up offensive, but I find the idea that anyone feels they have the power to "grant" or not grant the rights of others repugnant. It's also not consistent with rights theory, and I think it's important to point this out every time the same mistruths are repeated, whether the person telling the mistruth likes it or not.
You made your point after his opening statement, then accused him of lying. Is this a case of preemptive lying? Don't be a dick.
That said, you are correct in pointing out that the scientists did not say 'dolphins should be granted rights', although one of them seems to think so -- since to regard someone as a person is clearly to regard them as a person invested with rights, if you believe in such things.
Did the USA "grant" the black slaves their rights? No, the USA stopped violating the slaves' rights. The slaves always had rights.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't have a personal problem with you. I did find your 'LYING' post unwarrantedly aggressive & more than a little strange. I guess that's because I can't judge your intentions remotely and your writing doesn't shed any light on them either. I now understand more clearly your objections, but you're making a fairly paranoid impression.
This is the third thread on the topic. He made the last two as some sort of attack aimed at me. He refuses to acknowledge my comments and instead keeps making new threads with the same mistruths I've already pointed out and asking me not to participate.
It's some kind of childish attempt to avoid having to deal with my point because he doesn't li ...[text shortened]... This is getting kind of weird. You're been very aggressive toward me lately it seems.
12 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm making a paranoid impression, you're making an aggressive impression, six of one half a dozen of the other...good job implying my annoyance is some failing of mine instead of a reasonable objection to your hostility.
I don't have a personal problem with you. I did find your 'LYING' post unwarrantedly aggressive & more than a little strange. I guess that's because I can't judge your intentions remotely and your writing doesn't shed any light on them either. I now understand more clearly your objections, but you're making a fairly paranoid impression.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, they always had rights, the rights of slaves. Then slavery was legislated away and they acquired the status of citizens. So in fact the legislature did have the power to grant rights.
No, one of them doesn't think dolphins should be granted rights. One of them thinks dolphins have rights. There's a very important difference. If you can grant other peoples' rights, you can choose not to grant other peoples' rights. The whole point of rights is that other people (e.g. King George) cannot decide you don't have them any more. I kn ...[text shortened]... ts? No, the USA stopped violating the slaves' rights. The slaves always had rights.
It's like when the franchise was extended to women: they acquired the right to vote. I should point out that in many instances women have had limited status as persons precisely because of perceptions of their 'nature', as judged and acted on by male legislators.
Perhaps instead of fixating on terms like 'nature', 'right' and 'grant', we could talk about whether certain legal protections enjoyed by human beings should be extended to dolphins. Would that work better?
At the same time, if there is an overlap between human and dolphin nature, surely there must be an overlap in the rights that they enjoy 'by virtue of their nature'?
And incidentally, why should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnnoyance is one thing, accusing someone of lying is another.
I'm making a paranoid impression, you're making an aggressive impression, six of one half a dozen of the other...good job implying my annoyance is some failing of mine instead of a reasonable objection to your hostility.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePerhaps instead of fixating on terms like 'nature', 'right' and 'grant', we could talk about whether certain legal protections enjoyed by human beings should be extended to dolphins. Would that work better?
Yes, they always had rights, the rights of slaves. Then slavery was legislated away and they acquired the status of citizens. So in fact the legislature did have the power to grant rights.
It's like when the franchise was extended to women: they acquired the right to vote. I should point out that in many instances women have had limited statu ...[text shortened]... should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
Absolutely. I suggested this a while ago but was ignored.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDo you realize the natural consequence of your saying black slaves didn't have the same rights as non slaves is that it was not immoral to torture and kill them - that the US government changed what was moral when it changed what rights they had - that slave traders were perfectly virtuous people?
Yes, they always had rights, the rights of slaves. Then slavery was legislated away and they acquired the status of citizens. So in fact the legislature did have the power to grant rights.
It's like when the franchise was extended to women: they acquired the right to vote. I should point out that in many instances women have had limited statu ...[text shortened]... should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd incidentally, why should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
Yes, they always had rights, the rights of slaves. Then slavery was legislated away and they acquired the status of citizens. So in fact the legislature did have the power to grant rights.
It's like when the franchise was extended to women: they acquired the right to vote. I should point out that in many instances women have had limited statu ...[text shortened]... should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
Why do you think that I believe this? I talk about rights because it's considered universally applicable, not because I think it SHOULD be universally applicable.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFantastic. Let's pursue this avenue of thought. You go first 🙂
[b]Perhaps instead of fixating on terms like 'nature', 'right' and 'grant', we could talk about whether certain legal protections enjoyed by human beings should be extended to dolphins. Would that work better?
Absolutely. I suggested this a while ago but was ignored.[/b]
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not a natural consequence at all. Why should ethics be founded on a theory of rights? I prefer an ethics founded on virtue. It's simply ignoble to go around molesting people.
Do you realize the natural consequence of your saying black slaves didn't have the same rights as non slaves is that it was not immoral to torture and kill them - that the US government changed what was moral when it changed what rights they had - that slave traders were perfectly virtuous people?
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou give the perception that you so believe.
And incidentally, why should rights theory as it pertains in the USA be considered universally applicable?
Why do you think that I believe this? I talk about rights because it's considered universally applicable, not because I think it SHOULD be universally applicable.
Clearly its not considered universally applicable. The rule of law doesn't even pertain in China, for example.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust noticed that I have been accussed of LYING. Must say I'm a bit miffed with that - I do talk rubbish sometimes but I have never lied. Why would I?
You know, there are PMs, Clubs, etc for your private conversations. This insistence you have on asserting that others' rights are something you choose to grant or take away is very dangerous and I don't want you spreading it in public without challenge. In any case you are LYING. I won't let you get away with that simply because you're annoyed that I keep pointing it out.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Because you failed to be persuaded by ATY's argument, it seems. Never fear, though, we have moved on to better things 🙂
Just noticed that I have been accussed of LYING. Must say I'm a bit miffed with that - I do talk rubbish sometimes but I have never lied. Why would I?