Arguing With Welfarist Idiots
I’m posting this blog to show how some welfare-statists argue. Just recently I initiated a heated online debate after posting this blog on a Facebook group. The blog article is about a stupid guy who hanged his puppy on the clothesline and then posted some graphic evidence of his stupidity on Facebook.
The graphic photos evidencing the puppy-hanger’s contemptuous act sparked an international online condemnation and triggered an animal rights group to file a legal suit. Now there are a number of Facebook groups calling for the incarceration and punishment of the puppy-hanger.
Here’s my observation of my many online encounters with these pro-welfare, pro-RH bill, pro-animal rights people. They have this habit of resorting to strawman arguments and misrepresentation and then declare that they have debunked the arguments of their opponent. And when they miserably run out of arguments, they resort to childish tactics and they start to call you “kulang sa pansin”, “psychopath”, “majority is against you on this matter”, etc. Their problem is, they have some ‘mental problem’ and that they cannot argue properly.
My online debate with some pro-animal welfare Facebookers prompted me to publish the following related blogs: Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates and Animals Don’t Have Rights, Stupid! It’s the second post that outraged some of my critics. There’s nothing new with their criticisms and counter-arguments. I expected the most expected.
Consider the following comments made by some of my passionate critics:
Lakay Einnor: “what entitles humans to have rights and what deprives animals to have rights? i hope you have enough knowledge, experiences and logical understanding to answer that or else you are just a redundant gas.”
James Black: “rights in the sense of not being tied on a string all its life and fed white rice or caged all its life also. i believe they should have that right as every living creature has the right to not be given an awful life for security purposes. If you cant see suffering in an animal then you cant see suffering period.”
But this one takes the cake:
Joshua Rey: “Humans are animals. Animals have no rights. Ergo, humans have no rights. Right. CoRRECT™!”
I don’t think it’s possible to argue with such a moronic creature.
Now a guy named Rannel Mina questioned the premise behind my blog entitled Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates.
Rannel Mina said: “what the hell is the connection of the nazi germany’s contradictory ideologies that is [love]/[respect]/giving rights for animals over [love]/[respect]/giving rights for humans [jews] TO all other seemingly environment-friendly laws such as the animal welfare act? i’m tilting my head as I see an appeal to emotion here though not explicit. remember hitler’s contribution to the war by killing so many human beings while he loves animals. I do not think that the animal welfare act and its proponents follow the footsteps of Hitler and nazi germany.”
My reply: “Historically speaking, it was Hitler who institutionalized animal welfare laws. That became the basis of our modern-day PETA and animal rights advocates. That’s part of the story. Why would you want to have an editorial control of how I write my blog articles? Where’s the “deception” you’re talking about?… I can understand if you can’t see the connection there. Ever familiar with or heard eco-terrorists and the unabomber who killed people who allegedly abused the environment? They’re willing to kill people just to consummate or continue with their advocacy. That makes them anti-man.”
Another critic named Jose Jeremy Seastres made a highly debatable, if not idiotic comment. He said: “If animals have rights, what kind of right do they have? The right not to be eaten? The right not to be killed? The right to live free? I believe it is UTTERLY WRONG AND STUPID to attribute such rights to animals that humans intrinsically possess by virtue of their nature.- The answer to this is the right for animals to be treated humanely, you see froi the pet dogs that humans possess now are a product of human intervention. Since we have the cognitive ability to reason and think like you have stated. one most remember to that some of the pets we have now relay so much on humans for survival. So therefore it is our duty to safeguard the well being of the pets such as dogs that we now have a inter dependent relationship with. But i am not talking about extreme stuff here froi. Mind you.”
I had to write this blog in order to address the many fallacies in his comment. I stated in part:
Now, do animals have rights? The answer is no, because only human beings are entitled to rights! But that doesn’t mean we have to treat them as if they’re not part of this world. Our dealings with animals depend on our value-judgment. For instance, many people like me believe that dogs are man’s best-friend. Others even regard their dogs as part of their family. For some people, dogs are like any other animals to be eaten. For these people, dogs are considered mere property.
In most cases, animals are part of people’s livelihood. The concept of livelihood or survival gives value to animals. Consider the case of a farmer who works his carabao in the field. What do you think would happen to the farmer’s livelihood if he abused or maltreated his carabao that plows the rice-field? He would not be able to make a harvest. In this case, the carabao has great value to the farmer.
As expected, somebody called me “psychopath” for declaring that animals don’t have rights. It’s as if such a declaration gives anyone the justification to torture or “inhumanely” treat animals. It’s as if I’m advocating for the annihilation of animals. That’s how they argue. Like I said, they’re simply attacking a strawman.
How did Jose Jeremy Seastres respond to my blog? He responded exactly as I expected. He merely uttered bromides.
Here’s how the conversation went:
Jose Jeremy Seastres: “LOL. you are not seeing the whole picture here..dont know. Someday you will wake up.”
My reply: “Whole picture? That means you don’t have any rebuttal and that you have a very naive understanding of things.”
Jose Jeremy Seastres: “as i have said before not all are as smart as you. Some people treat there pets with neglect and abuse. This is one of the reasons this organizations exist not for some conspiracy theory like what your darling rand suggest. For Godsakes they even offered the family free vet service. And lol i am very surprise why you just choose one statement out of the many ive given,perhaps it was the weakest ei and you build your momentum on it ei? I dont ahve any rebuttal?LOL..look who is talking you just capitalize on one statement i had given. Toinks!”
My reply: ” There you go again, comrade. Whenever you can’t refute everything I say, that’s when you try to mention the name “Ayn Rand.” That’s so sick.”
Jose Jeremy Seastres: “because it is,if you read in between the lines :-)”
My reply: “You know what, Jose Jeremy Seastres, I replied to your highly idiotic comment very objectively and professionally. I expect you to do the same. That’s what educated and professional people do… So you want to jail people for “inhumanely” treating animals? But first, you have to define “humane” and “humane procedures”, comrade…”
Jose Jeremy Seastres: “lol you consider yourself professional?? i dont think so you dont have what it takes to be a professional base in the way you rant. humane in terms of treating your pets without abuse and neglect. Now tell me are everyone like you who understand or know how to treat there pets or animals?”
My reply: “My advice to you comrade, try to argue properly without unnecessarily mentioning the word “rand”. That explains your sick mind. So by “neglecting” and “abusing” animals anyone can go to jail. But killing animals is more than neglecting and abusing. Should anyone who killed animals go to jail as well?”
Jose Jeremy Seastres: “lol. That is hasty generalization on your part froi. You know very well some animals are for consumption purposes and some are accepted pets or other uses. The point being here is certain groups exist to ensure that such animals under human care are look out properly. But as i have said this argument is fruitless as animals under human care are often neglected in the philippines in the first place.”
My reply: Since you’re an ignoramus, we’re speaking of jailing people here, comrade. That’s why I keep on telling you people, DEFINE HUMANE. We’re talking about possible jail terms that might incur by anyone for committing what animal rights groups’ call “humane” treatment of animals. There should be some objective test that defines what you people call “humane”. I know you don’t understand this because you’re so politically naive…
Then someone told me that I missed the difference between rights and welfare or the protection of animals against inhumane treatment, torture, maltreatment, etc. I gave the following response:
Paul Farol, I understand that. That means animals have a right to “humane treatment.” But that’s ridiculous, Paul. What do they mean by cruel treatment of animals? Well, if we entrust the drafting of an animal welfare law to PETA or PAWS, we’d end up jailing lots of people.
What constitutes cruel treatment of animals? If we even entertain such an idea, then animals should be treated like human beings too. They should not be hunted, killed and eaten. This is because the very ‘thing’ that precedes these acts (hunting, killing, eating of animals) is or can be perceived as CRUELTY. We should not be using animals then for any purposes that improves or benefit human life. I know you understand this very well, Paul.
Then Rannel Mina called my attention, claiming that the above-mentioned statement was “riddled with fallacies.” He, however, added: “I won’t point it out nalang. I think you are just speaking your mind here.”
Here’s how the conversation went:
My reply: “Well, I’d like you to point out the “fallacies”. Kindly mention some. I’d like to be informed. Again, he who alleges must prove.”
Rannel Mina: “nah, you can figure it out yourself man. paul farol had a keen eye for that post you made. he missed a few more. and the goat thingie you mentioned?that for some it is not humane? there is a fallacy there too. I just pointed it out, because maybe you were just speaking your heart. 🙂 so I am not really in the mood to counter it.”
“Well, you can always make any claim. I can make claims too, but that’s not my style. I always back my claim with facts and counter-arguments. Since you’re not making any counter-arguments but a NEGATIVE claim, it must be ignored and rejected. 😉 Lemme quote one of my favorite essayists, J. Neil Schulman, in regard to this issue: ”
“Let me make it clear: I am not questioning the humaneness or cruelty of any particular practice. My point is that the interests of those who assert that the lower animals have rights is not to protect animals against cruel treatment. That can be done merely by an appeal to our consciences. Those who assert that animals or even “habitats” have rights do so to destroy individual human rights to control what I term the anthroposphere: the human habitat. It is the individual human right to control our private spheres of action — our individual habitats — which they oppose.””
Rannel Mina: “it’s fine comrade, but you saw paul cite it too. 🙂 maybe other readers will have the chance to point the fallacies out, like a game. 🙂 i usually back up those i point out, i am just not in the mood in explaining them now. but I am still happy about that hitler=peta=evil post you made huh. perfect example of a couple of fallacies I pointed out earlier. 🙂 cheers! good night!
My reply: “You’re really a second-hander, comrade…”
To address the alleged welfare-rights dichotomy implied by Rannel Mina and some of my critics, I posted the following comment:
I’m speaking your language, folks, since most of your don’t understand the proper concept of rights. A right does not impose obligations on people. Your right to life does not legally require others or your neighbor or your government to feed you. Your right to property does not legally require others or your neighbor or your government to provide you house, car or any kind of property. The only responsibility of others is to BACK OFF and refrain from interfering with your activities or personal affairs.
In this case, the alleged right of animals to humane treatment or not to be tortured imposed some forms of obligations on people. But in reality, it has become a LEGAL DUTY, because anyone who allegedly tortured or ‘inhumanely’ treated animals may go to jail or face some legal punishment.
Under the Animal Welfare Act, animals don’t merely have an alleged right to “humane” treatment. They also have the followed alleged “rights”, as humans are legally required to NOT to:
1. clean and sanitary facilities for the safe conveyance and delivery (Section 4)
2. sufficient food and water for such animals while in transit (Section 4);
3. the right against “any form of cruelty” (Section 4);
Under Section 6:
4. the right against “torture”
5. the right against “neglect and “to provide adequate care”;
6. the right to “sustenance or shelter”;
7. the right against “maltreatment”
8. the right of dogs and horse not to be subjected to dogfights or horsefights;
9. the right not to be killed or caused or procured to be tortured or deprived of adequate care, sustenance or shelter;
10. the right not to be maltreated or used the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal Welfare.
Now what, Mr. Rannel Mina?
Lakay Einnor reacted to my statement that animals don’t have rights. He said:
“Froilan, to compare human rights to animal rights is childish. that’s you. i won’t explain further as i don’t degrade myself into your dim-witted way of thinking. it is NOT only the property owner or animal rights and welfare group can sue anyone in violation of RA8485. if you have an animal and i or anyone else can prove that you’re torturing or neglecting it, i or anyone else can file legal suit against you and you might end up in jail. that’s is to say animals have rights not to be tortured or neglected. it is not the right of humans but the right of animals as defined by law. THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID: “The provisions of the Constitution is very clear, there is no such thing as animal right. Animals are not entitled to certain welfare entitlements if property owners cannot afford them. To give such rights or entitlements to animals is to disregard and sacrifice the rights of human beings who, by virtue of their nature, are rightfully entitled to rights.” I CAN CATEGORICALLY SAY YOU ARE DUMB! animal rights are not in any way contradict human rights. Under RA8485 sec.6 you can kill an animal to keep human safe DIDN’T YOU GET IT? You better stop humiliating yourself. Anyway, this is my last post. Animals are entitled according to those laws therefore it is their rights! you need to mature to undertand that. bye!”
Lol. Ignoramus of the first order.
“to compare human rights to animal rights is childish.”
What is the right then of an animal, stupid? Right not to be tortured or neglected? I say, this is utterly stupid and only lunatic leftist PETA members would approve of this. So you approve of jailing people for “allegedly torturing” animals?
Do you know how they kill pigs, chickens and other animals? Some people might perceive that killing these animals involves the use of torture. This is what they believe.
Like I said, idiot, animal rights contradict human rights because only humans can and should have rights. In reality and in legal terms, “rights” involve reciprocal responsibility. In the world of humans, you cannot violate the rights of others because that’s against the law. Your right ends when other’s begins.
When you afford such rights to animals, the principle of reciprocal responsibility is no longer possible because animals are not rational beings. They cannot respect your rights. Some animals can injure you or even kill you. That’s the illogic of animal rights, idiot.
You said: “you can kill an animal to keep human safe DIDN’T YOU GET IT?”
— What’s that? Did you understand what you just typed?
What other “rights” should be given to animals apart from the right not to be neglected and tortured, idiot?
So since I said that animals don’t have rights, because that’s the reality, what protects animals? US! It’s humans that protect animals, NOT laws that seek to jail people who allegedly tortured or neglected some animals. Go educate yourself first because you’re an ignoramus of the first order.
Another critic named Chino Fernandez made the following comment: “Do we have the right to impose obligations on people when we have the authority to do so? Like the right to obstruct people when we have some proof that their actions will be harmful to others?”
My reply: “Imposing obligation on others implies that you have some legal claim. For instance, you cannot oblige your friend to pay you if you don’t have any money claim or whatever. The “the right to obstruct people”? When you neighbor dumped a bag of trash within your home’s premises, then you have a right of action to file a complaint against your neighbor. The right of your neighbor to be irresponsible ends when your right to demand some proper action begins.”
To refute Rannel Mina‘s claim that my statement above was “riddled with fallacies”, I posted the following comment:
“In your dreams, Rannel Mina. Do you have some mental problem? You’re going back to your old mental problem again. He who alleges must prove. A stupid statement like “I usually point out fallacies first, just so happened that paul came in first” is ridiculous and utterly hilarious if it’s not backed by facts.”
Rannel Mina: many readers do not forget froilan, you can have temporary amnesia, but those old posts are still here in AP. unless, you deleted it. 🙂 tinatamad nalang talaga ako, but i really can’t help but to point out fallacies. this time, tinamad na talaga ako magexplain. so, i wasn’t able to prove it this time, fine by me. i don’t have to prove anyway how fallacious your posts can be, many readers see it. i am for animal welfare, to be clear, not necessarily animal rights, not necessarily PETA style animal rights. and no, i do not have a mental problem. but MANY OF US KNOW YOU DO. 🙂
“I’ve addressed all your fantastic claims in the past, and I clearly understand why you made such a claim because what you were attacking was a gigantic strawman. When you set up a strawman, naturally you can easily debunk or defeat it. That’s what you did, and that’s your style. I don’t think you did it intentionally. I just think you’re an ignoramus. Better learn more about this fallacy here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o&playnext=1&list=PL3A29182C711C935A.
”so, i wasn’t able to prove it this time, fine by me. i don’t have to prove anyway how fallacious your posts can be, many readers see it.”
— Of course you can’t, because again you set up another gigantic strawman… due to your ignorance.
“i am for animal welfare, to be clear, not necessarily animal rights, not necessarily PETA style animal rights.”
— Really? See? You can’t even understand the connection between “welfare” and the alleged “rights” being promoted by some animal rights group.
There can be no “animal welfare” without advancing what they call “animal rights.” Why is this the case? if it’s welfare that they seek or what, then it should be voluntary on the part of pet or animal owners or businesses mentioned under the Animal Welfare Act.
You see? It has to be “animal rights” because the concept of right here requires legal force. A welfare without legal force is unenforceable and not mandatory.
Do you understand the term “welfare state”? You may start there. It is called welfare state because the government assumes the role of a provider of alleged “rights” and entitlement to people, animals, etc.
In the context of the animal rights group, what they seek is a “right” of animals to welfare. That’s why I said there can be no “welfare” without justifying it with the concept of legal right. This is to give animals a legal status. You understand now?
There’s another term for this legal Aberration. It’s WELFARE RIGHTS.
Rannel Mina: there are distinct differences between animal rights (peta style) and animal welfare. ang dali dali lang isearch yan parekoy. the right to humane treatment, yes that is the key phrase for animal welfare. now, funny how you debunk all these that are followed by new zealand, canada, australia, philippines, and many more countries. you sure do know a lot. 🙂
”ei your hitler post, a gigantic guilt by association and an implicit appeal to emotion, go read up on that. :P”
— A good way to divert the topic which you started. I was hoping for you to back your claims with facts.
— That’s what you said because you refuse to understand the premise behind that blog. Like I said before, the animal rights groups seek to undermine individual rights with what they call “animal rights”. That’s last is an illogic. They show more compassion for animals than for humans. That’s the connection between Hitler’s animal welfare and the modern-day animal welfare advocates.
It’s not simply about caring for animals. Caring for animals should be voluntary without the force of law. That’s what you missed. That’s what you refuse to understand.
“that goat argument of yours? that for those in ilocos you kill it with vinegar? then the follow up argument of it may not be humane to others? classic relativist.”
— Lol! Where’s the argument?
By the way, Rannel Mina, I’m not a second-hander. I’m not happy to deal with ignoramuses. Well, that’s what most uneducated people say when they run out of arguments. Then why argue and make illogical arguments in the first place if you don’t want to be refuted. You just want me to shut up. Well, good luck with that.
Do not argue online or anywhere if you don’t want to be refuted. That’s the rule. And don’t be a cry-baby when you found an opponent who’s got the balls to point out your ignorance and fallacies. That’s the rule.
Rannel Mina said: “there are distinct differences between animal rights (peta style) and animal welfare. ang dali dali lang isearch yan parekoy.”
Will you please elaborate on this. I’d like to be informed bette
huh? I’m a second hander now? please….. 🙂
ok ok, how about implicit personal attacks on people in your blog? remember that pangilinan guy? how about now jose sastres? 🙂 how about benigno and the rest of the get real guys? come on dude, you are educated well. 🙂
come on dude, look at the mirror, your dirty tactics is smothered all over the place. I even saw a recent post where you said you comment professionally. yes!
and hey, i don’t want you to shut up. NEVER in my dreams. I dream of you comrade and even in my dreams I’d like you to speak your heart out. so , is this a strawman? lol
Rannel Mina said: “ok ok, how about implicit personal attacks on people in your blog? remember that pangilinan guy? how about now jose sastres? 🙂 how about benigno and the rest of the get real guys? come on dude, you are educated well. :)”
— Personal attack? That’s interesting. A good way to divert the topic. Why deal with triviliaties, Rannel? About Benign0 the troll? Well, they attacked me first. Do you know how good he is at trolling my blog? My fault? I critiqued the blog of Ilda.Well, again please support your allegations with evidence.
I’m only asking you to prove your case and back your claims. Why mention unrelated issues. That’s not my style. I’m OK with people who attack me. I don’t have any problem with that. That’s their right. Just visit my blog to see that I receive daily attacks. That’s fine by me.
Ok. I understand that… I have answered all your claims very objectively.
I’m interested in this… since you’re resorting to some diversionary tactic.
Rannel Mina said: “there are distinct differences between animal rights (peta style) and animal welfare. ang dali dali lang isearch yan parekoy.”
Will you please elaborate on this. I’d like to be informed better.
”Will you please elaborate on this. I’d like to be informed better.”
ei froi, so you think you are correct and the other first world countries and even harvard university are wrong? rights in its true sense of the word maybe for humans who can get into social contracts, capable of making decisions and moral judgement yada yada, but dude, animal rights is a different perspective. animal welfare too.
and as a man of law and a good online blogger, then maybe you could just type in google: animal rights vs animal welfare.
there is a difference in what they are fighting for.
the animal WELFARE act? is not explicitly animal RIGHTS act. you wanted it repealed because animals do not have rights whatsoever.
ow, do you know that before they electrocute cows? they scare pigs? studies showed that toxins are secreted just before they die. it kind of spoils the tenderness and taste of the meat. now, the animal welfare act just might be a good thing don’t you think? I want my eat, A-ok. 🙂
Rannel Mina said: “ei froi, so you think you are correct and the other first world countries and even harvard university are wrong?”— What made you say this? I didn’t say that. You said that. Please argue. No speaking of bromides, please.
“rights in its true sense of the word maybe for humans who can get into social contracts, capable of making decisions and moral judgement yada yada, but dude, animal rights is a different perspective. animal welfare too.”
– Lol! When you’re trying to be rhetorical, please be correct and clear. Again, stop speaking of bromides.
“and as a man of law and a good online blogger, then maybe you could just type in google: animal rights vs animal welfare.”
— Why not do it and try to argue properly?“there is a difference in what they are fighting for.”
— I know that. You’re OK with jailing people. You’re OK with some ridiculous mala prohobita.
“the animal WELFARE act? is not explicitly animal RIGHTS act. you wanted it repealed because animals do not have rights whatsoever.”
— Like I said, there can be no “animal welfare” without advancing what they call “animal rights.”
If that’s what you’re trying to say, kindly give a few examples of welfare and rights…
Rannel Mina: “dude this is what you are doing, you are trying to discredit me because of what i said backing up paul farol, and that i don’t want to explain what i pointed out. dude, i have been debating for years. marami ka pang kakaining bigas. :)”
My reply: “Like I said, if it’s animal welfare that they want, then it should be voluntary on the part of pet or animal owners. There should be no law involved. The concept of “rights” here make pro-animal policies enforceable and mandatory. Without such concept, the government cannot use its machinery to punish the guilty and pursue its welfare goals.” ”dude, i have been debating for years. marami ka pang kakaining bigas. :)”– LOL TO THAT… You don’t even know the relation between the “alleged rights” and welfare. You’re so politically and legally NAIVE…”
don’t tell me to argue properly, I’ve been doing that eversince. 🙂
ngayon talaga na tinamad nako, kasi wala naman din kaming kailangan i-prove. it’s a waste of time too.
ei, i already gave you the fallacies i pointed out. i am not divertinganything.
and, come on, you can search animal rights and animal welfare.
just check the differences. there are distinct differences. animal rights means no killing, no use of pets whatever. animal welfare, is the humane treatment of animals. you can kill for food, pet them etc.
nakakatamad na froi pare, give it a rest. wanna win? ok you win. 🙂
total waste of time. 🙂
now if you still think it is wrong, then all the other countries who have such animal welfare laws, and universities teaching about animal welfare/rights are wrong. you are right. ONCE again. ;P
ciao! until we discuss again.
Here’s your style…
1. You make hilarious, illogical arguments attacking a strawman.
2. I try to refute them one-by-one.
3. You make hilarious counter-arguments.
4. Then you claim that you have debunked my premise/argument.
5. I ask you to prove your negative claim.
6. You either back them or make unrelated arguments or statements.
7. I prove that you’re making some hilarious claim. I prove that you’re simply attacking a strawman.
8. You start making unrelated comments and try to appeal to emotion.
Why can’t you argue properly? Why can’t you argue without attacking a strawman? Well, because you’re so naive about so many issues yet you think you know better.
This is my style. I don’t talk of any issue which I’m not familiar with like the Spratly issue. This is an admission that I know very little or almost nothing of an issue. This is a sign of humility on my part. I don’t talk much about science or physics. I only focus on issues which I’m familiar with. That’s me and my style.
1. Don’t make debatable, hilarious arguments which NECESSARILY encourage your opponents to make some refutation or counter-arguments.
2. Don’t resort to strawman arguments, which necessarily trigger, encourage your opponent to make rebuttals.
3. And then don’t make some excuse (like tinatamad ako or not in good mood) when IT’S YOU WHO INITIATED THE DEBATE/ARGUMENT. That’s idiotic!
Here’s a novel ‘anti-concept’ that’s being popularized by some Get Hilo people. It’s now wrong to refute the illogical, intellectually-bankrupt arguments made by some politically naive people. When you do, these very people and their trolls and cohorts call you “kulang sa pansin”, “trying to feed his ego”, etc.
It means they believe they have a right to make some highly idiotic criticisms and even utterly debatable statements and anti-concepts, while their TARGET- yes, their target- has no right to refute their fallacious arguments and unsupported claims.
They just want me to shut up. Well, good luck with that. Good luck with your “responsible free speech”, comrades!