See, this is why I don't like cats.
Options
Comments
-
Sooo because babies are considered as persons, we must consider other animals as persons?
FOH...dunno why I read that ? . -
Sooo because babies are considered as persons, we must consider other animals as persons?
FOH...dunno why I read that ? .
-
Sooo because babies are considered as persons, we must consider other animals as persons?
FOH...dunno why I read that ? .
Anybody that considers their pet as their child is ? crazy.
I get that you're taking care of them, but damn. -
No in between cats either hate or love you both feelings can be highly annoying.
-
Girl gotta ? in the beginning -
What the ? did I just read? The cat version of the "I Have A Dream" speech?
You're aware that you referred to CATS as people, right?
You probably already know that personhood hasn't always been considered synonymous with being biologically human. It's a moral designation. Chattel slaves were considered biologically human, or 'somewhat' human, but non-persons under the law. I won't bother arguing that all sentient animals are or should be considered persons. The fact is that it's inconsistent not to consider non-human animals who presumably lack self-awareness to be persons if you consider human infants under 18-24 months of age to be people despite the fact that they are no more cognitively developed than cats, dogs, chickens, horses or fish and also lack self-awareness and a capacity to make rational choices or form rational preferences. There is no impartial, logically consistent justification for considering a year old human infant (or a developmentally ? human adult who is cognitively like an infant under 18 months of age) to be a person if you don't consider cats and dogs and other animals to be people as well, its fundamentally no different than 18th century whites regarding African slaves as non-persons despite their having the same interests as Europeans (if someone argued that slavery was justified because African people could not feel pain or make rational choices or did not posses whatever feature is a prerequisite for having whatever they considered to be a persons 'interests' then they couldn't be accused of discrimination, discrimination involves disregarding someone's interests and not just assuming that they have none). A human infant has the potential to be a rational, self-aware being but so do zygotes and potential is not actuality. Everyone will eventually be dead but they're not dead now.
If you don't consider human infants under 18 months of age to be persons either because they are not rational, self-aware beings then I can't fault you for being inconsistent or accuse you of speciesism but you still have to include rats, pigeons, octopi, the non-human great apes, dolphins, magpies, elephants, dolphins and any other non-human animals who have demonstrated self-awareness. Even if you reject my concept of personhood based on a capacity to experience pleasure or pain and consider a person to be a rational, self-aware being or any living, biological entity or based on any other criteria that you think is a prerequisite for having interests (whatever is involved in harming/benefiting or wronging someone), you can't consider someone to be a person or non-person based on nothing other than whether or not they belong to your group, not if you want your position to have any kind of objective credibility. The fact that you intuitively think cats being people is silly isn't a rational argument.no way ur Black. No way no how
I am black. We're not the Borg.
-
Sooo because babies are considered as persons, we must consider other animals as persons?
What about this did you disagree with? You can't rationally argue that non-human animals are not persons for no other reason than their not being members of your group (species) anymore than 18th century white slave owners could rationally argue that African slaves were non-persons because they were black. If you argued that psychologically normal human beings over 18-24 months of age should be considered persons because they are rational and self-aware beings and not just because they're human and that cats should be considered non-persons for the same reason then your position wouldn't be explicitly speciesist (as flawed as I think it would be for other reasons) but to argue that 12 month old babies who lack self-awareness are persons but dolphins and elephants and 'even' rats who are cognitively more similar to psychologically normal human adults than babies are should be considered non-persons for no other reason than their not being members of your species is unambiguously prejudiced.Anybody that considers their pet as their child is ? crazy.
I get that you're taking care of them, but damn.
You're not making a rational argument, you're just expressing a personal attitude.
http://youtu.be/M-P3l9ezaF8