Animal Rights - what's your opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

There is no "However" to it. Animals are not humans. Only humans can be citizens. Citizens have rights.

Animals have meat.

You have rights because somebody more powerful than you gave you these rights.

Rights are not necessarily for humans only anyway. Animals have some rights in some of today's nations. For example, they have the right not to be tortured and not to be butchered in an unnecessarily painful manner. Animals that aren't for food also have a right to be treated well by their owners. Rights are limited but they are nevertheless rights we've granted to them as human beings through law.

And who knows what other rights in the future our next generations may grant them.

I think animals should have a limited set of rights recognized but realistically, it's not really practical to give them the same rights as humans. Nor justified imo since I don't think they are quite as sentient as we are.

But they should be protected from cruelty and treated well, of course.

Ah, old thread. Oh well.

Animals should get back the rights that we have taken away from them.

Completelly agree with animal rights. They do not any fault by live with strange and cruel creatures like us.

This sums up my stance pretty well...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfXu9V9ggoU[/youtube]

CHECK YOUR PREMISES.

"RIGHTS" ARE LIBERTIES THAT ARE GRANTED BY AN AUTHORITY; EXEMPLUM GRATIA: "THE STATE"; ID EST: "RIGHTS" ARE NOT INHERENT QUALITIES, THEREFORE NATURALLY, ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS, THEREFORE YOU ARE BASICALLY STATING THAT ANIMALS OUGHT TO GET THE RIGHTS WHICH WE (HUMANS) GRANTED TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, BACK, WHICH IS ABSURD.

IF YOU REALLY "CARED" FOR ANIMALS, YOU WOULD NOT EVEN GRANT THEM "RIGHTS".

ZHKND, is there a reason that you are shouting?

I agree with your premise that rights are granted by society, but why do you say that caring for animals = not granting them rights? What about the right, for example, to not be tortured to death?

I AM NOT "SHOUTING".

"ALL CAPITAL LETTERS" DOES NOT INHERENTLY SIGNIFY SHOUTING.



IF YOU "CARE" FOR ANIMALS, THAT ENTAILS THAT YOU WANT THEM TO LEAD WHOLESOME LIVES.

A WHOLESOME LIFE ENTAILS FREEDOM.

IF AN ANIMAL IS GRANTED "RIGHTS" IT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT FREE.

THEY ARE ANIMALS, NOT HUMANS; THEY DO NOT NEED "RIGHTS". THE NOTION THAT ANIMALS NEED "RIGHTS" IS A SYMPTOM OF DEGENERATE BEHAVIOR; SPECIFICALLY PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM.

PS. "RIGHTS" ARE GRANTED BY THE STATE, NOT BY "SOCIETY".

WHAT DO YOU EVEN MEAN BY "SOCIETY"?

legal rights are granted by the state, true; but most rights are either enforced or ignored by society. For example, to take a piece from one of the feminism threads: women were granted legal rights to property long before they were granted social rights to such. Banks could, and did, refuse to give women loans without their father's or husband's consent; doctors could refuse to treat women without their husband's or father's consent; etc.
True equality didn't happen until the social views of women's fundamental autonomy as human beings changed, because the law cannot be everywhere. One cannot sue for every single little infraction, even where the infraction is covered by the law. Another example: dx'd Aspies might have 'legal' rights to not be discriminated against under the ADA, and yet social discrimination still happens. Sometimes it's because an Aspie chooses to remain in the closet; sometimes it's because the discrimination is on the level of personal taste. An NT just doesn't like hanging out with Aspies - and they have that right - but that dislike might result in financial harm when business deals are combined with leisure activities such as golf or drinks at a strip joint.

As for animals, I disagree with all three of your premises (I also disagree with your statement that caps does not mean shouting; it is well-established internet manners. However, I don't care enough to push it further).

First:

No. Caring for animals means that you want them to suffer as little as possible. 'Wholesomeness' is an amorphous concept, at best; by some definitions, it could mean 'refraining from sex until marriage,' which does not apply to animals.
Second:
No definition of 'wholesome' that I know of equates wholesomeness with freedom.
Third:
'Rights' are not some unitary concept. In the United States currently, animals have the 'right,' granted by law and society, to not be tortured to death; people who violate that right can be punished by both law (prison) and society (shunning). 'Not being tortured to death' doesn't have much to do with freedom, but in my mind it's pretty important.
Rights do not necessarily either constrain or grant freedom in any way.

Even the most rabid ARAs I've spoken with don't think, for example that pet dogs should have the right to come and go as they please. They recognize that dogs don't have the ability to safely navigate a world constructed by humans; they would shortly get run over by cars or commit violent acts against the neighbor's chickens, leading to suffering and heartache for all.

Furhermore, I don't get your equation on a basic level. Rights =/= freedom. Freedom = wholesome. Therefore rights =/= wholesome?
I think that the definition of 'wholesome' that you're using might be at the root of the misunderstanding; I use this definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wholesome

If that is not your definition, could you please tell me how you are using the word?

You are, because in online communities such as WP, it does.
Please check your PMs.

I'm gonna do a poll on this.

Nope. Giving animals the same rights would be detrimental to society in so many ways, but...

They should have the rights to live a life without human causes of suffering or they should have rights to very little suffering. Those rights should not be abused by anyone.

I think Animal testing is beneficial to both humans and animals, but the lengths of suffering which many animals are put through at times, is way to inhumane. If it gets to the point where an animal is being tortured, it should be culled quickly or treated and donated to caring keepers so it no longer has to live a bad life.

I am against factory farming for whatever reasons. In most cases keeping animals enclosed in a very small space for a long time and without sun, would be classified as animal abuse. However because these animals are food to us or make food for us, there is a double standard there. Keeping animals in small spaces without proper lighting and in large quantities is not just abuse but it is unsanitary, and the cause for many illnesses.

I am also against a lot of "Free Range" farming of animals. Free Range can be defined as many things, it is often just a cutesy name that is given to animals not kept in tiny cages in the dark, to calm the hearts of lighthearted people, but even with this free range label, animals can still be very over crowded and given a small amount of room to roam freely. There needs to be very strict and respectful free range laws because as of right now, free range is a very vague term, mostly used for marketing to people who love eating meat but hate abuse, and people who want healthier kept meat. It is saddening how some people eat up the term "Free Range Meat" without looking into it more.

Hunting for non endangered food is something I believe should be legal, but it is not something very easy to monitor, so that people are not abusing their harvests and potential harvests. I'm not sure there is much we can do, besides educating people on how to properly hunt without making an animal suffer, or punishing those who flaunt being disrespectful hunters. It makes me very uncomfortable knowing that there are hunters out there who do not fully give their respect towards animals they are trying to kill and eat. Hunters with bad etiquette are not going away any time soon.

Trappers make me uncomfortable, but some do it because that's the only way they can survive, so you can't take that away from them. Perhaps trapping would be best for those who need to do it only.

Hunting just for entertainment and trophies to mount on your wall should be banned in my opinion. People like that just have a lust for killing. I would have no problem with it being a serious crime, worthy of a lengthy period in a jail cell and a hefty fine that goes towards keeping wildlife preserved in the area.

For keeping animals merely for monetary gain and entertainment purposes, riding bulls, bullfighting, circus acts, ect... I am very against it all, especially for the very intelligent animals. Can't say I feel sorry for anyone that gets a bull horn up their ass, or bitten by a tiger they are keeping for money and entertainment.