Animal Rights?

[Shaehl]

What's your take on animal rights? Specifically on the nuts at PETA and other AR groups.

I say the only rights animals have is The Right to be Eaten. Really, what have animals done for us besides desecrate our homes and poop on our poperty? The only reason we even need them around is because real men eat meat and if there weren't any animals, we'd all be pansies. I'm not saying we should go around torturing animals, but all this fuss PETA is raising is ridiculous. On their forum, someone posted a story about a girl who ran into the road to save a turtle(WTF?) and got killed. Everyone that replied asked if the turtle was ok. Who gives a damn about the turtle? I bet you anything it died within week anyway.

We also have that psycho campaign comparing KFC to the holocaust... Give me a break. The fact is, all animals are inferior to the human race and should be thankful we still need them around for hamburgers.

[Zangetsu Tensa]

I think we should stand up to defend helpless animals.

Just kidding, I stand up to eat helpless animals.

[lmegera]

Ok, in my opinion, animals should never have more rights than humans. and furthermore, PETA is crazy and is one of the largest domestic terrorists in the United States costing taxpayers billions of dollars in unsalvagable real estate and scientific research...

[Zangetsu Tensa]

Vegans aren't real people.

[lmegera]

Vegans are like the modern-day druids... except without the blood sacrifices and worshipping of trees.. (hopefully)

[Shaehl]

Ok, in my opinion, animals should never have more rights than humans. and furthermore, PETA is crazy and is one of the largest domestic terrorists in the United States costing taxpayers billions of dollars in unsalvagable real estate and scientific research...

I don't think animals should have rights period. They aren't human. They aren't members of our society. Human society is built for humans, by humans. We have no obligation to make animals equal to humans. The way I see things, when an animal asks for rights, then we can consider it.

[Zangetsu Tensa]

I don't think animals should have rights period. They aren't human. They aren't members of our society. Human society is built for humans, by humans. We have no obligation to make animals equal to humans. The way I see, when an animal asks for rights, I'll consider it.
When an animal can stop me from eating it, it's got the right to not be eaten.

[maximoose666]

Ahh, lovely. Thanks to Shaehl for starting off a new debate.
My views on animal rights:

1. As a Christian, God gave us the animals to rule over. By logical extension this means to protect - not to needlessly slaughter.

2. As a human, how is it possible to justify causing unnecessary suffering to one's fellow beings?

3. Although in the developing world, animals are a neccesary source of food, in the West we have other options available. Therefore, eating them is probably wrong.

[Zangetsu Tensa]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg

[lmegera]

I dont particularly care about the Christianity aspect of this....
If you look at historical background: humans evolved when they domesticated animals and smoked the meat to store food during famines and such. Its on a world-wide basis now and meat & protein are an essential part of any diet. No amount of collard green and pills is going to make that up...

[Hits]

3. Although in the developing world, animals are a neccesary source of food, in the West we have other options available. Therefore, eating them is probably wrong.
I'm part-vegetarian and I don't know why, lol. I just don't fancy red meat as much but I do eat fish. But animal should have rights since they do provide us with food....the higher-hierachy animals, the more rights they should us. There is no right in killing animals out of amusement. Dogs for example, are crucial for blinds. It's ok to slaughter for food, but for me, that's about the only time when it is right.

[Zangetsu Tensa]

But animal should have rights since they do provide us with food....
They have the right to get in my belly.

[Shaehl]

Ahh, lovely. Thanks to Shaehl for starting off a new debate.
My views on animal rights:

1. As a Christian, God gave us the animals to rule over. By logical extension this means to protect - not to needlessly slaughter.

2. As a human, how is it possible to justify causing unnecessary suffering to one's fellow beings?

3. Although in the developing world, animals are a neccesary source of food, in the West we have other options available. Therefore, eating them is probably wrong.

Animals eat animals... Animals try to eat us... What's the next step in the sequence? It's definately not, "We love and protect animals..." It is perfectly natural for humans to eat animals, our bodies are to built to consume them.

Animals have no sense of self, they are incapable of using reason or complex thought. Their entire existence is based off of instinct. I don't think we should cause them unecessary pain, but it is far from wrong to use them as a food source. We don't have to eat them in America, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Jesus himself served fish to some thousands of people, and he didn't do it with remorse either. Animals have their uses and that's that. Besides, if we were to stop breeding animals just for food, and converted it all into wheat fields and the like, we'd be killings millions of animals every year anyway during harvest. Only all those animals would just be going to waste.

[Zangetsu Tensa]

Animals eat animals... Animals try to eat us... What's the next step in the sequence? It's definately not, "We love and protect animals..." It is perfectly natural for humans to eat animals, our bodies are to built to consume them.

Animals have no sense of self, they are incapable of using reason or complex thought. Their entire existence is based off of instinct. I don't think we should cause them unecessary pain, but it is far from wrong to use them as a food source. We don't have to eat them in America, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Jesus himself served fish to some thousands of people, and he didn't do it with remorse either. Animals have their uses and that's that. Besides, if we were to stop breeding animals just for food, and converted it all into wheat fields and the like, we'd be killings millions of animals every year anyway during harvest. Only all those animals would just be going to waste.
Go apologize for what you did to tahoe.

[Shaehl]

Go apologize for what you did to tahoe.

I believe everything I said, the only thing I might change in retrospect is I probably could have used general examples instead of her in particular.

[lmegera]

I say, if you wanna eat animals, fine go ahead and eat em. You tree-huggers and animal lovers... dont eat em. And turn your back while I dive into a delicious angus steak burger with swiss cheese and mushrooms...

[maximoose666]

I believe everything I said, the only I might change in retrospect is I probably could have used general examples instead of her in particular.

Yep I should hope so, talking to someone that way. What were you thinking? Anyway - yeah, I don't actually care much about animals, I'm not a vegetarian, but I still reckon us meat-eaters are being immoral to eat them. Plenty of vegetarians get enough nutrition. It's a valid alternative.

[Purokku-kun]

I eat meat. I like eating meat. I've had summer jobs working in abbatoirs and processing factories, so I feel more secure in my choice to eat meat, as I've seen how it's prepared.

Hell, I've even had to do night shifts hauling semi-frozen quartered pig carcasses out of a vat of bloody water, ending up looking like Carrie at the prom...

Still, I feel that excessive and needless cruelty can, and should, be avoided.

And the only time I flirted with veganism was when I was flirting with a vegan. The only legacy of that period of my life is that I've grown rather fond of soya milk.

[_strangechild_]

I'm a meat-eater, but my family doesn't really.. eat meat often, at all. My kid brother's a 'vegetarian', I don't think that you can call yourself a true vegetarian if you eat fish and stuff like that...
I think it's nature for animals to eat animals. Aren't some animals vegetarians though?
Anyways, I don't see anything horrible about it. BUT, I don't think it's fair when animals live crap lives before they die. Aww, or when they boil them alive like the lobsters in those resturants. =( Poor guys.

[Tokoyami]

I say, if you wanna eat animals, fine go ahead and eat em. You tree-huggers and animal lovers... dont eat em. And turn your back while I dive into a delicious angus steak burger with swiss cheese and mushrooms...

*mouth starts watering*

From a political stand point....

The day i see animals protesting and having organized marches for there rights, is the day they can recieve some rights. African americans, Asian americans and women all spoke out for there rights. To be fair, i say the animals must speak out for themselves as well.

Since animals dont have that level of intelligence, i say we all go to Mcdonalds and order a quater pounder with cheese, bacon and lettuce with a side of extra large fries.......*supersize it please*

[FascionViktem5k]

*mouth starts watering*

From a political stand point....

The day i see animals protesting and having organized marches for there rights, is the day they can recieve some rights. African americans, Asian americans and women all spoke out for there rights. To be fair, i say the animals must speak out for themselves as well.

Since animals dont have that level of intelligence, i say we all go to Mcdonalds and order a quater pounder with cheese, bacon and lettuce with a side of extra large fries.......*supersize it please*

they don't have the supersize anymore... and McDonalds doesn't even have "real meat" in their burgers... it's creepy... fake meat... eww!!!! ...

and i agree.. they should ask for their own rights if they wanted it so badly... but because i grew up in a country where we raise animals to eat (Bulgaria) .. i'm not gonna be like "no animals can't do that, because their animals.. we have to fight for them!" ... no... animals are what they are .. animals.. they kill and eat eachother everyday! why shouldn't we? ... the only thing i'm against is killing animals for fur coats... wtf? why can't you grow an animal.. kill it... eat it.. and then make your coat! no .. we have to kill the foxes for their coats because of this and that.. and blah blah... that's the only thing that i'll support for the animal rights thing.. but if you kill it to eat it... well.. that's nature! we're carnivors! well.. not fully... but mostly...

[Shaehl]

they don't have the supersize anymore... and McDonalds doesn't even have "real meat" in their burgers... it's creepy... fake meat... eww!!!! ...

and i agree.. they should ask for their own rights if they wanted it so badly... but because i grew up in a country where we raise animals to eat (Bulgaria) .. i'm not gonna be like "no animals can't do that, because their animals.. we have to fight for them!" ... no... animals are what they are .. animals.. they kill and eat eachother everyday! why shouldn't we? ... the only thing i'm against is killing animals for fur coats... wtf? why can't you grow an animal.. kill it... eat it.. and then make your coat! no .. we have to kill the foxes for their coats because of this and that.. and blah blah... that's the only thing that i'll support for the animal rights thing.. but if you kill it to eat it... well.. that's nature! we're carnivors! well.. not fully... but mostly...

We have to kill animals for fur because it is just simply unfair that they have it all to themselves.

[FascionViktem5k]

We have to kill animals for fur because it is just simply unfair that they have it all to themselves.

LMAO!!!!!! well.. we have hair.. isn't that enough for us? we're so greedy!!!!

[Shaehl]

LMAO!!!!!! well.. we have hair.. isn't that enough for us? we're so greedy!!!!

Are we really greedy, or are those damn animals just selfish? Where do they get off thinking they can hoarde all that fur?

[Fect]

OVER 9 BILLION ANIMALS ARE KILLED EACH YEAR!

If we were to kill off humanity, we would have a benefit of 3 Billion + 9 billion (x).

X is # of years.

Disgusting things are done to animals, like autopsies while the animal is still alive- or vivisections.

[Shaehl]

OVER 9 BILLION ANIMALS ARE KILLED EACH YEAR!


Yet people still go hungry and die everyday. The obvious solution: Kill more animals.

[Fect]

They can't reproduce fast enough. If we were to start eating domestic animals (like cats and dogs), then we wouldn't have the problem of overpopulating domestic animals.

However, chicken, cows, the turkey, and pigs are slaughtered each day to feed us. They are barely reproducing fast enough.

[Shaehl]

They can't reproduce fast enough. If we were to start eating domestic animals (like cats and dogs), then we wouldn't have the problem of overpopulating domestic animals.

However, chicken, cows, the turkey, and pigs are slaughtered each day to feed us. They are barely reproducing fast enough.

As long as the food industry remains in business, they will always reproduce fast enough.

[Fect]

Whatever. 9 billion lives is greater than 6 billion. It's just a matter of numbers.

Would you save the 6 or the 9?

[Shaehl]

Whatever. 9 billion lives is greater than 6 billion. It's just a matter of numbers.

Would you save the 6 or the 9?

Yes. Because the 9 million animals that die every year aren't missed by anyone or anything but the fringe animal rights activists. Millions of bacteria die everytime everyone does anything, are we going to kill off our whole race because of that? We gonna kill off everything on the planet that is visible to the naked eye because it kills bacteria? No. Why? Because bacteria, while alive, are mindless shells. They are slaves to their base functions. They have no ability for rational thought, they cannot use reason, they have no sense of self awareness. They fulfill their roles in complex system that is our world and that is that. Animals are no different. What seperates humans from the beasts is the unique gift of sentiency.

Aside from all that, why should we go out of our way to promote the safety and well being of another species that can't even ask for the said help, or acknowledge it when it is given?

[bebe50UL]

On their forum, someone posted a story about a girl who ran into the road to save a turtle(WTF?) and got killed. Everyone that replied asked if the turtle was ok. Who gives a damn about the turtle? I bet you anything it died within week anyway.

wow.. thats the one of the saddest thing i had in a while. a GIRL ran over into the road just to save a TURTLE? and even got killed in the progess. how do people think these days? i personally dont really care about animals, but i dont like the way they can get tortured for amusement. but we kinda do need animals to survive, and it is health to eat 'em in some cases.

[janti]

I agree to the fact that human right stand above animal rights, but i'm against the useless torture and mistreatment of animals. A cow in a slaughterhouse shouldn't be beaten to death with a stick just for the amusement of the people who work there. Just give them a quick bullet!

Anyway, be healthy and eat a vegetarian!

[FascionViktem5k]

Are we really greedy, or are those damn animals just selfish? Where do they get off thinking they can hoarde all that fur?

because God said so.... LMAO!!! ok that was dumb! sorry! lol! i just .. you know... *looks away nervously*..... *awkward silence*... right then!!!

janti: eat a vegetarian? that's cannibalism! we're talking about animal rights... not cannibalism! lol!

i think we should grow our own animals and eat them... (and take their fur too) ... uselessly beating an animal.. that's not cool... animals do have feelings... they do feel pain... and how would you like it if someone did that to you and all you could do was just cry in pain? not even able to speak your pain... not cool! (and by you i mean the people that torture.. not you who is reading this...)

just as long as the animal died without any torture... i'll eat it... mmmm bacon! ... i want a pet pig and name it Pork chop.... just for the hell of it... and have him play dead.... heheheh.. lol.. ok.. that was mean..

[Fect]

Everyone has to realize that Good no longer means good, but only that which is not evil.

However, more than only the above can be applied to that.

"Cannibalism" was "created" when Hannibal crossed the Alps to get into Italy to attack Rome.

[_strangechild_]

On their forum, someone posted a story about a girl who ran into the road to save a turtle(WTF?) and got killed. Everyone that replied asked if the turtle was ok. Who gives a damn about the turtle? I bet you anything it died within week anyway.
I thought turtles lived for years and years and years.. or is that the tortoise?

[Shaehl]

I thought turtles lived for years and years and years.. or is that the tortoise?

I meant it'd be dead due to getting ran over by another car. Turtles are stupid that way.

[_strangechild_]

Poor turtle..
and girl.

That's sad, it's not their fault they're too slow to get out of the way. =(
My mother and siblings used to have tortoises! But now you can't own one, I don't think.

[FascionViktem5k]

turtle gets run over by car survival of the fittest.. turtle should have been faster! you don't see people running into the street to save squirrels!!! why should they do it for turtles?!?! one time a squirrel got run over by a car.. but like.. it ran over part of it's head.. so it was like flailing around and convulsing.. and my brother who was behind the car saw it.. and was trying to run over the squirrel again (you know to take it out of it's misery.. so it doesn't die horribly painfully) but he couldn't get it because it was moving around so much... i didnt see it.. but he told me about it.. and he just assumed someone else killed it... i felt so bad!!! but yeah... turtles are cute... but i wouldn't risk my life to save one... and their pretty fast if they needed to be! like a komodo dragon... i think that's how you spell it...

[Tokoyami]

turtle gets run over by car survival of the fittest.. turtle should have been faster! you don't see people running into the street to save squirrels!!! why should they do it for turtles?!?! one time a squirrel got run over by a car.. but like.. it ran over part of it's head.. so it was like flailing around and convulsing.. and my brother who was behind the car saw it.. and was trying to run over the squirrel again (you know to take it out of it's misery.. so it doesn't die horribly painfully) but he couldn't get it because it was moving around so much... i didnt see it.. but he told me about it.. and he just assumed someone else killed it... i felt so bad!!! but yeah... turtles are cute... but i wouldn't risk my life to save one... and their pretty fast if they needed to be! like a komodo dragon... i think that's how you spell it...

lol, thats funny to me.

I beleive tortoises live for hundreds of years. if they survive.

I dont see why a squirrel dying is significant, or a skunk, or deer, or a cute little pink bunny rabbit. I guess its from watching looney toons and seeing all those ebaumsworld funny animal pictures.

[FascionViktem5k]

lol, thats funny to me.

I beleive tortoises live for hundreds of years. if they survive.

I dont see why a squirrel dying is significant, or a skunk, or deer, or a cute little pink bunny rabbit. I guess its from watching looney toons and seeing all those ebaumsworld funny animal pictures.

ahh.. ebaumsworld.. wat a wonderful place...

[Tokoyami]

ahh.. ebaumsworld.. wat a wonderful place...
true....true....

I guess we need to protect the animals to some extent from psycho animal killers and the whole rainforest situation thing.....you kno....with the whole nature balance food chain thing.... But for them to have legal rights....i think thats rediculous...

[FascionViktem5k]

legal rights for animals.. would have to mean that they contribute something to the community and blah blah... all they do is give us meat when we eat them... nothing more... wtf? they shouldn't have rights in the way that humans do.. but i also don't think we should go around and torture squirrels..

[Fect]

Now, let's look at it in another way.

A student from a local college in Louisiana decided to conduct a test for a major grade. He got a rubber snake and a plastic turtle that were very lifelike. Now, when he put the turtle on the side of the road, the turtle was avoided by oncomming traffic. They would wait until the lane was clear, then go around the turtle.

Next, he placed the snake a little ways off the road, on the side. He watched for 3 hours. The first car to drive by was the the same side of the road as the snake, and decided to run it over, then quickly got back on the road. The next car, in the same lane, ran it over, then stopped, then backed over it, and ran off. The third car made a detour from the WRONG side of the road, ran it over, backed up over it, ran it over again and sped off. The final car was the sheriff's for that county. The sheriff ran over the snake, backed up over it, then pulled out his revolver and shot it 6 times.

While the sheriff was shooting the snake, the student jumped out, and was yelling at him to stop. Finally, the sheriff saw what it was and had a camera in his car to take a photo.

The headline in the paper: "Sheriff stops fiend!" With him holding the snake.

[FascionViktem5k]

The sheriff ran over the snake, backed up over it, then pulled out his revolver and shot it 6 times.

this is the funniest part.. but it just deals with how people view both animals.. it's not saying that animals should or should not have more rights.. people just don't like snakes... (why shoot it?!?! i heart snakes!!!)

[Genjoumoonfang]

ha ha ha Archetypal violence !!!
Animals I feel have just as much a right to live as we do. with one exception.
We can eat them if we want.
thats what theyr here for. When i hear people say dont kill animals.
i think that we damn well cant use a bull for anything except eating.
no fro Snakes i say leave em be and theyll leave you be. and if its you and the snake in one area have the snake relocated by animal control not have it killed.
Animals provide protein and nourishment to Humans but. What gets you in troulbe is if you eat them all the time. The only time you should really eat meat is Once a week. And in the winter twice a week because of the cold. Buta what are we to eat the rest of the time???
Vegetables and fruit and grains of course. All things in Moderation is what i say. But you do need to eat a lot of Veggies and fruit. an cut doiwn on Junk.


Ok back on subject. Animals Have no choice they do things because of instinct and Nurturing not CHoice. Therefore Humans are superior. If your dog.. lets say... Bites you its because you did something that triggered and instinctual behavior.On the other hand the dog cant feed itself because it only know to get food from you . Crap have to go

[Tokoyami]

Now, let's look at it in another way.

A student from a local college in Louisiana decided to conduct a test for a major grade. He got a rubber snake and a plastic turtle that were very lifelike. Now, when he put the turtle on the side of the road, the turtle was avoided by oncomming traffic. They would wait until the lane was clear, then go around the turtle.

Next, he placed the snake a little ways off the road, on the side. He watched for 3 hours. The first car to drive by was the the same side of the road as the snake, and decided to run it over, then quickly got back on the road. The next car, in the same lane, ran it over, then stopped, then backed over it, and ran off. The third car made a detour from the WRONG side of the road, ran it over, backed up over it, ran it over again and sped off. The final car was the sheriff's for that county. The sheriff ran over the snake, backed up over it, then pulled out his revolver and shot it 6 times.

While the sheriff was shooting the snake, the student jumped out, and was yelling at him to stop. Finally, the sheriff saw what it was and had a camera in his car to take a photo.

The headline in the paper: "Sheriff stops fiend!" With him holding the snake.

lmao wtf, he shot it, thats halarious.

I got a rule!!!! ok here i go....

I say that animals only deserve the right to live to feed and feed off what ever they need to.

what ya thinkizzle?^

[Genjoumoonfang]

i agree unless its people XD

[Fect]

Meh.

Cannibalism is natural, once the right switch is turned on.

If your body becomes so undernourished, then a switch inside of you will say: "EAT NOW! EVEN IF IT IS YOUR FRIENDS!" Since most civilized manners are gone by now, a person usually abides.

[Shinomori]

Until the animals come up here and give a persuasive and coherent argument in favor of their case, I refuse to acknowledge their rights. :D

And cannibalism isn't all that bad. I mean, all other sorts of animals eat their dead. :D

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

Until the animals come up here and give a persuasive and coherent argument in favor of their case, I refuse to acknowledge their rights. :D

And cannibalism isn't all that bad. I mean, all other sorts of animals eat their dead. :D

Wow, I was dying after I read that. I'm fine with legalized hunting. Someone needs to managa all the herd animals since we've destroyed their predators. There's really no other alternative other than reintroducing the creatures we removed in the first place..........and most people don't like that idea. I for one do.

[Shaehl]

Wow, I was dying after I read that. I'm fine with legalized hunting. Someone needs to managa all the herd animals since we've destroyed their predators. There's really no other alternative other than reintroducing the creatures we removed in the first place..........and most people don't like that idea. I for one do.

We removed them for a reason. No one wants to wake up with a mountain lion in their bed.

[Fect]

Until the animals come up here and give a persuasive and coherent argument in favor of their case, I refuse to acknowledge their rights. :D

And cannibalism isn't all that bad. I mean, all other sorts of animals eat their dead. :D


However, you would give someone who was mentally "retarded" (sorry to offend if I have) rights, correct?

And besides, quoting HGTTG: "Contrary to popular belief, Humans are the third most intellegent species on the planet Earth, second to Dolphins, of course..."

By believing in speciesism, you are perpetuating it. Don't be a part of the problem, unless you can offer a solution.

[Daeruke]

by scienticfic terms humans are animals.

[Shinomori]

However, you would give someone who was mentally "retarded" (sorry to offend if I have) rights, correct?


You overestimate my sympathy. I wouldn't.

[FascionViktem5k]

it also depends on the severity of the retardation... i feel bad for those people and instead of empathy i feel pity for them... sometimes i don't think they want to live... but anyway... back to wat's being discussed

Cannibalism.. i think it's illegal but don't quote me... however i think it's true... we will listen to ourselves if we were at a point of almost starvation... we would eat our freinds... maybe... unless our minds were too guilty of something like that... i dunnoo!!!!

[Fect]

Varies from person to person.

"Retardation" is just another label we slap on people. This discrimination is what perpetuates all of the problems we are currently having.
--------------------------------

Over 260 animals will be slaughtered within the US by the time you finish this sentence. We must remove animals from their current catergization as property, relieving them of the being-or-thing existance that is the basis of institutionalized exploitation. For example, we could not have had slavery without making human beings "property."

99.9% of animals have no rights, and 9 billion animals are killed in the name of "agriculture." The USDA's double stance as meat producer and regulator allows them to say that torture is in the name of "agricultural practices."

The Department of Defense claims that all non-human research is in the name of "progress" concerning the military. Labs commit atrocities for "cosmetics," "medicine" and "medical" research.


The problem is that we don't give these animals any rights to defend themselves with. We deny them the basic necessities that they need to live.

Humans perpetuate speciesism just by believing there is a division. Thus, they cannot talk to us, only through their moans and noise can they understand. Animals cannot understand the human tongue! They only understand what certain things mean once done is constant repitition.

We must try to understand the language of other humans, which we have failed to do many times over. This is the same as the language of the animals. They can only show through bodily action and the occasional noise or two, and so we need to understand what they are saying.

[Purokku-kun]

Animals should be accorded certain rights, or else people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the "Animal Cops" TV shows here - that animals be given adequate food and water, shelter, and not be treated with undue cruelty.

The onus on us as dominant lifeform is to act responsibly. There's no need to take it to extremes of tree-hugging hippy cr@pness, like the girl who died saving that bloody turtle (more fool her), but it doesn't take much to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to animals.

[Shaehl]

You say "speciesism" like it's a bad thing. Sorry, but I don't really care about whether or not my hamburger is discriminated against.

[FascionViktem5k]

i would care if my hamburger was tortured or not.. i can't eat something that i know was treated like crap.. i agree they should keep them from unjust harm. .but i'm still gonna eat that cow!

[Zephyrite]

my stance: PETA is crazy and so are the right wing nutjobs

[FascionViktem5k]

yay right wing nutjobs!!! where would we be without them? oh right.. smarter!

[akin_t]

Animal? rights? we would do just fine if they didn't have any. Well this is my first post in this thread and I haven't been up to date but I believe animals should be killed if humans want to eat them, maybe if they're endangered then they should be given time to procreate before we start eating them again. But nonetheless, there shouldn't be a ban on eating animals from endangered species.

As for killing animals for material things like thier skin, I think we should just be sensible and make use of factory manufactured furs and hides, I mean it won't kill you to not wear real fur. Hunting doesn't make sense IMO, not because theyre killing animals, but for the reasons they kill animals - fun. I'm all for hunting if it keeps some people happy, but I don't just see the point.

[Fect]

Speciesism is a bad thing. Consider the following:

If aliens were from another planet and they were going to kill you for meat unless you provided an atequite argument, and they spoke a language you could never hope to understand. Now, would you want some rights if you were offered some protection by their government?

------------------------
Akin_t: The problem with lifting the ban on endangered animals is that if you did that, then many species would never have a chance to procreate, etc. However, I do believe in hunting if it were to do something more than exist as a trophy on someone's wall.

[Tokoyami]

Speciesism is a bad thing. Consider the following:

If aliens were from another planet and they were going to kill you for meat unless you provided an atequite argument, and they spoke a language you could never hope to understand. Now, would you want some rights if you were offered some protection by their government?

------------------------
Akin_t: The problem with lifting the ban on endangered animals is that if you did that, then many species would never have a chance to procreate, etc. However, I do believe in hunting if it were to do something more than exist as a trophy on someone's wall.

Hopefully the aliens would see us as sentient beings, intelligent life. But animals dont have intelligence, they dont reason. well i think monkeys reason, one monkey was taught sign language i heard. but i dont see why sumthing without an intelligence quota should have rights.

[Fect]

Alright, going back to my earlier question:

Would you kill a "retarded" person, since some are incapable of reason? *This may be offensive to some, sorry*

On to the aliens: We are not able to reason (according to the ET), and so, would you like to be killed?

Many animals are fairly intellengent, but considering the way you are putting it, they are incapable of reason only because they cannot communicate with us? WE should be the ones trying to communicate with them, not the other way around. Since we are "superior," they are very unlikely to be able to speak to us in our language. However, we have and are continuing to fail at our duty to communicate with them.

[Daeruke]

guys we r calssified as animals by every scientists. So having right or nots is out of the question since we already have rights. If u mean except humans then we should use logic and kill only when we need to n not exterminate the whole race. Except for flies n other animals that r not useful

[Fect]

...Flies and the other "annoying" animals are here to sustain the chain. If we were to lose all insects, we would lose all animals, including ourselves. Also, usefulness is a line.

We don't purposefully exterminate, with some exceptions. Everything is intertwined and cannot be undone.

[Shaehl]

Speciesism is a bad thing. Consider the following:

If aliens were from another planet and they were going to kill you for meat unless you provided an atequite argument, and they spoke a language you could never hope to understand. Now, would you want some rights if you were offered some protection by their government?


We could fine ways past the language barrier. However, I'd settle for just shooting them. Besides you ask if we would "want" rights from the alien government, some humans may, but animals aren't capable of "wanting" like that so the question is irrelevant. As for for retarded people, the only people so retarded that they are incapable of complex thought are those in a vegetable-like state, and we've already shown that we have no problems ending their lives. Also, don't give me BS about animals talking. Even if we could talk to them, we'd get nothing but inane babble.
Dog: Enemy, Enemy, Enemy... Food, Food, Food... Water, Water, Water... Blah, Blah, Blah...
Cow: ... ... ... Chew...

[Purokku-kun]

i would care if my hamburger was tortured or not.. i can't eat something that i know was treated like crap.. i agree they should keep them from unjust harm. .but i'm still gonna eat that cow! Well said, my dear! :D

[Apocalypse]

Things are much worse when you see the first-hand. Luckily the general public of the country has the luxury of avoiding these sights. This allows us to form opinions that would otherwise be completely different had we seen these conditions. I don't think animals should have as many rights as humans, that much is obvious. If for our existance, another animal has to die... I say "so be it". However, the method of killing comes in to question. There are such things as a merciful death and a merciless death. Where there is no need for additional pain to the animal, I would rather a method not painful to the animal be used. The animal deserves a quick and painless death. Afterall, it is not the animal's fault that it happened to be born an animal. We require to take its life, but nothing more. Additional pain inflicted upon the animal in the process of its death is wasted time and energy... and of course, morally wrong.

Quite frankly; though I'm a pretty big fan of food... I am not particularly fond of it when I know it was made through the use of an animal I know died miserably, or if the food even resembles an animal (The less it resembles where it came from, the better). Of course; this is my personal preference. As it comes to with most arguements, logic can go no further and we are left with a simple difference of moral opinion; either of which is not necessarily wrong.

[FascionViktem5k]

Well said, my dear! :D

why thank you Puro!

and i do agree that hunting should be done only when needed... not "just cuz i wanna kill some deer!" i guess it all comes down to suffering... there should be rights protecting them from torture.. but not from killing.. we can kill .. heck we even kill eachother ... but no one likes to see an animal suffer... or another person suffer.. so since we're all animals and we're all part of the food chain... let's all eat and not torture... ya? ya!lol!

[Fect]

We could fine ways past the language barrier. However, I'd settle for just shooting them. Besides you ask if we would "want" rights from the alien government, some humans may, but animals aren't capable of "wanting" like that so the question is irrelevant. As for for retarded people, the only people so retarded that they are incapable of complex thought are those in a vegetable-like state, and we've already shown that we have no problems ending their lives. Also, don't give me BS about animals talking. Even if we could talk to them, we'd get nothing but inane babble.
Dog: Enemy, Enemy, Enemy... Food, Food, Food... Water, Water, Water... Blah, Blah, Blah...
Cow: ... ... ... Chew...


Animals want to remain alive, correct? Just like we want to continue to live and be prosperous!

I'm not talking about vegetable state humans, just those with a language barrier, like autism, down syndrome, etc.

What I've seen you argue is that those without the ability to speak with humans are worthy of destruction. However, I say that each life is valuable. We are only perpetuating the barriers towards animals because we want them or believe in them. No matter what you are doing, "jacta alea est." I am offering a benefit of solving for the problems that plague us, concerning animals. However, you are offering a solution that would destroy life, rather than make it equal.

I save life, you destroy it.

why thank you Puro!

and i do agree that hunting should be done only when needed... not "just cuz i wanna kill some deer!" i guess it all comes down to suffering... there should be rights protecting them from torture.. but not from killing.. we can kill .. heck we even kill eachother ... but no one likes to see an animal suffer... or another person suffer.. so since we're all animals and we're all part of the food chain... let's all eat and not torture... ya? ya!lol!


I agree.

Torture is all around us. If we prevent one instance, then we can save the whole. However, by commiting one instance of torture, you are condemning life in the whole. You must make all life equal, lest we destroy it all.

[_strangechild_]

I think it's nature to kill animals for food. For most animals, at least. I think it's stupid if they just kill an animal for furr or something though.

I personally don't think animals are stupid because they can't communicate similiar to humans. (Though, some monkeys learn sign language!! - Aww).

It's not fair on how some animals are killed for food, like veal (if that's how you spell it). I forgot what they do, but it's something like they get a calf and stick it in a room with no light for a week then kill it.
'Tis partly why we have organic meat and such. ^^

[FascionViktem5k]

It's not fair on how some animals are killed for food, like veal (if that's how you spell it). I forgot what they do, but it's something like they get a calf and stick it in a room with no light for a week then kill it.
'Tis partly why we have organic meat and such. ^^

i think they also kill fish for their eggs... i forgot wat it was called but it's supposed to taste really good... but where did the rest of the fish go? i say give it to the poor and hungry if your just gonna throw it away... and besides we can make fur... it's not like the real thing.. but they've gotten real close! (PS: if your ever in NYC don't go outside in the winter time... all these rich women with fur coats walk around everywhere! ... so horrible! i was about to slap one in the face! but my boyfriend held me back.. *tear* lol!)

[Domokun]

i think they also kill fish for their eggs... i forgot wat it was called but it's supposed to taste really good... but where did the rest of the fish go? i say give it to the poor and hungry if your just gonna throw it away... and besides we can make fur... it's not like the real thing.. but they've gotten real close! (PS: if your ever in NYC don't go outside in the winter time... all these rich women with fur coats walk around everywhere! ... so horrible! i was about to slap one in the face! but my boyfriend held me back.. *tear* lol!)

Do you mean Caviar? Made primarily from sturgeon eggs, personally I think caviar tastes nasty. I believe the rest of the fish is either sold for food or thrown away since removing the eggs usually kills the female sturgeon. Reguarding this thread I hope your all familiar with how we harvest chickens right?

P.S. NYC is crowded as hell and I don't mean the people either. I went there on a trip once and it just felt stiflling.

[FascionViktem5k]

Do you mean Caviar? Made primarily from sturgeon eggs, personally I think caviar tastes nasty. I believe the rest of the fish is either sold for food or thrown away since removing the eggs usually kills the female sturgeon. Reguarding this thread I hope your all familiar with how we harvest chickens right?

P.S. NYC is crowded as hell and I don't mean the people either. I went there on a trip once and it just felt stiflling.

YES! it is caviar.. i just forgot the word.. and yeah it is nasty.. but it's supposed to be really good with some dishes and crap...

and it really depends in which part of NYC you were at.. cuz Times Square.. well... let's just say i don't go there.. lol!

[Domokun]

Yeah pretty much time square. I took the bus into the city from my hotel, I believe I was stuck in traffic for what seemed like hours. Not to mention passing a couple of pretty cool but crazy people walking around downtown. I think the proportion of people who scream to themselves is quite high in NY. :P

*edit* Quite high in NY...hmm I just rhymed there...

[FascionViktem5k]

Yeah pretty much time square. I took the bus into the city from my hotel, I believe I was stuck in traffic for what seemed like hours. Not to mention passing a couple of pretty cool but crazy people walking around downtown. I think the proportion of people who scream to themselves is quite high in NY. :P

*edit* Quite high in NY...hmm I just rhymed there...

um... yea... that's a place you don't wanna go.. if you want a nice place with not so many ppl go to central park... but not where the working out ppl go.. just go to a little pathway or something... times square is not a good place to go.. everything happens there.. lol

[Shaehl]

Animals want to remain alive, correct? Just like we want to continue to live and be prosperous!

I'm not talking about vegetable state humans, just those with a language barrier, like autism, down syndrome, etc.

What I've seen you argue is that those without the ability to speak with humans are worthy of destruction. However, I say that each life is valuable. We are only perpetuating the barriers towards animals because we want them or believe in them. No matter what you are doing, "jacta alea est." I am offering a benefit of solving for the problems that plague us, concerning animals. However, you are offering a solution that would destroy life, rather than make it equal.

I save life, you destroy it.


Animals don't want to live. They are compelled to live by their programming. I'm not saying all beings who do not speak our language should be destroyed, even within our own species, there are many different languages. Even if animals had vocal cords completely identical to those of humans, they could never communicate with us beyond a primitive level. Take talking parrots for example, they can replicate many of the sounds we make and are sometimes trained to "talk". Yet no matter how long or well they are trained, they never become capable of anything more than simple mimicking. Much like robots and computers, they do what they are programmed to, that is all.

Oh, and I don't destroy life, I consume it.

[FascionViktem5k]

Oh, and I don't destroy life, I consume it.

like that meat i had for lunch... .mmmmmm .. ham...

[Fect]

Animals don't want to live. They are compelled to live by their programming. I'm not saying all beings who do not speak our language should be destroyed, even within our own species, there are many different languages. Even if animals had vocal cords completely identical to those of humans, they could never communicate with us beyond a primitive level. Take talking parrots for example, they can replicate many of the sounds we make and are sometimes trained to "talk". Yet no matter how long or well they are trained, they never become capable of anything more than simple mimicking. Much like robots and computers, they do what they are programmed to, that is all.

Oh, and I don't destroy life, I consume it.


So, all animals are programmed to do their tasks?

Then, I say that the species homo sapiens should obey its programming. OH! It does. It lives to destroy life. I have decided that humans are mere machines, like what you have said, that breed more of themselves to ravage the land and the universe.

[Shaehl]

So, all animals are programmed to do their tasks?

Then, I say that the species homo sapiens should obey its programming. OH! It does. It lives to destroy life. I have decided that humans are mere machines, like what you have said, that breed more of themselves to ravage the land and the universe.

Ah, but here is where your argument fails. Humans are limited by their baser instincts. We have the ability to choose how we live our lives. Even if our purpose was to destroy everything, we are capable of making the conscious decision to go against that. Take suicidal people for instance, they may be amazingly stupid, but they are also going completely against their instinctual need for continued survival. We are not bound by our genetic programming, unlike animals.

[Purokku-kun]

You've hit the nail on the head.

Humans can choose how we live, rather than rely solely on our baser instincts. Therefore, we can make moral and ethical decisions - there is no longer a need for animals to be killed in a cruel fashion, unless we choose to do so. We could choose to protect animals to a greater extent, should we so desire.

However, human nature being what it is, there are those who are cruel for the sake of being cruel. Take the scandal of the US soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison, for example.

We can choose not to harm animals; we can choose to eat animals.

My choice is to eat animals, and I exercise my right to source those foodstuffs that are less "cruel", e.g. free-range items, dolphin-friendly tuna etc.

[Fect]

However, you are now bringing ethics into question, which is nearly contradicting your earlier statements. Also, how do we not know that choice exists? What if it is just another part of our genetic makeup?

However, regardless of this, how do you know that ethics and morals are not within our programming? I mean, aren't most violent people that way because of their DNA? Yes, some of it may have to do with their enviornment, but some of it has to do with DNA, correct?

Please do not skew my questions either.

[Shaehl]

However, you are now bringing ethics into question, which is nearly contradicting your earlier statements. Also, how do we not know that choice exists? What if it is just another part of our genetic makeup?

However, regardless of this, how do you know that ethics and morals are not within our programming? I mean, aren't most violent people that way because of their DNA? Yes, some of it may have to do with their enviornment, but some of it has to do with DNA, correct?

Please do not skew my questions either.

Ok then. For the sake of discussion, lets say that "free will" is simply due to our genetic makeup. The fact remains that we have it and animals don't. Again, let's say that violent people are violent because they inherited violence genes. Couldn't the argument also be made that some people inherit meat eating genes? If we are no different than animals and are really just slaves to our instincts, how can you expect us to go against them? Either way, your argument is flawed. I'm not saying we should cause unnecessary pain or death to animals, that would have no purpose at all, but eating them is anything but wrong.

[Fect]

I'll agree that "tortureless" meat is fine.

However, for the sake of debate, let's say that animals also have free will. I mean, doesn't a dog have the will to decide who it will bark at? Doesn't a hermit crab have the will to choose between several different shells? And doesn't a whale have the will to "speak"?

It's this form of speciesism that I'm against. Animals can be more intellegent than humans, and in many cases often are. It's those who believe animals to be mere objects, those who see animals as walking meat sacks.

Speciesism is just a barrier, perpetuated by those who believe animals to be less "worthy" of life than humanity, and needs to be stopped. Quoting one of many Daoist philosophers (can't remember name): "Those who claim something exists merely create and cause it. If they were to no longer believe that evil exists, it would exist no more."

[Thing]

*she stops eating... the llama halfway to her mouth*
What's going on here?! animals are for eating! well... most animals are... that's just the way Yahweh made it...
now excuse me *stuffs the llama into her mouth*
om tryn t' ea ere

[Amu]

Eat Or Be Eaten!!!!!!
The Circle Of Life Depends On Prey And Predator

[Shaehl]

I'll agree that "tortureless" meat is fine.

However, for the sake of debate, let's say that animals also have free will. I mean, doesn't a dog have the will to decide who it will bark at? Doesn't a hermit crab have the will to choose between several different shells? And doesn't a whale have the will to "speak"?

It's this form of speciesism that I'm against. Animals can be more intellegent than humans, and in many cases often are. It's those who believe animals to be mere objects, those who see animals as walking meat sacks.

Speciesism is just a barrier, perpetuated by those who believe animals to be less "worthy" of life than humanity, and needs to be stopped. Quoting one of many Daoist philosophers (can't remember name): "Those who claim something exists merely create and cause it. If they were to no longer believe that evil exists, it would exist no more."

Well, if animals really do have free will, they still choose to eat eachother and us. If they are so intelligent, why shouldn't we follow their example? I agree that torturing animals and killing for fun is wrong, because animals do feel pain, but eating meat is perfectly fine.

If animals don't have free will, they are merely slaves to instinct and much like robots. Eating them wouldn't be wrong in that case.

If humans are really the same as animals in that we are slaves to instinct as well, you can't expect us not to eat meat.

If animals do have free will, yet still eat both eachother and humans, and are supposedly more intlelligent in some cases than humans, why should we behave any different? To justify humans behaving different, you would first have to concede that humans are in fact, different. That, or you would have to arrest and send to court all animals who kill/assault eachother.

[Fect]

Well, if animals really do have free will, they still choose to eat eachother and us. If they are so intelligent, why shouldn't we follow their example? I agree that torturing animals and killing for fun is wrong, because animals do feel pain, but eating meat is perfectly fine.

If animals don't have free will, they are merely slaves to instinct and much like robots. Eating them wouldn't be wrong in that case.

If humans are really the same as animals in that we are slaves to instinct as well, you can't expect us not to eat meat.

If animals do have free will, yet still eat both eachother and humans, and are supposedly more intlelligent in some cases than humans, why should we behave any different? To justify humans behaving different, you would first have to concede that humans are in fact, different. That, or you would have to arrest and send to court all animals who kill/assault eachother.

It is instinct to eat meat, yes. Animals eat humanity, but not at the rate we eat them, correct?

I'm saying that those who believe that animals don't have a free will treat them as objects and it is wrong.

The courts part of your objection are taking an extreme view on what I am saying. I am saying that speciesism, the act of creating barriers that claim animals are worse than one another, is wrong. Animals whom believe themselves to be "better" than one another are wrong. There is an old Navajo tale that says the Bear wanted to dance like the other animals, but once recieving this gift from the creator, it immeadiately wanted for no one else to have that gift. For this, the creator made the Bear hibernate for half of the year.

I believe that humans are acting like the bear, using a gift everyone else had and taking it for our own. We are abusing our gift and causing the other animals who possess this gift to be placed in a lower category.

Here's the outcome I have come up with:

If we do not correct the problem we have with animals (concerning speciesism), then we face possible extinction. If it is not corrected, then divisions will be further entrenched. Then, those who created the divisions will create ones within our own population, between those who are valuable to the community and those who aren't. Divisions will be further made until we have a situation where we have an oligarchy of the self-proclaimed "intelligent."

Going out further on a limb:

With our current technology, then the lower classes will revolt, and to protect themselves, the oligarchy will strike back, using whatever they want to put down the unrest. This can be anywhere from missles to nuclear weapons. A nuclear war would ensue between the oligarchies of each country and we end up with 8 billion people dead, and over 50 million animals dead.

[Domokun]

Haha thats a hell of a theory man. I say let the Nuclear wasteland begin, we won't have to worry about animal rights when theres nothing left but gangs of water bandits raiding the last vestiges of humanity. Then the surviving mutated animals will finally have the edge over us, pshh who said humanity never did anything for the furry critters. :)

[Fect]

That's possiblity number 2 after humanity divides itself.

[Shaehl]

It is instinct to eat meat, yes. Animals eat humanity, but not at the rate we eat them, correct?

I'm saying that those who believe that animals don't have a free will treat them as objects and it is wrong.

The courts part of your objection are taking an extreme view on what I am saying. I am saying that speciesism, the act of creating barriers that claim animals are worse than one another, is wrong. Animals whom believe themselves to be "better" than one another are wrong. There is an old Navajo tale that says the Bear wanted to dance like the other animals, but once recieving this gift from the creator, it immeadiately wanted for no one else to have that gift. For this, the creator made the Bear hibernate for half of the year.

I believe that humans are acting like the bear, using a gift everyone else had and taking it for our own. We are abusing our gift and causing the other animals who possess this gift to be placed in a lower category.

Here's the outcome I have come up with:

If we do not correct the problem we have with animals (concerning speciesism), then we face possible extinction. If it is not corrected, then divisions will be further entrenched. Then, those who created the divisions will create ones within our own population, between those who are valuable to the community and those who aren't. Divisions will be further made until we have a situation where we have an oligarchy of the self-proclaimed "intelligent."

Going out further on a limb:

With our current technology, then the lower classes will revolt, and to protect themselves, the oligarchy will strike back, using whatever they want to put down the unrest. This can be anywhere from missles to nuclear weapons. A nuclear war would ensue between the oligarchies of each country and we end up with 8 billion people dead, and over 50 million animals dead.

First off, the only reason carnivorous animals don't eat humans at the rate we eat them is because we are at the top of the food chain. Most animals are simply incapable of killing a human, or just aren't presented with the opportunity.

Second, if these "other" animals with free-will are so put off by our dominance, why don't they do anything about it? Really, I think a better term would be sentiency. The reason animals are under our dominion is because they are non-sentient. They don't attempt to free themselves from our dominion because they aren't sentient. They are incapable of even recognizing the fact the humanity more or less controls the planet.

We aren't stealing this "gift" from all the other animals and abusing it, because they never had it in the first place. Otherwise they would be the ones ruling the world, not the ones living in the dirt as their species fade out of existence. Really, how would we take sentiency away from them anyway? It's just absurd.

As for us going extinct, I agree that if we do, it will be because of nuclear war. However, it sure as hell isn't going to be caused by people eating meat. If you didn't notice, people have been eating animals since the dawn of time. We aren't extinct yet. If anything, animals' situations regarding rights have improved. You can actually be sent to jail for killing a dog.

[FascionViktem5k]

actually animals are capable of eating humans.. and they do... at a pretty high rate i might add... they have the opportunity.. but... it's just that we look bigger to many of them... like lions and stuff.. their scared once we get up on two feet... if we crawl we're less threatening... if we stand.. they run away... it's just that many of us with computers do not live near carnivorous animals and we are not in danger... so therefore hearing of someone killed by an animal will not likely happen... just because it's not on the news it doesn't mean people aren't getting killed by animals... *we're too busy fighting that war on terror remember? psh.. who has time for that child who was torn apart by a shark anyway? gosh! don't you know anything?! lol! j/k!* .. just wanted to clear up that thing about animals not killing us... they do... just not when we're facing them... remember.. sneak attack.. that's the most prefferable... yes... ok i don't know what i'm saying anymore! whee!!! look! a monkey!!! i wanna give 'em cocaine!!! c'mere monkey!!!

[Domokun]

I think unconciously most people just associate animals as domesticated pets who play around and are fun to watch. For instance I bet people who have pigs as pets would never think for a moment to eat the little bugger, but when it comes to food on the table the circumstances change. For most it's "We find it cute, we have to save it and protect it's rights, ecological factors such as depleting keystone species which leads to the destruction of the local ecology pretty much comes second (if at all) for most american families.

Do we remember the Exxon Mobile spill years back? Yeah, the oil is still there on the beaches and we haven't cleaned it up. Exxon reneged on their word to clean up their spill one hundred percent (citing that it'd save money and manpower also that the harm to animals and wildlife being minimal at that stage, some 90%. Imo CEO fatcat Lee Raymond is a cantankerous jackass for doing so), public pressure is pretty much non-exsistant. Mobile cleaned up the little ducks and seals so the public dosen't see the suffering of poor animals, but when it came down to long term resolutions they failed. If you really care about animals you should think about their habitat and the rapid degenration that humanity is causing it right now. Everything else is superfluous imo.

Btw try not to eat too much tuna, it's all laced with mercury deposits from coal plants off the U.S. and China's shores. Once a week is fine, otherwise you go past the recommened saftey level of mercury a human body can ingest so I hear.

[Shaehl]

actually animals are capable of eating humans.. and they do... at a pretty high rate i might add... they have the opportunity.. but... it's just that we look bigger to many of them... like lions and stuff.. their scared once we get up on two feet... if we crawl we're less threatening... if we stand.. they run away... it's just that many of us with computers do not live near carnivorous animals and we are not in danger... so therefore hearing of someone killed by an animal will not likely happen... just because it's not on the news it doesn't mean people aren't getting killed by animals... *we're too busy fighting that war on terror remember? psh.. who has time for that child who was torn apart by a shark anyway? gosh! don't you know anything?! lol! j/k!* .. just wanted to clear up that thing about animals not killing us... they do... just not when we're facing them... remember.. sneak attack.. that's the most prefferable... yes... ok i don't know what i'm saying anymore! whee!!! look! a monkey!!! i wanna give 'em cocaine!!! c'mere monkey!!!

No one said they didn't eat us. But it is true that they don't eat us at anywhere near the rate we eat them. America alone consumes millions of animals every year while cases of animals eating humans amount to a few scattered incidents.

[Fect]

First off, the only reason carnivorous animals don't eat humans at the rate we eat them is because we are at the top of the food chain. Most animals are simply incapable of killing a human, or just aren't presented with the opportunity.

Second, if these "other" animals with free-will are so put off by our dominance, why don't they do anything about it? Really, I think a better term would be sentiency. The reason animals are under our dominion is because they are non-sentient. They don't attempt to free themselves from our dominion because they aren't sentient. They are incapable of even recognizing the fact the humanity more or less controls the planet.

We aren't stealing this "gift" from all the other animals and abusing it, because they never had it in the first place. Otherwise they would be the ones ruling the world, not the ones living in the dirt as their species fade out of existence. Really, how would we take sentiency away from them anyway? It's just absurd.

As for us going extinct, I agree that if we do, it will be because of nuclear war. However, it sure as hell isn't going to be caused by people eating meat. If you didn't notice, people have been eating animals since the dawn of time. We aren't extinct yet. If anything, animals' situations regarding rights have improved. You can actually be sent to jail for killing a dog.


They are incapable of killing us because we place ourselves higher by claiming we are sentient because of all our weapons.

=.=

This is what I am talking about. People claim to be more sentient than animals. However, if you have ever read TH White's Tales of Arthur, there are many instances of animals being more intelligent than people. For example, in one part of the story, Arthur becomes a crane in a flock and begins to ask questions for why they have sentinels guard the flock. One responds they do this to watch out for enemies. Arthur immeadiately puts war into the equation and we end up with a lonely Arthur. This may seem more of a political analogy to the era, but if you take the literal meaning, animals act differently. This does not make them less intelligent.

The reason they don't free themselves is that we keep them behind metal bars, or behind fences and glass, so that they can be "safe." Many animals fail to realize that there is another world, because they have never seen or experienced it. This applies to humanity. Several movies themes have to do with a boy coming out of a nuclear bomb shelter for the first time in 25 years and prefers his enclosed space more than the outdoors. He may just be afraid, but these animals also feel emotion, correct?

As for #3, WE are the ones killing off species of animals, not themselves, not some ET, just us. We aren't taking away their sentiency, we are removing their capability. We put them behind closed doors, bars, or glass panes. Think about it. Would you learn if you were enclosed in a 4 x 4 x 4 cage for a quarter of your life?

Yes, animal rights have improved. But not to the point where we will no longer create subdivisions within our own species. The government has already begun to do this. Consider the Patriot Act: It divides us between the life that the government wants and that which it does not. The government doesn't want any minorities "attacking" the country and creates these divisions in the name of the people it "serves".

Also, we create our own divisions: Discrimination by each person creates divisions so that we may be "safe" and with a group "like ourselves."

I say that humanity must strive to give animals more rights and begin to understand everything from their point of view. I mean, consider my past example of ETs declaring us non-sentient life. Would you want to be tortured, enclosed, killed, and experimented upon in the name of "progress?"

[maximoose666]

However, if you have ever read TH White's Tales of Arthur, there are many instances of animals being more intelligent than people. For example, in one part of the story, Arthur becomes a crane in a flock and begins to ask questions for why they have sentinels guard the flock. One responds they do this to watch out for enemies.
Yep, but it's only a story - and so simply reflects the way we humans think about animals.
But otherwise, I agree with Fect;

I say that humanity must strive to give animals more rights and begin to understand everything from their point of view
Absolutely.

[Shaehl]

Your reasoning is growing more and more absurd. Animals aren't incapable of killing us because we say that we are sentient, they are incapable of killing us because we are more powerful than them. It's a simple fact. It has nothing to do with ethics or unjust claims.

Also, I fail to see how fictional tales about Arthur have any relevance at all.

You say they don't attempt to free themselves because they are either locked up, or don't care. First off, I wasn't talking about physical freedom; I was talking about it in terms of rights and status. Why in all the long years of the earth have animals never once done anything even remotely close to making an attempt for equality? Sure, nowadays many animals are in captivity, but by no means are they the majority. Besides, animals weren't always in captivity. If they had even a shred of sentiency, they wouldn't be in the position they are in now.

You can make the argument that animals are different than humans and do things differently, but aren't animals different than each other too? Why is it that out of all the hundreds of thousands of animal species, not one of them has even made the smallest of technological or societal advances? Hell, they haven't made any changes to anything regarding their ways of life period. Why is that? Is it because every animal species since the beginning of time decided that they we going to fight off any ideas or discoveries they ever have regarding anything and remain exactly the same forever? Or perhaps it is because they are simply stupid beasts with no capability for complex thought.

How exactly are we removing the ability to become sentient? You seem to forget that not all animals are owned by humans. There is still wilderness and animals do still live there. Yet those are no more sentient than the ones under our possession. Even if locking up animals did prevent them from being sentient, what about pets? Cats, dogs, hamsters and fish aren't being prevented from becoming sentient. If anything they are giving far more opportunity to develop sentiency than wild animals, yet they still are not.

My point on discrimination is that it has always been there. People have always formed cliques, oppressed people who are different and discriminated against certain groups. It has always been there, and it always will. Nations have risen, fallen, conquered and oppressed since the beginning of civilization and they will continue to do so. This is nothing new and animals have nothing to do with it. When people treat animals as objects they don't consciously go over their reasoning for doing so. They don't think, "Animals are different, therefore it doesn't matter if I kill and eat this cow." And they aren't going to think, "Because it is ok to eat animals because they are different, it must be ok to eat humans who are different also." When people deal with animals, the reasons for the actions they take regarding them never cross their mind. People aren't going to start justifying discrimination against people because of discrimination against animals. We've never done it before, and it's not going to happen now. Your whole argument is really just a farfetched conspiracy theory.

[Fect]

Your reasoning is growing more and more absurd. Animals aren't incapable of killing us because we say that we are sentient, they are incapable of killing us because we are more powerful than them. It's a simple fact. It has nothing to do with ethics or unjust claims.

Also, I fail to see how fictional tales about Arthur have any relevance at all.

You say they don't attempt to free themselves because they are either locked up, or don't care. First off, I wasn't talking about physical freedom; I was talking about it in terms of rights and status. Why in all the long years of the earth have animals never once done anything even remotely close to making an attempt for equality? Sure, nowadays many animals are in captivity, but by no means are they the majority. Besides, animals weren't always in captivity. If they had even a shred of sentiency, they wouldn't be in the position they are in now.

You can make the argument that animals are different than humans and do things differently, but aren't animals different than each other too? Why is it that out of all the hundreds of thousands of animal species, not one of them has even made the smallest of technological or societal advances? Hell, they haven't made any changes to anything regarding their ways of life period. Why is that? Is it because every animal species since the beginning of time decided that they we going to fight off any ideas or discoveries they ever have regarding anything and remain exactly the same forever? Or perhaps it is because they are simply stupid beasts with no capability for complex thought.

How exactly are we removing the ability to become sentient? You seem to forget that not all animals are owned by humans. There is still wilderness and animals do still live there. Yet those are no more sentient than the ones under our possession. Even if locking up animals did prevent them from being sentient, what about pets? Cats, dogs, hamsters and fish aren't being prevented from becoming sentient. If anything they are giving far more opportunity to develop sentiency than wild animals, yet they still are not.

My point on discrimination is that it has always been there. People have always formed cliques, oppressed people who are different and discriminated against certain groups. It has always been there, and it always will. Nations have risen, fallen, conquered and oppressed since the beginning of civilization and they will continue to do so. This is nothing new and animals have nothing to do with it. When people treat animals as objects they don't consciously go over their reasoning for doing so. They don't think, "Animals are different, therefore it doesn't matter if I kill and eat this cow." And they aren't going to think, "Because it is ok to eat animals because they are different, it must be ok to eat humans who are different also." When people deal with animals, the reasons for the actions they take regarding them never cross their mind. People aren't going to start justifying discrimination against people because of discrimination against animals. We've never done it before, and it's not going to happen now. Your whole argument is really just a farfetched conspiracy theory.


Arthur (the once and future king of Britain) has alot to do with this. To teach Arthur, Merlin comes each night and day to transform Arthur into some form of animal, so that he may learn. While a crane he asks about war between the flocks of cranes and everyone rejects his ideas, and make him an exile. In the same way, animals don't have "wars" or have any form of "loyalty" to anyone. Loyalty is only bought and sold, as with humans. Wars...well, when was the last time you saw a penguin or chimpanzee holding a weapon, ready to kill a fellow animal?

But I am talking about rights and status. If animals had greater rights, then wouldn't they be able to not be forced into the cages? Also, the cages are a bar on their freedom. We need to let them choose as they want: To run off, or to stay in their cage. This way, we aren't making the choice for them and creating a place where they can have equality. Those who try to escape are making that choice, but we will not give equality to them. We shoot them and hunt them down, should they escape.

Hell, I see alot of animals making advances. Consider the chimpanzee, or a flock of birds, or a dolphin. They form their own microsociety, where each member provides something for the rest. And the chimp, he uses his own form of tools- using sticks to get termites out of a log!

And by far, animals have made attempts at freedom and equality. They escape and run away, trying to have a REAL habitat to live in, not some cage or walled structure to live in. This proves their sentiency. They want to escape and walk freely, more or less like we do.

I know that cliques have always formed, but this is the first step. If we remove the barrier between us and the animals, we can stop and even reverse the "cliques." However, people have justified discrimination in the past, and so it is not such a far fetched theory. Consider Hitler, Stalin, and you can go as far as to make the current and past US government. They all discriminate(d) against humanity.
-----------------------------

REGARDLESS, The US KILLS 9 BILLION ANIMALS PER YEAR! Animals are mere objects, as are people, to the US.

Animals are divided in their usefulness, much like people. The government does this to people, and thus it is not such a far-fetched theory either.

[Shaehl]

Arthur (the once and future king of Britain) has alot to do with this. To teach Arthur, Merlin comes each night and day to transform Arthur into some form of animal, so that he may learn. While a crane he asks about war between the flocks of cranes and everyone rejects his ideas, and make him an exile. In the same way, animals don't have "wars" or have any form of "loyalty" to anyone. Loyalty is only bought and sold, as with humans. Wars...well, when was the last time you saw a penguin or chimpanzee holding a weapon, ready to kill a fellow animal?

But I am talking about rights and status. If animals had greater rights, then wouldn't they be able to not be forced into the cages? Also, the cages are a bar on their freedom. We need to let them choose as they want: To run off, or to stay in their cage. This way, we aren't making the choice for them and creating a place where they can have equality. Those who try to escape are making that choice, but we will not give equality to them. We shoot them and hunt them down, should they escape.

Hell, I see alot of animals making advances. Consider the chimpanzee, or a flock of birds, or a dolphin. They form their own microsociety, where each member provides something for the rest. And the chimp, he uses his own form of tools- using sticks to get termites out of a log!

And by far, animals have made attempts at freedom and equality. They escape and run away, trying to have a REAL habitat to live in, not some cage or walled structure to live in. This proves their sentiency. They want to escape and walk freely, more or less like we do.

I know that cliques have always formed, but this is the first step. If we remove the barrier between us and the animals, we can stop and even reverse the "cliques." However, people have justified discrimination in the past, and so it is not such a far fetched theory. Consider Hitler, Stalin, and you can go as far as to make the current and past US government. They all discriminate(d) against humanity.
-----------------------------

REGARDLESS, The US KILLS 9 BILLION ANIMALS PER YEAR! Animals are mere objects, as are people, to the US.

Animals are divided in their usefulness, much like people. The government does this to people, and thus it is not such a far-fetched theory either.

Again, I don't see what animals not having wars or loyalty has to do with anything. I've never seen an animal hold a gun to another animal's head. Because they wouldn't know how to use one. Really though, animals not having wars only helps my case against their non-sentiency. Wars are usually started due to greed or personal want. Animals aren't capable of want so them not having wars doesn't surprise me.

Sure, if animals had rights they wouldn't be put in cages, but why do they need rights? You still have shown me nothing that would suggest they are anything, but mindless beasts. Them making a run for it when a cage is open does not imply sentiency. Instincts drives them to escape possible threats to their life. However, you still fail to address the fact that if animals were even remotely sentient, they wouldn't be in the cage in the first place. They have been around just as long as humans, there is no excuse for them to be in the same exact state now as they were tens of thousands of years ago, if they are indeed sentient.

Those things you see are not advances in any way. They have been living that way since the beginning of their existence and their way of life has not changed even the slightest bit. Look at humans, we have experienced countless social reformations and developed mind-blowing technologies. Every human nation on earth has, at one point in time, done things in their own distinctly different way, and all of them have changed, adapted, discovered and reformed countless aspects of their culture. Can any of this be said for any animal species in all of history? No. The extent of their changes amounts to scattered cases of extinction. Other than that, a flock of birds today behaves in percisely the same way as a flock of birds a thousand years ago.

[Fect]

Again, I don't see what animals not having wars or loyalty has to do with anything. I've never seen an animal hold a gun to another animal's head. Because they wouldn't know how to use one. Really though, animals not having wars only helps my case against their non-sentiency. Wars are usually started due to greed or personal want. Animals aren't capable of want so them not having wars doesn't surprise me.

Sure, if animals had rights they wouldn't be put in cages, but why do they need rights? You still have shown me nothing that would suggest they are anything, but mindless beasts. Them making a run for it when a cage is open does not imply sentiency. Instincts drives them to escape possible threats to their life. However, you still fail to address the fact that if animals were even remotely sentient, they wouldn't be in the cage in the first place. They have been around just as long as humans, there is no excuse for them to be in the same exact state now as they were tens of thousands of years ago, if they are indeed sentient.

Those things you see are not advances in any way. They have been living that way since the beginning of their existence and their way of life has not changed even the slightest bit. Look at humans, we have experienced countless social reformations and developed mind-blowing technologies. Every human nation on earth has, at one point in time, done things in their own distinctly different way, and all of them have changed, adapted, discovered and reformed countless aspects of their culture. Can any of this be said for any animal species in all of history? No. The extent of their changes amounts to scattered cases of extinction. Other than that, a flock of birds today behaves in percisely the same way as a flock of birds a thousand years ago.


Once again, consider ANY mamillian or avian- they fight for status, but no more than that. They do want. They feel. They experience. Intelligence is defined only by man. Taking a page from Shakespeare's Book, "Would not a rose smell as sweet if called by any other name?" In the same way, Intelligence takes another form, one that we do not see as "wise." However, wouldn't you agree that wisdom and intelligence can take many forms?

The way I interpret your statement is that they are less intelligent, because they remain in cages? How does that make one less intelligent? I mean, doesn't a person who is confined, or "grounded," have the capability to learn more than a person who is free to walk around and make relations?

I'm sorry, but "Technological and Societial Evolution" is something we can only use to describe ourselves, since we can defend it with all the thousands of nuclear and biological weapons. We make our greatest "advancements" when we have a war. You want to know why? Humanity is destructive at its core. I cannot help it if we choose to make ourselves more capable to do it. Animals choose to make themselves more capable to do whatever they need to do, as we do. In that way, they have "evolved" themselves to be better.



The only argument you have given to my "divisions lead to humanity's destruction" is that it is a "conspiratist theory." It is not. It has already begun, as people discriminate. Each person puts a "wall" against some "person" or "people" they loathe and eventually, this will lead to some sort of war where humanity struggles against one another. We have already seen it happen, as "capitalists" divide themselves from the "communists"; The "whites" divide themselves from the "blacks." We cannot help it.

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

All of you need to see National Geographic's Primates: The Dark Side. It goes to show you that war and senseless violence is not something only unique to humans. It's also present in our closest relatives: Chimpanzees. They'll often engage in pointless battles for no reason and numerous experts on the species have been left dumbfounded by it. It's not for territory, status, food, or protection. The violent creatures will just randomly go out and kill each other every once and awhile. It must be very carthatic.

[Fect]

Thank you Kyouka.

And so, even if animals aren't sentient because we have war, why do we lock up chimpanzees in cages so that we can test them? Why aren't they still considered "sentient?"

[Shaehl]

Once again, consider ANY mamillian or avian- they fight for status, but no more than that. They do want. They feel. They experience. Intelligence is defined only by man. Taking a page from Shakespeare's Book, "Would not a rose smell as sweet if called by any other name?" In the same way, Intelligence takes another form, one that we do not see as "wise." However, wouldn't you agree that wisdom and intelligence can take many forms?

The way I interpret your statement is that they are less intelligent, because they remain in cages? How does that make one less intelligent? I mean, doesn't a person who is confined, or "grounded," have the capability to learn more than a person who is free to walk around and make relations?

I'm sorry, but "Technological and Societial Evolution" is something we can only use to describe ourselves, since we can defend it with all the thousands of nuclear and biological weapons. We make our greatest "advancements" when we have a war. You want to know why? Humanity is destructive at its core. I cannot help it if we choose to make ourselves more capable to do it. Animals choose to make themselves more capable to do whatever they need to do, as we do. In that way, they have "evolved" themselves to be better.



The only argument you have given to my "divisions lead to humanity's destruction" is that it is a "conspiratist theory." It is not. It has already begun, as people discriminate. Each person puts a "wall" against some "person" or "people" they loathe and eventually, this will lead to some sort of war where humanity struggles against one another. We have already seen it happen, as "capitalists" divide themselves from the "communists"; The "whites" divide themselves from the "blacks." We cannot help it.

You continue to fail to provide any logical counters for my arguments other than the vague, animals have a different version of intelligence that humans just don't understand. You also interpret my statement wrong. Animals aren't less intelligent because they are in cages. I said that if they were sentient even only a little bit so, they as a whole wouldn't be in the societal position they find themselves in now. Their many species would have developed at least minimally over the years, along with humans, and we wouldn't be having this argument with eachother, we'd be having it with them. Before you try to say I am equating sentiency with language again, let me go deeper. Think of all the thousands of ways humans communicate,: we can communicate through body language, countless verbal languages, countless written languages, patterns like morse code, pictures, symbols etc. If animals we truly sentient, there is no doubt that they could find some way to get the message across that they too are thinking, reasoning beings.

You say that we can only use humanities many and varied advances to describe ourselves, "since we can defend it..." What does the ability to defend our institutions have to do with whether or not they are relevant? Technological and societal advances are a characteristic of the human race, the ability to defend the things that, that characteric brings about doesn't mean anything. For instance, if we lost all our weapons, would that make someone no longer a fast runner? If we lost the ability to defend ourselves, would humans no longer have two arms? Saying advances in ways of life are only relevant to humans, because humans protect them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If animals were sentient, they'd have made advances too. But as we see, every single animal race has remained exactly the same throughout all of history and they have all been around just as long, if not longer than humans. There is no excuse for a sentient species to have undergone absolutely no changes in any facet of their life over the course of thousands of years.

Also, I never said that people don't discriminate, or that there isn't racism. There is. What is a conspiracy theory is the thought that animals have anything to do with it.

For the record, I don't consider sporadic cases of random insanity on the part of chimpanzees to be a sign of sentiency.

[Fect]

However, insanity is only compared to normality.

I didn't say that animals have anything to do with it. I said that removing the discrimination barrier will prevent wars associated with discrimination.

Sorry, but I'm about to leave for a while, so we'll pick up where we left.

[FascionViktem5k]

ummm... yeah... can other ppl talk too or is this some kinda Fect vs Shaehl kinda thing? i really dunno what to say after reading... much but not all of your arguments.. both make good points and animals do fight for sensless reasons as well.. as Kyouka said.. so um... well... um.... right... eat pork don't beat it....? i think i'll just sit back and read while you two discuss...

[ssjharsh]

Hello all... pretty interesting debate...

I have read thru some of the debate (its 11 pages, so not all of it...), and one question did hit me. This idea of "sentience" is that of knowing oneself or being conscious of one's existence. It seems to be that this sentience is what the everyone else has taken as the standard required to be afforded rights (let me know if I got it wrong). However, if this is the case, and only sentient beings are given basic rights, then how come babies, the severely mentally impaired, those in comas, etc. have rights? These are not sentient beings, who without the protection of others, could be killed in an instant. How come they are allowed to live freely, while animals, whose sentience is at worst unknown, not even be considered?

[Shaehl]

Hello all... pretty interesting debate...

I have read thru some of the debate (its 11 pages, so not all of it...), and one question did hit me. This idea of "sentience" is that of knowing oneself or being conscious of one's existence. It seems to be that this sentience is what the everyone else has taken as the standard required to be afforded rights (let me know if I got it wrong). However, if this is the case, and only sentient beings are given basic rights, then how come babies, the severely mentally impaired, those in comas, etc. have rights? These are not sentient beings, who without the protection of others, could be killed in an instant. How come they are allowed to live freely, while animals, whose sentience is at worst unknown, not even be considered?

Babies are given rights because, given time, they will develop sentiency. Comatose people retain rights due to the hope that they will someday regain sentiency. The mentally crippled(To the point that they can barely function) are given rights because they are human, and humans as a whole are sentient and so rights extend to them as well.

[Pazuzumaki]

From what I've seen, your punishment IS more severe if you kill an average working adult than if you kill a baby, comatose person, mentally handicapped person etc... I dunno why, but that's just what I've deduced from trials on the media. *shrug*

[Fect]

ummm... yeah... can other ppl talk too or is this some kinda Fect vs Shaehl kinda thing? i really dunno what to say after reading... much but not all of your arguments.. both make good points and animals do fight for sensless reasons as well.. as Kyouka said.. so um... well... um.... right... eat pork don't beat it....? i think i'll just sit back and read while you two discuss...


I'm going to be working mobile, so I can't talk for very long.

Shaehl: Thanks. However, sentiency is only a comparison, right, between humanity and "other animals?" Then they will never come up to your standards of being "sentient." Thus, you are keeping them in place. But you want to give them rights, correct? You are in an ever cycling logical path.

Also, according to you, vegetative humans aren't truly sentient. However they are given rights, how?

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

It's the principle. :winking56 We are the superior beings so we have rights even in a nonfuctioning state. Plus, it's not like animals do anything for the environment. At least we're destroying the planet. That's not something we can say about the other organisms living on earth.

[Shaehl]

I'm going to be working mobile, so I can't talk for very long.

Shaehl: Thanks. However, sentiency is only a comparison, right, between humanity and "other animals?" Then they will never come up to your standards of being "sentient." Thus, you are keeping them in place. But you want to give them rights, correct? You are in an ever cycling logical path.

Also, according to you, vegetative humans aren't truly sentient. However they are given rights, how?

It's not a comparison. It's a characteristic. One which not a single species of has. Why should we drastically change our way of life to cater to other species that are little more than robots? Yes, they may be alive, but so are bacteria and insects. Yet we kill them off by the billions every day.

It's the principle. :winking56 We are the superior beings so we have rights even in a nonfuctioning state. Plus, it's not like animals do anything for the environment. At least we're destroying the planet. That's not something we can say about the other organisms living on earth.

Were not really destroying the planet... just changing it. One single volcanic eruption from a few years back produced more pollutants and toxic gasses than all the factory smog produce by humans in the entire century. Volcanos have been erupting since the beginning of Earth, yet we aren't all dead yet.

[Fect]

It's not a comparison. It's a characteristic. One which not a single species of has. Why should we drastically change our way of life to cater to other species that are little more than robots? Yes, they may be alive, but so are bacteria and insects. Yet we kill them off by the billions every day.


1) We don't kill off insects and bacteria by the billions each day. I mean, they just spawn back regardless, and so the equation balances out.

2) "Cater" is not the correct term. And besides, the argument that humanity is little more than robots (DNA) has also been made, correct?

3) Also, the same thing applies to vegetable humans. If they do little more than breathe and "eat," then why do we give them more rights than all the other animals?

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

The pollutants we produce aren't natural. Many of them that are introduced into the environment are composite materials, which can't be processed by natural systems. As a result, they don't decompose when introduced to a medium like water. They constantly cycle through the nutrient chain corrupting everything they pass through. Life has adapted to deal with things that have occured throughout Earth's history. As you might know there are even whole ecosystems which thrive on natural chemicals. The stuff we dump into the ocean and poision the ground with is synthetic. You can't compare apples and oranges.

[Fect]

Humans are animals u idiots. We are homosapiens. Damn u all. Burn in hell . Die in a painful way, because u r saying that we shouldn't have right!


Wow. Do you just like to spam?

Also, when we say animal rights, we are refering to non-human animals in general having more rights.

However, as the government gives more rights, we concede ourselves to the government even more. Thus the cycle continues.

[ssjharsh]

Babies are given rights because, given time, they will develop sentiency. Comatose people retain rights due to the hope that they will someday regain sentiency. The mentally crippled(To the point that they can barely function) are given rights because they are human, and humans as a whole are sentient and so rights extend to them as well.


But there is hypocrisy in that... to give rights to an insentient being in the hope of future sentience... that would mean that as long as I hope that one day apes can prove sentience (which has been the many pages of past argument), they can be protected with basic rights. I mean, I understand that you cannot treat humans as objects, because they have inalienable basic rights. In fact, this is why a distinction of sentience as a prerequisite for rights of life is not acceptable. There is no way to prove what animals know or do not know, and it is my hope that they are sentient. Is that enough to get them a few rights?

O... one other quick point... the stuff about pollution...

It is true that we are only changing the planet, Shaehl is correct that we are not destroying "the planet" or "life"... both these things have been around longer than humanity, and will do just fine after we are gone. The problem is that we seem to be destroying ourselves. By changing the atomosphere, water content, and landscapes around the world, we are removing many of the natural checks and balances (many of which are the animals that do not have rights), leading to a world that cannot support humanity. if for no other reason than to save our own hides, we should seriously consider the importance of eco-friendliness.

[Shaehl]

But there is hypocrisy in that... to give rights to an insentient being in the hope of future sentience... that would mean that as long as I hope that one day apes can prove sentience (which has been the many pages of past argument), they can be protected with basic rights. I mean, I understand that you cannot treat humans as objects, because they have inalienable basic rights. In fact, this is why a distinction of sentience as a prerequisite for rights of life is not acceptable. There is no way to prove what animals know or do not know, and it is my hope that they are sentient. Is that enough to get them a few rights?

O... one other quick point... the stuff about pollution...

It is true that we are only changing the planet, Shaehl is correct that we are not destroying "the planet" or "life"... both these things have been around longer than humanity, and will do just fine after we are gone. The problem is that we seem to be destroying ourselves. By changing the atomosphere, water content, and landscapes around the world, we are removing many of the natural checks and balances (many of which are the animals that do not have rights), leading to a world that cannot support humanity. if for no other reason than to save our own hides, we should seriously consider the importance of eco-friendliness.

There is no "hope" that the baby will become sentient. In all cases but some that involve birth defects, the baby will become sentient. The same does not apply to apes and animals. Even if the evolution theory was 100% true, animals still may never become sentient. They've been around just as long as us, yet according to evolution, they've evolved in completely different ways. But, for the sake of discussion, lets that apes as a species will become sentient in a million years. Does that mean the apes that exist now will ever become sentient? No. They will live and die as simple creatures. So that argument is irrelevant.

And Fect,

1. Even if they repopulate as fast as we kill them, it doesn't change the fact that we kill them. If we were to breed animals at a rate fast enough for their population to remain stangant, would it no longer be bad to kill and eat them?

2. Thank you for correcting my word usage. Yes, the argument has been made that humans could be little more than robots as well. However, like I said earlier, if humans are slaves to their genetic programming like animals are, we can't be blamed for eating them.

3. As demonstrated by the Terri Schiavo(Sp?) case, we apparently have no qualms with killing them off. But as I said before, rights are given to humanity as a whole because of our race's overall sentience. Because of this, rights extend to the unfortunate members of our species as well.

[FascionViktem5k]

but then why bother giving vegetable state people rights when your just going to kill them off anyway? that's what i don't get.. i mean ok yeah we're all human.. and i get the argument that as a whole we're given rights... but i mean.. if your just going to kill them then why bother giving them rights in the first place? and for the animals.. well.. if we were ever to give them rights.. wat kind of rights would they be? has anyone even thought of that? i mean obviously we're not going to give them the right to vote or someting like that... right? it seems that no one here agrees that animals should be mindlessly tortured.. so what exactly are we still discussing? we eat them.. just like they eat eachother... i dunno... just wondering...

[incognitoD]

they shouldn't be tortured but if they had to feel pain so i can eat them i dont really care

[Shaehl]

but then why bother giving vegetable state people rights when your just going to kill them off anyway? that's what i don't get.. i mean ok yeah we're all human.. and i get the argument that as a whole we're given rights... but i mean.. if your just going to kill them then why bother giving them rights in the first place? and for the animals.. well.. if we were ever to give them rights.. wat kind of rights would they be? has anyone even thought of that? i mean obviously we're not going to give them the right to vote or someting like that... right? it seems that no one here agrees that animals should be mindlessly tortured.. so what exactly are we still discussing? we eat them.. just like they eat eachother... i dunno... just wondering...

I don't think vegetable state people should be killed, and if they are, it has to be proven beyond doubt that they are not going to get better, and even then the family has to agree.

What we are discussing is the idea that animals shouldn't be killed/eaten.

Reasons that animals shouldn't be killed:

They are just like humans in that they are sentient.
Humans are just like them in that we aren't sentient.

Both seem to revolve the belief that humans are no different than animals and therefore don't have the right to kill them. Either way, animals kill eachother and us, so if we are no different than them we can't be expected to not eat meat.

[ssjharsh]

Personally, I believe that animals, not just humanity, have a soul, and are our siblings in creation. That alone is enough to provide certain rights. Animals do have a right to live, and to live in relative peace. I do not ask like that they have equality in society, because they are not part of society. Just let them live their lives.

[Shaehl]

Personally, I believe that animals, not just humanity, have a soul, and are our siblings in creation. That alone is enough to provide certain rights. Animals do have a right to live, and to live in relative peace. I do not ask like that they have equality in society, because they are not part of society. Just let them live their lives.

Without getting into a religious debate, let's just assume that you are right. How is our consumption of them any different than other animals consuming eachother? Are predators evil then? I don't think anyone here believes that we should cause unneeded pain to animals, or kill them just for fun, but how is a human eating a cow any different from a fox eating a rabbit? You could make the argument that humans have the ability to do the "right" thing, but then you'd have to admit that humans are, in fact, on a different level of being than animals.

[ssjharsh]

I do believe humans are different than animals ( I am sorry if I came across differently, the sentience thing is that I also believe animals understand their existence, but not the rules of right and wrong as humans do). Humans should know better. To harm any creature, to destroy any life, to cause any violence is sin, and is not acceptable. As humans who know better, it is our duty to minimize violence, towards all. My support of animal rights extends from