Animal rights

Post Reply New Topic

Who here support animal rights? If you don't support animals rights don't reply.

Last edited by Solsikke on 18 May 2010, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do, too!

sub human animals have no rights that anyone are obliged to respect. In the wild they live as they can and when owned they are property.

Having said that, I point out there is no rational basis for being arbitrary and cruel to sub human animals who we believe are capable of feeling pain. To quote Temple Grandin: Nature is cruel but we don't have to be cruel.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 17 May 2010, 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

I curse the ASPCA for their effective marketing and ruining Sarah McLaughlin songs for me, I'm running out of money to send them.

Animal abuse is widespread, and often times at each place more than one animal is affected. Puppy mills, Kettles, irresponsible home owners, dog fighting and even our food sources. The police last year busted a homeowner nearby for neglecting over 40 dogs and cats. Many of the animals were adopted (we took one), but many were beyond saving. The chihuahua we adopted was missing teeth and was covered in fight wounds, as they were competing for such a limited amount of food.

All of my pets are from shelters, I can't even walk into a pet shop without feeling like I'm going to vomit.

I do, too.

I think this is a silly premise for a thread, since there is no definition of what the OP means by the term "rights." For the record, I'm a vegan, and have been for fifteen years now, so I might be considered to support animal "rights." However, the term is used so vaguely and loosely as to be meaningless, so I can't really answer the question, in either the affirmative or negative.

One point I would like to make is that animals are not "sub human." That term implies a hierarchy, and I don't think that is how the world works. If someone believes in evolution, then animals evolved along separate lines to fit into an evolutionary niche, and as such are just where they should be... they are not sub but other than humans. From a creationist point of view animals were created different from humans at the very start. Whichever world view you ascribe to, describing animals as "sub" human is inaccurate. They are simply other.

Same here, I don't want to say yes or no. But I do love animals and want them treated nicely. I haven't been eating meat for several months now (just some fish on occasion) so I guess I'm on the path to being a vegetarian.

This is a book I really liked about animal rights/welfare
http://thankingthemonkey.com/

I don't support animal rights at all. Animals are non-sentient and are propertly to be used as humans see fit. However if someone is cruel to an animal for pleasure or for no reason whatsoever I have no problem with them being shot in the face.

If by animal rights you mean i don't need to eat them and they are not making my life uncomfortable i leave them alone then yes

Define sentience, so that we'll know what you mean by non sentient. Obviously if an animal is "non sentient" in the Descartian sense then there's no problem treating them "cruelly"... how can you treat a machine cruelly? Cruel then becomes a term we use to define something that hurts us (perhaps morally) rather than the recipient of the "cruel" behaviour.

If we're going to talk about rights, and cruelty, and sentience we should at least know how we're using those terms.

If you think this is a silly thread, don't reply.

Thread being locked at the request of the OP.