Animals...

[lombas]

So why don't have you issues exempting the mentally ill or retarded, those that can't debate, from this idea that the ability to debate gives someone the right to not be property?

The mentally ill or retarded are stuck in the "child-level". They are human beings and capable of reaching a level of rationality that would make them able to join a discussion, but they have a clear physical disability (study the word closely) preventing them to evolve.

Thus, like children are looked after for by their parents, also the mentally ill or raterded have their legal guardians.

Compare it with this: someone who is asleep, is by no way capable of entering a rational discussion - so does that give someone else the right to kill him? Surely, when the person asleep cannot reason against it, another person can simply put him to death? But this would mean that the latter could be killed in his sleep as well. That certainly isn't a comfortable way to lead your life - no one can stay awake for 70some years. That's where certain implicit contracts come in: a person asleep cannot reason, but someone else needs to wait until he is awake to make certain decisions like killing him.

Thus, we accept certain physical aspects of our bodies to be able to create a healthy environment, or marketplace as you will, of rational debates.

 

[lombas]

Perhaps ravens debate among themselves as to why those funny looking two-legged creatures insist on living in buildings. Who's to say?

Yes, but if they cannot enter a debate with human beings, how can we consider them as persons, having rights?

 

[Jaymes]

The mentally ill or retarded are stuck in the "child-level". They are human beings and capable of reaching a level of rationality that would make them able to join a discussion, but they have a clear physical disability (study the word closely) preventing them to evolve.

Not all of them are. Have you ever been into a hospital for those who have mental illnesses they can't recover from? Some are completely unresponsive to the outside world. This is particularly common with some types of schizophrenia.

Why are they exempt?

 

[lombas]

Not all of them are. Have you ever been into a hospital for those who have mental illnesses they can't recover from? Some are completely unresponsive to the outside world. This is particularly common with some types of schizophrenia.

Why are they exempt?

Because they have a physical disability. It's purely physical, like children aren't grown up enough.

It is not that they do not have the capability, if something were to cure them from this "disease", to reason. Which is not true for, well, a raven.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say, because I'm not sure my English is good enough.

 

[Jaymes]

Because they have a physical disability. It's purely physical, like children aren't grown up enough.

It is not that they do not have the capability, if something were to cure them from this "disease", to reason. Which is not true for, well, a raven.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say, because I'm not sure my English is good enough.

It's not physical, it's mental. They're never going to be able to grow out of it, and in cases such as the ones I described they can't be cured of it.

I get what you're saying, it just doesn't hold up to logic.

 

[wizanda]

To eat animals in my eyes and that of Nazarite (Zan-a-rite) is a sin as i see it, also the commandments say all that is holy, should not be killed...which is all beings as the word appears to be in my eyes.....+ Genesis said fruit is our meat…Noah was told the life that was in them = fish eggs, milk etc…= no need to kill.

Won’t go into depths of scientific view points of your bodies can’t digest it either….yet just to say God did not design us as meat eaters, else we would have canines.

Then animals all have souls, they could be your great grand parents reincarnated in that body.
My dog has a very, very unique soul and find him a pleasure to be with as person.

Spend all day understanding and communicating with Birds in frequency code, which is quite easily explainable and understandable to us, within us we are given the ability to whistle to communicate with most animals…

My cat will moan which food she wants and why she doesn’t like it…sort of sounds a bit like Jamaicans sucking their teeth, which is also easily decipherable in frequencies.

So my question is when it says caretakers….why are we eating our own family?

When I remember being many of these it hurts to think that a question like this can be asked….again and again…

As for animals heaven it is equal to our own, they are us and we are them, the only difference is the form the spirit takes or is given….so remember next time you eat your next steak how peaceful a cow sounds going OM all day…or MO…yet to me that is like a Buddha…..then when they know the weather better then our weather men, it is only through our own stupidity that we choose to eat something that is deemed holy.

Also when most animals have more senses and telepathic ability then us, really we are getting worse, not better in the sense we once used more then 10% of our brains.

Eating animals most defiantly effects this and schizophrenia as most people have...... As more and more noticing 95% of people have, and spend all day discussing with their own EGO’s….so when they are feeding their brains on dead animal flesh, it is not surprising if all the brain needs is sugars to produce all the bodies needs.:angel2:

 

[lombas]

It's not physical, it's mental. They're never going to be able to grow out of it, and in cases such as the ones I described they can't be cured of it.

I get what you're saying, it just doesn't hold up to logic.

Ah, I get what you mean, not just the handicapped but really mentally ill, like people in psychiatry?

You are not the first to make that remark. It is in fact a very common and clever remark.

Well, there you have it. You say "cannot be cured", and it may well be that those people will live and die and never have been cured. But science has evolved, we can treat and cure certain mental afflictions that were still quite vivid in the days of De Sade.

I just want to say that a "disability" is what it is: an abnormality, something that prevents human beings from entering a rational debate. But that doesn't mean that they haven't the capacity, the ability, in them to do such a thing given the fact they were cured. And still, they have legal guardians that do the talking for them (in their own good, of course).

A raven, whether mentally ill or perfectly in good health, does not have the ability, the capacity, to enter a rational debate - but it's not merely a disability in his case, it is a permanent incurable disability: a raven is simply not "made" for a rational debate.

 

[lombas]

That does not deny the fact that one person can give certain rights to a raven, like the right to life. But that one person cannot force other people to respect that.

I, for instance, am a vegetarian and believe that it is amoral for me to eat meat or fish. But I cannot force other people to do that.

 

[Aqualung]

That does not deny the fact that one person can give certain rights to a raven, like the right to life. But that one person cannot force other people to respect that.

I, for instance, am a vegetarian and believe that it is amoral for me to eat meat or fish. But I cannot force other people to do that.

amoral or immoral?

 

[lombas]

Sorry, immoral.

Don't know why I said "amoral". In my language, it's practically the same (amoreel - immoreel).

 

[wizanda]

On that both ravens and crows do debate and are often killed by their own kind for it, some say a group of crows is called a “murder”….yet I am sure I read it was called a “parliament” as it makes a lot more sense.

As one crow, comes in to a new group it is given the opportunity to speak, if the rest of the crows disagree they kill it, if it is accepted it can join…so in other words they are debating as do ravens and as does parliaments.
Which online just checking seem to only find owl’s called a “parliament”…which i did think was also crows and ravens…as that is exactly what they doing.

 

[Gentoo]

On that both ravens and crows do debate and are often killed by their own kind for it, some say a group of crows is called a “murder”….yet I am sure I read it was called a “parliament” as it makes a lot more sense.

A group of crows, and possibly ravens, is called a murder.

As one crow, comes in to a new group it is given the opportunity to speak, if the rest of the crows disagree they kill it, if it is accepted it can join…so in other words they are debating as do ravens and as does parliaments.
Which online just checking seem to only find owl’s called a “parliament”…which i did think was also crows and ravens…as that is exactly what they doing.

As an amature ornithologist, I've never heard of that... do you have a source for it?

 

[painted wolf]

In my religion evreything has a soul, not just 'living' things.
Everything was made by Creator and thus Creator is a part of everything. We are all brothers and sisters, all equil to one another.

wa:do

 

[wizanda]

It was from an old english words meanings book (i believe)....so for tonight not, as really need to get some sleep...

 

[Gentoo]

It was from an old english words meanings book (i believe)....so for tonight not, as really need to get some sleep...

So, you don't have a source for it...?

 

[Booko]

I have heard of such studies, and they may well be true. But can a raven enter a rational debate? Can it tell you its age when you ask for it (given you speak ravenish)?

Well, the ravens in my son's DND campaign can. :run:

Moreover, can it fulfill the premises of a rational debate (argumentation ethics, as they are called)?

Ravens don't type very well either.

And my cats are very lousy at the piano, now that I think about it.

 

[Katzpur]

And my cats are very lousy at the piano, now that I think about it.

They're just so independent, Sharon. Pretend you don't want them to learn and you'll be surprised at how quickly they pick it up.

 

[Booko]

They're just so independent, Sharon. Pretend you don't want them to learn and you'll be surprised at how quickly they pick it up.

Felix actually did post on RF once, but no one understood it. I think he was speaking in tongues or something. Hm...or speaking in paws. Whatever!

 

[Runlikethewind]

I was thinking, I've heard people (Catholics too) say that animals will not be in heaven because they do not have a rational soul like we do. barring the conversation on whether this is true or not I though to myself that we Catholics (and Christians in general) believe in the resurrection of the body. If we believe that we will eventually get our bodies back in heaven then it seems heaven must be a place of some kind and not a realm of disembodied spirits or something. And if heaven is a place, since we have our bodies back, then it would seem to make sense that there would be mountains and streams, trees and flowers, as well as all kinds of animals. Besides doesn't the Bible talk about lions and sheep lying together or something, no longer hunting and killing? So as to the question of whether or not animals will be in heaven I would like to say yes.

As for eating meat I think animals eating other animals is perfectly natural (lions, tigers, bears, the list goes on). Humans are omnivores we are able to eat both meat and plants we have canines and molars to prove it. So I'm all about a good steak, except on Friday (I'm an old school Catholic, no meat on Friday for me!)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yes, but if they cannot enter a debate with human beings, how can we consider them as persons, having rights?

Could you enter a debate with someone who doesnt speak english (or whatever you native tongue is)? yet they are human beings! we just dont understand them! I think animals can talk, they are just meant to talk among themselves!

I think that it is said animals are under human beings - therefore should not be able to enter a debate with us, but whether they can enter a debate shouldnt determine whether they have souls, go to heaven etc.