Politics over cow

[Project Dharma]

Their can be no absolute freedom in society

Absolute freedom means anarchy..

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

'property rights'?! what a HILARIOUS farce! some munnas have absolutely NO idea mostly from where cows & CALVES are procured for slaughter here, by infringing upon whose property rights, what message is tried to be delivered through some 'extra curricular' slaughters by whom to whom, & where all this blood money goes to....

and slaughter-biz magnets yapping about 'rights' & 'life'! irony goes to get slaughtered at the altar of hyprocrisy!!
Tapatalked!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

Absolute freedom means anarchy..

Better to have no state than the police state

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

They've had fair warning that it is offensive to the majority of people in the country and that it is also against the constitution. If they still want to do it, then its at their own peril and they deserve everything they get.

that protection should absolutely be at the expense of some human beings! no tolerance for bachhada-chors & those who extract beef & veal at the expense of the dignity & life of some 'other' human beings! i expect Karma to bite their own offsprings' baby-asses!!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

'property rights'?! what a HILARIOUS farce! some munnas have absolutely NO idea mostly from where cows & CALVES are procured for slaughter here, by infringing upon whose property rights, what message is tried to be delivered through some 'extra curricular' slaughters by whom to whom, & where all this blood money goes to....

and slaughter-biz magnets yapping about 'rights' & 'life'! irony goes to get slaughtered at the altar of hyprocrisy!!
Tapatalked!

A cow cannot have natural rights
The "Rights" of Animals

Murray N. Rothbard
[This article is taken from chapter 21 of The Ethics of Liberty. Listen to this article in MP3, read by Jeff Riggenbach. The entire book is being prepared for podcast and download.]

It has lately become a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible — i.e., that no man has the right — to kill or eat them.

There are, of course, many difficulties with this position, including arriving at some criterion of which animals or living beings to include in the sphere of rights and which to leave out.

(There are not many theorists, for example, who would go so far as Albert Schweitzer and deny the right of anyone to step on a cockroach. And, if the theory were extended further from conscious living beings to allliving beings, such as bacteria or plants, the human race would rather quickly die out.)

But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching.1 For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, but for the species man alone. The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was "given" — or, in natural law, we may say "has" — dominion over all the species of the earth. Natural law is necessarily species-bound.

That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don't respect the "rights" of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is "evil" because he exists by devouring and "aggressing against" lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who "aggresses against" other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men "aggress against" cows and wolves as to say that wolves "aggress against" sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an "evil aggressor" or that the wolf was being "punished" for his "crime." And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

What of the "Martian" problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical "Martians" were like human beings — conscious, rational, able to communicate with us and participate in the division of labor — then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to "earthbound" humans.2

But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.3 And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.4

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

^^ not a moot point here....the savages can keep that in their pockets & strut it around in their tribes.
Tapatalked!

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

quite a few times @punjab47 is missed here!
Tapatalked!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

^^ not a moot point here....the savages can keep that in their pockets & strut it around in their tribes.
Tapatalked!

Then go argue with someone a little less erudite like myself. I suppose you don't even know what the definition of a "savage" is. A savage isn't a "savage" if he disagrees with you degenerate. Go back to your mud hut you troll. ignored.
.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Then go argue with someone a little less erudite like myself. I suppose you don't even know what the definition of a "savage" is. A savage isn't a "savage" if he disagrees with you cuck.

turdpc, re-read what i wrote. start from the start.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Then go argue with someone a little less erudite like myself. I suppose you don't even know what the definition of a "savage" is. A savage isn't a "savage" if he disagrees with you degenerate. Go back to your mud hut you troll. ignored.
.

very good. mutterchods like you should do that. choot-pakoda lundkhor saala! chal bhag bc!!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

"Free" "Society" is oxymoron.

Their can be no absolute freedom in society, as society itself comes in existence when a group of people having common belief try to institutionalise their belief.

So my advice for absolute freedom lovers is , to move out in jungle patch , domesticize animals , scavenge food items...

I disagree

............................................................................

 

[OrangeFlorian]

Ah ludwig von mises. your always there when I need you. god bless you. you fine austrian gentleman.................

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

i am seeing this across forums! chutiyanandans who havent yet fully come out of their mothers' but have got smartphones & PCs, have been giving headaches to the seniors with their 'divine' knowledge trolling about everything! a marked trend across online forums!!one hijra started from syria to europe, & this is the hijra of teeny-weeny teens & pubescents in online spaces, & a little older than that. one of my good friends had brought my notice to it once; he and some of his peers were really tired & frustrated by their unstable hyperactivity disorder antics.
@Project Dharma @abhijat @screambowl - have you noticed it?

Tapatalked!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

@OneGrimPilgrim I'm not responding. go fuck over some other thread. Anyone who does not want to eat beef does not have to. Anyone who does has the right to do so. And anyone who is offended is allowed to be offended insofar as he does not commit violence and use mob rule to achieve his goals. Their life is not your business. Their life is not your choice. Being offended is a choice. Case closed.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

@OneGrimPilgrim I'm not responding. go fuck over some other thread. Anyone who does not want to eat beef does not have to. Anyone who does has the right to do so. And anyone who is offended is allowed to be offended insofar as he does not commit violence and use mob rule to achieve his goals. Being offended is a choice. Case closed.

haha...chootmari ka @OrangeFlorian is now obsessed with me. gay keeeed(a). trolllolololol...

 

[Abhijat]

I disagree

............................................................................

Describe in your own words , on what you disagree of.

Is it, why society came in existence ?

If you are not trolling and seriously trying to exchange "your" views , then only engage.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

anyone who wants to eat beef in India can import it & eat it. but if you get caught in cattle-thievery-smuggling & slaughtering, face the music! you irk the already rubbed up since millennia Indics, you face the music hardcore metal! want ultra-liberty?! migrate to the lands where white chickpeas wanna get bred over with black rajmas for liberty & liberation, or go over to somalia. case re-opened and now closed properly!
Tapatalked!

 

[Abhijat]

@OrangeFlorian , I want to eat roasted human flesh. So could I acquire slave and eat it ?

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Describe in your own words , on what you disagree of.

Is it, why society came in existence ?

If you are not trolling and seriously trying to exchange "your" views , then only engage.

teeny-weeny teatsuckers & not trolling?! achchha mazaak hai bhai!!

 

[OrangeFlorian]

Describe in your own words , on what you disagree of.

Is it, why society came in existence ?

If you are not trolling and seriously trying to exchange "your" views , then only engage.

A society cannot and should not be upheld via ganging up and attacking every single person who offends you that is mob rule