Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 42
Do Animals Have Rights?Page 2 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Hmmm..wonder if a mylar blanket tied to a large deer would be cool? Deer season soon....so this could prove pretty funny.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 43
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/16/2009 8:45:38 PM
I don't know about the rest of you animals, but I have rights!...and I ain't giving them away to some tyrant owner of a corporation he pretends is a country either!
 WanderingRain
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/16/2009 11:54:47 PM
I don't know about rights, but I do know and recognize animals were created to have as normal life as possible.
cows were meant to be eaten, but they were not meant to live in pens shoulder to shoulder and lie in their own filth all their lives until they miserably die. (this is the source of e-coli, by the way which is totally avoidable if we just take better care about butchering animals)
I grew up buying dead chickens in an actual meat market. Today, nobody seems to notice that the chicken skin on the grocery store is sometimes riddled with yellowish unhealthy looking scabs that are a sign of overcrowding and lying in their own feces. yeck. maybe this generation thinks it's normal looking skin and it does vanish when you roast it of course, but yuck... not for me.

So I don't even want to buy beef I don't know where it comes from. I always check the source as much as humanly possible.

I do agree that animals have a nervous system so they can avoid pain. but being subject to pain without having a choice to escape the source (like in a lab) seems to be a bit cruel. There is no quality of life there. It is as if an even higher race of beings would kidnap us and subject us to pain but we don't know why or for what. maybe for the aliens they have a justified purpose in doing it to us, but we only know we are in cages and we are in misery. We would likely think we are being tortured unnecessarily.

And it has been proven that animals do mourn and do cry and feel grief in their own way. some mated pairs when the other dies, the mate also perishes out of loneliness. We had a rare bird brought back to us for a pet but it refused to eat until it died. There are cases of this where the animal is just so miserable it refuses to eat. Some rationalize that into many excuses, but to the animal, it's natural cycle has been interrupted and what it had known all its life is now gone. It does not know how to adjust to a new reality so it just perishes.

but it all boils down to groups of people who can empathize, and those who can't empathize. Some "get it" and others do not. And you will notice that those who can't empathize are usually more aggressive, violent and intolerant not just of animal welfare but the welfare of their fellow human beings. thus, They also fare poorly in relationships with their spouses and with humanity in general.

You will notice on these posts if you read them all that those who can't empathize usually talk about animals and people from the perspective of "how I can use them for my own benefit". It's never about the other person or being... it's all about me, me, me... Read the posts again and you will see this pattern. It's the same on all the forums.

the collective mantra of those who can't empathize is:
"animals are here for me to use however I want, when I want"
"it's the other person's fault, not mine."
"They should get rid of their pet for me."
"she/he should adjust to my standards."
"What I believe is always right and 'they' are wrong."



 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 45
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/17/2009 11:21:13 AM
>>>The wolf does not oppress the rabbit. Actually the wolf and rabbit rely on each other for survival.

How does the Rabbit need the Wolf?

>>>I do not choose a world like this, however this is the world I have been born into. I have a right to survival. Much like the wolf.

At the cost of the destruction of the planet? And, again, why should we listen to you? You condemn others for destroying the planet, but, if it costs you ENTERTAINMENT, you accept that destroying the planet is a requirement for survival.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 46
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/17/2009 2:27:30 PM

animals can come back once they die to their owners

Pets are a lot like children in a lot of ways, but in one particular way, I'd say they are almost identical. Neither a child or an animal is a moral agent (so far as we know). Are your children your property, that you can own them, or is it your moral obligation to them to act as a parent? Is it not also true of pets? However, we consider (generally) that we can't own our children (that would be slavery and oppression), yet we think nothing about "owning" a pet. What gives us the right to own a sentient being, and if something does give us that right, why doesn't it extend to our children?
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 47
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/17/2009 3:06:51 PM
Willow,

As of yet, no one has answered My Rescue Question! It is on here near the beginning.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 48
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:26:11 PM

Talking about unwriten laws like this is absolutely meaningless because you can make them out to be anything you want to.


Not so. Natural law is the foundation upon which real written law is built. It is the universal law of humanity. It finds some of its best expression in the American Declaration of independence: "We take it as self-evident that all men are created equal..."
That's natural law at its finest (and it sure stuck in King George's craw that people would have the nerve to insist that he didn't "outrank" them, feudally speaking.

It wasn't writing it down that made it law, it was the logical, common sense fairness of it to any rational man that made it law.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 49
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:25:06 AM
>>>Without the wolf the rabbit would overpopulate, and get diseased. The wolf keeps the sick and weak rabbits from reproducing and thereby keeps the species strong and viable.

How, and Why, is man removed from from this role? And what keeps the wolf from suffering from overpopulation, and disease?

And, this begs to question- why aren't you offering yourself up for the same sacrifice? If someone is ill, or genetically inferior, should they be expected to sacrifice themselves to wolves? Should you, since, after all, you must harm the environment to survive?
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 50
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:25:45 AM
They're arguing against the concept that animals have equal rights to humans, which you claimed was the case, if memory serves me(dunno.....thats Raz's debate)
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 51
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:31:31 AM

We can choose to create and support a world of suppressor and suppressed, prisoner and guard, master and slave, tortured and torturer.

Or we choose to create and support a world where all sentient beings are free to choose their own destiny without prisons, domination or torture.


Using animals to test cosmetics is wrong, but if animal experimentation will lead to better/safer surgical procedures and medicines or treatments for people then I have no problem with it.

And animals are only sentient in the broad definition of the word, they don't stand around thinking "I'm being suppressed/I'm a slave/prisoner".
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 52
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:26:21 AM

animals are only sentient in the broad definition of the word, they don't stand around thinking "I'm being suppressed/I'm a slave/prisoner"

The same can be said of human babies; does this mean we can experiment on babies the same way we use animals if the research proves to have value for humans with moral agency?
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 53
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:53:07 PM
Ulster born,






Dale
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 54
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:01:47 PM
Willow,

Fully agree

look at the Zoos everywhere.

they are more and more "evolving" towards mimmicking natural habitat.
Yet even, as the old saying goes, if you dress it up- a cage is still a cage!

mistreatment of any animal is abhorrent. And usually it is the human lust for either saving money or making money, that spurs the mistreatment/ torure.


Dale
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 56
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:41:39 PM
>>>Animals don't think in words

You know how animals think?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 57
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/19/2009 4:14:37 AM

Animals don't think in words

People don't think in words either; it would be much too inefficient and our thoughts would be too ambiguous if we did.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/19/2009 5:08:39 AM
In response to message 86 and animal testing; this testing became popular in the 50's after some vaccines given to pregnant women, and childern had horrible effects. So to avoid causing more harm then good to people animal testing was used to minimize the risks. With the advent of the computer age much of labortory testing that used to be preformed on living subjects, are now modeled, however the FDA does have certain requirements which must be met before any topical, or ingestiable product can come to market can be released.

As far as animals having rights. One has to look at things logically and understand that some animals are higher then others. Not all creatures are created equal. A fly is not equal to a dolphin, as a dolphin is not equal to a human. I would say we should be as humane as possiable. I think all here would agree that we are against abuse of animals.

As a human, and having the complex brain that I have I can simutaniously thinking both think in symbolicly, and with words. Sometimes, in more then one languge at a time. lol.

Jipery: Ironicly I was listening to the raido yesterday on topic on how animals think. The guest stated that animals think symboliclly, (in pictures, and sensory feelings). So I would have to give that round to Dukky.

Aside, International Velvet; Major said: Nice Animal Farm reference. lol
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 59
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/19/2009 10:55:20 AM
But thats the thing- as we clearly see, we aren't entirely sure how humans think- so theres no way someone like willow can make the blanket statement "Animals think on an entirely different level than us"- because we do not know how animals think- Or humans, for that matter. Anyone claiming they do is making shit up.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/20/2009 12:53:24 AM
we do not know how animals think- Or humans, for that matter


As far as animals having rights. One has to look at things logically and understand that some animals are higher then others. Not all creatures are created equal. A fly is not equal to a dolphin, as a dolphin is not equal to a human.

If the first quote is true, then looking at things logically, how can we say all creatures are not created equal? A given animal may think differently than humans; it may not think as fast, but given that human reaction times are usuallly much slower than animals, they may think much faster, or not at all, depending on what you call "thinking", so who can say which animal is "higher"? By what criteria? By what authority?
To an atheist, the authority obviously can't come from God, so who makes that judgement? We do and our judgement is obviously biased in our favour by our attitude that we are the "superior" animal. So what gives us that authority that we can make that judgment?...Nothing but our own biased and unfair attitude. We are not "superior" to the flies, mosquitos and ants, we just think we are. We take our perceived differences from other things, put them in an ordered list that WE call a hierarchy (with us at the top), then claim we are "superior" because we made a list and put ourselves at the top. Could the list be ordered differently? Of course it could, but it isn't, because we like to put ourselves on top.

Does that sound fair & just? No, it sounds more like we rigged the game of "superiority" among animals. Since we made up the game and the rules and are the only animal playing it, I dare say we haven't the right to assert that we are "superior", or that a hierarchy (that we made up) exists. We therefore have no right to apply either our perceived superiority, or the hierarchy to other animals; after all, they aren't even playing our stupid game; they just live and don't even think about where they sit in our hierarchy.

On the subject of "rights", suppose there were only two people on the planet, you in North america and some other guy in Australia. Neither of you knows that the other (or anybody else) exists. In your ignorance you both proclaim to yourselves "I am the sole owner of the planet." Which of you owns the planet? If you now discover each other, which of you now must either leave, or pay rent to the other? Are you obliged to divide the planet equitably by negotiation and if so, what if other people turn up?...More negotiations?...What if they don't speak your language or can't communicate for whatever reason. Are you obliged to try to kill each other to press your claim of ownership? Do you really believe you can own the planet (or any part of it) just by saying you do?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 61
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/20/2009 5:11:49 PM
we, ourselves, are nothing really but a virus on this planet.. eating up all it's resources then moving on

If we act like a virus, then that's what we are and ought to have no rights whatsoever. I'm inclined to think, however that most people aren't out to plunder the planet of its resources and foul our own nest in the doing of it. I'd say most people would rather live happily and sustainably, in harmony with the planet, as opposed to raping it. So why do we seem to be doing what we generally don't want to do?

Think of humanity as two different species; 95% are moral and decent aphids who have been conditioned to their slavery (they are called sheeple); the other 5% are amoral, self-serving ants (the top 1% of which might be referred to as "the elite"). They squeeze that valuable production out of their slaves parasitically. The sheeple have been conditioned to desire "stuff", which they work themselves half to death to produce. The "stuff" is taken away by the parasites, who then lend it back to the sheeple to use. The sheeple think they own it (which they don't); the parasites maintain ownership AND have taken a large share of the sheeples' production for themselves without working for it.

The ants couldn't survive without the aphids to serve them, but the aphids would be much better off without the ants to exploit them. The aphids outnumber the ants by a huge margin and could, if riled, overrun the ants an take back the fruits of their labour. The big question is...Why don't they?

I'm still trying to figure that one out myself....I guess the aphids are just too stupid to exercise their rights. I wouldn't be too hard on them though...The ants have spent many decades dumbing them down and lying to them, so they just don't know any better. Some even blame themselves and think they are a virus.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 62
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:57:01 AM

There is no one easy answer.

That depends what you mean by "easy." The answer is quite simple really; we all know the difference between right and wrong and we all know what is and isn't fair. We also know what is meant by an act of "necessity" (for those who don't, it is an act committed to ensure one's own survival -- one does what "needs" to be done to survive)

We have to kill things to eat, or we will die; food is a necessity. BUT, if we kill something and waste any part of it needlessly, then we have "wronged" that organism to some extent. If we kill things because we like to, there is no moral justification for it. In that we in North America eat much more meat than we need (often getting fat on it), I'd say that much of the industrial slaughter is immoral, all the more so, when economics makes unnecessarily inhumane treatment and slaughter the norm, just to save a buck or two.

Getting back to the simple answer, I'd say that we are hypocrites. we know (on reflection) that what we are doing is wrong, but continue to do it. Many don't think it's wrong, but only because they haven't given the matter sufficient thought. Those that try, don't want to consider themselves hypocrites, or in violation of natural law, so they rationalize their wrongful habit.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the difference between need and desire; to recognize our own hypocrisy and our addiction to more food than we need and then at least try to do better in future? Why are we so afraid to admit when we are wrong?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 63
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:30:48 AM
I feel so ashamed.

As well you should! My personal addiction runs to"Kettle-Cooked" Old Dutch Jalapeno chips.
At least we can agree on Old Dutch; in spite of their inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent potatoes.

Couldn't we argue eating them out of "necessity"?
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 64
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:42:57 AM

At least we can agree on Old Dutch; in spite of their inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent potatoes.


Count me in. One of the precious memories of my Winnipeg youth was Old Dutch "Onion and Garlic" chips. When they began distributing OD east of Thunder Bay, I kept trying to find this particular flavor, ...no luck. Now I just resent the expansion of the OD market, ...I have no proof, but I believe that they dropped my favorite flavor because of this.


Couldn't we argue eating them out of "necessity"?


I don't see why not, ...one person's "frivolity" can be another's "necessity", ...I guess that's the point of this thread really, as animals "having rights" means many different things to different people, ...it's when one person tries to press their personal template of understanding of this on other people that things like "rights" lose their meaning.
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 65
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/21/2009 2:16:17 PM
willow,

no one is forcing anything.


we are simply stating that when others' proclude all differing "rights" in order to dictate, and enforce 1 person's belief en masse is outright wrong.

If we all "believe" that the status quo is unchanging, and complete, because 1 person/group is omnicient and is in charge then we deserve to be lined vs. a wall...

however, in this same respect, If we think everybodies rights trump our own individual
rights, we seem to caniblistic of our own human dignity.

Just look to the americas. we used to be the melting pot, now we are seperate but equal and are becoming the boiling pot because of it.

we used to have synergy, now every one of us is an irish american, or jewish american,italian american,latino american. and this just generates olde country hatreds and vendettas vs. anyone or group of people into the present tense leading to bedlam. we are becoming our worst enemy by not assimilating /even partial assimilating and compromising in effect/affect that the one ,is not greater than another.
sort of a global peace agreement- like the European union is becoming in fact.

no one is better than another we just have different ideas on things. And without compromise are no better than fodder!

Dale
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 66
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/21/2009 4:50:38 PM

"Rights" (much like beauty) is all in the eye of the beholder

Not exactly, but sort of. Rights come with the obligation to recognize them in others.
In the most basic sense, we all claim a "right to life"; the claim is valid only as long as we recognize that right for others. It would be ludicrous to say "I have a right to life, but you don't", because if you won't recognize that right in another, why should he honor yours?
All rights come with the moral obligation to recognize those rights in others. To make a long story short, your rights end where they infringe on the rights of others.

In a society of rational adults, everyone sees this and agrees to this implied "contract" that we might call rights and duties. There are a few flies in the ointment though, and one of them is children. They are still learning and can't be expected to act as autonomous moral agents because they aren't. Nevertheless, we recognize their rights to life, to be loved and free from abuse. We tend to grant the same rights to the animals that we lovingly call "pets".

We don't (generally) eat our pets either, so maybe that explains it, but where is the justice in one pot-bellied pig being a family member that can even lay on the couch with us, while his brother winds up being slaughtered for bacon & ham? Aren't we being kinda arbitrary with respect to animal rights?
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 67
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 6:48:25 AM

This is a forum.

The statement wasn't directed at any particular forum, thread or user(s).


Your very statement could be construed to be pressing your personal template of understanding on others.

Yet I don't expect or even suggest that others adopt my personal template, as such, the construed is missing the prefix "mis".


I understand that my opinion by default makes the claim that people who support factory farming are either wrong, unaware of the facts, or are apathetic.


Again, this is a personal belief, others may hold the belief that the whole idea of equating human rights with animal rights is not just specious reasoning, but in some extreme cases; delusional. There's no need for anybody to assume this applies to them, it's moot, ...as it's a "personal" belief.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >