"The rich lock up their income in real estate, art, jewelry and luxury items which do little to help grow the economy."
That's a stereotype. It's true of some rich people. It's not true of some others.
Some rich people invest their money in venture capital funds that fund startup companies, which create jobs. That grows the economy. It is counter to the stereotype you've put forward and it doesn't fit in with the stereotype's inherent negative bias towards these people.
I was pointing out that you're stereotyping people. If you replace "rich" with an ethnic group, it would be simple racism. Just because it's "rich" doesn't change the kind of stereotyping you're doing, just the intended target.
Also, I think you're wrong. But I bet you think you're right, like people who stereotype ethnic groups think they're right. Hence "ignorant".
I'll admit, it is limited amount of content. I think it's enough.
Yeah, the national deficit hurts me all the time. Just 2 years ago, I was going to buy a house because interest rates were so low and I had a good job, but the national deficit stepped in and stopped me.
Then I lost my job because the national deficit turned my office into a potato chip factory. I hate that deficit.
It also makes my hampters run backwards on their wheel and it turned the lawn outside my apartment building a slightly purple color.
It's the most destructive thing since the harmonic convergence.
Yeah really. I was reading this and I wanted to find out more. But the post didn't actually link to any information, just a bunch more over-the-top bitching.
"Worst thing in world history is happening. It relates to libraries somehow. We're not going to tell you why it's bad, but XYZ people are complaining about it. When will this bad stuff stop happening?"
The idea that I can set aside some human need, such as curiosity, for an animal's right to not suffer needlessly is not "self-destructive." I'm not destroyed by putting my curiosity on hold.
Not if you do it voluntarily. But if animals truly have rights, then it's not your choice to make. You, in fact, can't even decide what to do regarding the animal. You are obligated to uphold the animal's rights in all your actions.
And the animal can't waive it's rights. Any action you might want to take that could conceivably infringe on one of the animals rights would presumably require the ok of some authority, like a judge. Otherwise you'd face legal consequences if (when) your choice was second-guessed.
How does a farmer milk cows if they have rights? Can he be put in jail for milking them an hour late in the morning (because of the suffering)? How does a farmer keep animals at all? It seems like he'd be in dire legal jeopardy for every action, inaction, or delayed action. Did the animals suffer? I guess the jury will decide.
So, these are pretty much your choices: either you can demonstrate that rights come from somewhere outside the human social context, or you concede that they are in fact things that we agree on and extend
Counterpoint:
Either you can demonstrate that rights are in fact things that we agree on and extend or you concede that they come from somewhere outside the human social context.
I have explained my position. Rights have no worth if they're simply the matter of transitory agreements that can be whimsically changed. I'll concede that either of the above origins of rights are possible. The one where rights are worth talking about is the one where they have substance.
(BTW, I'll also concede that animals have all the insubstantial "rights" anyone wants. Who cares? They can be changed whenever the political winds blow one way or the other or when some judge has a bad day. If rights are real, animals shouldn't have them because that puts animals above human need sometimes.)
It's a logical construction, not a "demonstration".
Also, "people refuse to grow up" is not an attack. It's an explanation of current cultural trends away from responsibility. The sort of whimsical, selfish, feelings-based decision making that's become popular is just immature.
Animal rights is the height of that phenomenon. Animals are cute. People have feelings for them and want to protect them. It's 12-year-old-girl thinking with a similarly juvenile understanding of the realities of the world. They don't think it through. They don't care how many people are hurt by their decisions. They are willfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
And there's a lot of "magical thinking" in the psychological sense. These people think their plans will work out, but not based on any sort of reasoning. It'll just happen. They know it will.
So why not firebomb some people if you feel like it?
I realize that you think rights are things that come from somewhere else than human minds, but you are not really giving anyone any reason to agree with you. You are just assserting.
Look it up. Read the US Declaration of Independance and the scholarship it was based on.
If rights are what you say they are, then what good are they? Some people change their mind, and all the right are gone. You don't need rights for that.
Arguing that rights are based on the day-to-day whims of the people in power is basically to argue that rights effectively don't exist at all. (And, incidentally, if they don't exist at all, then animals don't have them. Or if they're simply meaningless, then animals can have as many as you want because it doesn't make any difference.)
I'm going to take a wild leap and guess that you're an Ayn Rand fan.
Nope. I've heard of her. That's about it.
You seem pretty interested in wanting to put human interests second to animal interests in some situations. Since I assume you're a human, that seems somewhat self-destructive.
Office Suite or not, Google Calendar beats MS Outlook's Calendar by a huge margin. And GMail searches are very fast, while Outlook email searches are very slow.
Google has a good start on a superior replacement for Outlook.
For the rest of the office suite, there's OpenOffice.
An argument can be silly and cartoon-like without being off topic.
Humans have great value. That's why it's not OK to do the same experiments on them that it is on animals.
I'm not in favor of harming animals either unless humans benefit. Then I am in favor. Because humans have great value. Animals have value too, but the value is vanishingly tiny compared to that of humans.
More importantly though, humans have rights. Two of those are liberty and property. If you can think of a way to protect animals (or, more exactly, your feelings about animals) without interfereing with the liberty and property rights of their owners, then lets hear it.
Okay, found the post. I see now that you are making this up as you go along.
No, the concept of what's a right and what isn't is fairly well established.
Lots of people bastardize the concept for their own gain. Example: "I have the right to a good life. Give me money." It's no surprise there's a lot of confusion about it.
...That's the law....
See, that's the thing. Who makes laws? People.
Who makes rights? Not people. People have rights in a society, regardless of the laws. If rights come from laws, then the law could be changed to allow slavery again, and no one's rights would be violated.
Well, a lot of people seem to disagree with you there. *shrug*
A lot of people choose to never completely grow up and understand the adult world. A lot of people think food comes from the grocery store. A lot of people think government money comes from the government. A lot of people think laws are powerful things that cause good behavior when they're written (and they don't understand that laws are a promise to harm you if you fail to follow them). A lot of people are willing to ignore the harm to others in some plan or situation or position when it works to their benefit. A lot of people are wrong.
Yeah. Datamining killed my whole family and gave my dog the runs.
It's the most destructive thing since the PATRIOT ACT, which wiped out most of the population of the Pacific Northwest and caused the birds in my area to sing an octave higher.
You little cocksucker, you are a punk with NO respect for life other than your own.
May you soon get incurable cancer, which causes you a long and painful death.
Why let fate decide? Why not just go all the way nuts and firebomb my house (or at least someone's)? Everybody's doing it. It's part of the animal rights philosophy -- like a sacrament.
if you see somebody kicking his dog, you can call the city officials and have the dog rescued.
You have "protection" confused with rights....balance competing rights...
Any balance where the humans are forced to give up anything at all in favor of the animals is simply anti-human. It's immoral in the worst possible way. Worse even than the most atrocious acts from history -- which were at least committed to benefit a human.
It really is a short step from the animal rights philosophy to firebombing researchers.
...the only people directly tying number of hurricanes to global warming are the talking heads on news shows. All scientists interviewed were actually very cagey about that...
So global warming cheerleaders do tend to make wild statements without regard to reality.
That was my point. If the serious global warming scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to kick the stupid talking heads out of the club.
We know this because there were a record number of hurricanes last year. The global warming believers said that the increase was because of global warming.
This year, there's almost no chance that there will be as many hurricanes as last year. Fewer hurricanes means global warming is over (or at least it peaked). What a relief!
Either that or global warming believers just make wild claims without regard to reality.
It's also worth noting that we were talking about "rights". Outside of a civil society, the whole concept of "rights" becomes entirely an academic one.
You may have the right to life, however that doesn't keep animals or people from killing you. But when the people agree to minimum behavioral norms and create a civil society, your right to life is given practical meaning.
Animals can't make such an agreement. They aren't entitled to burden the society to give them the benefits of a pact they can't agree to.
Yeah, everything doesn't always work out the way you wish it would, civil societies notwithstanding. It's worth noting that the breakdown of civility is more-and-more becoming the exception rather than the norm though.
And the worst case for human behavior is similar to the general case for animal behavior, except humans are more organized. (It's especially sad when bad behavior becomes organized.)
Slashdot Mirror
"The rich lock up their income in real estate, art, jewelry and luxury items which do little to help grow the economy."
That's a stereotype. It's true of some rich people. It's not true of some others.
Some rich people invest their money in venture capital funds that fund startup companies, which create jobs. That grows the economy. It is counter to the stereotype you've put forward and it doesn't fit in with the stereotype's inherent negative bias towards these people.
I was pointing out that you're stereotyping people. If you replace "rich" with an ethnic group, it would be simple racism. Just because it's "rich" doesn't change the kind of stereotyping you're doing, just the intended target.
Also, I think you're wrong. But I bet you think you're right, like people who stereotype ethnic groups think they're right. Hence "ignorant".
I'll admit, it is limited amount of content. I think it's enough.
I've hearing about the horrible consequences of the deficit for about 25 years now. It's always a boogeyman to kill us off in the future.
The deficit and debt are not a significant problem at this proportion of the US GDP.
Congrats. Yours is today's ignorant stereotype of the day.
Don't forget he also created and spread AIDS -- or something (my mythology on that era is a little fuzzy).
Yeah, the national deficit hurts me all the time. Just 2 years ago, I was going to buy a house because interest rates were so low and I had a good job, but the national deficit stepped in and stopped me.
Then I lost my job because the national deficit turned my office into a potato chip factory. I hate that deficit.
It also makes my hampters run backwards on their wheel and it turned the lawn outside my apartment building a slightly purple color.
It's the most destructive thing since the harmonic convergence.
Yeah really. I was reading this and I wanted to find out more. But the post didn't actually link to any information, just a bunch more over-the-top bitching.
"Worst thing in world history is happening. It relates to libraries somehow. We're not going to tell you why it's bad, but XYZ people are complaining about it. When will this bad stuff stop happening?"
Real useful.
The idea that I can set aside some human need, such as curiosity, for an animal's right to not suffer needlessly is not "self-destructive." I'm not destroyed by putting my curiosity on hold.
Not if you do it voluntarily. But if animals truly have rights, then it's not your choice to make. You, in fact, can't even decide what to do regarding the animal. You are obligated to uphold the animal's rights in all your actions.
And the animal can't waive it's rights. Any action you might want to take that could conceivably infringe on one of the animals rights would presumably require the ok of some authority, like a judge. Otherwise you'd face legal consequences if (when) your choice was second-guessed.
How does a farmer milk cows if they have rights? Can he be put in jail for milking them an hour late in the morning (because of the suffering)? How does a farmer keep animals at all? It seems like he'd be in dire legal jeopardy for every action, inaction, or delayed action. Did the animals suffer? I guess the jury will decide.
So, these are pretty much your choices: either you can demonstrate that rights come from somewhere outside the human social context, or you concede that they are in fact things that we agree on and extend
Counterpoint:
Either you can demonstrate that rights are in fact things that we agree on and extend or you concede that they come from somewhere outside the human social context.
I have explained my position. Rights have no worth if they're simply the matter of transitory agreements that can be whimsically changed. I'll concede that either of the above origins of rights are possible. The one where rights are worth talking about is the one where they have substance.
(BTW, I'll also concede that animals have all the insubstantial "rights" anyone wants. Who cares? They can be changed whenever the political winds blow one way or the other or when some judge has a bad day. If rights are real, animals shouldn't have them because that puts animals above human need sometimes.)
It's a logical construction, not a "demonstration".
Also, "people refuse to grow up" is not an attack. It's an explanation of current cultural trends away from responsibility. The sort of whimsical, selfish, feelings-based decision making that's become popular is just immature.
Animal rights is the height of that phenomenon. Animals are cute. People have feelings for them and want to protect them. It's 12-year-old-girl thinking with a similarly juvenile understanding of the realities of the world. They don't think it through. They don't care how many people are hurt by their decisions. They are willfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
And there's a lot of "magical thinking" in the psychological sense. These people think their plans will work out, but not based on any sort of reasoning. It'll just happen. They know it will.
So why not firebomb some people if you feel like it?
I realize that you think rights are things that come from somewhere else than human minds, but you are not really giving anyone any reason to agree with you. You are just assserting.
Look it up. Read the US Declaration of Independance and the scholarship it was based on.
If rights are what you say they are, then what good are they? Some people change their mind, and all the right are gone. You don't need rights for that.
Arguing that rights are based on the day-to-day whims of the people in power is basically to argue that rights effectively don't exist at all. (And, incidentally, if they don't exist at all, then animals don't have them. Or if they're simply meaningless, then animals can have as many as you want because it doesn't make any difference.)
I'm going to take a wild leap and guess that you're an Ayn Rand fan.
Nope. I've heard of her. That's about it.
You seem pretty interested in wanting to put human interests second to animal interests in some situations. Since I assume you're a human, that seems somewhat self-destructive.
Office Suite or not, Google Calendar beats MS Outlook's Calendar by a huge margin. And GMail searches are very fast, while Outlook email searches are very slow.
Google has a good start on a superior replacement for Outlook.
For the rest of the office suite, there's OpenOffice.
An argument can be silly and cartoon-like without being off topic.
Humans have great value. That's why it's not OK to do the same experiments on them that it is on animals.
I'm not in favor of harming animals either unless humans benefit. Then I am in favor. Because humans have great value. Animals have value too, but the value is vanishingly tiny compared to that of humans.
More importantly though, humans have rights. Two of those are liberty and property. If you can think of a way to protect animals (or, more exactly, your feelings about animals) without interfereing with the liberty and property rights of their owners, then lets hear it.
Okay, found the post. I see now that you are making this up as you go along.
...That's the law. ...
No, the concept of what's a right and what isn't is fairly well established.
Lots of people bastardize the concept for their own gain. Example: "I have the right to a good life. Give me money." It's no surprise there's a lot of confusion about it.
See, that's the thing. Who makes laws? People.
Who makes rights? Not people. People have rights in a society, regardless of the laws. If rights come from laws, then the law could be changed to allow slavery again, and no one's rights would be violated.
Well, a lot of people seem to disagree with you there. *shrug*
A lot of people choose to never completely grow up and understand the adult world. A lot of people think food comes from the grocery store. A lot of people think government money comes from the government. A lot of people think laws are powerful things that cause good behavior when they're written (and they don't understand that laws are a promise to harm you if you fail to follow them). A lot of people are willing to ignore the harm to others in some plan or situation or position when it works to their benefit. A lot of people are wrong.
...humans are free to extend and enforce rights...
No. Rights aren't a gift from humans that can be given and taken away based on someone's feelings.
Uhm, how could it cause the birds to singe an octave higher?
Helium.
Yeah. Datamining killed my whole family and gave my dog the runs.
It's the most destructive thing since the PATRIOT ACT, which wiped out most of the population of the Pacific Northwest and caused the birds in my area to sing an octave higher.
And politicians. And lots of people posting on blogs and on Slashdot. And numerous others. Even some scientists who especially want attention.
See above where I answered this already.
So why not do research on babies?
Why not feed people directly to animals? Don't animals have the right to be fed?
How about if we stop the silly cartoon-like arguments?
"Animals don't have rights."
Really ?
Who the FUCK are you ?
You little cocksucker, you are a punk with NO respect for life other than your own.
May you soon get incurable cancer, which causes you a long and painful death.
Why let fate decide? Why not just go all the way nuts and firebomb my house (or at least someone's)? Everybody's doing it. It's part of the animal rights philosophy -- like a sacrament.
if you see somebody kicking his dog, you can call the city officials and have the dog rescued.
...balance competing rights...
You have "protection" confused with rights.
Any balance where the humans are forced to give up anything at all in favor of the animals is simply anti-human. It's immoral in the worst possible way. Worse even than the most atrocious acts from history -- which were at least committed to benefit a human.
It really is a short step from the animal rights philosophy to firebombing researchers.
...the only people directly tying number of hurricanes to global warming are the talking heads on news shows. All scientists interviewed were actually very cagey about that...
So global warming cheerleaders do tend to make wild statements without regard to reality.
That was my point. If the serious global warming scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to kick the stupid talking heads out of the club.
Global warming is over. It peaked last year.
We know this because there were a record number of hurricanes last year. The global warming believers said that the increase was because of global warming.
This year, there's almost no chance that there will be as many hurricanes as last year. Fewer hurricanes means global warming is over (or at least it peaked). What a relief!
Either that or global warming believers just make wild claims without regard to reality.
It's also worth noting that we were talking about "rights". Outside of a civil society, the whole concept of "rights" becomes entirely an academic one.
You may have the right to life, however that doesn't keep animals or people from killing you. But when the people agree to minimum behavioral norms and create a civil society, your right to life is given practical meaning.
Animals can't make such an agreement. They aren't entitled to burden the society to give them the benefits of a pact they can't agree to.
Yeah, everything doesn't always work out the way you wish it would, civil societies notwithstanding. It's worth noting that the breakdown of civility is more-and-more becoming the exception rather than the norm though.
And the worst case for human behavior is similar to the general case for animal behavior, except humans are more organized. (It's especially sad when bad behavior becomes organized.)
No paragraphs?
Oh well, nobody's perfect. No society is either. I said "minimum" standards.
But I didn't really read your post. I just skimmed it.