Inspriration: Do Animals Have Rights?

[ShortStack]

Since my survey brought up such a controversal topic, lets discuss it here.

Do animals have rights? Hmmm...such a tough topic to tackle because there is SO much to it. I mean, really! Where do start? Well...lets think, what makes humans have rights? Can we analyze it from that angle?

Humans have rights because... (and feel free to add onto this list)
- we have emotions
- we can feel pain
- we are made by God?
- we have souls

But what makes it ok for us to have rights and not animals? We must posses some power that animals do not. That is the justification...but no matter what, we're going to have people with different beliefs. Even parts of the Bible claim that they don't have souls, or so some Christians have said. Personally, I think the Bible says the quite opposite, but that is just me. But since the premise of whether they have souls cannot be proven...animals will have a tough time getting rights.

Here is another angle - do dogs know when they're mad? Do they hurt when you kick them? Of course they do! Then how can you by any doubt deny that they have feelings and can feel pain? The next question is, is it possible to have emotions and feelings, but not a soul? Do you honestly think your dog is a robot that has a brain that only tells him when he hurts or feels good?

I think that is enough to start, but debating finding the one thing that makes them different than us is the key to animals rights. What makes us have rights, and do animals have that as well?

Edit: Grrr, I'm having trouble with those typos today! I'm used to my keyboard at home. Sorry about the title typo.

[Jihforce]

hmm, this has the potential to lead to a religious thread so I think I'm gonna sit out.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by Jihforce
hmm, this has the potential to lead to a religious thread so I think I'm gonna sit out.

yes, and seeing that i am now posting here, it may be filled with "my lame maki qoutes" :dodgy:


now back on topic, i thought animal rights pertained to animals :confused:

so dont they already have rights?

[mcs328]

Two things come to mind...

A man got mad at another motorist and threw her dog over the bridge and was jailed and fined. So that animal had a right to live. This was within in the last year.

A landloard was upset at a tenent who had a dog/cat that would tear up the place and was causing property damage. After numerous warnings to do something about, he shot the dog. He was freed b/c he destroyed the animal in a quick manner (i.e. shotgun).

As pets I think they have rights as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other ppl. Same goes for the owners...the owners have rights as long as it doesn't infringe on others.

Is this what you mean or am I talking about totally different subject??

[ShortStack]

Well what I'm analyzing thought is what is it about us that makes us have rights? When we figure that out, we can figure out whether animals have that same quality - if they do, shouldn't they also have rights?

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by mcs328
Two things come to mind...

A man got mad at another motorist and threw her dog over the bridge and was jailed and fined. So that animal had a right to live. This was within in the last year.

A landloard was upset at a tenent who had a dog/cat that would tear up the place and was causing property damage. After numerous warnings to do something about, he shot the dog. He was freed b/c he destroyed the animal in a quick manner (i.e. shotgun).

As pets I think they have rights as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other ppl. Same goes for the owners...the owners have rights as long as it doesn't infringe on others.

Is this what you mean or am I talking about totally different subject??

Well that is part of what I mean, but do ALL animals have rights? People are usually more reluctant to say that cows have rights for example because they eat them. It's easier to say that your dog, your cat, or even your fish has rights before someone will say a cow has rights.

[mcs328]

ok...how about b/c we're selfish in the sense that we have more of a right to live than any other species on this planet. Although there are some that need to get out of our gene pool.

We've set up a government/rules/law etc to benefit our survival so in a sense we have a right to live beyond other living things b/c when u get right down to it...It's either me (human) or you (dog/cat/fish/whale/polarbear/ant/etc). However it hasn't really come down to the survival of the fittest, so I guess we can afford the "luxury" of having pets and offer/attach the same rights we give ourselves within reason.

If monkeys ruled the planet, I'm sure they'll have their own rules/governement and may give us (pet humans) some rights to live...I dunno...talking out of my butt.

I'm taking a break from work. Pesky pre-holiday deadlines. :P

[Cantacuzene]

Animals don't have rights per se but we enlightened humans should be nice to them because of our superior powers of rational thought.

[Punker_bob2004]

i think animals and us are the same... we just happened to evolve and get ideas or religion so say....and because we cant think or talk like them we think that we are THE supperior race... as for rights i think somewhere in the middle where they should have some... but not be able to take a sh*t everywhere:rolleyes:

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by mcs328
ok...how about b/c we're selfish in the sense that we have more of a right to live than any other species on this planet. Although there are some that need to get out of our gene pool.

We've set up a government/rules/law etc to benefit our survival so in a sense we have a right to live beyond other living things b/c when u get right down to it...It's either me (human) or you (dog/cat/fish/whale/polarbear/ant/etc). However it hasn't really come down to the survival of the fittest, so I guess we can afford the "luxury" of having pets and offer/attach the same rights we give ourselves within reason.


Glad to see so far we're not getting hot and bothered over this issue. Lets hope that continues.

Um, I know you were partially joking, but just in case you weren't...I'll respond a little. (BECAUSE IT'S FUN)

We are selfish, aren't we? Hmmm...in a way you can relate that to the fight for the fittest and since we're on top, we have more of a right. But...what if aliens came down to earth and were even more selfish? Would we then have rights? I mean, what if the aliens were more intelligent...so they made us their slaves...even though the aliens would be denying us rights, do those rights still exist because they are not the higher beings? Follow with me?

About government...we didn't always have government (and technically...we are animals in some ways, but we won't go there again). So what does that mean? The Native Americans and African Americans didn't used to what we call laws and government, but aren't laws something born to us? Hmmm..maybe that is something that sets us apart.

But one more angle, don't animals have laws amongst themselves as well? For example, gorillas have one silverback male that leads them and they somehow know that he is in charge, and that is "law". Another example would bees - don't they have a "queen" bee whom they bring food to? I know she's not a queen by our standard, but indeed they realize the difference between themselves and her. But very interesting point!

[Cantacuzene]

Another example would be retarded humans. They don't have teh right to vote, or to drive or to get married in most cases, but that doesn;t mean we are allowed to mistreat them or take advantage of them.

[ShortStack]

VERY good example! :cheers:

[mcs328]

SS: Did I come off as offensive?? I didn't mean to...I'm not getting mad or anything. yah...I guess the sarcasm doesn't translate well. I was trying to make a point and be lighthearted. I know how things can get heated and then off topic.

As far as aliens coming down and being "superior", I'm sure we'll "fight" back...and if we lose and become enslaved, then isn't that just being domesticated like the pets we own? The pets we have can easily turn on us like we would against our owners (aliens) also.

Anyone remember that Seinfeld episode? "What!?! We don't have a deal with the pigeons??" :P So in the some way if we turn on the aliens you can imagine them saying something along the lines.

I use the word "governement" loosely be whatever system we've used hundreds of years ago or in the animal kingdom where it's contest of who has the biggest blue baboon butt.

Anyways, what group has more rights then another group depends on how "superior" one is or how much the "superior" group allows the lesser one to exercise. Hmmm...I think I lost my train of thought.

Oh well time to go home and yield to the almight power of TV. All hail television and Must-See-NBC. :)

[cruelpupet]

Animals have rights


they have the right to lay in a tasty sauce on my plate

they have a right to be marinated

they have a right to be masde into clothing for me.

[Punker_bob2004]

Originally posted by cruelpupet
Animals have rights


they have the right to lay in a tasty sauce on my plate

they have a right to be marinated

they have a right to be masde into clothing for me.


LOL true that!!!:D

[blueindian]

Originally posted by ShortStack

I mean, what if the aliens were more intelligent...so they made us their slaves...even though the aliens would be denying us rights, do those rights still exist because they are not the higher beings? Follow with me?

if i understand this question correctly, then yes,our rights would still exist. they would be oppressed, but still exist. sort of like how africans had the right to a free life, but that right was denyed if they were sold into slavery. i guess i'm talking about the difference between having a right and being able to exercise that right

at any rate, what sort of rights are we talking about? i think it's inarguably(sp?) true that animals have some rights. i mean, all but the most cold hearted of people would agree that a zebra has the right to not be hung upside down by his balls and tortured to death. i would say that is a violation of that animals rights.

however, that same zebra certainly does not have the right to vote. and i don't see it as a violation of that animals rights if it were to be shot and killed for a good reason, ie survival.

does that make any sense? it's late and my brain hurts.

[cheapie]

great thread. no flaming thus far...i believe that because we have the intellect and physical capacity to do so, we need to treat animals (and the earth) with a certain amount of dignity, only killing them for resources when necessary.

i agree with Cantacuzene when he says "Animals don't have rights per se but we enlightened humans should be nice to them because of our superior powers of rational thought."

this issue is open to interpretation. should we allow people to hold dog and cock fights? (heh heh, he said cock) heck no. that's cruel. i think the same about bullfighting but understand if you feel differently.

as far as people saying that we enslave pets, well, let's just have a pet emancipation day. see how many of them willingly leave and go out and get their own support system going. my cat would be back in an hour howling to get inside the house.

i'll bet if this question was posed here where i live (michigan) you would hear a resounding "NO." almost everyone i know has gone hunting in the last week. does a deer have the right to bounce around the woods without getting shot? if so, they tons of them would die of overpopulation which means disease, starvation, and getting waxed by a car.

[mcs328]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
great thread. no flaming thus far...i believe that because we have the intellect and physical capacity to do so, we need to treat animals (and the earth) with a certain amount of dignity, only killing them for resources when necessary.

i agree with Cantacuzene when he says "Animals don't have rights per se but we enlightened humans should be nice to them because of our superior powers of rational thought."

this issue is open to interpretation. should we allow people to hold dog and cock fights? (heh heh, he said cock) heck no. that's cruel. i think the same about bullfighting but understand if you feel differently.

as far as people saying that we enslave pets, well, let's just have a pet emancipation day. see how many of them willingly leave and go out and get their own support system going. my cat would be back in an hour howling to get inside the house.

i'll bet if this question was posed here where i live (michigan) you would hear a resounding "NO." almost everyone i know has gone hunting in the last week. does a deer have the right to bounce around the woods without getting shot? if so, they tons of them would die of overpopulation which means disease, starvation, and getting waxed by a car.

Did I say enslave? Hmm...well I don't think ur pet complains all that much since he's being cared for. Plus if he comes back to you isn't he sort of "conditioned" to do so? What is it that theory...Pavlov's dog or something? Anyway I think they've been trained to come home, eat and pee where and when you want them. So that's why if you let them loose some or all come back. If you made it harsh on the pet, I wouldn't expect them to come back unless he just wanted to get close to you and then go for your throat or gonads thus freeing himself from his oppressor. So beware all you fish owners...one day they might do a Jaws on you and leap at your throat :P

[cheapie]

hehe. i'd like to see my cat try to get his fat a$$ up to my gonads. what does piss me off is when i see dogs chained to dog houses or barns and they have little muddy circle where they run around in. why have a freakin pet if you're to chain it up like an, ummm, animal?

[molecularfire]

IMO, there is no such thing as an inherent right for anything. It's all a matter of power. Humans have "inherent rights" because we decided that we wanted to be special and we have the force to back it up. A lion has a right to hunt and eat a gazelle because he is tougher than the gazelle, so there really isn't much the gazelle can do about it. We have a right to hunt the lion because we've got guns. Period. Do animals have rights... yes, if we decide to give them rights or if they somehow become powerful enough to take it. Why do dogs and cats have more rights to ants. If the angry motorist had thrown an ant to it's death, the case would've been laughed out of court, why? Because dogs are a lot more cuddly than ants. Do dogs have more rights than cows (heck, should they be eaten even)... depends on whether you ask this question in the U.S., in Vietnam or in India. In those three places, the humans who have the most power decide which rights those two animals have.

Have you guys ever thought about which animals we chose for pets. In general, we chose animals (I'm mainly talking about cats and dogs because they tend to have more "rights" than pigeons and fishes etc...) that won't really serve much of a purpose to us otherwise. Dogs taste awful, and cats are hard as heck to prepare. You have to boil the cat alive to remove it's fur, and then it really just gets everywhere. Not worth the hassle. Most of us could not eat cats and dogs and it wouldn't get in the way of our lifestyle too much. It's kinda hard for us to justify giving those same rights to cows because they are large, supply a lot of meat, and are pretty yummy. Why then do cows have more rights in India. Yes, some religions do make cows sacred but if you think of it, the cow is too important in India's lifestyle so that if they eat their cows, the would surely starve in the long run. Simply put, we do what we think is best for ourselves and then justify it afterwards.

As for mentally retarded people, we have laws to protect their "rights" because as a society we 1)know people who are mentally retarded and want to help them and 2) because deep down somewhere, we're worried that some accident might happen and we might be in their shoes. Let's face it... I doubt too many of us worry about an accident turning us into a cow. :shrug:

[Napoleon]

-humans have created delicate and intricate societies in which we respect each other and recognize each others as individual beings... We really get to know each other.
Animals don't have rights in our mind, because we don't know them as well as we know our family and friends.;)

[Cantacuzene]

Humans have "inherent rights" because we decided that we wanted to be special and we have the force to back it up.

I think John Locke would disagree with that. So would I.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Animals don't have rights per se but we enlightened humans should be nice to them because of our superior powers of rational thought.
i agree. the lab i work for uses mice as subjects and we can't just kill them in any way that we want. we have to euthanize in the most humane way, which is with CO2. another example is this: say a mouse is sick with some kind of skin disease. we don't just let it take care of itself cuz it's mean to the mouse, and if it means that we have to come in on the weekends to treat it, then we have to.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by molecularfire
IMO, there is no such thing as an inherent right for anything. It's all a matter of power.

By that logic, if I hold a gun to your head then I have the power and the right to kill you??

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Animals don't have rights per se but we enlightened humans should be nice to them because of our superior powers of rational thought.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Another example would be retarded humans. They don't have teh right to vote, or to drive or to get married in most cases, but that doesn;t mean we are allowed to mistreat them or take advantage of them.

Nicely said, I agree.

I think the difference between (most) humans and animals is our capacity for conscious thought. We are aware of who we are, where we are, and what we think and feel. Animals and retarded people certainly do have thoughts and feelings, but they are not aware of them.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


By that logic, if I hold a gun to your head then I have the power and the right to kill you??

Excellent point. Power does not equal right. Power equals the ability to supress right, but supression doesn't equal destruction.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Napoleon54
By that logic, if I hold a gun to your head then I have the power and the right to kill you??

No, because his right to live is protected by the society and nation in which he lives, and grants him his rights and enforces them (hopefully). Thus that gun really doesn't give you the power you think you have. You'd be hunted by the cops and thrown in jail by the REAL power.

Rights are a completely human construct, based on the generally accepted public ethics around which the society was built (usually stemming from some religious belief) and encoded into practical laws. In nature away from civilization, their are no rights, besides the right to do whatever you can to survive in a Darwinian struggle of the fittest.

Animals have lesser rights because they are not capable of consciously accepting and adhering to the same codes and laws which citizens must agree to live under in order to be granted rights and have those rights protected. At least not in any way we are capable of understanding. Some animals like pets are considered higher on the treatment totem poll because of their usefulness to us and to the extent which they can be trained or domesticated to exist in a human community without being disruptive.

[Cantacuzene]

"The central error of most is that they everywhere confound the terms rights, liberties and privileges, which in legal as well as vulgar acceptance, denote very different ideas."
-James Otis, 1776 On Vindication

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by molecularfire
Dogs taste awful, and cats are hard as heck to prepare. You have to boil the cat alive to remove it's fur, and then it really just gets everywhere. Not worth the hassle.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


By that logic, if I hold a gun to your head then I have the power and the right to kill you??

Thanks xenbooty. You explained it perfectly. When it comes down to it, a society is tougher than an individual so you either play by their rules or they won't let you play.


There's more than one way to skin a cat.
:heh: :heh: :heh:


Excellent point. Power does not equal right. Power equals the ability to supress right, but supression doesn't equal destruction.
Does the downtrodden have rights that are suppressed or do those in power make their own rights? I guess that will ultimately be the point of contention between the two camps.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by molecularfire
Does the downtrodden have rights that are suppressed or do those in power make their own rights? I guess that will ultimately be the point of contention between the two camps.

That is the arguement definitly. With animals, the answer is no, they do not have rights because they do not posess the ability to change their situation.

Human history has shown that the weak will eventually overthrow the strong. Hence why there are few monarchies or oligarchies left in the world and with each year fewer and fewer dictatorships. Democracy is inevitable.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by molecularfire


Thanks xenbooty. You explained it perfectly. When it comes down to it, a society is tougher than an individual so you either play by their rules or they won't let you play.

So you're saying that I have the right to kill you if I can get away with it.

Another example: Osama hasn't been caught. So far he's escaped America's powerful wrath. Therefore he had the right to destroy the twin towers?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your logic.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


So you're saying that I have the right to kill you if I can get away with it.
No, if you kill someone you have "infringed" upon their rights (to put it mildly ;) ), not exercised one of your own. You have run afoul of society's code, and become an outlaw. You're rights as a citizen no longer apply or are protected, although your rights as a human should be, and you will be hunted and imprisoned, upon which you will receive Prisoner's rights (which ain't much).

If you get away with it, its not because of any right you have, its because of some failure that occured in the system which protects and enforces the accepted rights. That happens in ugly reality, unfortunately.


Another example: Osama hasn't been caught. So far he's escaped America's powerful wrath. Therefore he had the right to destroy the twin towers?

That's a pretty cynical ploy to use a national tragedy to further an abstract argument that had only a very tangential relationship to the tragic event of which you speak.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by zenbooty

No, if you kill someone you have "infringed" upon their rights (to put it mildly ;) ), not exercised one of your own. You have run afoul of society's code, and become an outlaw. You're rights as a citizen no longer apply or are protected, although your rights as a human should be, and you will be hunted and imprisoned, upon which you will receive Prisoner's rights (which ain't much).


I think you're taking me out of context. If you look at molecularfire's original theory, he's saying that power = rights. That is what I've been argueing against. I don't believe the things I've been saying, they're extensions of his theory that are intended to show that the theory doesn't work. I agree with you totally, you've used my comments to actually explain why his theory doesn't work, whereas I just kind of tossed them out there with the assumption that everyone else would connect the dots.


Originally posted by molecularfire

IMO, there is no such thing as an inherent right for anything. It's all a matter of power.

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by mcs328
SS: Did I come off as offensive?? I didn't mean to...I'm not getting mad or anything. yah...I guess the sarcasm doesn't translate well. I was trying to make a point and be lighthearted. I know how things can get heated and then off topic.

As far as aliens coming down and being "superior", I'm sure we'll "fight" back...and if we lose and become enslaved, then isn't that just being domesticated like the pets we own? The pets we have can easily turn on us like we would against our owners (aliens) also.

Anyways, what group has more rights then another group depends on how "superior" one is or how much the "superior" group allows the lesser one to exercise. Hmmm...I think I lost my train of thought.

Heh - I knew you were being sarcastic, but I responded anyway for fun. So don't worry!

Second, animals can fight back, but it's not just about the pets we own. What about livestock? We don't exactly consider cattle to be our pets...don't they have rights too? It's easier to say that our dog has rights than to say other animals do because we love our pets.

Third, how can rights depend on superiority? Because we are the superior animal, we have rights and the others don't? What if they have feelings?


Originally posted by blueindian
at any rate, what sort of rights are we talking about? i think it's inarguably(sp?) true that animals have some rights. i mean, all but the most cold hearted of people would agree that a zebra has the right to not be hung upside down by his balls and tortured to death. i would say that is a violation of that animals rights.

That's the point really, what rights do they have? And where can you draw the line? Another drawn out discussion...and I think it's on a case to case basis where they have some rights. But it's hard to draw that line because if we don't believe in experimentation because it's cruel, shouldn't we also agree slaughtering them is cruel? I guess in the end I believe that we are allowed to kill them, but perhaps make the slaughtering a bit nicer? I mean, when they kill cows they do it brutally! Hell, when we kill our own we have the rule of "cruel and unusual punishment" but that doesn't apply to animals?

Experimentation should be limited and slauhtering should be changed to a different method. Plus, we as a community shouldn't have to eat meat so much. We CAN get all of the vitamins we need in this country without having meat in every meal.


Originally posted by molecularfire
IMO, there is no such thing as an inherent right for anything. It's all a matter of power. Humans have "inherent rights" because we decided that we wanted to be special and we have the force to back it up. A lion has a right to hunt and eat a gazelle because he is tougher than the gazelle, so there really isn't much the gazelle can do about it. We have a right to hunt the lion because we've got guns. Period. Do animals have rights... yes, if we decide to give them rights or if they somehow become powerful enough to take it. Why do dogs and cats have more rights to ants. If the angry motorist had thrown an ant to it's death, the case would've been laughed out of court, why? Because dogs are a lot more cuddly than ants. Do dogs have more rights than cows (heck, should they be eaten even)... depends on whether you ask this question in the U.S., in Vietnam or in India. In those three places, the humans who have the most power decide which rights those two animals have.

I do believe we give animals rights, but I also think they are born with them. I think every living creature is born with rights. Ever heard of human nature? Most of our biggest morals, like murdering is wrong, is born to us. The pursuit of happiness found in the constitution came from human nature. I think we are allowed to pursue all of these born rights because we have no enemies. And, if aliens came down and enslaved us, our born rights would be taken away.
But the point is, do we have a right to take away the rights of animals that were born to them? Are we allowed to cause them pain from us being purely superior? I think somewhere in our human nature we know this is wrong, and there needs to be a limit.


Originally posted by Napoleon54
I think the difference between (most) humans and animals is our capacity for conscious thought. We are aware of who we are, where we are, and what we think and feel. Animals and retarded people certainly do have thoughts and feelings, but they are not aware of them.
Now I'm digging in my anthropology class. Chimps are able to understand who they are. Meaning, when most animals are put in front of a mirror, they think it's another monkey. But when chimps are put in front of a mirror, they understand that they are looking at themselves. So I think that establishes that they are aware of self. And can we just brush away that they don't know how they feel and think? I mean, I think some of the more intelligent animals do understand, but because they aren't speaking our language we regard them as dumb. A baby chimp and human baby are very similar in the way they learn the first two years of their life. It's only when they are two years old that humans advance and chimps get a little slower, but they still develop many intelligent human traits. So I think there is still question...I think animals do know when they hurt, but of course there are some animals who may not be as intelligent as us.

[molecularfire]

Human history has shown that the weak will eventually overthrow the strong. Hence why there are few monarchies or oligarchies left in the world and with each year fewer and fewer dictatorships. Democracy is inevitable.
Wouldn't that then make the weak, the strong? I mean... you can't beat someone stronger than you (I guess it depends on what your definition of strength is). Democracy is strong IMO because there is strength in numbers. Think of it this way, if a really strong guy gets beat up by ten guys... he may be stronger than any of those ten guys individually, but he is NOT stronger than all ten put together (if he was, then they wouldn't have been able to beat him up). btw, when I talk about strength, I'm not just referring to physical strength. I also include speed, skill, smarts, weapons (let's face it... we're relatively weak omnivores. Without weapons, we wouldn't be able to beat the cr@p out of a toilet).


So you're saying that I have the right to kill you if I can get away with it.

Another example: Osama hasn't been caught. So far he's escaped America's powerful wrath. Therefore he had the right to destroy the twin towers?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your logic.
Yes. If you can get away with it, you do have the right to kill me. Think of it this way though... if you have to hide the fact that you killed me because you fear a greater power (the cops) then you really didn't have the strength to kill me. As for your Osama analogy... if Afghanistan had won and took over the U.S. then they would get to tell just their side of the story and Osama would've been a hero. In their opinions, yes they did have a right to do such a thing. I just don't consider having to hide out really getting away with it. You didn't have the power to do anything, you just did it anyways and are hiding out to avoid the wrath of those in real power.
Here's another example (and I apologize to those whom this will offend but this is my opinion and I do have a right to it unless someone with real power on this board decides I don't): Think about the revolutionary war. Did we have a right to rebel. I mean, if you read our history books, it makes it sound like we were fighting some good fight for the greater good. We got tired of listening other people tell us what to do... that was it. We didn't do anything different than what the "terrorists" (I know... I hate this word too) nowadays are doing. The only difference was that we eventually won, and because of that, we are able to justify it to ourselves after.


Third, how can rights depend on superiority? Because we are the superior animal, we have rights and the others don't? What if they have feelings?
How do we know they don't. We will assume that they don't because it better suits our interests. If we find out later that they do, we will find some other way to justify protecting our interests. Think of this... many many societies in history have had the institution of slavery and had no problems with that. They simply decided that there was a heirarchy of rights with them at the top. How is that any different than what we are doing with animals. An ant, an uncle, and a dog... I'm assuming that most of us would be able to rank which has more rights than the others pretty easily.

Hell, when we kill our own we have the rule of "cruel and unusual punishment" but that doesn't apply to animals?
Because there is a chance that we can run afoul of the law. There isn't much chance that we will get turned into a cow. When it comes down to it... we're not being nice to other humans because we think they have inherent rights... we're just covering our own rears because deep down we're worried that it could happen to us.

We CAN get all of the vitamins we need in this country without having meat in every meal.
I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am, but from what I've been able to gather from the stuff that I've learned... we can get all of the vitamins we need without having meat at all if we were willing to eat the feces of animals. :P

The pursuit of happiness found in the constitution came from human nature.
Actually, it came from either Hobbes or Locke... can't remember with. TJ stole quite a bit from both. If you read their stuff though... there is a sentence there that says that we have inherent rights to life, liberty and property (TJ kinda changed this a bit).

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by molecularfire

I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am, but from what I've been able to gather from the stuff that I've learned... we can get all of the vitamins we need without having meat at all if we were willing to eat the feces of animals. :P

Actually, it came from either Hobbes or Locke... can't remember with. TJ stole quite a bit from both. If you read their stuff though... there is a sentence there that says that we have inherent rights to life, liberty and property (TJ kinda changed this a bit).

Because the other stuff I've pretty much debated, there's no sense in restating what I've already said. There is no solution to this, it's just fun to talk about.

Well, I thought the same, but in America, we actually could live perfectly fine without eating meat. I learned this in my class where someone brought in these facts...now in smaller countries, they need meat. But we have made vitamins and have other things readily available that can substitute the vitamins we get in meat.

And it came from Locke, John Locke. His views changed society right before the Declaration of Independence and he said we had rights born to us. I remember that clearly.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by ShortStack

Plus, we as a community shouldn't have to eat meat so much. We CAN get all of the vitamins we need in this country without having meat in every meal.




I like meat. I think I like meat enough that I don't care if an animal has to die in order for me to eat it. In my opinion, animals are strictly physical entities. They have no thoughts, consciousness, or soul to make them any more special than trees or rocks or water. Yeah, they're a bit more complex, but all of that complexity can be described in exquisite scientific detail. Science can discover the mechanisms by which animals (and humans) reproduce, grow, utilize energy, etc. All of the basics of how life works can be broken down into a whole lot of chemistry and physics. However, I believe the one thing that eludes scientific explanation is conscious thought. How can one become self aware? IMHO, that's a big leap beyond the realm of physical existence. This is where many people turn to religion for an explanation. I simply admit that I don't know everything and leave it at that. But anyway, getting back on topic: I think that ending an animal's life is nothing special. More animals will grow. Ending a form of consciousness, however, is a very serious event. Consciousness is something that most of us can barely understand, much less appreciate. Our thoughts and our ideas are all that we are, they define us. YOU ARE NOT a head, a body, and some appendages. YOU ARE a unique set of values, thoughts, and beliefs; these things are part of conscious thought. When somebody becomes "brain-dead", they might as well be completely dead because who they were, their identity, is gone. Good example: consider the ending of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. McMurphy's fellow patients knew that he was gone even though his body was still alive, so they killed the body. His body was only the shell that once held the man he once was. That's the difference between (most) humans and animals. Humans are conscious entities, whereas animals are simply physical. Therefore I have no problem killing and eating animals. They're tasty.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by Napoleon54
Therefore I have no problem killing and eating animals. They're tasty.


Here's an interesting question I heard on the radio the other day -

Let's say you're riding in a plane & it crashes in the Andes mountains. The pilot is dead, but you & your dog survive. It may be weeks before anyone finds you. When you get hungry enough, do you eat the pilot (who's already dead), or your dog (who is still alive)?




[Abe Simpson]Boy, I can't wait to eat that monkey![/Abe Simpson]

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by Jeffbx
do you eat the pilot (who's already dead), or your dog (who is still alive)?Depends on what kind of wine they're serving.

Actually, I would eat the dog. Eating a human is totally repugnant to me. Killing and eating a dog is just kind of icky.

If animal rights activists (I'm talking about the real wacko ones) believe animals have just as many rights as humans, why aren't they erecting fences in Africa to keep cheetahs from eating antelopes? To keep lions away from water buffalo? Why do animals only have rights in regard to their contact with humans?

[cheapie]

depends on the dog. if it was a saint bernard with a keg of whiskey around its neck, i would probably wait to eat the dog till the whiskey was gone. that's only fair to the dog. then i'd have to deal with the fur. also, is the guy pretty hairy? that would make a difference...(can you tell i'm not taking this question very seriously?)

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Jeffbx


Here's an interesting question I heard on the radio the other day -

Let's say you're riding in a plane & it crashes in the Andes mountains. The pilot is dead, but you & your dog survive. It may be weeks before anyone finds you. When you get hungry enough, do you eat the pilot (who's already dead), or your dog (who is still alive)?




[Abe Simpson]Boy, I can't wait to eat that monkey![/Abe Simpson]

Easy question, I'd eat the pilot. I have absolutely no problem with eating dead people. I would be very honored if after my death, my friends and family ate me. I'm a good source of protein, there's no sense in wasting it by burrial or cremation.

[molecularfire]

I'd eat the pilot first because his meat will rot faster. As long as the dog stays alive, his meat will keep. Anyways, he might be useful should I get attacked by an animal (really depends on the dog). Either ways though... I wouldn't let the pilot go to waste in case I do need to eventually eat him... so best to eat the guy before he rots.