Jocabia
14-01-2006, 10:25
[puts on devil's advocate hat] but you are denying one group their rights to persuit happiness because of a blanket law that makes no consessions for that which the creators of that law never took into account.
So again, you advocate special rights. I see. Currently the law treats consent equally for all. You want them to change the rules of consent for one group.
according to the laws, animals are given less freedom than those mentally challanged and under-aged. Animals that "fail" to find an owner are put to death. homeless Humans are jailed for vagrency and then released.
Animals are capable of surviving without us, but our laws treat them as property. sound familiar? think slaves.
Yep. You've point out the fact that we don't value animal lives as much as human lives. How does that support your point?
Yes, and again, I agree that you'll have a point when you show that animals are capable of a level of consent that the average adult is capable of. They aren't.
Hiring Quotas. heard of them? because of Hiring Quotas, companies need to look at their percentages of minorities and thus need to fill those if they are lacking.
In order to make the number of people hired equal to the representative population. It's not a special provision. It's an effort to force people to treat people equally. This is so far from supporting your point. I know you can do better than this. Hiring quotas assuming they work should quickly become unnecessary. Are you suggesting these special rights need only apply temporarily in order to force things into balance?
NAACP, UNCF and other groups specializing in the benefits for one particular group.
They are specializing in raising the treatment of those groups to be equal with other similar individuals. There are no groups claiming that mentally-challenged individuals that are incapable of consent be treated exactly like others. No one is claiming there should be a quota of insane people among NASA scientists. Nobody is complaining that the President's cabinet has no children in it. You are comparing apples and oranges. Those agencies are advocating treatment commensurate with the groups. Groups for the blind don't advocate treating blind people as if they're not blind. They aren't arguing for driver's licenses. You're arguing that because animals are capable of the current form of consent that we should change it for them. That would be like advocating making all cars into bumper cars so blind people could drive.
baised on laws designed to govern Humans.
Ya think? We're still talking about governing humans. Nobody is suggesting punishing the animals. Normal adult humans are required to get a level of consent from anything they have sex with . If anything they wish to have sex with is not capable of that level of consent, then they are not permitted to have sex with them. This is precisiely about governing humans. That's the part you're missing.
yet many people depend on these Mentally Deficient individuals in life and death situations and jobs where normal Humans won't do and they perform them adequetly... and more. don't sound so mentally deficiant to me.
You're still not helping your point. Are you actually claiming that any animal has the capacity of the average adult? You must know that's simply not true. You're still pointing out physical abilities that make them ideal for certain jobs and then acting as if it's evidence of mental or emotioinal maturity. It simply isn't. In fact, I'm pretty sure you made that very point. Shall I quote you?
how do you know that? you can only speculate what they understand by their actions.
Good. That's an excellent argument. Provide evidence. Until you've shown they can consent it will be assumed they cannot.
and one one thing you haven't touched upon is that consent for minors in any situation, Contracts, Marriage and Medical can be given by the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s)
Marriage (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
Medical (http://www.mnmed.org/llp/minorconsentissuebrief.html)
and in some of those cases, the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) need not be there at all.
so wouldn't the Owner be the same as the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) for the pet, and thus be able to "give Consent" for their pet, making it legal?
Except they cannot give consent for certain actions that affect the body, like sex. Parents cannot consent for children to sex. Nor can owners consent to sex for animals. Can I give consent for my toddler to have sex? Nope.
thanks for setting a stacked deck.
you know it's not like we can give them a "Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test"
We have studied the intelligence of animals, however, It is possible to test their capacity to learn and their capacity to understand what they've learned. We've found gorillas can learn to speak and even philosiphize at the level of the average young child. We've taught many animals to communicate on some level with us and in other cases we've learned to communicate with them. In all instances, they've never demonstrated a level of understanding that would be required for consent. You're welcome to show any study of animals that has shown otherwise.
You call it a stacked deck. Shocker, in order for humans to have sex with whatever, they must acquire a level of consent *gasp* measured by humans. I'd call that equality actually.
there are studies that are being done to prove animal intelligence... but again it comes down to comparing them to humans, using human standards and human understanding.
You think? You're talking about them interacting with humans and giving a human level of consent. If you're going to advocate them expect them to be compared on a human scale, just as every other creature evaluated for consent is.
The Question of Non-Human Intelligence (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Ball2.html)
Animal Cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition)
Human children have education baised on a language system unique to Humans, animals have that same learning ability baised on the language system unique to that species.
Generally, false. It's not the same learning ability. We have adjusted to the methods by which animals teach their young and found no correlation that would suggest what you're concluding.
and you haven't denied that animals can covey their wants and desires clearly to humans.
[/puts on devil's advocate hat]
No, I haven't denied that. I've merely said they don't have the capacity for consent any more than a child does. You've done nothing to show that I'm wrong.
So again, you advocate special rights. I see. Currently the law treats consent equally for all. You want them to change the rules of consent for one group.
according to the laws, animals are given less freedom than those mentally challanged and under-aged. Animals that "fail" to find an owner are put to death. homeless Humans are jailed for vagrency and then released.
Animals are capable of surviving without us, but our laws treat them as property. sound familiar? think slaves.
Yep. You've point out the fact that we don't value animal lives as much as human lives. How does that support your point?
Yes, and again, I agree that you'll have a point when you show that animals are capable of a level of consent that the average adult is capable of. They aren't.
Hiring Quotas. heard of them? because of Hiring Quotas, companies need to look at their percentages of minorities and thus need to fill those if they are lacking.
In order to make the number of people hired equal to the representative population. It's not a special provision. It's an effort to force people to treat people equally. This is so far from supporting your point. I know you can do better than this. Hiring quotas assuming they work should quickly become unnecessary. Are you suggesting these special rights need only apply temporarily in order to force things into balance?
NAACP, UNCF and other groups specializing in the benefits for one particular group.
They are specializing in raising the treatment of those groups to be equal with other similar individuals. There are no groups claiming that mentally-challenged individuals that are incapable of consent be treated exactly like others. No one is claiming there should be a quota of insane people among NASA scientists. Nobody is complaining that the President's cabinet has no children in it. You are comparing apples and oranges. Those agencies are advocating treatment commensurate with the groups. Groups for the blind don't advocate treating blind people as if they're not blind. They aren't arguing for driver's licenses. You're arguing that because animals are capable of the current form of consent that we should change it for them. That would be like advocating making all cars into bumper cars so blind people could drive.
baised on laws designed to govern Humans.
Ya think? We're still talking about governing humans. Nobody is suggesting punishing the animals. Normal adult humans are required to get a level of consent from anything they have sex with . If anything they wish to have sex with is not capable of that level of consent, then they are not permitted to have sex with them. This is precisiely about governing humans. That's the part you're missing.
yet many people depend on these Mentally Deficient individuals in life and death situations and jobs where normal Humans won't do and they perform them adequetly... and more. don't sound so mentally deficiant to me.
You're still not helping your point. Are you actually claiming that any animal has the capacity of the average adult? You must know that's simply not true. You're still pointing out physical abilities that make them ideal for certain jobs and then acting as if it's evidence of mental or emotioinal maturity. It simply isn't. In fact, I'm pretty sure you made that very point. Shall I quote you?
how do you know that? you can only speculate what they understand by their actions.
Good. That's an excellent argument. Provide evidence. Until you've shown they can consent it will be assumed they cannot.
and one one thing you haven't touched upon is that consent for minors in any situation, Contracts, Marriage and Medical can be given by the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s)
Marriage (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
Medical (http://www.mnmed.org/llp/minorconsentissuebrief.html)
and in some of those cases, the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) need not be there at all.
so wouldn't the Owner be the same as the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) for the pet, and thus be able to "give Consent" for their pet, making it legal?
Except they cannot give consent for certain actions that affect the body, like sex. Parents cannot consent for children to sex. Nor can owners consent to sex for animals. Can I give consent for my toddler to have sex? Nope.
thanks for setting a stacked deck.
you know it's not like we can give them a "Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test"
We have studied the intelligence of animals, however, It is possible to test their capacity to learn and their capacity to understand what they've learned. We've found gorillas can learn to speak and even philosiphize at the level of the average young child. We've taught many animals to communicate on some level with us and in other cases we've learned to communicate with them. In all instances, they've never demonstrated a level of understanding that would be required for consent. You're welcome to show any study of animals that has shown otherwise.
You call it a stacked deck. Shocker, in order for humans to have sex with whatever, they must acquire a level of consent *gasp* measured by humans. I'd call that equality actually.
there are studies that are being done to prove animal intelligence... but again it comes down to comparing them to humans, using human standards and human understanding.
You think? You're talking about them interacting with humans and giving a human level of consent. If you're going to advocate them expect them to be compared on a human scale, just as every other creature evaluated for consent is.
The Question of Non-Human Intelligence (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Ball2.html)
Animal Cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition)
Human children have education baised on a language system unique to Humans, animals have that same learning ability baised on the language system unique to that species.
Generally, false. It's not the same learning ability. We have adjusted to the methods by which animals teach their young and found no correlation that would suggest what you're concluding.
and you haven't denied that animals can covey their wants and desires clearly to humans.
[/puts on devil's advocate hat]
No, I haven't denied that. I've merely said they don't have the capacity for consent any more than a child does. You've done nothing to show that I'm wrong.