Pages:
Author

Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 24. (Read 105875 times)

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 11, 2011, 06:24:03 PM
The more verbose transcript is more than I care to manually type in. I provided you a summary, and even conceded that there is room for interpretation. Interpret it as you wish. However, you must concede the possibility that Adams' views are not synonymous with yours.

I disagree. I think my views align with his in nearly the same way. I probably would have made a similar remark if one of my colleagues had attempted to promote slavery using some underhanded "slight-of-hand" strawman subtlety. Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too. I wish they would, humanity sucks sometimes. Not to far fetched really.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 252
October 11, 2011, 06:17:58 PM
You don't have the right to dictate that.  We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do.

So we don't have the right to dictate what you should do, because the current system lets you dictate what everyone does. Got it.

If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.

You already did, and His name is State.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 06:10:21 PM
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound.

Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues not making a case for animal rights.

The more verbose transcript is more than I care to manually type in. I provided you a summary, and even conceded that there is room for interpretation. Interpret it as you wish. However, you must concede the possibility that Adams' views are not synonymous with yours.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 11, 2011, 06:07:37 PM
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound.

Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues, not making a case for animal rights.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 11, 2011, 06:07:28 PM
Before that, you said this:

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.

I said I don't advocate torture. I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.  I haven't backpedaled. If you don't like animal torture, then start a humane society and educate people.

If you want to sell animals that you don't want tortured, then do a vetting of the soon-to-be-owner, or contract with them to specifically treat your animal a specific way prior to sale.

You don't have the right to dictate that.  We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do.  If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings.

I will concede that there is room for interpretation. If you wish to interpret it as you wish, I cannot stop you.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 06:02:49 PM
I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.

Why?
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 252
October 11, 2011, 06:02:23 PM
No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.

Except that horses and dogs, as he implied, do not have the capacity to communicate their desires to us and thus fall into a different category than human beings.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 11, 2011, 06:01:04 PM
The post you link says that you don't see any basis to restrict torturing animals.  Which means you are OK with it.  

...snip...

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

In your libertarian paradise, torturing animals would be a private matter and those who oppose it would have no right to intervene. 

Can you not see that is a non-starter in terms of modern humanity?

Nope.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 11, 2011, 06:00:17 PM
Before that, you said this:

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.

I said I don't advocate torture. I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.  I haven't backpedaled. If you don't like animal torture, then start a humane society and educate people.

If you want to sell animals that you don't want tortured, then do a vetting of the soon-to-be-owner, or contract with them to specifically treat your animal a specific way prior to sale.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 05:56:45 PM
We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

Nobody's trying to fool you Fred.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O1FTPVl9UEEC&pg=PA132&dq=john+quincy+adams+horse+dog&hl=en&ei=t7OUTrHaPKr3sQLRrbTvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Epic fail again. That was a metaphor. He never implied that dogs or horses had rights. If anything, it was a off-handed remark intended to mock a stupid argument posed by a critic of slavery whose conclusion and logic was patently false. That being, the US government would be overthrown, and the liberty of the American people would be destroyed if slaves could petition the government for redress.

Same kind of crap I've been reading here about making slavery and animal rights equivalent. As if.

Congresscritters give me pause. Nothing ever changes, same ol' ignorance then, slightly different flavor.

No, he's earnestly saying what he's saying. Unfortunately, you don't have the full discussion online. The exact details are that it was argued that slaves are merely property, and thus their complaint/petition cannot be presented. Adams responded, by saying that the argument of property has no bearing on the matter. Slave, horse, dog, whatever, hear the complaint, for nobody (non-slave, slave, animal, etc.) has the right to not be heard.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 11, 2011, 05:52:51 PM
Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death. And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant.  And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.  

What about you?  Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.568807

The post you link says that you don't see any basis to restrict torturing animals.  Which means you are OK with it.  

...snip...

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

In your libertarian paradise, torturing animals would be a private matter and those who oppose it would have no right to intervene. 

Can you not see that is a non-starter in terms of modern humanity?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 05:49:44 PM
Fred says libertarianism means you can torture your dog to death.  And repeat this again and again.

I find that repugnant.  And I am totally OK with using legal process to stop sadists torturing their dogs.  

What about you?  Do you think people have some natural right to torture dogs?

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.568807

Before that, you said this:

Torture should only apply to humans, not animals, otherwise you could arbitrarily confiscate my property. Stop playing the animal torture card, it's annoying.

Clearly, you're saying that torture does not apply to animals - implying they're just things like tables, sofas, refrigerators, etc. It really does seem that you've backpedaled. Your view really does seem outdated.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
October 11, 2011, 05:49:34 PM
We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

Nobody's trying to fool you Fred.

Epic fail again. That was a metaphor. He never implied that dogs or horses had rights. If anything, it was a off-handed remark intended to mock a stupid argument posed by a critic of slavery whose conclusion and logic was patently false. That being, the US government would be overthrown, and the liberty of the American people would be destroyed if slaves could petition the government for redress.

Same kind of crap I've been reading here about making slavery and animal cruelty equivalent. As if.

Congresscritters give me pause. Nothing ever changes, same ol' ignorance then, slightly different flavor now.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
October 11, 2011, 05:49:08 PM
My family.

Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought?

Sure! But we don't do it because we love animals. (Except when we forget to walk them and they poor all over the kitchen)

Since you've already said you are OK with killing babies, I suppose it was silly to ask your position on torturing animals.

In terms of politics and society, you're advocating a type of society that will never be accepted.  Its a purely intellectual exercise.  Have no you interest in things that are likely to matter in the real world?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 05:38:15 PM
Quote
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?

My family.

Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator?

Why is that relevant to intellectual property?

I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
October 11, 2011, 05:30:14 PM
Quote
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?

My family.

Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator?

Why is that relevant to intellectual property?
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
October 11, 2011, 05:28:50 PM
My family.

Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought?

Sure! But we don't do it because we love animals. (Except when we forget to walk them and they poop all over the kitchen)
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 05:26:02 PM
Quote
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?

My family.

Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
October 11, 2011, 05:24:22 PM
We're not discussing animal ownership here. We're discussing cruelty and torture to animals, and you've admitted that you won't tolerate any such regulations to prevent it. Furthermore, your views really are antiquated. As I've said, John Quincy Adams was more modern than you in his thinking.

Again, I repeat; find me a reference where John Q.A. was referring to animals. I'm not antiquated, just not easily fooled. Nice try.

Nobody's trying to fool you Fred.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O1FTPVl9UEEC&pg=PA132&dq=john+quincy+adams+horse+dog&hl=en&ei=t7OUTrHaPKr3sQLRrbTvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Oi6qgCnoAgC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=john+quincy+adams+%22animal+rights%22&source=bl&ots=gF0FJbpPgv&sig=JI3WffgocD9S-d6l1auU8mqlDAc&hl=en&ei=NK6UTrmcBOm2sQKgnvzvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=john%20quincy%20adams%20%22animal%20rights%22&f=false
Pages:
Jump to: