Animal rights?

Now this is ludicrous.

If rights are given to animals, rights that can only be understood by humans because rights equals responsibilities, how are you going to enforce that animals respect the rights of other animals?!

Animals have no concept or understanding of right and wrong-which are entirely human constructs as well. A wolf is not going to ponder the intense pain he/she caused by snaring a rabbit between its jaws, grinding its jagged teeth into the massively bleeding neck until the creature either dies from drowning in its own fluids or massive blood-loss. No esoterical thoughts, no abstract, no nothing. But if you excuse other animals and allow them to kill other animals in as barbaric ways as they do, why not allow humans to eat animal flesh as well?

Allowing animals to kill and eat other animals, but not humans, is discrimination against ourselves! But this all depends on whether animals are considered on the same level as humans. Again...something that the wolf is not going to think about i.e. are wolves and rabbits equal.

Humans are at the top of the food chain, whether you like it or not, so yes we are superior because we can prey on near everything we want/need with near 100% effectiveness. We have proven ourselves superior biologically and mentally, why kid ourselves? Being superior doesn't necessarily equate to arrogance or violence.

You want to control how animals are "killed", complain to the animals. They've killed creatures for millions and millions of years, aren't they just as bad? If animals are equal to humans, and if animals have rights, then animals should be held responsible for their horrific, irresponsible, violent actions as much as the next human being.

You cannot say animals have rights when they have no comprehension of their responsibilities.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

It makes no difference whether or not the animal understands. You wouldn't apply such thinking to a child would you?

You said it yourself, rights are something that we bestow. Nobody is asking that animals be treated as humans, just that they be treated as something more than a product for you to consume and discard as carelessly as you would a can of soda. These are living, social, feeling beings...of that there is no question.

Not only is the denial of any rights whatsoever to animals detrimental to them, but it is also harmful to ourselves at many levels.

The animal "rights" movement is nothing more than a call to respect animals for what they are. They are not resources to be consumed without thinking of the ramifications of our actions forced upon them. They do in fact suffer and it is our responsibility, especially if we are going to inflict cruelty on them, to at the very least think about the harm we are causing and find ways to get around such barbaric behaviors. It is possible.

Seemingly, such trivial things as junk food, something that is unhealthy anyway, is considered more important to us than the very lives of many these animals.

 

"It makes no difference whether or not the animal understands. You wouldn't apply such thinking to a child would you?

Children grow to understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them. Animals, never, ever, can.

"You said it yourself, rights are something that we bestow. Nobody is asking that animals be treated as humans, just that they be treated as something more than a product for you to consume and discard as carelessly as you would a can of soda. These are living, social, feeling beings...of that there is no question."

Giving animals rights are saying that animals are to be treated on the same level as humans. And so what if I consume another animal? You are not even addressing the fact that other animals consume other animals. Why aren't other animals held accountable for their infringement upon other animals rights? Answer that...but you can't because then it would show the hypocracy that is animal rights.

"Not only is the denial of any rights whatsoever to animals detrimental to them, but it is also harmful to ourselves at many levels."

Once more, eating the flesh of animals does not necessarily mean that our society of humans are going to be increasingly violent or uncaring towards animals or human beings for that matter.

"The animal "rights" movement is nothing more than a call to respect animals for what they are. They are not resources to be consumed without thinking of the ramifications of our actions forced upon them. They do in fact suffer and it is our responsibility, especially if we are going to inflict cruelty on them, to at the very least think about the harm we are causing and find ways to get around such barbaric behaviors. It is possible."

Why is it just humans who are responsible? Is it because only humans can understand what rights are? Then why should they be applied to animals?
Once again, and again, and again, a person eating an animal does not mean that that person is cruel, violent, or torturous to other animals. I do not believe that you are satisfied with merely us meat-eaters "thinking" of what we are doing. You want the consumption of animals eliminated. Why not just say it?

"Seemingly, such trivial things as junk food, something that is unhealthy anyway, is considered more important to us than the very lives of many these animals."

Now you are arguing on emotional grounds, again!

You are typifying all meat-eaters, and that is uncalled for. You are purposefully avoiding poignant challenges against you. And if you cannot answer them, you are wasting your time.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

"You are typifying all meat-eaters, and that is uncalled for. You are purposefully avoiding poignant challenges against you."

Just because you don't agree with my point of view, doesn't mean that I am avoiding your "challenges". I'll clarify based on your latest post although I have already made my opinion clear.

"Giving animals rights are saying that animals are to be treated on the same level as humans. And so what if I consume another animal? You are not even addressing the fact that other animals consume other animals. Why aren't other animals held accountable for their infringement upon other animals rights? Answer that...but you can't because then it would show the hypocracy that is animal rights."

You are clearly wrong. Rights do not mean equality. This is true even among our own species. That same rights that may apply to one portion of humans does not apply to humans. Take the woman's right to choose for example.

As far as animals consuming other animals goes, I have already answered that. Animals rape, steal, and kill. Does that mean that we as humans should act accordingly? Of course not. As I have stated countless times, animals are not humans yet that does not mean that we should act as if their lives are worthless.

People also murder one another, that does not devoid you or me from having the right to life, does it? Of course not.

"Once more, eating the flesh of animals does not necessarily mean that our society of humans are going to be increasingly violent or uncaring towards animals or human beings for that matter."

Yet we're not just talking about meat here. We're talking about animal rights and in case you didn't know, there are several studies that show that people who commit cruel acts towards animals are far more likely to commit a violent crime against another person.

That said, there are more detriments than just behavioral. Using animals in the fashion that we do causes a lot of harm to our environment and to our health. I have already pointed out that the three leading causes of death in the United States are all diet realted. Any credible nutritionist or dietician will tell you that in order to lessen your risk of those diseases you increase your intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains and decrease your intake of meats. Also note that the vast majority of our society (Western) is overweight. This is not simply me challenging all meat eaters, it's calling a spade a spade. Most people consume an awful lot of animal based products in an excessive manner which in turn causes great harm to the lives of billions of animals who are moved faster and faster down an assembly line that is already struggling to keep up pace.

"Why is it just humans who are responsible? Is it because only humans can understand what rights are?"

Um, yes. The same way we choose to hold our society accountable for our individual actions towards each other.

"Once again, and again, and again, a person eating an animal does not mean that that person is cruel, violent, or torturous to other animals. I do not believe that you are satisfied with merely us meat-eaters "thinking" of what we are doing. You want the consumption of animals eliminated. Why not just say it?"

Think what you want. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Eating a diet that is heavy with animal product prepetuates the industry which is cruel to animals. Just because someone turns their head from the cruelty does not mean that they aren't a party to it. If more people spoke out and told these companies that cruel treatment of animals was not acceptable, than they would change their methods. It's already starting to make small differences with the small percentage of the populous who are considered "animal rights" people. Burger King and McDonald's both have made concessions, forcing their business partners to adhere to more humane standards in the penn

 

They do in fact suffer

An assumption. The reality within a human mind can concieve of suffering, and there is no way to know if an animal has such a concept. They may feel pain, and may react in such a way that if a human were acting as such then suffering would be implied, but this doesn't mean that the animal is suffering or is even able suffer (esspecially the stupid ones).

 

Animals rape, steal, and kill. Does that mean that we as humans should act accordingly?

No, because humans do not need to rape, steal, or kill to survive. However, we do need to eat to survive. And as the superior species, we can choose to eat what we want (even if you think it's bad for us).

 

We were just talking about this topic lats hour in class. Ironic.

What was very...different is that the class completly agreed (has never happened in the 7 years I've attended this school) about the subject.

Animals do deserve certain rights, as living being. Of course it is wrong to be cruel to an animal, in most sense.
But we thought that most of those who are out there strongly encouraging animal rights appear to care more about saving the life of a frog that is about the be crushed than saving the life of a starving child in a third world country.

As I said, it was different that we agreeded on something.
But I suppose what is good is that it shows people in this day and age can still actually agree on SOME things.

Anyway, that is my thoughts....

 

JediTre11,

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Suffer:
To feel or undergo pain of body or mind; to bear what is inconvenient; as, we suffer from pain, sickness, or sorrow; we suffer with anxiety.

Animals suffer. It's not an assumption, but as I stated, it is fact.


Special_Fred,

"And as the superior species, we can choose to eat what we want."

Exactly, and I choose not to cause undue pain and suffering upon other living beings when I can avoid it. The fact that anyone could make the contrary choice is dishearteneing to say the least. Perphaps the notion of compassion has been replaced by one of self gratification.

 

The fact that anyone could make the contrary choice is dishearteneing to say the least. Perphaps the notion of compassion has been replaced by one of self gratification.

A human life is more important than that of any animal...and if I want to eat a steak to satisfy my body's need for nutrition, I will do so. Did a cow have to suffer to provide me with that steak? Probably. But am I willing to give up meat, eggs, milk, my favorite jacket, playing sports that involve leather balls, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, mowing my lawn (oh, the poor insects!) and anything else that might cause undue suffering so that animals can be happy? No.

 

"Perphaps the notion of compassion has been replaced by one of self gratification."

You couldn't have followed up the above sentence with a more fitting post.

 

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Blah

Animals suffer. It's not an assumption, but as I stated, it is fact.

Again with the whitebread culturaly imposed definitions. That is the human definition. Notice it says body or mind, there is no way to know the process of an animal's mind. Thus a definition of suffering as applied to animals cannot include the "or mind" phrase. Granted it is a fact that animals have systems of nerves which implies they feel pain. Think connotations man...you cannot assume that human reality is animal reality.

{i]"Perphaps the notion of compassion has been replaced by one of self gratification." [/i]

Or perhaps, they can exist and manifest themselves in ways that are not destructive to eachother, but you are not able to recognize them in you state of mind.

 

What makes an animal an animal? Humans are animals, but we don't eat ourselves because we have brain power superior to that of all other animals. We have free will, intellect, and the ability to be self aware of the world around us. No other animal on this planet has this ability, so we have gained dominion over the world. That is all a given.

Now, you must ask yourself: What life is sacred to me? Naturally, human life comes first and foremost as we believe all men are on an equal scale. But what about other animals? Sure, we domesticate pets for pleasure purposes, so those animals are placed above others. However, as long as not killed in excess, why should the lives of non-domesticated animals matter? I say not in excess, as a certain amount of the animal should be protected for the continued survival of that species for our purposes.

An insect is an animal organism. As far as animals go, I would say an amoeba, an ant, a human, and an elephant would all be on equal footing. If you truly believe in animal rights, then I fail to see how you can walk down a street, through your front yard, through a field, or a park. I fail to see how you can walk anywhere. Unless you are an orthodox jainist (sweep the floor so no animals can be killed), I fail to see how you can cry over a mink but react non chalantly as you horrifically slaughter thousands of animals every year.

This leads me to believe most animal activists only care about "big, pretty animals"(big being a relative term). You know, what normally think of when you think animals: zebras, bears, pigs, giraffes, and all the rest. Who are you, or anyone else to say that a zebra is more important to the planet than an amoeba, an ant, or a bee? If you say it is more beautiful on an aesthetic level, then I may tend to agree with you, but since when is beauty the end all and be all? After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not in the animal itself. You show pictures of visciously slaughtered rabbits, dogs, etc; but is being killed that way really any more painful than being eaten alive by a wolf or a bear?

And why exactly should we care about pain in other animals? If you crush a spider, it feels the same pain or more that a deer feels as it dies after being shot. So do not give us stories of cruelty to animals when you yourself have killed probably hundreds of thousands of animals just by going on a nature walk or being scared of a bee in your room.

As for rights, well, animals have no rights other than to live their lives as their call requires until a member of a higher species decides to hunt the animal for whatever reason. If animals had rights, then how would the mountain lion feed? If the rabbit it was hunting had rights, then how could the mountain lion consciously kill it? You see, the food chain doesn't work that way.

I myself, am a pefectly content omnivore who has enough issues of death, pain, and threats to life in his own human world that he can't be bothered with death, pain and threats to life in other genuses, though I am sure the ant deals with those issues more frequently in a day than I do in a year.

 

Children grow to understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them. Animals, never, ever, can.

The mentally impaired human beings "never, ever, can" ... "understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them."

I believe it was Dr. Josef Mengele of the Third Reich who asserted in his medical papers on Eugenics that such people with mental incapacity should be eliminated by the doctors of society, as a compulsive duty to society, since they were a detriment to society and could never "understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them."

Basically, anyone who believes that animals can be done away with in any way some people want to, must by the very same system of thought, agree with Dr. Mengele's eugenics treatise. If not, they are confused hypocrites.

Then there is this insane assertation that those who don't agree with randomized slaughter are "emotional" (hah, what are we, Vulcans? Even Vulcans are vegetarian). Love is emotional. Democratic ideals also have some level of emotion invested in them (socialism and communism are more efficient). Creationism is based on faith, intuition, and other variables that go deep into your "emotional" zone.

If killing animals intentionally, randomly, and wantonly is too emotional, and not efficient enough for your liking, that's fine. As it stands, the world looks like a sad, dismal place by your definition.

 

I am FAR superior (physically, intellectually, and emotionally) to your average 4 year old child.

I should be allowed to eat them by your weak standards....

Save that the 4 year old child will eventually reach or even surpass you physically, intellectually, and emotionally; an animal will never. Plus, you (and everyone else) have been raised in a society that teaches that cannibalism is wrong. This ability to reason is why homosapiens are superior to all other species.

 

Save that the 4 year old child will eventually reach or even surpass you physically, intellectually, and emotionally; an animal will never.

Which goes back to my previous argument about the mentally disabled, see above.

The argument is also limited to athiests and adherents to western religion. Those who adhere to eastern religions see animals as beings with souls, and therefore not only see slaughter as unethical, but also see that animal of having the ability to surpass you in the next life, especially if you screw up.

[image=http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6p7ym/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/karma_flip.gif]

Plus, you (and everyone else) have been raised in a society that teaches that cannibalism is wrong. This ability to reason is why homosapiens are superior to all other species.

As much as it would be nice and convenient to have one world society, it is not quite accurate. We are several societies. And there are some, including the Foré of New Guinea, who condone cannibalism. And there are also societies, mostly in Asia, who completely detest the slaughter of animals.

 

Basically, anyone who believes that animals can be done away with in any way some people want to, must by the very same system of thought, agree with Dr. Mengele's eugenics treatise. If not, they are confused hypocrites.

Um, no. Humans (even mentally retarded humans) are more important than animals. Sorry.

 

Um, no. Humans (even mentally retarded humans) are more important than animals.

Why?

The previous poster(s) chose to argue solely on intellect, and I called them on it. So unless you have other things to bring up, you have nothing.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm not the you should be apologizing to ...

 

"The mentally impaired human beings "never, ever, can" ... "understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them.""

Now you're putting words into my mouth. The mentally retarded do not represent humanity as the vast majority of human beings are mentally capable.

"I believe it was Dr. Josef Mengele of the Third Reich who asserted in his medical papers on Eugenics that such people with mental incapacity should be eliminated by the doctors of society, as a compulsive duty to society, since they were a detriment to society and could never "understand rights and the responsibilities inherent in them.""

"Basically, anyone who believes that animals can be done away with in any way some people want to, must by the very same system of thought, agree with Dr. Mengele's eugenics treatise. If not, they are confused hypocrites."

Now this is preposterous. None of us. I repeat NONE OF US have EVER advocated the killing of mentally retarded human beings! Ever!

This isn't about the killing of one's own race, but the killing of an animal for food. There is no hypocracy involved.

All that is being argued, as Eclipse put really well in his earlier post, is that human beings eating animals are acting according to their nature as omnivores, which can eat plant and animal organisms. He, as well as I, brought up the inherent hypocracy of animals rights wherein if you protect the prey's life from being eaten by predators, you are infringing on the predator's right to life which have to eat animal flesh to survive. Lastly, there is a difference between slaughtering an animal for food, and needlessly killing an animal. You are arguing that the killing of an animal in any way is wrong, when there is a complete difference of purpose.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

Now you're putting words into my mouth. The mentally retarded do not represent humanity as the vast majority of human beings are mentally capable.

Now this is preposterous. None of us. I repeat NONE OF US have EVER advocated the killing of mentally retarded human beings! Ever!

This isn't about the killing of one's own race, but the killing of an animal for food. There is no hypocracy involved.

Well, that's a relief, since you are arguing animals have no rights in relation to human beings solely due to the comparing of intellect. If you argue solely along that line, then by default you also agree with substantial portions of Dr. Mengele's eugenics treatise. If not, then your argument is hypocritical and defective. Find something else, please.

All that is being argued, as Eclipse put really well in his earlier post, is that human beings eating animals are acting according to their nature as omnivores, which can eat plant and animal organisms. He, as well as I, brought up the inherent hypocracy of animals rights wherein if you protect the prey's life from being eaten by predators, you are infringing on the predator's right to life which have to eat animal flesh to survive. Lastly, there is a difference between slaughtering an animal for food, and needlessly killing an animal. You are arguing that the killing of an animal in any way is wrong, when there is a complete difference of purpose.

I personally do not believe in intervening with animal predators versus animal prey. To those "animal rights" activists who thinks they can issue some blanket decree that no animal is to be killed by ANYTHING is just doomed to failure. First of all, there would be no way to enforce that, unless you put every animal on the earth in captivity, which would not be good. The entire ecosystem would be in disarray. No. Any activist humans who want to be the world's policemen take it too far, and if someone on this thread suggested that, I'll be the first to say it's ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that human beings need to take responsibility for their actions, and their actions only, which compared to the "world's policeman" model, is actually quite simple.

Some people bring up the Paleolithic cro-magnon diet, which is the most laughable thing I've seen on these forums. OK, so who knows someone who uses the Paleolithic dating method? They would meet women, club them on the head, and drag them into their cave.

We are not cro-magnons anymore, we are not humanity in its infancy (what's more, it seems that the vast majority of people end up losing their canine teeth before adulthood). We cannot cling to infancy, as comforting as it may be. When our reasoning improves, so does our society, and with that, comes a set of responsibilities.

 

eclipseSD: We have free will, intellect, and the ability to be self aware of the world around us. No other animal on this planet has this ability, so we have gained dominion over the world. That is all a given.

Wow! With all due respect, that sounds like a vast assumption, rooted in human arrogance.

I say [animals should not be killed] in excess, as a certain amount of the animal should be protected for the continued survival of that species for our purposes...And why exactly should we care about pain in other animals?

Hmm...I would only say that if you can genuinely pose a question like that in the first place, then any answer that might be presented, probably wouldn't mean much to you anyway....

As for rights, well, animals have no rights...If animals had rights, then how would the mountain lion feed?

Um, I don't want to speak on behalf of all animal rights activists, but I'm thinking that you've misunderstood a crucial point: I don't think anyone believes that animals need to be protected from each other -- only from us humans.

 

"Well, that's a relief, since you are arguing animals have no rights in relation to human beings solely due to the comparing of intellect. If you argue solely along that line, then by default you also agree with substantial portions of Dr. Mengele's eugenics treatise. If not, then your argument is hypocritical and defective. Find something else, please."

I never argued for the eating of ones own species nor the destruction of any "defective" human being. That is repugnant no matter what condition the human is in. All humans are valued above animals. I am talking about eating animals for sustenance, not the "cleaning" of the gene pool. Once more, you are trying to pigeon hole me because that is the only way you can feel to "win" this arguement. Why don't you find something else.

How is eating animal flesh irresponsible? Or are you talking about the "excess" eating in America (and not just America)? If so, who are you to say what is and is not responsible eating practices for me? Isn't that my decision not yours?


Mistryl's Paramour

 

I think the reference to Mengle invokes Godwin's rule, so the non-animal-rights folks win by default

 

I never argued for the eating of ones own species nor the destruction of any "defective" human being. That is repugnant no matter what condition the human is in. All humans are valued above animals. I am talking about eating animals for sustenance, not the "cleaning" of the gene pool. Once more, you are trying to pigeon hole me because that is the only way you can feel to "win" this arguement. Why don't you find something else.

Read the statements of yourself and your compatriots. You used intellect as the primary attribute in justifying the assertation that animals don't have rights. Thus there are unfit elements in our society that simply have no reason to live in your contrived world view. I say again, if you take offense, find some reason to justify your argument besides intellect.

It becomes increasingly more apparent in your evasive demeanor that you take more offense toward yourself than any poster here that just happens to disagree with you. It's ironic that the other side throws the word "emotional" around like so much overused garbage. You've invested nothing but emotion in this thread.

How is eating animal flesh irresponsible? Or are you talking about the "excess" eating in America (and not just America)? If so, who are you to say what is and is not responsible eating practices for me? Isn't that my decision not yours?

It's irresponsible because we now have numerous alternatives at our disposal, which are not being used exclusively due because massive diets of meat are being pushed on people. It's also irresponsible, selfish, and inconsiderate to the next generation of human beings since a great amount of land and resources are being wasted on animals that are only going to be killed by human beings.

I think the reference to Mengle invokes Godwin's rule, so the non-animal-rights folks win by default

The comparison is so uncanny and so resembles eugenics, resistance to use it is almost futile. Where were you on the Vegetarianism thread when everyone used the word "nazi" against vegetarians and vegans like a bad cliche? You were looking the other way.