Hindu Cow With Tuberculosis

[theworldsucks]

Why can't we say that about humans?

you could say that bout humans but then you get these "people worshippers" (LOL) who would say

"we cant kill them they have rights"

not that a convicted peadophile for example has the right to have rights

but then this world happens to have twisted way of looking at most things -  hence the reason why its so screwed up!

now bk to cows

i think god will forgive the hindus for killing the TB cow off, seeing as how its for the greater good 

[Philosobassist]

but anyways you don't have to ask permission for it.

More words than you need there. Surely it should say: 'you don't ask permission for it'? Who says we have a right to take what is rightfullythe cows' without asking?

[Gantidge]

Survival of the fittest, that's what. We're overall stronger than cows, and so can claim some dominance over them. Being at the top of the food chain and all that jazz, if something threatens us, we biologically have the right to kill it. It's just that we're able to recognise the threat of TB, and an animal in the wild wouldn't.
In nature it's full of it: if something threatens a mother's babies or something, they will defend their children to the death to protect them, even if it means killing the threat. In the same way, we have to kill off the threat to humans.

[Philosobassist]

Survival of the fittest, that's what. We're overall stronger than cows, and so can claim some dominance over them.

We 'overall' are also stronger than seven-year-olds with cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy...

if something threatens us, we biologically have the right to kill it.

And the fact that we are the most dangerous creatures of the planet means...we are immune to this rule?

It's just that we're able to recognise the threat of TB, and an animal in the wild wouldn't.

Again then, when we recognise it in humans, why are they exempt?

In nature it's full of it: if something threatens a mother's babies or something, they will defend their children to the death to protect them, even if it means killing the threat. In the same way, we have to kill off the threat to humans.

But that is direct and intentonal threat, such as predation. This is something over which the cow has no control, and it's fair to punish it for something it didn't do?

[Gantidge]

We 'overall' are also stronger than seven-year-olds with cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy...

I go back to my original point. No we couldn't kill them, because human rights are upheld. Animal rights are subverted when they come into conflict with human rights. It's gotta be the law in some way or another.

And the fact that we are the most dangerous creatures of the planet means...we are immune to this rule?

In that respect yes. Someone's got to be. We (as a race) worked our way to the top. In the same way could you argue about someone at the top of the food chain not being eaten? That's what being at the top of a chain means.

This is something over which the cow has no control, and it's fair to punish it for something it didn't do?

It doesn't matter. It poses a threat to humans. It's unfortunate that it didn't have anything to do with it, but that's the way it is.

During the Great Plague people with the plague were quarantined and left to die, because they didn't want others being infected. In the same way, if we found a new disease that we couldn't cure, and it was highly contagious, wouldn't we quarantine (another word for kill) that person so others didn't suffer?

A number of observations/questions:
1) This isn't actually about human and animal rights: the Hindus don't want the cow alive because of its rights; they want it alive for religious reasons.
2)Is TB contagious? (don't know how to spell it)
3)Can we actually cure TB?

[Philosobassist]

I go back to my original point. No we couldn't kill them, because human rights are upheld. Animal rights are subverted when they come into conflict with human rights. It's gotta be the law in some way or another.

And this is where we differ. I haven't accepted any argument that any of you have put forward yet as to why humans have any more rights than any other animal. Why does it have to be the law? Why are animal rights subverted?

In that respect yes. Someone's got to be. We (as a race) worked our way to the top. In the same way could you argue about someone at the top of the food chain not being eaten? That's what being at the top of a chain means.

So what you're saying is that the most violent and vicious creature deserves to survive and have superior rights? Fair enough, but that is reverting humans right back to animal instinct, in which case I say again all animals have equal rights.

(

It doesn't matter. It poses a threat to humans. It's unfortunate that it didn't have anything to do with it, but that's the way it is.

Again I would say why not apply this to humans, and again you would say humans have superior rights, so since we've done this before let's leave this one shall we?
)

During the Great Plague people with the plague were quarantined and left to die, because they didn't want others being infected. In the same way, if we found a new disease that we couldn't cure, and it was highly contagious, wouldn't we quarantine (another word for kill) that person so others didn't suffer?

Exactly. Treat people the same as animals for the most utilitarian goal. But you say 'that we couldn't cure', and we can cure tb.

A number of observations/questions:
1) This isn't actually about human and animal rights: the Hindus don't want the cow alive because of its rights; they want it alive for religious reasons.

But I'm saying that (in as nice a way as possible) that religious rights don't matter here. They could be Hindus, Jedi or swamp men with sticks and they would still be in the right, since the cow has animal rights.

2)Is TB contagious? (don't know how to spell it)

Yes:

TB is spread through the air from one person to another. The bacteria are put into the air when a person with active TB disease of the lungs or throat coughs or sneezes. People nearby may breathe in these bacteria and become infected.

3)Can we actually cure TB?

Yes:

There is good news for people with active TB disease! It can almost always be cured with medicine. But the medicine must be taken as the doctor or nurse tells you.

[Gantidge]

And this is where we differ. I haven't accepted any argument that any of you have put forward yet as to why humans have any more rights than any other animal. Why does it have to be the law? Why are animal rights subverted?

For a start, the notion of rights is a human invention, so in some totalitarianistic way, we should be able to say when and when people can't have it.

Why are animal rights subverted? Because most people in this world see humans as more important than animals. Regardless of your stance, if Parliament passed an act saying the cow couldn't be killed and the whole Welsh town died, there would be an uproar.

So what you're saying is that the most violent and vicious creature deserves to survive and have superior rights? Fair enough, but that is reverting humans right back to animal instinct, in which case I say again all animals have equal rights.

If you're going to be that picky about it, then yes, survival of the fittest does determine that we have the power over animals. Domesticated animals are reared by humans, for the most part for consumption. Should we not eat animals because it is a breach of their rights? I know you are a vegetarian, but not eating meat because of animal rights is quite abstract.

If you want to be that persistant that all animals have equal rights, then surely the animal must have the right to defend itself. If the cow cares that much, then it will defend itself from humans. And if we kill it, well then that is the product of survival of the fittest.

Again I would say why not apply this to humans, and again you would say humans have superior rights, so since we've done this before let's leave this one shall we?

No, we can't leave it. I think that if a human came down with an incurable disease that was contagious enough to pose a threat to humans, then we would quarantine those people such that they died to save the masses. Like the T-Virus...

I'm not saying it's ideal, but isn't the life of a few worth saving the lives of the many?

But I'm saying that (in as nice a way as possible) that religious rights don't matter here. They could be Hindus, Jedi or swamp men with sticks and they would still be in the right, since the cow has animal rights.

Well sorry that's not true, because don't forget that in the overall bigger picture if this was a Jewish cow there wouldn't have arisen the debate in the first place.

3)Can we actually cure TB?

Yes

The why for God's Sake don't they just cure the cow? If it's that much of a threat to humans, then surely it must be worth the cost.

Another point: this won't be the first time a cow has got TB, or another deadly and contagious disease. In law a precedent is set when a new sort of case arises. What is the precedent when a cow has such a disease?

[Philosobassist]

For a start, the notion of rights is a human invention, so in some totalitarianistic way, we should be able to say when and when people can't have it.

So why can't I invent a notion which allow me to say when and when people have rights? Because I have no authority? So why is that exactly what somebody did?

Why are animal rights subverted? Because most people in this world see humans as more important than animals.

Then that's just a horrific example of the Fallacy of Democracy, and I'm pleased, even proud, that I haven't fallen into that trap.

If you want to be that persistant that all animals have equal rights, then surely the animal must have the right to defend itself. If the cow cares that much, then it will defend itself from humans.

And if it can't, or it doesn't realise what we are doing? That's just taking advantage of its inferior intellect, and I can't agree with that.

And if we kill it, well then that is the product of survival of the fittest.

No, it's a product of murder of the less fit by the more fit. Survival of the fittest is evolution by means to avoid predation and obtain food - this is neither.

No, we can't leave it. I think that if a human came down with an incurable disease that was contagious enough to pose a threat to humans, then we would quarantine those people such that they died to save the masses. Like the T-Virus...

Agreed. Which is what I said in the first place. If it is incurable such action may be necessary, but this is curable.

Well sorry that's not true, because don't forget that in the overall bigger picture if this was a Jewish cow there wouldn't have arisen the debate in the first place.

Or would there? Come on, you know me well enough to know that I'd have set up a Rights debate sooner or later. Then we'd have been in the same position without the religious influence. As I see it, the fact that there is religion involved here is merely credit to my side of the argument - more reason to respect the cow.

The why for God's Sake don't they just cure the cow? If it's that much of a threat to humans, then surely it must be worth the cost.

Exactly!

[Gantidge]

So why can't I invent a notion which allow me to say when and when people have rights? Because I have no authority? So why is that exactly what somebody did?

Because you are unnaccountable, that is, unelected. If you stood for election on that principle, and were elected into office, then people would have ratified that you could indeed pass such a measurement, as you would be able to. The people that came up with rights in fairness weren't elected, but people like John Stuart Mills (this time you Google him ) But the people that implemented it were.

Why are animal rights subverted? Because most people in this world see humans as more important than animals.

Then that's just a horrific example of the Fallacy of Democracy, and I'm pleased, even proud, that I haven't fallen into that trap.

Yes, yes, very good. However, the fact that most people see humans as more important is that they want to see that reflected in their government. If someone stands for animal rights in an election, they won't have enough of a manifesto to be elected, thus not being able to pass their sort of legislation. The Government has to produce what the people want, whether you agree with it or not. In the same way, most people see tax as negative and want to see it lowered. The Government has to comply, even when people don't see that it is beneficial to them.

And if we kill it, well then that is the product of survival of the fittest.

No, it's a product of murder of the less fit by the more fit. Survival of the fittest is evolution by means to avoid predation and obtain food - this is neither.

I think survival of the fittest and staying alive through the food chain have become synonamous with each other nowadays. If the cow was fitter (or stronger, or overall more able to survive) than us it would survive. Cows would be the dominant lifeform on Earth and we'd all be drowning in milk.

We should end this debate and go cure that cow!

[Philosobassist]

Because you are unnaccountable, that is, unelected. If you stood for election on that principle, and were elected into office, then people would have ratified that you could indeed pass such a measurement, as you would be able to. The people that came up with rights in fairness weren't elected, but people like John Stuart Mills (this time you Google him ) But the people that implemented it were.

And election and authority are the same, human inventions which place the inventors straight at the top. It's just extending the chain: Who gave man the right to kill animals? Man. Who gave man the right to give man the right to kill animals? Man.

Yes, yes, very good. However, the fact that most people see humans as more important is that they want to see that reflected in their government. If someone stands for animal rights in an election, they won't have enough of a manifesto to be elected, thus not being able to pass their sort of legislation.

I'm not trying to pass said legislation, or influence the government in any way. You have just demonstrated further what I said: the government itself is a prime example of this fallacy: doing what is wanted by the most people.

I think survival of the fittest and staying alive through the food chain have become synonamous with each other nowadays. If the cow was fitter (or stronger, or overall more able to survive) than us it would survive.

It is perfectly capable of survival, if we stop acting like primal beasts and let it be!

[Gantidge]

Who gave man the right to kill animals?

Hang on, hang on. Doesn't God say in Genesis that Adam may eat of any animal in the Garden of Eden, and of any fruit except that which is forbidden?

And election and authority are the same, human inventions which place the inventors straight at the top. It's just extending the chain: Who gave man the right to kill animals? Man. Who gave man the right to give man the right to kill animals? Man.

Oh no you don't.  I'm not letting you get away with such political blasphemy. You tell me about morals and beliefs. Well:

Elections - The process of choosing something from a list of candidates.

Authority - A form of power distinguished by the fact that it is accepted by those oever whom it is held. In liberal democracies, such as the UK, authoirty is legitimately obtained through fair and free elections.

Straight from my politics textbook.

And don't preach to me about the Government only doing things, or rather, not doing things, to please the electorate, trust me, I've had a year of this. Constitutional reform? Electoral reform? Why haven't these been done more, or sooner? Becuase they're not vote-gainging policies. I understand your point.

However, the process of accountablilty means that the electorate expect to see things passed that they majoritatively like, otherwise big hulabaloos occur, like over the Iraq War, or tuition fees.
Furthermore, since representatives are elected on a manifesto, the constituents expect to see the MP's manifesto commitments carried out. Thus, everything in the Labour manifesto, for example, would usually take precedent over a minor bill such as animal rights.

It is perfectly capable of survival, if we stop acting like primal beasts and let it be!

May I just say what a libertarian, vegetarian view that is. You're right; let's free all the cows, and let them roam free across the rolling plains of Wales; free spirits to romp in the grass and befriend woodland creatures.

Until it kills them all because it's got TB.

[Philosobassist]

Hang on, hang on. Doesn't God say in Genesis that Adam may eat of any animal in the Garden of Eden, and of any fruit except that which is forbidden?

Not Genesis, no. I could tell you of places in the Bible where it does say words to that effect, but since you're not religious you cannot use that argument, and I won't let you.

And don't preach to me about the Government only doing things, or rather, not doing things, to please the electorate, trust me, I've had a year of this. Constitutional reform? Electoral reform? Why haven't these been done more, or sooner? Becuase they're not vote-gainging policies. I understand your point.

I was only taking what you told me:

The Government has to produce what the people want

to identify the FoD. But I know that it's not much of a criticism since that is where the term 'democracy' is based. I'm not disagreeing with you - in fact I'm not quite sure who or what I'm disagreeing with atm - but you said:

...whether you agree with it or not

so I'm exercising my right to disagree.

Edit: this is become much more detailed than is necessary. It has nothing to do with the specific formation of the government, it is to do with the basic fact that the Government is a human invention, and has the human-given 'right' over animals such as this cow. Therefore you cannot deny that humans have given themselves rights over other species.

May I just say what a libertarian, vegetarian view that is. You're right; let's free all the cows, and let them roam free across the rolling plains of Wales; free spirits to romp in the grass and befriend woodland creatures.

Until it kills them all because it's got TB.

Well no, as in it will survive if we stop trying to kill it and start curing it. Only a fool would let the above happen.
We have superior intellect (I accept, although that does not put us above animals in value in any way), so we should use it to find a solution better than one even the intellectually inferior animals could come up with: killing the danger.

[Gantidge]

...So you won't let me use my argument, you are just excercising your righ to disagree, with no back-up, and are repeting that the cow should be cured, something we have already established we both agree on.

Good arguement 

it is to do with the basic fact that the Government is a human invention, and has the human-given 'right' over animals such as this cow. Therefore you cannot deny that humans have given themselves rights over other species.

Hang on, once more, didn't God say to Adam that he has to name all the animals in the garden of Eden, or that he is the most important, or somewhere it says that Man is more important than the rest of the animals.

[Philosobassist]

...So you won't let me use my argument, you are just excercising your righ[sic] to disagree, with no back-up, and are repeting that the cow should be cured, something we have already established we both agree on.

i) Not if you don't believe it yourself
ii) Are you telling me I have no right to disagree?
iii) Sorry, of course if I'm in the minority I must be wrong
iiii) Yes I am, that's my solution

Good arguement[sic] 

Good spelling

Hang on, once more, didn't God say to Adam that he has to name all the animals in the garden of Eden, or that he is the most important, or somewhere it says that Man is more important than the rest of the animals.

Mebbeh But again I say, you're not religious so it is totally invalid coming from you.

[Gantidge]

Awwwwww come one!