Nothing that he said indicates more intrinsic value on animals than humans, I have never seen a more ignorant and hysterical group of ravings than the posts on this wall and others like it.
If people looked at the writing of peter singer and actually thought about what he is saying, you cant argue with the logic. A baby of a few months old is not self-awair like a chimp is for example and in this respect a chimp should have the same protection as the child would under the law. This is all hes saying.
If I see something I say something. Cass Sunstein is behaving in a suspicious manner. He needs to be investigated. Is he devoted to protecting the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Is he attemptng to commit high treason? Is high treason a form of terrorism?
what's this clip from? is the full video somwhere? is this guy as crazy as the clip makes him out to be? its hard to tell if hes reading these quotes because he agrees or because he's going to make a point afterwards....
When all is said and done and our generation is dead along with those animals that lived along with us, in no way can we say which life meant more. In fact, the human lives caused more destruction in many way than animals if we were to be concerned about the environment. Come off of it. Your sorry life and my sorry life means nothing. When were both dead, it won't matter any more than any animal that passes on. Life is equal.
rather than interpret this as an attack on babies, how about we try to see it for what it is: an argument that the way we treat animals is morally indefensible. Not all who point out human hypocrisy are evil or nutty. And not all who resort to analogy are making a claim about the equivalence in the moral worth of those two beings compared.
come on people! Listen to his argument. Sunstein is saying that an adult animal is more sentient and more aware than a human infant. And of course this is true. But at no point does he argue that the animal is "above" (whatever that means), or deserving of the same rights, as a human of any stripe, including an infant. If you think he's crazy, you have to attack his argument, rather than beat up on a position he has not advocated here.
Cass you should get out in the sun more, you look a little pale, well as a matter of fact, you look like shit. But then again you always have probably. That's probably why you became such a nasty little shit.
More bad than this, this crazy guy is working on taking away your freedom of speech and creating a real dictatorship while you'r endlessly watching Paris fucking Hilton BFF.
I would in some circumstances. Maybe that baby is retarded or on its way to being a menace to society. Maybe that baby will simply turn our to be a fat, lazy, worthless, Jerry Springer watching drain on everybody. You better believe I hold my dogs on the same level as certain human beings and higher in some regards.
Although I prefer not to use this word, if the baby is retarded as you say, that's not his fault. It's a disability.
I used to watch Jerry Springer before I started going to church when I was young. Also there are people who did jail time who learned from their past. Human beings have the potential to change.
No human being is ever worthless. That phrase is only used by those who feel that this certain type of person won't benifit them in any way while that person benefits others.
Obama has got to be the most wicked and foolhardy man ever to hold presidency in the United States to bring in such detestably wicked and foolhardy men to high positions in our nation. May they all be indicted for their many, many immoral and illegal actions and connections!
This is the far left freakshow put on display. You should do a little research on the "Frankfurt School", "Critical Theory" and names like "Marcuse", "Adorno", "Habermas" and Erich Fromm. They believed that criticizing and destroying every institution in a free society was a way to destroy freedom and liberty --- which they feared and loathed. Here Sunstein is attacking the superiority of humanity by knocking it down to the "animal level"; - why, we're all just common creatures on this planet.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What on earth was the point of this video. A full grown horse or dog IS more rational than a new born infant. Are you just SHOCKED to the core, midnightrider?
This is not the least of this mans insanity. Marriage discriminates against single people, bringing the singles "serious" disadvantages.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference
Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as "an official license scheme." insane
timgg66 - I'd like to offer this... Man (all humans) were created in the image of God. They (we) were given the opportunity to do good and flee from evil, but we failed to do so. Yes, it was Adam and Eve at the beginning, but I know my own self and my own proclivity for sin (I am a liar, a theif, an adulter, etc). I am also a Christian and I know that there is NO ONE good but God. Animals are great, but we must see the eternal soul of a person, to know that good God has intended.
I have always said that and always will. We're the only ones to kill for the sake of killing or out of greed. We wage needless horrifying wars against each other and commit acts of barbarism that NO other species "beasts" would do in a billion years. We steal, lie, kill, hit, hate, abuse, discriminate and enslave others because of the color of their skin... sell poison to others so we can profit...well, the list never ends, then we call animals "beasts" !
We humans always talk of ourselves as the most "intelligent" and civilized out of all beings. We're too high on that sh*t that we can't see the truth and the fact that we are the least intelligent , and the most cruel and savage creatures to ever roam the planet.
How on earth has someone like this been appointed to a high position in our government. What has happened to our America?? Please people, we must get a handle on things and bring back our country.
I can never understand why men and women of 'seemingly' learned position, who have gained access to high office, are little more than non-thinking, rhetoric spewing, self hating, humanity hating, Godless drones. How do these people rise to power with such illnesses of spirit and character, unbeknownst to their constituents? Shame on the moral majority for sleeping at the wheel.
Pretty harsh words about someone you don't know. What makes you think he's "non-thinking," "self-hating," or "humanity hating"? Nor do I see what being "Godless" has to do w/ anything - there are plenty of moral atheists.
As I've pointed out already, Sunstein is quoting Jeremy Bentham; this video is edited to take the quote out of context. Bentham argues that animals deserve ethical treatment based on their ability to suffer, not on intelligence. There's nothing about animals being "superior."
Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives Cass Sunstein.
The guy is a psycho, and places animals as equals in his mind. They are not. Humans are above all the creatures on the earth, otherwise animals would have a representative with fangs and claws running for president....
I don't understand this desire to constantly frame human beings as "above" every other animal on the Earth. Is our self-worth as a species so dependent on feeling superior to other life?
Regarding Sunstein, his opinion relates to animal cruelty laws and their relative ineffectiveness. What's so crazy about that? Tell me, while you're at it, where he says that animals and humans (also animals, btw) are "equals." Try giving nuance a try, rather than just seeing the world in black and white.
It isn't a 'desire', it just is. Do you let a rabbit do your taxes or a moose suture your wound? There is a place for all of God's creature, right next to the potatos and gravy.
No one is arguing that humans don't have higher levels of cognition than non-human animals, though it's illogical to therefore assume that animals are merely raw materials for humanity's happiness.
I do understand that humans use animals for food and materials. I do not understand this disdain that some feel toward non-human animals - this "fuck you, you're dinner" attitude from your last comment.
Btw, you still haven't made clear where Sunstein argues that animals and humans are equal.
Most humans just think humans are more important than other species simply because they are humans themselves. Humans are the reason why this planet is going to shit and humans cause far more atroticies to each other and to the planet than animals. I think humans are typical arrogant and selfish creatures.
I disagree. Humans are the most destructive species on the planet. When animals cause as many atrocities as humans have, than come tell me humans are more important.
Maybe to other humans, but humans are the reason why the earth is going to hell and most can't deny this. I feel animals are far better creatures. Yes, they are good humans.
timgg66..Must be terrible to have such self loathing that you would think an animal was better than you. I love animals but I will never mistake their importance over human.The animals I have had, have led much better lives thanks to me. Animals are fine creatures but they are merely creatures, not people and to give them the credit as having the intelligence or importance of humans is ridiculous. Watch nature films they have little mercy for other animals,going after the young and old like Dems
Animals are far better creatures than humans. Humans are destroying the earth. Get a clue about reality. You only think animals are less than you because you are a typical arrogant and selfish human that thinks anything else that is different than you is inferior. Yes, animals kill other animals to survive you idiot. Very different than why humans kill each other. Humans rape each other, murder each other, rob each other, etc for their own selfish purpose and reason. Wake up and face reality.
timgg66..Have you ever owned an animal? Cats will hunt feild mice all day surpassing their ability to eat all of their prey. It is the hunt ,I have witnessed this behavior for years. Dogs will fight upon meeting simply because they are both males. One will kill the other if not intervened,.Have you never heard of such things? Animals can be sweet pets well loved and protected by humans pets who would not survive without human care. Animals can suddenly kill when have been passive. also.
Yes, I owned dogs all my life. I have never seen my dog rape anyone before or shoot anyone for some stupid reason with a gun or steal money from them. I can list many reasons why animals are better creatures than humans. Yes, humans can save your life. Dogs have also saved people's lives as well. They wake their owners up when a fire is happening in the house. They also protect their owners from intruders.
Of course animals can be loyal and loving companions.And have done brave things because of it, why we love them after all. But if I had to sacrifice a hundred dogs even my own beloved to save a human I would in a heartbeat. Animals should be loved but not confused with more importance than humanity. for that is insanity. Not to mean that you shouldn't love them take care of them and treat them well. That is a given,.
You are nuts. I would not sacrifice my dog for any human. There are 6 billions of us and there is no denying what we do to each other and the planet. I love my dog as much as my parents.
timgg66..Oh my God..Sorry your life has been so sad that you would equate your pet with your parents. I'm sure your pet would have birthed you raised you feed you clothed you loved you unconditionally if it could have.. But then it is an animal why expect so much from an animal. You do know it only has a 15 year lifespan at best don't you? I have grieved many pets in my lifetime. But I will tell you I grieved my mother and Father's death much more ..and still do.There is no comparison.
You obviously didn't love your dog that much. I can tell you're not that big of an animal lover. I would save my dog over a child. My dog has been with me for years and I've grown to love him very much. I will never put a stranger's life before my dog just because that stranger is a human like me. I'm not a typical arrogant and selfish human that thinks just because I'm human, all other humans and their lives are more important than species different than them.
timgg66.. I have loved all my animals. Spent thousands on my animals. Have spent thousands on my present dog surgery medicines and such. Spent over thousand dollars just last year to keep her alive during a really bad liver attack of cushings. I am not rich and it is a sacrifice. I know people who would put them down for less. But I would not sacrifice a human for her or my little goats which I love too. They are like dogs very affectionate and sweet. But reasonable priorities must prevail.
It's not insanity. Humans are destroying the planet. Do you want me to list reasons? You must live in your little bubble ignoring all of the atrocities and problems us humans cause to the planet, to animals, and to each other.
Another way to frame this supposed hierarchy of animals and humans is by recalling that humans are animals themselves. Or, at least the distinction between the two isn't so clear as one might imagine. The people who imagine that this means animals and human (animals) are "the same," and that this means that dogs will get to vote or some such nonsense, suffer from a crippling inability construct nuanced arguments.
I suppose it depends on which of his beliefs we'd be discussing. As I've pointed out to others on here, he's quoting Jeremy Bentham in this video, which has additionally been cut before the context can be understood. It's quite dishonest.
Personally, I'll refrain from assigning particular values to humans or animals - humans have exceptional cognitive abilities that enable us to be simultaneously creative and destructive, but I see no reason for *needless* suffering in either animals or humans.
timgg66..Humans are not destroying the earth you are much to gullible .And yes I am aware that animals are inferior to humans.Humans also kill humans like animals for no reason. We also kill to survive such as War. Animals do rape I have had a dog eat it's way through a door to attempt to sexually attack a female dog. Animals will attack or kill another animal to take it's food you really don't know these things? You do not live in reality. Listening to PETA terroist and their ilk I presume.
Wanna you try doing some research and realize what is going on in the world you clueless idiot. I'm against peta. You need to stop assuming that everyone who cares about animals is a supporter of peta. Do animals cause wars? Do animals rob banks? Do animals rape and kidnap little children and kill them? Do animals build nuclear weapons and use them against other countries? Do animals commit genocide? You are a clueless idiot. Look at the world and what is going on.
timgg66..Animals are not intelligent enough nor have the resources for war or rob banks or capable of any human flaws that you mention. Nor do we grow a fur coat or wag our tail lick our behinds or have any dog characteristic. It is inane to compare a animal and a human's actions. apples and oranges indeed. Even so I would prefer to be a human over an animal. We have problems that require war so we have wars. Sunstein is insane with his ideology of animals just the same.
timgg66 Yes people do more horrific things then animals basically just because we can. We do more things than plants & fish & insects (Although they do have their own wars). But they cannot be compared or equated to humans. That's just silly.
They are better than humans. You are a typical human. You feel that anyone that is different than your species is inferior and less important. When animals do all the of the horrific things humans do to each other and the planet, than i will admit humans are better,. Just because a human can ride a bike or solve a math problem, does not mean they are superior or more important than an animal that can't. I judge species on the things they do. I don't see animals kidnapping and molesting lil kids.
timgg66...I'm sorry we will never agree. You want to equate animals as better because they do not have human traits . They do not have human traits because they are not human they are animals. And being so they will never be equal to humans.. There are many human traits that are good that animals also don't have. Yes I don't see much use for the world if it were nothing more that a barnyard. So people are more important than animals to me. Yet I love animals it is a fact.we will have to disagree
Regarding the giraffes, cats, mice, etc. (though I notice you left out dogs, which is a conspicuous omission) and their unwillingness to help someone needing bypass surgery, you might want to add Republicans to that list.
OK I'll add any animal to that list, yeah even dogs, cats, mice whatever since none which I do love can perform any kind of surgery.
Regarding the repubs?....................lol, I'll say the same for most politicans, big business owners with very deep pockets who could give a rats azz for anyone else but their own fat profits.
I'm supposed to care for humans more than animals just because they can perform surgery? Animals give much more unconditional love than most humans and there is no denying this.
Actually, there are quite a few people out there who feel animals are much better creatures than most humans and they give you unconditional love. Humans lie, cheat, steal, etc.
Typical liberal idiot. I would kill your dog to protect another human..even a libtard like you. You're probably one of those animal lovers who go around telling everyone you little dog is your "child?"
This guy is one sick puppy. It's scary to think someone who thinks animals hold a greater priority than human infants is in a position of power. Sick!
This video is edited to mislead people. Sunstein is quoting Jeremy Bentham, the Utilitarian philosopher who argued that animals deserve ethical treatment because, like humans, they have the capacity to suffer.
You can either agree with that or not, but the words in this video aren't Sunstein's. He's quoting Bentham, and the video is taking his quote partially and out of context.
You should read the "love" notes timgg66 sent me. He wished everyone in my family would get cancer and die and even threatened to "put one in my brain very quickly." He removed the comments but I reported his threats to YouTube. He is a sick bastard.
You reported his threats to you tube? Honey you tube is cointelpro. Wouldn't be surprised if timgg66 is one of their young disinfo agents. WAKE UP OK.
Guess what? Not having insurance means you're on a waiting list that never ends. How do you think that feels? Just try getting decent cancer care - or any cancer care - if you don't have any money.
So your argument is that people elsewhere supposedly die from long wait times, but here we die because we can't pay. Well then, aren't we fucking noble? Bottom line, you don't know anything about how other systems work.
Alright, I'm bored of arguing against this nonsense. Say hi to God for me.
heteroglossiamerica..The waiting list is long enough that funds don't matter. Well if you have a job you likely have some form of insurance if you don't have a job our govt. pays your way. So most not insured choose not to get insurance. My numbers was from a democrat liberal website MSNBC you don't get more left freindly than that. I am also tired of foul mouthed refusal to see reason. I will say hi to God if I am lucky enough to make the cut. Enjoy Canada.
I know people in Canada, England, Germany, and Sweden, and none of them complain about long wait times, including one elderly man who needed surgery for his heart. Even if this so-called "rationed care" was going to be a problem, it's pure selfishness to believe that we should keep millions uninsured so that it doesn't affect the wait times of the more fortunate.
So, which of the Gospels has Jesus saying "me first"? FYI, finding a soul might increase your odds of getting in the pearly gates.
heteroglossiamerica..Not saying that....am saying this is not a fix. It is going to make things worse. We need reform not govt. run insurance. Which will suck like every govt. run program in existence today. goodbye now.
Don't sign up? It will begin as such a great deal all will sign up. their will be no public insurance option only the govt. option for they will put out of business all other insurance options like in Canada and Europe. People die not from not being able to pay for a transplant but by waiting list that are years long. just try to get decent cancer care in a govt. run insurance. LOL They weigh how many years you may have left before they weigh your odds of treatment and if you are worth it.
heteroglossiamerica says, As opposed to the Republicans who do everything they can to kill reform and defend profits for the insurance industry? Give me a break.
Do you believe insurance companys should exist to serve you and make no profit? Obama care will reduce your care to increase their profit. All govt insurance plans do once they put all other companies out of business. That is how it has worked everywhere else. The Canadians pay 48% of income on Govt. H.C. great huh
I have the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for the insurance companies. You really have sympathy for these people who insure only the healthiest customers, drop people when they're sick, and look for any reason to refuse paying a claim? All while making money hand over fist?
Declaring that Obama will "reduce your care" presumes everyone has care to begin with. Millions of people have nothing. How can you not care about those people? This rationed care argument is bull.
heteroglossiamerica..It is the only way Obama care can work is to reduce care. Insurance companies for the most part count on odds to make a profit. They are betting on most of their clients never being seriously ill before they die and so produce little pay out. Govt healthcare will be cheap and attractive to everyone putting private ins. out of business. Means govt. will get all the sick people possible on their dime. Only way to profit is reduce care. think about it.
By your logic, "normal," expedient care results only when millions of people are not part of the the health care system, when health care providers only insure the healthiest, and when they refuse care to the sick. How can people sleep at night knowing that their argument against "rationed care" relies on at least 30 million people having no coverage at all?
Sorry but it's true their is no penthiouse without the floors below it. Healthcare reform should consist of making sure insurance companys cannot refuse people witjh existing conditions or dropping insurance on anyone who is sick. Actually Hospitals cannot turn away someone sick who cannot pay or they break the law. The govt. insurance is not reform It is Socialist healthcare that is the worst care ever. Why people with govt. care come here when they are really sick.Obama has not offered reform.
Well, as long as someone gets the penthouse, right?
Hospitals can't turn away people needing emergency care, but they don't treat people with cancer, or people needing transplants, for free. Many people from around the world would disagree with your "worst care ever" speculation, and it certainly wouldn't be the worst for someone who has nothing now.
If you don't want the public option, then just don't sign up. It's your choice. Simple.
No by changung those things ..Such as laws against it. Would be real reform But govt. insurance is not reform that is true rationed healthcare like Canadians paying 48% of their income to the govt for healthcare. Yet waiting 6 to 8 months for an appointment to see a doctor. Forget ever seing a doctor again for cold or flu. You will be well or dead before you see a doctor. How are they better off ?
Look, I have friends who have moved from the U.S. to Canada, and our conversations basically consist of them trying to get me to move there. The highest tax bracket in Canada is 46%, and that's if you make over 125K per year. Make 50K per year? You pay 31%. Here, it's 25% for the same income, and what do we get in return? The military. Cool.
Your 6 to 8 month figure is completely false. Just do some research on this, and I do advise staying away from the blogs and conspiracy nuts.
Canadians do pay higher taxes than Americans — the average family pays about 48 percent of its annual income in taxes — partly to fund the health care system. "It is in fact a very poor health care system that regularly fails Canadians," Canada has the developed world's second most expensive universal health care system after Iceland, yet lags behind other industrialized countries in access to medical technologies and physician-to-population MSNBC
You're just wrong. I double-checked the income tax rates for Canada before I posted, so I know exactly what Canadians pay. They pay more taxes, but it's not half, and the end result is a safety net, community centers and gyms, and health care for your population.
Anyway, no one is saying Canada is perfect, and we're not even getting a Canadian system, but our system is completely intolerable.
You're still wrong. I just checked the Canada Revenue Agency site, and the federal tax for a person making 50K per year averages to about 16%. Then you add the provincial tax, which for British Columbia winds up adding about another 6%, bringing our grand total to a totalitarian 22%. How oppressive.
Canada has a progressive tax where you pay quite a bit more if you have a 6 figure income. The highest bracket might top out at 40 something percent, but it's not the case for the middle class.
If private ins. is only profitable when denying claims, refusing to insure anyone who's been sick or become elderly, and by keeping millions uninsured, then they're ineffective. They're just going to have to learn to compete.
Here's the other thing: 18,000 people die each year because they lack ins. I'm sick to death of all this goddamned selfishness, and it's ridiculous that an atheist should be lecturing so-called Christians about the moral imperative to care for their fellow human beings.
heteroglossiamerica..hmmm Reagan said: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. Its very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly cant afford it. Meaning it sounds good but of course it is horrific.
Do I sound like someone who cares about Reagan? Oh, that damned socialism and its fire and police departments and public schools, and that damned labor movement that gave us child labor laws, weekends, overtime, occupational safety standards.
So, I'll bite. What do you think this so-called "medical program" is a disguise for? What is it really, if not a medical program?
"Horrific," to restate the statistic, is allowing 18K of our fellow citizens die because they have no access to care. Period.
A way for the Govt to make money of course always it's goal.. silly to mistake the govt having any other motive. Great Govt care must be how 15,000 people die in a week from a heat wave huh. Old people of course who cared ,not Europe.
A non-profit public option wouldn't make money. That's what non-profit means. And elderly people die in Europe for lack of air conditioning, not health care.
Ironic, also, that you point to the elderly who, besides the military, are the only eligible recipients of government health care in this country. The same people, I might add, that private insurance companies don't cover because their risk is too high. If we take better care of our elderly, it's still through Medicare.
heteroglossiamerica ..So-called non-profit has make profit or cut care to stay even. The forms of govt. insurance now will not exist if it becomes one covering everyone. There will be no competition to measure up to and still be considered proper coverage. Medicare will not exist Medicare cuts on a scale not seen in years to underwrite health care for all..lack of air-conditioning caused 15,000 deaths in a week...Europe is a desert no available water? No available fans? sure
I have no idea what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
Regarding Europe and air conditioning, I would invite you to go to Italy and the summer and try to find a glass of water with ice in it. It's common knowledge that Europeans don't have air conditioning like we do in the U.S., and many people - mostly elderly folks - simply have heat strokes in their apartments and die.
hetyeroglossiamerica .Fine I will believe you that Europe is the arm pit of the world with no modern conveniences not even a ice cube. But terrific healthcare huh. And 15,000 elderly people died from a heat wave while their families were off on vacation. Okay goodbye now.
As opposed to the Republicans who do everything they can to kill reform and defend profits for the insurance industry? Give me a break.
I've already said this, but Sunstein never says anything about putting animals "above" humans. In fact, he's quoting Bentham here, so these aren't even his words, and Bentham's entire point is that relative intelligence isn't as reliable indicator of ethical responsibility as is the capacity to suffer. Your prophet Glenn Beck should take a philosophy course.
Also..Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants.
In the Harvard
paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court.
"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they are not property," he wrote.
I've heard him talk about that. He makes the point that animal cruelty is rarely enforced and, unlike humans, animals are unable to testify for themselves in civil suits. He has suggested that it could be beneficial for animals to have human representatives in court - e.g. witnesses.
But even if you don't agree with this, who cares? How does it affect anyone? I have a hard time believing that so many people commenting here actually harbor these "fuck you" attitudes toward animals.
heteroglossiamerica..It affects all of us. People can use animals to attack people. I love animals I have always had pets I have spent thousands on their healthcare operations and such. And I would never hurt an animal ever. But they are not above humans I would let a hundred animals die to save one human without blinking. Even my own beloved animals. But this man is insane ..Totally irrevocably insane. like a PETA terrorist on steroids.
I'm mostly anthropocentric myself, but I still don't see his argument as one that argues that animals be placed "above" humans. He argues that they are legally entitled to some rights, as in the case of animal cruelty laws that I think few of us disagree with, and the impetus his argument, I think, comes from the general inefficiency of these laws. I don't think the epithet "insane" is sufficient to discount his argument. Anyway, there's no reason to believe he's going to push this agenda.
I think believing that someone given the power too push their beliefs, will chose not to do so, is naive at best. also.. It is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations, argued President Obama's newly confirmed Cass Sunstein. He believes climate Change is US fault and so we should share our wealth with other countries.
"Climate Change Justice," "distributive justice"desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise. His words
heteroglossiamerica Source..In a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper. A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice," maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.... also
heteroglossiamerica....Another scary source is The central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is," is that the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws. He's very big on this.
Listen, I'm not going to bear the burden of reading Sunstein's entire essay when you're obviously just regurgitating talking points that you've picked up on right-wing blogs. If you have a problem with Sunstein, read his article, give me a page number, and we'll talk about it.
And "distributive justice" doesn't mean anything simply because you associate "distribute" with, what, socialism? Don't you want to live in a world with distributed justice, which only means that everyone has access?
39 pages isn't exactly a Tome. Distribute to other countries under the guise of distributive justice because America is such a bad place that we have to share our wealth because we owe it to them... yeah that is socialism. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is extremly flawed. Because you don't know something doesn't mean it came from a so-called right wing blog which is anything speaking the truth to you, I presume. You have to ignore all fact to support these psycho Czars B.O. has appointed.
I did a quick search for Sunstein's article, and I saw several results that used the exact same language that you used in your post. Like I said, if you've read that essay, point me to specific moments with which you have issue, and then we'll talk. I'm not going to read it, though, if you're just going to summarize.
And no, 39 pages is not a tome (which isn't capitalized unless you're German), but I'm not taking the burden upon myself to read every essay just to disprove misinformation.
Okay..say not above but equal to. You are still looking at an insane agenda now food is equal to human. Pets equal to human, sorry I cannot see that . Animals are on the earth to provide food and some we have made pets. Many more animals would be extinct if we had no use for them. Overpopulation of many animals would create havoc. I live near farmland and deer and rabbits if not hunted would devastate crops in no time. Creating starvation for people.
Humans are hardly the good stewards of the Earth, given that about 27,000 species become extinct per year, largely due to human interventions on habitat. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence for your assertion that "animals are on Earth to provide food," though I suppose your source must be the Bible, which doesn't count.
I'm from a rural area as well, and I agree that hunting is necessary to maintain herds, but that wouldn't have been necessary if humans hadn't imposed their presences so strongly.
heteroglossiamerica. The Earth would have no purpose without humans. If you don't count the bible I suppose you are an atheist one who believes nothing created everything. A scientific impossibility.
Yes, I'm an atheist who doesn't believe that the sun rises and sets just for me and who doesn't see animals as intended only for my mindless consumption. By the way, where do flies, cockroaches, wasps, sea anemones, etc. fit into this model of "me human, you raw material for make me happy"?
Oh, and it's worth noting that Creationism is a scientific impossibility. You can't just use science when it suits you.
heteroglossiamerica...Sorry..Evolution is a scientific impossibility. Nothing cannot create everything. What are animals created for?..to run the world.?.As for insects and such I am not God I see little use for most things but I am sure they have one. I don't believe the sun rises and sets for me it did before I was born and will when I am gone. Creationism is the only logical way, the things of this earth required intelligent design .
So let me get this straight. You think that science has somehow disproved evolution - despite millions of fossils, carbon dating, genetic similarities, etc. - but you think science supports creationism? What scientific evidence do you have for a monotheistic god other than the Bible?
Anyway, there are theories about how the universe may have begun "from nothing." It's quantum physics that I won't even pretend to understand, but people are in fact having that debate. Creationism is just a joke.
Fossils prove the existance of creatures many years ago not evolution..carbon dating can tell how old something is not evolution.Genetic similarities are simply that genetic similarities not evolution. Science can't support evolution..They have supported scientific proof for events recorded in the bible. The Bible is our oldest history book . You can discount all history books doen't change it. nothing is created by nothing. You really believe you came from apes why are their still apes?
There's enough literature about evolution that's readily available for your perusal. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
I'll also refrain from holding my breath while you come up with some scientific proof for the existence of the omnipotent god of the Bible. Hell, even the Pope acknowledges evolution at this point.
LOL, a theory is a hypothesis with enough evidence to make it a plausible explanation, LOL. By that standard, the Bible is a fairy tale with no evidence to support it. Or does it? Tell me, what literature exists proving the transmigration of souls, virgin births, men living in whales, people coming back from the dead, men walking on (non-frozen) water, water turning to wine, burning bushes, Noah's ark, etc. LOL. All this, but the book doesn't include dinosaurs. Some history book.
heteroglossiamerica In the footnotes to a 2002 academic paper for Harvard University, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer," Sunstein expresses his approval of Bentham's arguments:
"I suggest that Bentham and Mill were not wrong to offer an analogy between current uses of animals and human slavery," he wrote.
Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants
Fine, but why is that considered an affront to human beings? He's not saying that humans have no value, but that animals which share the capacity to think and suffer deserve ethical treatment, especially if those are the criteria by which we assign value to human beings.
Hetero..It is a affront to humans to put animals at human level. We already love animals they are our pets or food as a rule people take good care of them. But to raise them to human level means to force....could mean death penalty for someone who kills and animal. I think animals have it pretty good already. No more suffering animals inthe world than suffering people and there will always be suffering . Utopia such a thing will never exist for someone will have to suffer to make a Utopia also.
I understand your concern, but I think we have a long way to go before anyone would dream of condemning a person to death over killing an animal (especially since many animal rights folks, i presume, also oppose the death penalty for humans in general). As for suffering, I agree we'll never eliminate it, but I do think we should strive toward reducing it, even (maybe especially) for those animals which we consume by the billion (no exaggeration) as our food supply.
These aren't his words - he's quoting Jeremy Bentham, who was questioning how worth can be denied to reasoning animals if we in fact privilege human beings based upon their capacity for reason. He makes the comparison not to show the inferiority of some humans, but to show the logical fallacy that is committed in order to exclude animals from having value.
Come on, people. Try thinking these things through before you start a witch hunt just because Glenn Beck said to do so.
When an animal can sit down and have an intelligent conversation with me, then we'll talk. This man is evil, hateful, and has no reason to be working in the government.
You're oversimplifying the argument. I assume you wouldn't eat your dog or cat, so you do draw distinctions between animals depending on some criteria, right? Bentham claims that we share the ability to suffer with animals, and therefore we should treat them ethically. This doesn't mean we can't eat them, but it does mean that we perhaps shouldn't raise them standing in their own shit or inject them full of hormones. How do you perceive care for living things as "hateful"? Perplexing.
Quote from Cass Sunstein:"A full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old."
Is this the Hope & Change you voted for?
Bush would have never nominated a completely insane person such as Sunstein.
Hmm. How about Karl Rove? He even spells his name with a "K" like Marx, so he must be a Marxist, right?
My other comment was supposed to be linked to yours. Your quote is not of Cass Sunstein, but of Jeremy Bentham, whom Sunstein is quoting. You may also want to read some of Bentham's work for context, if that sort of thing is important to you.
You have to be smarter than an animal to know that God gave us K-9'S [Carnivore teeth] for a reason.I'm fed up w/ these loons, their coming out of the wood work....like Cock-roaches!
I like how he uses the current status of a being to ignore any reference to their potential. I'm sure he's a staunch abortion supporter as well.
soCernunnos 2 months ago
THIS S O B SHOULD BE IN A PADDED ROOM.INSTEAD HE IS A TOP PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR.ARE WE FUCKED UP OR WHAT ?
CON10NDOR 2 months ago
Think Guy makes me wanna kill my dog and fuck a wall
JDPKRevolution 3 months ago
Nothing that he said indicates more intrinsic value on animals than humans, I have never seen a more ignorant and hysterical group of ravings than the posts on this wall and others like it.
sgtmcwallace 8 months ago
If people looked at the writing of peter singer and actually thought about what he is saying, you cant argue with the logic. A baby of a few months old is not self-awair like a chimp is for example and in this respect a chimp should have the same protection as the child would under the law. This is all hes saying.
mongedoutmofo 1 year ago 2
If I see something I say something. Cass Sunstein is behaving in a suspicious manner. He needs to be investigated. Is he devoted to protecting the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Is he attemptng to commit high treason? Is high treason a form of terrorism?
pkpapers 1 year ago
Try this one out Sunstein. Humans and animals have the same Rights!
Mike10four 1 year ago
what's this clip from? is the full video somwhere? is this guy as crazy as the clip makes him out to be? its hard to tell if hes reading these quotes because he agrees or because he's going to make a point afterwards....
bofumytofu 1 year ago
When all is said and done and our generation is dead along with those animals that lived along with us, in no way can we say which life meant more. In fact, the human lives caused more destruction in many way than animals if we were to be concerned about the environment. Come off of it. Your sorry life and my sorry life means nothing. When were both dead, it won't matter any more than any animal that passes on. Life is equal.
smokeybiut 1 year ago
These nut jobs aren't going anywhere! LMFAO!! Fuck these creeps.
AphoticAquatic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreedomFighter247 He's a bad Jew.
danbrdoober 1 year ago
@FreedomFighter247 He's a bad Jew.
danbrdoober 1 year ago
Protect the Jews in Isreal
fluffydanny 1 year ago
rather than interpret this as an attack on babies, how about we try to see it for what it is: an argument that the way we treat animals is morally indefensible. Not all who point out human hypocrisy are evil or nutty. And not all who resort to analogy are making a claim about the equivalence in the moral worth of those two beings compared.
commonsense987 2 years ago
come on people! Listen to his argument. Sunstein is saying that an adult animal is more sentient and more aware than a human infant. And of course this is true. But at no point does he argue that the animal is "above" (whatever that means), or deserving of the same rights, as a human of any stripe, including an infant. If you think he's crazy, you have to attack his argument, rather than beat up on a position he has not advocated here.
commonsense987 2 years ago
These bozos kill Palestinians for sport then come over here and talk this garbage.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
bloodurine 2 years ago
Cass you should get out in the sun more, you look a little pale, well as a matter of fact, you look like shit. But then again you always have probably. That's probably why you became such a nasty little shit.
Ranlon 2 years ago
Sunstein's mama should of aborted him, or at least fed him to some dogs shortly after birth.
JonnyNapalm123456789 2 years ago 3
More bad than this, this crazy guy is working on taking away your freedom of speech and creating a real dictatorship while you'r endlessly watching Paris fucking Hilton BFF.
GREEDYMADONNA 2 years ago
As a guy who likes dogs and wolves I have to say...
Not even one million wolves outweigh the importance of an infant. Who in the right mind would place an animal above a baby?
Guardianoftheunborn 2 years ago
@Guardianoftheunborn
I would in some circumstances. Maybe that baby is retarded or on its way to being a menace to society. Maybe that baby will simply turn our to be a fat, lazy, worthless, Jerry Springer watching drain on everybody. You better believe I hold my dogs on the same level as certain human beings and higher in some regards.
smokeybiut 2 years ago
Although I prefer not to use this word, if the baby is retarded as you say, that's not his fault. It's a disability.
I used to watch Jerry Springer before I started going to church when I was young. Also there are people who did jail time who learned from their past. Human beings have the potential to change.
No human being is ever worthless. That phrase is only used by those who feel that this certain type of person won't benifit them in any way while that person benefits others.
Guardianoftheunborn 2 years ago
another nut in charge of the ppl.
fightfan1111 2 years ago 2
Cass Sunstein is your enemy. Know the face of your enemy.
maximusdecimus888 2 years ago 9
Obama has got to be the most wicked and foolhardy man ever to hold presidency in the United States to bring in such detestably wicked and foolhardy men to high positions in our nation. May they all be indicted for their many, many immoral and illegal actions and connections!
wiseguy910 2 years ago
This is the far left freakshow put on display. You should do a little research on the "Frankfurt School", "Critical Theory" and names like "Marcuse", "Adorno", "Habermas" and Erich Fromm. They believed that criticizing and destroying every institution in a free society was a way to destroy freedom and liberty --- which they feared and loathed. Here Sunstein is attacking the superiority of humanity by knocking it down to the "animal level"; - why, we're all just common creatures on this planet.
wildnites558 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What on earth was the point of this video. A full grown horse or dog IS more rational than a new born infant. Are you just SHOCKED to the core, midnightrider?
Bumblybee256 2 years ago
This is not the least of this mans insanity. Marriage discriminates against single people, bringing the singles "serious" disadvantages.
Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference
Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as "an official license scheme." insane
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I wonder if the dummeresel in the video would like to prove his point by standing next to an alligator?
VonHelton 2 years ago 2
timgg66 - I'd like to offer this... Man (all humans) were created in the image of God. They (we) were given the opportunity to do good and flee from evil, but we failed to do so. Yes, it was Adam and Eve at the beginning, but I know my own self and my own proclivity for sin (I am a liar, a theif, an adulter, etc). I am also a Christian and I know that there is NO ONE good but God. Animals are great, but we must see the eternal soul of a person, to know that good God has intended.
erikutube33 2 years ago
I have always said that and always will. We're the only ones to kill for the sake of killing or out of greed. We wage needless horrifying wars against each other and commit acts of barbarism that NO other species "beasts" would do in a billion years. We steal, lie, kill, hit, hate, abuse, discriminate and enslave others because of the color of their skin... sell poison to others so we can profit...well, the list never ends, then we call animals "beasts" !
timgg66 2 years ago
We humans always talk of ourselves as the most "intelligent" and civilized out of all beings. We're too high on that sh*t that we can't see the truth and the fact that we are the least intelligent , and the most cruel and savage creatures to ever roam the planet.
timgg66 2 years ago
Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book, Republicdotcom (page 137),
Cass Sunstein advocated removing peoples organs without explicit consent,
Cass Sunstein discussed banning hunting, animal slavery, and overturning the 2nd Amendment.
The guy is nuts.
iprazhm 2 years ago
Wasn't Hitler was the first to start a National Health care system?
Human history can sometimes be a scarier read than even Steven King...........
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
I was thinking the same thing last night about Steven King.
MidNightRider2001 2 years ago
Yeah it's like we're watch a political Steven King moive right now.
Sick.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
How on earth has someone like this been appointed to a high position in our government. What has happened to our America?? Please people, we must get a handle on things and bring back our country.
bssomers1 2 years ago
I can never understand why men and women of 'seemingly' learned position, who have gained access to high office, are little more than non-thinking, rhetoric spewing, self hating, humanity hating, Godless drones. How do these people rise to power with such illnesses of spirit and character, unbeknownst to their constituents? Shame on the moral majority for sleeping at the wheel.
iprazhm 2 years ago
Pretty harsh words about someone you don't know. What makes you think he's "non-thinking," "self-hating," or "humanity hating"? Nor do I see what being "Godless" has to do w/ anything - there are plenty of moral atheists.
As I've pointed out already, Sunstein is quoting Jeremy Bentham; this video is edited to take the quote out of context. Bentham argues that animals deserve ethical treatment based on their ability to suffer, not on intelligence. There's nothing about animals being "superior."
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives Cass Sunstein.
The guy is a psycho, and places animals as equals in his mind. They are not. Humans are above all the creatures on the earth, otherwise animals would have a representative with fangs and claws running for president....
iprazhm 2 years ago
I don't understand this desire to constantly frame human beings as "above" every other animal on the Earth. Is our self-worth as a species so dependent on feeling superior to other life?
Regarding Sunstein, his opinion relates to animal cruelty laws and their relative ineffectiveness. What's so crazy about that? Tell me, while you're at it, where he says that animals and humans (also animals, btw) are "equals." Try giving nuance a try, rather than just seeing the world in black and white.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I like animals too but THIS is nuts IMO....
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
It isn't a 'desire', it just is. Do you let a rabbit do your taxes or a moose suture your wound? There is a place for all of God's creature, right next to the potatos and gravy.
iprazhm 2 years ago
No one is arguing that humans don't have higher levels of cognition than non-human animals, though it's illogical to therefore assume that animals are merely raw materials for humanity's happiness.
I do understand that humans use animals for food and materials. I do not understand this disdain that some feel toward non-human animals - this "fuck you, you're dinner" attitude from your last comment.
Btw, you still haven't made clear where Sunstein argues that animals and humans are equal.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I'll take roast duck with mango salsa...;)
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
Most humans just think humans are more important than other species simply because they are humans themselves. Humans are the reason why this planet is going to shit and humans cause far more atroticies to each other and to the planet than animals. I think humans are typical arrogant and selfish creatures.
timgg66 2 years ago
Greed is the cause, we need to focus more than just the self since all is connected in the web of life.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
I notice you named yourself after the american lion, the biggest lion to exer existed.
timgg66 2 years ago
Yeah, ;)
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
TY nice to see a comment with good REASON.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
Still no animal is worth or should be placed above a human being.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
I disagree. Humans are the most destructive species on the planet. When animals cause as many atrocities as humans have, than come tell me humans are more important.
timgg66 2 years ago
Animals are wonderful but without people life wouldn't mean much.
We are what we are, mistakes and all, we are human.
No giraffe, dog, cat, mouse, bear, lizard will come to your rescue should you, I or anyone ever need bypass surgery,......
Humanity is the world.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
Maybe to other humans, but humans are the reason why the earth is going to hell and most can't deny this. I feel animals are far better creatures. Yes, they are good humans.
timgg66 2 years ago
There's good & bad in everything, life is what it is.
The trick is, embrace the positive when found in anything, be it people or anything else.
Live it and enjoy.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
timgg66..Must be terrible to have such self loathing that you would think an animal was better than you. I love animals but I will never mistake their importance over human.The animals I have had, have led much better lives thanks to me. Animals are fine creatures but they are merely creatures, not people and to give them the credit as having the intelligence or importance of humans is ridiculous. Watch nature films they have little mercy for other animals,going after the young and old like Dems
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Animals are far better creatures than humans. Humans are destroying the earth. Get a clue about reality. You only think animals are less than you because you are a typical arrogant and selfish human that thinks anything else that is different than you is inferior. Yes, animals kill other animals to survive you idiot. Very different than why humans kill each other. Humans rape each other, murder each other, rob each other, etc for their own selfish purpose and reason. Wake up and face reality.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66..Have you ever owned an animal? Cats will hunt feild mice all day surpassing their ability to eat all of their prey. It is the hunt ,I have witnessed this behavior for years. Dogs will fight upon meeting simply because they are both males. One will kill the other if not intervened,.Have you never heard of such things? Animals can be sweet pets well loved and protected by humans pets who would not survive without human care. Animals can suddenly kill when have been passive. also.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Yes, I owned dogs all my life. I have never seen my dog rape anyone before or shoot anyone for some stupid reason with a gun or steal money from them. I can list many reasons why animals are better creatures than humans. Yes, humans can save your life. Dogs have also saved people's lives as well. They wake their owners up when a fire is happening in the house. They also protect their owners from intruders.
timgg66 2 years ago
Of course animals can be loyal and loving companions.And have done brave things because of it, why we love them after all. But if I had to sacrifice a hundred dogs even my own beloved to save a human I would in a heartbeat. Animals should be loved but not confused with more importance than humanity. for that is insanity. Not to mean that you shouldn't love them take care of them and treat them well. That is a given,.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
You are nuts. I would not sacrifice my dog for any human. There are 6 billions of us and there is no denying what we do to each other and the planet. I love my dog as much as my parents.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66..Oh my God..Sorry your life has been so sad that you would equate your pet with your parents. I'm sure your pet would have birthed you raised you feed you clothed you loved you unconditionally if it could have.. But then it is an animal why expect so much from an animal. You do know it only has a 15 year lifespan at best don't you? I have grieved many pets in my lifetime. But I will tell you I grieved my mother and Father's death much more ..and still do.There is no comparison.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
You obviously didn't love your dog that much. I can tell you're not that big of an animal lover. I would save my dog over a child. My dog has been with me for years and I've grown to love him very much. I will never put a stranger's life before my dog just because that stranger is a human like me. I'm not a typical arrogant and selfish human that thinks just because I'm human, all other humans and their lives are more important than species different than them.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66.. I have loved all my animals. Spent thousands on my animals. Have spent thousands on my present dog surgery medicines and such. Spent over thousand dollars just last year to keep her alive during a really bad liver attack of cushings. I am not rich and it is a sacrifice. I know people who would put them down for less. But I would not sacrifice a human for her or my little goats which I love too. They are like dogs very affectionate and sweet. But reasonable priorities must prevail.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Ouch, do parents bite? (Jokin)
I sure miss my ma. Nothing can replace that kind of love.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
It's not insanity. Humans are destroying the planet. Do you want me to list reasons? You must live in your little bubble ignoring all of the atrocities and problems us humans cause to the planet, to animals, and to each other.
timgg66 2 years ago
Another way to frame this supposed hierarchy of animals and humans is by recalling that humans are animals themselves. Or, at least the distinction between the two isn't so clear as one might imagine. The people who imagine that this means animals and human (animals) are "the same," and that this means that dogs will get to vote or some such nonsense, suffer from a crippling inability construct nuanced arguments.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I don't agree with this guy Sunstein, but I will admit animals are far better beings than most humans. Animals don't cause wars like humans.
timgg66 2 years ago
I suppose it depends on which of his beliefs we'd be discussing. As I've pointed out to others on here, he's quoting Jeremy Bentham in this video, which has additionally been cut before the context can be understood. It's quite dishonest.
Personally, I'll refrain from assigning particular values to humans or animals - humans have exceptional cognitive abilities that enable us to be simultaneously creative and destructive, but I see no reason for *needless* suffering in either animals or humans.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
timgg66..Humans are not destroying the earth you are much to gullible .And yes I am aware that animals are inferior to humans.Humans also kill humans like animals for no reason. We also kill to survive such as War. Animals do rape I have had a dog eat it's way through a door to attempt to sexually attack a female dog. Animals will attack or kill another animal to take it's food you really don't know these things? You do not live in reality. Listening to PETA terroist and their ilk I presume.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Wanna you try doing some research and realize what is going on in the world you clueless idiot. I'm against peta. You need to stop assuming that everyone who cares about animals is a supporter of peta. Do animals cause wars? Do animals rob banks? Do animals rape and kidnap little children and kill them? Do animals build nuclear weapons and use them against other countries? Do animals commit genocide? You are a clueless idiot. Look at the world and what is going on.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66..Animals are not intelligent enough nor have the resources for war or rob banks or capable of any human flaws that you mention. Nor do we grow a fur coat or wag our tail lick our behinds or have any dog characteristic. It is inane to compare a animal and a human's actions. apples and oranges indeed. Even so I would prefer to be a human over an animal. We have problems that require war so we have wars. Sunstein is insane with his ideology of animals just the same.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
He may be insane, but humans do far more horrific things to each other and to the planet than animals and there is no denying this.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66 Yes people do more horrific things then animals basically just because we can. We do more things than plants & fish & insects (Although they do have their own wars). But they cannot be compared or equated to humans. That's just silly.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
They are better than humans. You are a typical human. You feel that anyone that is different than your species is inferior and less important. When animals do all the of the horrific things humans do to each other and the planet, than i will admit humans are better,. Just because a human can ride a bike or solve a math problem, does not mean they are superior or more important than an animal that can't. I judge species on the things they do. I don't see animals kidnapping and molesting lil kids.
timgg66 2 years ago
timgg66...I'm sorry we will never agree. You want to equate animals as better because they do not have human traits . They do not have human traits because they are not human they are animals. And being so they will never be equal to humans.. There are many human traits that are good that animals also don't have. Yes I don't see much use for the world if it were nothing more that a barnyard. So people are more important than animals to me. Yet I love animals it is a fact.we will have to disagree
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Well, I can't expect people to agree with me all the time. Everyone has their own opinion.
timgg66 2 years ago
Regarding the giraffes, cats, mice, etc. (though I notice you left out dogs, which is a conspicuous omission) and their unwillingness to help someone needing bypass surgery, you might want to add Republicans to that list.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
OK I'll add any animal to that list, yeah even dogs, cats, mice whatever since none which I do love can perform any kind of surgery.
Regarding the repubs?....................lol, I'll say the same for most politicans, big business owners with very deep pockets who could give a rats azz for anyone else but their own fat profits.
Greed really bites.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
I'm supposed to care for humans more than animals just because they can perform surgery? Animals give much more unconditional love than most humans and there is no denying this.
timgg66 2 years ago
Yes and no, though I love my cat more than most people I couldn't place an animal's life over a person's, but hey that's me.
Yes animals can offer unconditional love this is true, but it's a surgeon that can sometimes save a life from cancer, no animal can.
But hey all are important and worthy of caring for.
The more the merrier. ;)
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
There is no way I would place a human who I don't know over my dogs life.
timgg66 2 years ago
That's you, most would think differently.
Again both animals and people are wonderful, but a person is a person no matter what.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
Actually, there are quite a few people out there who feel animals are much better creatures than most humans and they give you unconditional love. Humans lie, cheat, steal, etc.
timgg66 2 years ago
Yes many people lie cheat and steal, and ironically so do many animals with higher reasoning skills.
U can search "Listening to Koko: a gorilla who speaks her mind " on the web and see for yourself. Interesting.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
I do think timgg66 is involved in beastiality
NCMan28025 2 years ago
Typical liberal idiot. I would kill your dog to protect another human..even a libtard like you. You're probably one of those animal lovers who go around telling everyone you little dog is your "child?"
NCMan28025 2 years ago
Comment removed
timgg66 2 years ago
Comment removed
timgg66 2 years ago
This guy is one sick puppy. It's scary to think someone who thinks animals hold a greater priority than human infants is in a position of power. Sick!
Chesterb777 2 years ago
This video is edited to mislead people. Sunstein is quoting Jeremy Bentham, the Utilitarian philosopher who argued that animals deserve ethical treatment because, like humans, they have the capacity to suffer.
You can either agree with that or not, but the words in this video aren't Sunstein's. He's quoting Bentham, and the video is taking his quote partially and out of context.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Thank you, your comment was like a breath of fresh air on this thread.
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
You should read the "love" notes timgg66 sent me. He wished everyone in my family would get cancer and die and even threatened to "put one in my brain very quickly." He removed the comments but I reported his threats to YouTube. He is a sick bastard.
NCMan28025 2 years ago
You reported his threats to you tube? Honey you tube is cointelpro. Wouldn't be surprised if timgg66 is one of their young disinfo agents. WAKE UP OK.
Ranlon 2 years ago
Guess what? Not having insurance means you're on a waiting list that never ends. How do you think that feels? Just try getting decent cancer care - or any cancer care - if you don't have any money.
So your argument is that people elsewhere supposedly die from long wait times, but here we die because we can't pay. Well then, aren't we fucking noble? Bottom line, you don't know anything about how other systems work.
Alright, I'm bored of arguing against this nonsense. Say hi to God for me.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..The waiting list is long enough that funds don't matter. Well if you have a job you likely have some form of insurance if you don't have a job our govt. pays your way. So most not insured choose not to get insurance. My numbers was from a democrat liberal website MSNBC you don't get more left freindly than that. I am also tired of foul mouthed refusal to see reason. I will say hi to God if I am lucky enough to make the cut. Enjoy Canada.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I know people in Canada, England, Germany, and Sweden, and none of them complain about long wait times, including one elderly man who needed surgery for his heart. Even if this so-called "rationed care" was going to be a problem, it's pure selfishness to believe that we should keep millions uninsured so that it doesn't affect the wait times of the more fortunate.
So, which of the Gospels has Jesus saying "me first"? FYI, finding a soul might increase your odds of getting in the pearly gates.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..Not saying that....am saying this is not a fix. It is going to make things worse. We need reform not govt. run insurance. Which will suck like every govt. run program in existence today. goodbye now.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Don't sign up? It will begin as such a great deal all will sign up. their will be no public insurance option only the govt. option for they will put out of business all other insurance options like in Canada and Europe. People die not from not being able to pay for a transplant but by waiting list that are years long. just try to get decent cancer care in a govt. run insurance. LOL They weigh how many years you may have left before they weigh your odds of treatment and if you are worth it.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica says, As opposed to the Republicans who do everything they can to kill reform and defend profits for the insurance industry? Give me a break.
Do you believe insurance companys should exist to serve you and make no profit? Obama care will reduce your care to increase their profit. All govt insurance plans do once they put all other companies out of business. That is how it has worked everywhere else. The Canadians pay 48% of income on Govt. H.C. great huh
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I have the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for the insurance companies. You really have sympathy for these people who insure only the healthiest customers, drop people when they're sick, and look for any reason to refuse paying a claim? All while making money hand over fist?
Declaring that Obama will "reduce your care" presumes everyone has care to begin with. Millions of people have nothing. How can you not care about those people? This rationed care argument is bull.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..It is the only way Obama care can work is to reduce care. Insurance companies for the most part count on odds to make a profit. They are betting on most of their clients never being seriously ill before they die and so produce little pay out. Govt healthcare will be cheap and attractive to everyone putting private ins. out of business. Means govt. will get all the sick people possible on their dime. Only way to profit is reduce care. think about it.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
By your logic, "normal," expedient care results only when millions of people are not part of the the health care system, when health care providers only insure the healthiest, and when they refuse care to the sick. How can people sleep at night knowing that their argument against "rationed care" relies on at least 30 million people having no coverage at all?
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Sorry but it's true their is no penthiouse without the floors below it. Healthcare reform should consist of making sure insurance companys cannot refuse people witjh existing conditions or dropping insurance on anyone who is sick. Actually Hospitals cannot turn away someone sick who cannot pay or they break the law. The govt. insurance is not reform It is Socialist healthcare that is the worst care ever. Why people with govt. care come here when they are really sick.Obama has not offered reform.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Well, as long as someone gets the penthouse, right?
Hospitals can't turn away people needing emergency care, but they don't treat people with cancer, or people needing transplants, for free. Many people from around the world would disagree with your "worst care ever" speculation, and it certainly wouldn't be the worst for someone who has nothing now.
If you don't want the public option, then just don't sign up. It's your choice. Simple.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
No by changung those things ..Such as laws against it. Would be real reform But govt. insurance is not reform that is true rationed healthcare like Canadians paying 48% of their income to the govt for healthcare. Yet waiting 6 to 8 months for an appointment to see a doctor. Forget ever seing a doctor again for cold or flu. You will be well or dead before you see a doctor. How are they better off ?
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Look, I have friends who have moved from the U.S. to Canada, and our conversations basically consist of them trying to get me to move there. The highest tax bracket in Canada is 46%, and that's if you make over 125K per year. Make 50K per year? You pay 31%. Here, it's 25% for the same income, and what do we get in return? The military. Cool.
Your 6 to 8 month figure is completely false. Just do some research on this, and I do advise staying away from the blogs and conspiracy nuts.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Canadians pay half income in taxes
Canadians do pay higher taxes than Americans — the average family pays about 48 percent of its annual income in taxes — partly to fund the health care system. "It is in fact a very poor health care system that regularly fails Canadians," Canada has the developed world's second most expensive universal health care system after Iceland, yet lags behind other industrialized countries in access to medical technologies and physician-to-population MSNBC
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
You're just wrong. I double-checked the income tax rates for Canada before I posted, so I know exactly what Canadians pay. They pay more taxes, but it's not half, and the end result is a safety net, community centers and gyms, and health care for your population.
Anyway, no one is saying Canada is perfect, and we're not even getting a Canadian system, but our system is completely intolerable.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..wrong ..48%...Got my numbers from the liberal democrat bastion of MSNBC.. Okay left is wrong..Hey were on the same page..Bye bye
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
You're still wrong. I just checked the Canada Revenue Agency site, and the federal tax for a person making 50K per year averages to about 16%. Then you add the provincial tax, which for British Columbia winds up adding about another 6%, bringing our grand total to a totalitarian 22%. How oppressive.
Canada has a progressive tax where you pay quite a bit more if you have a 6 figure income. The highest bracket might top out at 40 something percent, but it's not the case for the middle class.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica...Fine MSBNC is a left wing lying organization thanks for concurring on that point. .
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
If private ins. is only profitable when denying claims, refusing to insure anyone who's been sick or become elderly, and by keeping millions uninsured, then they're ineffective. They're just going to have to learn to compete.
Here's the other thing: 18,000 people die each year because they lack ins. I'm sick to death of all this goddamned selfishness, and it's ridiculous that an atheist should be lecturing so-called Christians about the moral imperative to care for their fellow human beings.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..hmmm Reagan said: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. Its very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly cant afford it. Meaning it sounds good but of course it is horrific.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Do I sound like someone who cares about Reagan? Oh, that damned socialism and its fire and police departments and public schools, and that damned labor movement that gave us child labor laws, weekends, overtime, occupational safety standards.
So, I'll bite. What do you think this so-called "medical program" is a disguise for? What is it really, if not a medical program?
"Horrific," to restate the statistic, is allowing 18K of our fellow citizens die because they have no access to care. Period.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
A way for the Govt to make money of course always it's goal.. silly to mistake the govt having any other motive. Great Govt care must be how 15,000 people die in a week from a heat wave huh. Old people of course who cared ,not Europe.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
A non-profit public option wouldn't make money. That's what non-profit means. And elderly people die in Europe for lack of air conditioning, not health care.
Ironic, also, that you point to the elderly who, besides the military, are the only eligible recipients of government health care in this country. The same people, I might add, that private insurance companies don't cover because their risk is too high. If we take better care of our elderly, it's still through Medicare.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica ..So-called non-profit has make profit or cut care to stay even. The forms of govt. insurance now will not exist if it becomes one covering everyone. There will be no competition to measure up to and still be considered proper coverage. Medicare will not exist Medicare cuts on a scale not seen in years to underwrite health care for all..lack of air-conditioning caused 15,000 deaths in a week...Europe is a desert no available water? No available fans? sure
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I have no idea what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
Regarding Europe and air conditioning, I would invite you to go to Italy and the summer and try to find a glass of water with ice in it. It's common knowledge that Europeans don't have air conditioning like we do in the U.S., and many people - mostly elderly folks - simply have heat strokes in their apartments and die.
Or, just don't believe me. I don't really care.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
hetyeroglossiamerica .Fine I will believe you that Europe is the arm pit of the world with no modern conveniences not even a ice cube. But terrific healthcare huh. And 15,000 elderly people died from a heat wave while their families were off on vacation. Okay goodbye now.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Who among you can say they trust Obama to provide universal healthcare when this man is appointing czars that do not value human life over dogs?
ab1tchslap 2 years ago
As opposed to the Republicans who do everything they can to kill reform and defend profits for the insurance industry? Give me a break.
I've already said this, but Sunstein never says anything about putting animals "above" humans. In fact, he's quoting Bentham here, so these aren't even his words, and Bentham's entire point is that relative intelligence isn't as reliable indicator of ethical responsibility as is the capacity to suffer. Your prophet Glenn Beck should take a philosophy course.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I can't believe we are letting this toolbox in charge of anything.
yammyspeed13 2 years ago
Also..Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants.
In the Harvard
paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court.
"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they are not property," he wrote.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I've heard him talk about that. He makes the point that animal cruelty is rarely enforced and, unlike humans, animals are unable to testify for themselves in civil suits. He has suggested that it could be beneficial for animals to have human representatives in court - e.g. witnesses.
But even if you don't agree with this, who cares? How does it affect anyone? I have a hard time believing that so many people commenting here actually harbor these "fuck you" attitudes toward animals.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..It affects all of us. People can use animals to attack people. I love animals I have always had pets I have spent thousands on their healthcare operations and such. And I would never hurt an animal ever. But they are not above humans I would let a hundred animals die to save one human without blinking. Even my own beloved animals. But this man is insane ..Totally irrevocably insane. like a PETA terrorist on steroids.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I'm mostly anthropocentric myself, but I still don't see his argument as one that argues that animals be placed "above" humans. He argues that they are legally entitled to some rights, as in the case of animal cruelty laws that I think few of us disagree with, and the impetus his argument, I think, comes from the general inefficiency of these laws. I don't think the epithet "insane" is sufficient to discount his argument. Anyway, there's no reason to believe he's going to push this agenda.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I think believing that someone given the power too push their beliefs, will chose not to do so, is naive at best. also.. It is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations, argued President Obama's newly confirmed Cass Sunstein. He believes climate Change is US fault and so we should share our wealth with other countries.
"Climate Change Justice," "distributive justice"desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise. His words
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
What's your source for this?
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica Source..In a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper. A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice," maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.... also
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica....Another scary source is The central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is," is that the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws. He's very big on this.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Listen, I'm not going to bear the burden of reading Sunstein's entire essay when you're obviously just regurgitating talking points that you've picked up on right-wing blogs. If you have a problem with Sunstein, read his article, give me a page number, and we'll talk about it.
And "distributive justice" doesn't mean anything simply because you associate "distribute" with, what, socialism? Don't you want to live in a world with distributed justice, which only means that everyone has access?
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
39 pages isn't exactly a Tome. Distribute to other countries under the guise of distributive justice because America is such a bad place that we have to share our wealth because we owe it to them... yeah that is socialism. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is extremly flawed. Because you don't know something doesn't mean it came from a so-called right wing blog which is anything speaking the truth to you, I presume. You have to ignore all fact to support these psycho Czars B.O. has appointed.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I did a quick search for Sunstein's article, and I saw several results that used the exact same language that you used in your post. Like I said, if you've read that essay, point me to specific moments with which you have issue, and then we'll talk. I'm not going to read it, though, if you're just going to summarize.
And no, 39 pages is not a tome (which isn't capitalized unless you're German), but I'm not taking the burden upon myself to read every essay just to disprove misinformation.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Okay..say not above but equal to. You are still looking at an insane agenda now food is equal to human. Pets equal to human, sorry I cannot see that . Animals are on the earth to provide food and some we have made pets. Many more animals would be extinct if we had no use for them. Overpopulation of many animals would create havoc. I live near farmland and deer and rabbits if not hunted would devastate crops in no time. Creating starvation for people.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Humans are hardly the good stewards of the Earth, given that about 27,000 species become extinct per year, largely due to human interventions on habitat. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence for your assertion that "animals are on Earth to provide food," though I suppose your source must be the Bible, which doesn't count.
I'm from a rural area as well, and I agree that hunting is necessary to maintain herds, but that wouldn't have been necessary if humans hadn't imposed their presences so strongly.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
You aren't one of those John Holdren forced sterilization types are you?
ab1tchslap 2 years ago
You aren't one of those Glenn Beck mouthpieces, are you?
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica. The Earth would have no purpose without humans. If you don't count the bible I suppose you are an atheist one who believes nothing created everything. A scientific impossibility.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Yes, I'm an atheist who doesn't believe that the sun rises and sets just for me and who doesn't see animals as intended only for my mindless consumption. By the way, where do flies, cockroaches, wasps, sea anemones, etc. fit into this model of "me human, you raw material for make me happy"?
Oh, and it's worth noting that Creationism is a scientific impossibility. You can't just use science when it suits you.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica...Sorry..Evolution is a scientific impossibility. Nothing cannot create everything. What are animals created for?..to run the world.?.As for insects and such I am not God I see little use for most things but I am sure they have one. I don't believe the sun rises and sets for me it did before I was born and will when I am gone. Creationism is the only logical way, the things of this earth required intelligent design .
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
So let me get this straight. You think that science has somehow disproved evolution - despite millions of fossils, carbon dating, genetic similarities, etc. - but you think science supports creationism? What scientific evidence do you have for a monotheistic god other than the Bible?
Anyway, there are theories about how the universe may have begun "from nothing." It's quantum physics that I won't even pretend to understand, but people are in fact having that debate. Creationism is just a joke.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Fossils prove the existance of creatures many years ago not evolution..carbon dating can tell how old something is not evolution.Genetic similarities are simply that genetic similarities not evolution. Science can't support evolution..They have supported scientific proof for events recorded in the bible. The Bible is our oldest history book . You can discount all history books doen't change it. nothing is created by nothing. You really believe you came from apes why are their still apes?
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
There's enough literature about evolution that's readily available for your perusal. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
I'll also refrain from holding my breath while you come up with some scientific proof for the existence of the omnipotent god of the Bible. Hell, even the Pope acknowledges evolution at this point.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica..literature about evolution..LOL Get back to me when they find the so-called missing link. All theory so far....Bye now
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
LOL, a theory is a hypothesis with enough evidence to make it a plausible explanation, LOL. By that standard, the Bible is a fairy tale with no evidence to support it. Or does it? Tell me, what literature exists proving the transmigration of souls, virgin births, men living in whales, people coming back from the dead, men walking on (non-frozen) water, water turning to wine, burning bushes, Noah's ark, etc. LOL. All this, but the book doesn't include dinosaurs. Some history book.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica...Dinosaurs and humans were not here at the same time. Theory is still just a thought. I said goodbye.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Look up 'Leviathon', which IS in the book.
iprazhm 2 years ago
Not good enough. Sorry.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
You're a lot of things, sorry isn't one of them. Some people will never be convinced, no matter the facts presented them, sorry.
iprazhm 2 years ago
Human beings are actuallly destroying the earth incase you don't know. The planet would be better if we humans never existed.
timgg66 2 years ago
Yes and no, without humanity, what else is there?
PantheraAtrox 2 years ago
heteroglossiamerica In the footnotes to a 2002 academic paper for Harvard University, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer," Sunstein expresses his approval of Bentham's arguments:
"I suggest that Bentham and Mill were not wrong to offer an analogy between current uses of animals and human slavery," he wrote.
Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
Fine, but why is that considered an affront to human beings? He's not saying that humans have no value, but that animals which share the capacity to think and suffer deserve ethical treatment, especially if those are the criteria by which we assign value to human beings.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Hetero..It is a affront to humans to put animals at human level. We already love animals they are our pets or food as a rule people take good care of them. But to raise them to human level means to force....could mean death penalty for someone who kills and animal. I think animals have it pretty good already. No more suffering animals inthe world than suffering people and there will always be suffering . Utopia such a thing will never exist for someone will have to suffer to make a Utopia also.
pataskalagirl 2 years ago
I understand your concern, but I think we have a long way to go before anyone would dream of condemning a person to death over killing an animal (especially since many animal rights folks, i presume, also oppose the death penalty for humans in general). As for suffering, I agree we'll never eliminate it, but I do think we should strive toward reducing it, even (maybe especially) for those animals which we consume by the billion (no exaggeration) as our food supply.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
These aren't his words - he's quoting Jeremy Bentham, who was questioning how worth can be denied to reasoning animals if we in fact privilege human beings based upon their capacity for reason. He makes the comparison not to show the inferiority of some humans, but to show the logical fallacy that is committed in order to exclude animals from having value.
Come on, people. Try thinking these things through before you start a witch hunt just because Glenn Beck said to do so.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
When an animal can sit down and have an intelligent conversation with me, then we'll talk. This man is evil, hateful, and has no reason to be working in the government.
M6A1t6t 2 years ago
You're oversimplifying the argument. I assume you wouldn't eat your dog or cat, so you do draw distinctions between animals depending on some criteria, right? Bentham claims that we share the ability to suffer with animals, and therefore we should treat them ethically. This doesn't mean we can't eat them, but it does mean that we perhaps shouldn't raise them standing in their own shit or inject them full of hormones. How do you perceive care for living things as "hateful"? Perplexing.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
Quote from Cass Sunstein:"A full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old."
Is this the Hope & Change you voted for?
Bush would have never nominated a completely insane person such as Sunstein.
dkkght46 2 years ago
Hmm. How about Karl Rove? He even spells his name with a "K" like Marx, so he must be a Marxist, right?
My other comment was supposed to be linked to yours. Your quote is not of Cass Sunstein, but of Jeremy Bentham, whom Sunstein is quoting. You may also want to read some of Bentham's work for context, if that sort of thing is important to you.
heteroglossiamerica 2 years ago
I wonder if he would include his own kids in that definition? The scary thing is he probably would.
dajokn19 2 years ago
What a MORON..!
USoSilly2Me 2 years ago
You have to be smarter than an animal to know that God gave us K-9'S [Carnivore teeth] for a reason.I'm fed up w/ these loons, their coming out of the wood work....like Cock-roaches!
gunnyranger2 2 years ago
pataskalagirl - they think we are all morons. And quite a few are otherwise Obama would not be in office.