Page 2 of 3 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

17 Apr 2013, 12:51 pm

I've had stronger opinions on this in the past but nowadays think little about it.

I don't think animals can have rights because we couldn't expect them to know they have rights so how could they exercise them?

But I think humans have a responsibility to not mistreat them.

I agree to a certain extent with vivisection but it should have strict controls over it.

I eat meat and I like it, so I don't think we should not kill them for food.

But I do not like the battery farm principle and I won't buy economy eggs.

I do not think we should use them for testing cosmetics or other vanity products.

And NO to fur coats.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

17 Apr 2013, 12:52 pm

Nova,I think,has a good special on the intelligence of crows.It's called A Murder of Crows.
I think most humans are unaware,hence the Darwin Awards.
I've known dogs that were brighter than some people.
And PETA goes overboard,they said it was abuse to bring that famous groundhog Phil out on groundhog day,I saw a special on that groundhog,he's living better than a lot of people.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

17 Apr 2013, 1:03 pm

Rights are nothing more than an authority that is enforcable in law or in equity. Period.

If you don't live under a system of laws, you have no rights.
If you don't have standing to get the courts to enforce an authority, then it is not a right.

It is simple logic: Animals don't have standing in courts, therefore animals have no rights.

What animals do have is the recognition that limitations must be placed on the freedom of human beings to act in relation to animals.

We criminalize inhumane treatment of animals, for example, not because animals have a right to be free from inhumane treatment, but rather because we believe that humans should not be free to mete out inhumane treatment upon them.


_________________
--James


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Apr 2013, 3:02 pm

Animals can't legally have rights and I won't pretend they do or should.
I believe in the ethical and humane treatment of animals but I'm not against legal and ethical hunting or fishing.
I'm also not against eating animals that were raised for the purpose of consumption.

I don't like commercial farming and would prefer to see us go back strictly to smaller family owned farms but that's not going to happen at this stage.
What I really HATE is to see are dogs and cats (I'm especially partial to dogs) abused, abandoned, or neglected.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Apr 2013, 5:54 pm

humans are different to animals in that humans are burdened by duty and its associated etiquettes. Animals are not.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Apr 2013, 5:59 pm

drh1138 wrote:
Animals lack the ability to freely enter into private and social contract, and thus the notion of institutionalized rights for animals is absurd. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities and obligations.

Also, PETA kills animals. 'Nuff said.


Chimpanzees and Bonobos form personal relations and alliances.

Genetically these apes match humans around 96 percent.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Apr 2013, 6:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
drh1138 wrote:
Animals lack the ability to freely enter into private and social contract, and thus the notion of institutionalized rights for animals is absurd. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities and obligations.

Also, PETA kills animals. 'Nuff said.


Chimpanzees and Bonobos form personal relations and alliances.

Genetically these apes match humans around 96 percent.

ruveyn


I think genetic proportions are a bad basis for assigning rights.

Genetically speaking, you have 60% in common with a banana.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

17 Apr 2013, 6:14 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I think genetic proportions are a bad basis for assigning rights.

Genetically speaking, you have 60% in common with a banana.

:lol:

Well said.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Apr 2013, 6:43 pm

thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
drh1138 wrote:
Animals lack the ability to freely enter into private and social contract, and thus the notion of institutionalized rights for animals is absurd. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities and obligations.

Also, PETA kills animals. 'Nuff said.


Chimpanzees and Bonobos form personal relations and alliances.

Genetically these apes match humans around 96 percent.

ruveyn


I think genetic proportions are a bad basis for assigning rights.

Genetically speaking, you have 60% in common with a banana.


I agree. I just wanted to point out that some of the ape species have behavior of a sophisticated and social kind. Humans are not the only sociable apes on the planet.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Apr 2013, 6:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
drh1138 wrote:
Animals lack the ability to freely enter into private and social contract, and thus the notion of institutionalized rights for animals is absurd. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities and obligations.

Also, PETA kills animals. 'Nuff said.


Chimpanzees and Bonobos form personal relations and alliances.

Genetically these apes match humans around 96 percent.

ruveyn


I think genetic proportions are a bad basis for assigning rights.

Genetically speaking, you have 60% in common with a banana.


I agree. I just wanted to point out that some of the ape species have behavior of a sophisticated and social kind. Humans are not the only sociable apes on the planet.

ruveyn


Many animals are sociable, not just apes. I don't think that should be used as a common denominator, either. Some animals like magpies even have monogamous sexual relationships like humans. Do magpies deserve rights?

If we are going to talk about rights, we need to measure it against the human living experience compared to that of animals otherwise the very concept of rights becomes meaningless.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

17 Apr 2013, 6:56 pm

Citizens have rights. Pets and livestock do not.



WitchsCat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,433
Location: Cleveland, OH

17 Apr 2013, 7:33 pm

Fnord wrote:
Citizens have rights. Pets and livestock do not.


That is true. However, animals still have feelings. Animals can feel joy, sorrow, anger, fear, and other emotions just like we do. When an animal is abused or hunted, one can only imagine what that creature is going through or thinking. Personally, I think animals should be treated with respect and not be treated cruelly, although I do eat animal products (meats, eggs, etc.).


_________________
Black cat on duty


Aprilviolets
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,184

17 Apr 2013, 7:33 pm

I only buy free range eggs as I think battery farms are cruel, chickens being crammed in together unable to sit down.

I'm very anti fur its cruel to skin animals alive for someone to strut around thinking they look good when they don't.

I don't think wild animals should be in circuses.

Pet shops should only sell pet food and supplies, people should adopt an animal from a shelter.

As far as PETA are concerned they do go a bit far at times, they even attacked World Wide fund for nature who do a lot of good work with saving animals and their habitat.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

17 Apr 2013, 8:51 pm

CSBurks wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
^^^^^^Ive seen animals that were a lot more sapient than some humans.
And of course they are sentient beings.
I have crows in the yard that are more sensible and pleasant to be around than a lot of people.
But I do agree that a good porterhouse is tasty.
But I try not to harm anything,even bugs have the right to crawl around.


If other animals were sapient (having wisdom), I think we would have heard about it by now. That would be a scientific breakthrough.

No, most animals are not sentient by a reasonable definition. I define sentience as self-awareness, which most animals appear to lack. Not very many animals can pass the mirror self-recognition test. Only hominids and a few others can.

I know that the animal rights people define sentient as being able to feel pain, but that renders the term meaningless, as most members of the animal kingdom can feel pain.

Humans, as far as we know, are the only sapient species on the planet. However, I am willing to accept that the lower hominids may be sentient.


I'm skeptical of the mirror test. Considering all the mythology that surrounds mirrors, I question wether some primitive human cultures understood they were looking at their reflection. To me a better test of sentience would be wether or not an animal can make a decision based on past experience, as this would require remembering what happened to it and judging what it should or should not do. It is my under standing that most, if not all, mammals and birds are capable of doing this.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

17 Apr 2013, 9:07 pm

I had a pet turkey that knew her reflection was just that.
For the majority of this life I watch the animals in my yard,and I'm in a remote area.
I've even had bears in the yard,most animals are way more connected to what's going on around them than any human.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Apr 2013, 11:41 pm

In terms of mistreatment, I think it's more important that animals can suffer than that they can, or cannot, recognize themselves in a mirror. If an organism can experience pain and fear - and most animals can - then we humans should, as compassionate animals, strive to minimize the pain and fear that we cause to them. That doesn't necessarily mean pretending that we're herbivores, but it does suggest that humane animal raising and animal killing operations, along the lines of what Temple Grandin advocates and designs, should become the norm.