Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/24/2001 6:06:32 AM EDT
It's a given that an overwhelming majority of people here are opposed to the notion of animals having rights as humans do, how about hearing the reasons why?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:13:15 AM EDT
The real question is why should an animal have rights? If an anmimal has rights because it is a living thing then plants should have rights also. All those poor little brown eyed cotton plants being raped for their fiber. When it can form a political party and vote then it can have rights.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:13:27 AM EDT
What kind of rights are you referring to? The right to bear arms? The right to free speech? The right to an attorney? Animals have the right, IMHO, not to be deliberately tortured for no good reason. In other words, rats who ingest poison don't have that right because there are reasons for their slow painful death, which is not deliberate, just an unfortunate consequence of the means necessary to control them. There are a few animals who have the right to appear on my dinner plate for the simple reason that I am above them on the food chain. Perhaps you could be more specific . . .
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:15:06 AM EDT
I don't have to be specific. It's about what YOU think Rights are.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:15:46 AM EDT
Because animals can't hire lawyers.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:18:42 AM EDT
1.Animals are food for Humans 2.Animals don't have the ability to communicate their position. 3.Animals don't have an effective lobby in the House or Senate. 4.Animals depend on humans for predation to keep them from overpopulating and starving themselves. 5.They don't have thumbs of voice boxes and that makes them unable press the issue(verbally or by force of arms. 6.Animals don't have any money so their desires and opinions are not important to those in power.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:19:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 6:17:25 AM EDT by ORIGINAL-Waterdog]
Gee, this is a no brainer. They were not endowed with inalienable rights by their creator. I don't ever remember reading anywhere, that GOD had breathed life into them. So, it is reasonable to believe, that they don't have souls?? No soul, no rights! Man was given dominion over them, each of us has the responsibilty to see that they are treated humanely. If you take game for sustenance, it is your obligation to see that the animal dies quickly and as painlessly as possible. And not to kill animals for fun. IMHO Waterdog
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:24:38 AM EDT
Well if God didn't breathe life into them, why are they alive? I thought God created and gave life to everything? Does not God also grant "Man" dominion over the earth and its beasts?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:24:51 AM EDT
Having a Right infers a corresponding responsibility, and animals can not distinguish between right and wrong, hence no responsibility for their actions and no rights.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:34:31 AM EDT
Animals do know right and wrong. Sometimes my dog would shit in my reloading room, when he felt I was shooting and reloading to much. The details that were interjected into the creation of Adam, are there for a specific reason. Adam and man are 2 different entities. Adam created by GOD (has a soul) Man through evolution (no soul) Again, IMHO Waterdog
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 6:34:38 AM EDT
In "my" opinion it is the responsibility of humans to bestow "Rights" to animals. Monkey's should not be shaved and shackled under heat-lamps to test sun-tan lotion - in my opinion. My three Chows know they have the right to protect me, themselves and my property. To them I've bestowed those rights.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:00:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: In "my" opinion it is the responsibility of humans to bestow "Rights" to animals. Monkey's should not be shaved and shackled under heat-lamps to test sun-tan lotion - in my opinion. My three Chows know they have the right to protect me, themselves and my property. To them I've bestowed those rights.
View Quote
Your chows do not "know", they have instincts. God put the creatures here for mans use, just like the plants, trees and everything else on this planet. It is our responsibility to take care of it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:09:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chairborne_Ranger: What kind of rights are you referring to? The right to bear arms? The right to free speech? The right to an attorney? Animals have the right, IMHO, not to be deliberately tortured for no good reason. In other words, rats who ingest poison don't have that right because there are reasons for their slow painful death, which is not deliberate, just an unfortunate consequence of the means necessary to control them. There are a few animals who have the right to appear on my dinner plate for the simple reason that I am above them on the food chain. Perhaps you could be more specific . . .
View Quote
That's pretty much how I see it. But also, if somebody deliberately hurt one of my pets for no good reason, there would be Hell to pay.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:17:11 AM EDT
It is BS why this is even debated. Animals do have rights through our liberal world society, in some places they have MANY rights. This is totally ridiculous. I get my reasons/opinions from the Bible/religion...but I can not use them in a debate on this forum because certain people flip out over the simple mention of the "G"-word.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:23:36 AM EDT
AR-10er, if "instincts" are the same as "trained" then I don't disagree.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:30:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: AR-10er, if "instincts" are the same as "trained" then I don't disagree.
View Quote
You know you can "train" a creeping ivy to grow a particular way. So do we give the plant the same "rights" as the dog?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:37:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By punkatomic: It's a given that an overwhelming majority of people here are opposed to the notion of animals having rights as humans do, how about hearing the reasons why?
View Quote
Kooo KOOO, Kooooo, KOOOOO!
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:42:14 AM EDT
ar10er, if I can train ivy, creeping to protect me, itself and my property then I still don't disagree.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:49:13 AM EDT
The point is that you can train many things to do what you need them to do, but your animal nor the plant can train you to do anything.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:52:22 AM EDT
this is amazing. punk asked about animal rights, which as i understand it, is an ethical question. so why are there people bringing up the stupid notion of "god" breathing life into them and "god" giving us dominance over them? god = tooth fairy = santa clause = bullshit made up to fill a void in someone's pathetic life. animals have the same rights as people, but since we seem to be bigger and stronger, we can kick their a$$es. sort of like the taliban rags. the one with the most power is in charge. but just cause we run the show, we dont have the right to abuse or torture a defenseless animal. i am not against the eating of meat, that is the food chain or nature. but for once i would like to see someone hunt a deer or bear or what have you with their own two hands versus some high powered rifle while hiding in a blind for two hours covered in deer piss. lets make it a fair fight. hell, put it on pay-per-view. thats it. let the flaming begin! -jay
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:53:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 7:51:19 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
ar10er, finally you step in shit. Animals are some of the best trainers of humans in the world. I'm going to let you have the last word and move on. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:57:26 AM EDT
asfkir weoorlc cmootphli olpwoelr939 fidamoel forolelwo02394 32133reoaa;''af I asked my cat to give his perspective on this issue, but as you can see above, he had difficulty with the keyboard.[IMG]http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s/contrib/aahmed/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:59:26 AM EDT
platform, LMAO!!!! -jay
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:01:09 AM EDT
It's amazing that you people sit here and bicker and screech about your reasoning why animals do/don't have rights. Especially the religious crowd. You people make me laugh. Of course animals have rights. Even you people who say no know that they have rights. Why do they have rights? Because all people, all HUMANS, who know RIGHT from WRONG have given them rights. That is our dominion. Religionists? God gave us that dominion. He put us in charge of the creatures of the world. So long as nothing we charge these animals with supercedes the laws and Will of God, then you can have no argument on this side. They may not have God-given rights, as we claim to have, but they do have man-given rights, and that's just as good, if we're acting under the umbrella of RIGHT and WRONG. Our behaviour toward them will in and of itself guarantee them those rights, even if they are not expressly declared. Animals have rights. Not the right to free speech. Not the right to bear arms. Not the right to an attorney. None of the puppet rights that we hold so dear. (After all. If you never had these rights to begin with, you'd likely not feel so uncomfortable about losing them.) They have a lot of the same rights that we have as humans, despite the fact that they may act out of instinct. Most compassionate, or rather, normal, non-mentally-ill people guarantee these rights by mere attitude and action. Animals are not there to be tormented. They have a right to live like anything, or anyone, else, provided they are not a nuisance to our way of life. Much like humans. We don't abuse animals. Animals have the right to protect themselves and their own. We become family to them, so they may exercise this right, as well. They share many of ou rown rights merely by extension, because they are our pets and our property. And about the ivy argument? Ivy is not an intelligent creature. It has no behaviour. It acts out of stimulus. Animals have character, personality, intelligence. This is a whole different ballgame. Plants would BE animals if they had these things.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:56:23 AM EDT
KILL'EM ALL AND LET THE BUTCHERS SORT'EM OUT! [PEEP]
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 9:17:00 AM EDT
There rights are rare ,medium rare,medium ,medium well,and well done.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 9:29:35 AM EDT
"...and the Right of cows to become Prime Rib, Filet Mingnon, and Cheeseburgers Shall Not be Infringed" or something like that
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 9:30:17 AM EDT
Food chain! punk, you a veggie?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 10:49:50 AM EDT
I think you are confusing "animal rights" with human responsibility.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 10:50:01 AM EDT
Animals don't have rights because they have neither the means nor the intelligence to fight for their rights. Humans do. Not all humans have rights either, just those that fought to get them at some point.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 11:05:06 AM EDT
ok people let ME rephrase the this for you very simply .... cruelty to animals (A)justified or (B)not? is that less confusing?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 11:44:27 AM EDT
1st thing; anthropomorphism - attributing human feelings to animals. i don't believe in animal testing, unless it's for a new recipe.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 12:00:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 11:57:25 AM EDT by AnotherPundit]
Well, first off, what are "rights" ? Rights, as such, are agreements, claims, principles of just action; they are elements of the social contract. Thus, in order for someone or something to have "rights," as such, that person must be able to recognize that social contracts exist, and must be able to comprehend, communicate, and abide by them. Think on this. Rights are, fundamentally, ideas. If someone can't understand those ideas, for whatever reason, then that person is going to ignore all concepts of rights, including your rights, just as we would ignore serpent-men living on the far side of pluto. So, therefore, animals cannot have rights -- because rights require an ability to enter into the social contract, which animals cannot do, because they lack reason. At this point people generally whine about "what about children and retardees" etc, and the answer is that children and the cripplingly retarded do *not* have the same number of rights as adult humans -- that's wy we don't let them have cars, guns, alcohol, etc. They lack the necessary reason to use those things responsibly. I suggest you read Locke's [i]Second Treatise on Civil Government.[/i] The idea that anyone can graduate high school ignorant of it amazes me. [i]
63. The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free, but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched and as much beneath that of a man as theirs. This is that which puts the authority into the parents' hands to govern the minority of their children.
View Quote
[/i] [url]http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/locke/locke05.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 12:36:55 PM EDT
Thank you, 'Nother Pundit. "Rights?" Nonsence. Do you want the UN War-Crimes Tribunal to try Lions, Cheetas, baboons, crocodiles and Native Tribesmen for the cold blooded, pre-meditated murder of "innocent" animals? Rights, no. Human responsibility, si. The next time a large, hungry, violent midnight blackbear swarms into my camp, tearing stuff apart and tossing trash cans around and growling, I'll lecture him about rights and responsibilities. " 'Human Rights'," if only you could hear how you sound when you say that." A Klingon envoy in a Startrek Movie, lecturing Uhura.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 12:55:00 PM EDT
It's called the circle of life. Go watch the Lion King if you don't understand nature on an adult level. All living things must eat other living things to survive. It's not evil, it's not good it's just the way it is. A perfect balance, beautiful, timeless and all encompassing. To claim that plants and vegatable aren't alive is totally egocentric. What vegans justify to themselves is the incorrect belief that plants aren't like me therefore they don't deserve rights like me. Total hipocracy. Plants are very much alive, some live for thousands of years. How can you compare the life of a tree that has existed since the time of Christ to a deer or cow, if left in the wild, at the most lives just 5-6 years. Or even a brief human life to that matter. Either you exist within nature and the way nature way designed to be or you live totally contrary to nature and exist in your own little twisted egocentric world where predators are evil, plant eaters are good and plants are alien fodder ready to massacre any time you please.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 1:03:30 PM EDT
That would be due to the fact that they ARE ANIMALS!!
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 1:18:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 1:23:46 PM EDT by punkatomic]
There are some real good ideas here. Original Waterdog, Very interesting idea than man through evolution does not have a soul. However, that just sounds like a way to discount evolution theory from a pro-theistic bias. 5subslr, What man bestow rights on animals? How many men, all men, or just a couple? and what animals, in what order? AnotherPundit, I agree with you, that's a sound explaination in my book. I think AnotherPundit nails the issue quite well, I just want to add that animals do not have any rights at all; man has the moral duty to respect all life. Period. The Animal Rights movement is not about advocating rights among animals or even enacting or enforcing any rights they may believe exist for animals, they are about controlling human social behavior. The Movement is a propaganda and advertising campaign aimed at you and the way you think. Ask yourself, what have they done to make animal life better? What they have done is to try and punish human behavior and restrict human rights. Oh, I almost missed this. AnotherPundit, humans who are retarted, injured or born with brain disfunction, or any other condition or situation where an individual lacks intelligence or reason does have rights! They possess these rights because of exactly the point you make regarding mans' ability to enter into social contracts. Man knows he has rights, others trespass or respect them according to their own moral and value systems, but in the end, man seeks the greatest happiness and the good life for himself and those he loves. Therefore, an individual without the ability to reason benefits by other men who are his guardians and out of a higher moral code, respect his rights. Intact, as is required by virtue of his humanity.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 1:41:23 PM EDT
Well, yes, but that argument gets a bit more complex than can be really dealt within in the scope of a message board -- what rights they have are proxy rights, held in trust, etc., and they themselves don't hold them, rather others hold them in trust. Note that I also didn't say that they didn't have any rights at all, but only that they didn't have the same number of rights (because they lack full use of reason.) Human society does have, I believe, a duty to protect and care for such people, but that's separate from them having rights in and of themselves -- similar to the responsibility a parent has to defend his or her infant children (with firearms if necessary), although the child himself may be too young to have a right to bear firearms personally. This issue gets exraoardinarily complex, and is really beyond the scope of this message board. Locke covers it reasonably well in the text I linked to, however.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 2:01:08 PM EDT
Hell no, hell no, and hell no again! Somebody tell this silly Kalifornia dried fruit that this is "AR15.com"--- sounds like punkatomic was looking for oprah.com to me. By the way, I love animals, they're delicious!
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 2:03:31 PM EDT
“Animals are in possession of themselves; their soul is in possession of their body. But they have no right to their life, because they do not will it.” Georg Hegel (1770-1831), German philosopher. The Philosophy of Right, "Property," Addition 28 (1821; tr. 1942). I do not claim to be a follower of Hegel, but that about says it. I think L. Neil Smith says something to the effect that they'll have rights when they can stand up and argue for them (possibly in Court). (Note: L. Neil's SF books include intelligent apes who ARE citizens and DO have rights.) We have a responsibility to treat our animals well, just as a hunter has a responsibility to make a clean kill. Unnecessary suffering is not good. But an animal is OWNED. If my dog displeases me, I have the right to kill it. In practice nobody has rights, unless they can defend them. The Bill of Rights, like the Magna Carta, is just old paper. It needs men with guns to enforce it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 2:12:44 PM EDT
The mere usage of "animal rights" is retarded. What these people are speaking of is "animal welfare." To give the same notation to the liberties of humans and animals is a joke- it is insulting to the very notion of our precious rights as Americans. Animals do not have the "right" to be treated humanely or with mercy- humans have the responsibility to treat them as they see morally and ethically fair. Oops, I used the 'm' word, I know that bothers some of you leftists. Anyway, quit bitching about the fucking animals while we abort hundreds of thousands of children because nobody cares about their rights. When every human life is cared for and protected, then we can worry about your spotted owls and lab mice. That's it- Dissipator out.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 2:15:59 PM EDT
Animals *don't* have rights. Rights are an idea (a concept) that if understood and properly implemented via the political system will give you protection from others. Animals don't understand ideas/concepts. Therefore NO amount of appealing to "rights" is going to keep you out of the stomach of a hungry bengal tiger. Now, this says NOTHING whatsoever about how humans should ethically treat animals of various kinds -- only that animals don't have "rights" as such. - CD
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 2:37:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By platform389: asfkir weoorlc cmootphli olpwoelr939 fidamoel forolelwo02394 32133reoaa;''af I asked my cat to give his perspective on this issue, but as you can see above, he had difficulty with the keyboard.[IMG]http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s/contrib/aahmed/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
View Quote
Your cat is pretty good. Actually, there is a book written by a cat called "The Silent Miaow" as a manual for kittens, strays, and homeless cats. Since the cat's paws couldn't type it right, it was translated by the owner, Paul Gallico. Highly recommended reading. And if you don't like that one, there is the book "the lives and times ofarchy and mehitabel" as translated by don marquis. Archy is a cockroach that tells the tale of Mehitabel the cat, her exploits and the way she basically "whores around" with the neighborhood cats. The entire text, including the title, is in lower-case because a cockroach cannot hit the shift key and the letter at the same time. It can only jump on one key at a time. More good reading... [;)]
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 4:10:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 4:03:16 PM EDT by punkatomic]
Originally Posted By dissipator556: Hell no, hell no, and hell no again! Somebody tell this silly Kalifornia dried fruit that this is "AR15.com"--- sounds like punkatomic was looking for oprah.com to me. By the way, I love animals, they're delicious!
View Quote
Dissipator556, You crack me up, calling me a dried Kalifornia fruit! Nothing could be further from the truth and besides you don't know me from Adam. Hah! Your following post shows a little more intelligence, for a bit, then you mention Leftists on this board. Are there any animals out there who could gain some new rights just by being less judgemental than you?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 4:12:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ORIGINAL-Waterdog: Gee, this is a no brainer. They were not endowed with inalienable rights by their creator. I don't ever remember reading anywhere, that GOD had breathed life into them. So, it is reasonable to believe, that they don't have souls?? No soul, no rights! Man was given dominion over them, each of us has the responsibilty to see that they are treated humanely. If you take game for sustenance, it is your obligation to see that the animal dies quickly and as painlessly as possible. And not to kill animals for fun. IMHO Waterdog
View Quote
I don't think god breathed life into anything. I am pretty sure we all evolved from single celled organisms.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 4:57:15 PM EDT
If animals do have rights, what happens when one animal violates the rights of another? Like a dog to a cat? and would a dog be considered competent to stand trial?
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 5:07:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 7:34:32 PM EDT
Animals have as much of a right to perpetuate their own existance as anything or anyone else. Plants dont have karma so I'm not sure where I stand with them. I dont agree with much of the animal testing that is going on. I say use our precious inmates for testing. Yes, animals have a right to food, shelter, and safety. When an entity has the need to perpeetuate its own existance by besting the lesser (lion catches zebra), that is called "Mother Nature", and she should take her course. JRB
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:06:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 8:04:03 PM EDT by punkatomic]
Animals were not put on earth for the service of man. Not so long ago, man believed the earth was the center of the solar system and even the center of the universe. This kind of thinking, I call species-ism is flawed since we can't know about the infinite universe or even how we came to be on earth. Was it by divine creation, or as a natural process of selection? As reasoning beings, endowed with an intelligence beyond all others species that we can observe, we must respect all life, it's a moral responsibility we must all bear. Oops, before I get called a fruit again, let me state that I own animals as property, eat meat, respect the traditions and utility of hunting and game management and believe that we are overpopulating the earth because of selfish pride and ignorance. BTW, The "We" should not be considered to mean only Americans either.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 8:30:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2001 8:22:59 PM EDT by Sukebe]
Jesus H. Christ! Two pages of total and complete bullshit! Congratulations Punkatomic.
Link Posted: 11/24/2001 9:15:17 PM EDT
As to the "Overpopulation" comment.... No amount of me telling you it is so will make you believe it, but this planet is FAR from being "overpopulated" or being even close to being unable to sustain us. You need to get away from the ALF ELF and Extinction movement pages and start looking for more information. And before you say anything, no I don't have links or backup for you, so I'm just as bad, I suppose. But the comment that we're overpoplulating out of "selfish pride and ignorance" makes utterly no sense....what pride? What ignorance? Not trying to flame, but that's the sort of comment that one makes that at first sounds edgy, but on examination means exactly nothing. People have kids because they want to have kids, and we're biologically wired to have kids. "Selfish pride and ignorance" has nothing to do with it. Are you still in college? That would explain alot of the buzzterms.... Vass
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top