5 ms·

I applaud this decision. At least some people are recognising the direction of the arrow of history here. My thoughts on this last time this concept emerged on

by swombat 12y ago

I applaud this decision. At least some people are recognising the direction of the arrow of history here. My thoughts on this last time this concept emerged on HN: http://swombat.com/2012/11/6/dolphin-history http://swombat.com/2012/11/6/dolphin-history

ars 12y ago
I hope you realize that by giving rights in abundance you have diminished the very meaning of the concept. You have this assumption that in the future everything will have rights. All that will happen if that occurs is that the concept of "rights" will be laughed at and ignored. The more rare something is, the more powerful and special, and meaningful.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  What absolute nonsense. Diminishing the meaning of 'rights' is great: if everyone and everything had appropriate rights, there would be no further need for the concept to be discussed. That's a good thing.
  - repsilat 12y ago
    Giving puppies a legal right to have silly hats and birthday parties obviously diminishes the real rights that we all care about. Rights-proliferation leads to governments taking a pick-and-choose approach to enforcement, and many people would argue that having selectively enforced rights is tantamount to not having any rights at all. See also: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against...
    - learnstats2 12y ago
      OK, I agree that you don't really have "rights" if they are unenforced. Giving the rights to puppies as you mention doesn't chanage that either way; this is a red herring. And I suspect it was not the parent commenter's point.
- swombat 12y ago
  I've not suggested there should be any abundance of rights - merely that the direction of history points towards being more inclusive of other conscious species in our definition of "who deserves humane treatment". As I say in my article - this used to apply only to male citizens... then it grew to include people at the bottom of the social ladder (slaves), people of different colours, religions, etc, and progressively more and more different people. It's only natural that this progression will continue and include entities who are not human. If we ever meet an extra-terrestrial intelligence, I sure hope they have followed this progress to its natural conclusion, and include all life in their circle of "things deserving of respect".

by swombat 12y ago

ars 12y ago

I hope you realize that by giving rights in abundance you have diminished the very meaning of the concept. You have this assumption that in the future everything will have rights. All that will happen if that occurs is that the concept of "rights" will be laughed at and ignored. The more rare something is, the more powerful and special, and meaningful.

learnstats2 12y ago
What absolute nonsense. Diminishing the meaning of 'rights' is great: if everyone and everything had appropriate rights, there would be no further need for the concept to be discussed. That's a good thing.
- repsilat 12y ago
  Giving puppies a legal right to have silly hats and birthday parties obviously diminishes the real rights that we all care about. Rights-proliferation leads to governments taking a pick-and-choose approach to enforcement, and many people would argue that having selectively enforced rights is tantamount to not having any rights at all. See also: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against...
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    OK, I agree that you don't really have "rights" if they are unenforced. Giving the rights to puppies as you mention doesn't chanage that either way; this is a red herring. And I suspect it was not the parent commenter's point.
swombat 12y ago
I've not suggested there should be any abundance of rights - merely that the direction of history points towards being more inclusive of other conscious species in our definition of "who deserves humane treatment". As I say in my article - this used to apply only to male citizens... then it grew to include people at the bottom of the social ladder (slaves), people of different colours, religions, etc, and progressively more and more different people. It's only natural that this progression will continue and include entities who are not human. If we ever meet an extra-terrestrial intelligence, I sure hope they have followed this progress to its natural conclusion, and include all life in their circle of "things deserving of respect".