Human Rights and Animal Rights: Why does one feel more out weighed than the other at times

[DefunctTheory]

snip

To be honest, I never really believe stuff like which charities get more money 'cos things like that can be manipulated so easily. Just watch a video called "8 billion dollar ipod", I did a bit of voluntary work for the British heart foundation and it's quite sickening what other charities try to get away with... Like it will say on the collection bag "only 1p in every pound goes to charity".

I just echo what I've heard without putting too much stock into it, my bad.

I don't know about Britain, but in the US most charity foundations have to report to the government how much of the money they get is actually put towards real charity. When I was in the Army, they'd give out packets for making charitable donations directly out of our pay checks. The packet had hundreds of charities, a description of what they do, and how many cents out of a dollar went to overhead.

It's disgusting how many of them where upwards of 90 cents. I remember one was actually 98 cents per dollar to overhead.

Anyway, I'm sure Britain has the same thing. You just have to be willing to work a bit to make sure your money is not wasted.

As a side note, the last one I did give to charity, I gave 500 dollars a year to an organization that helped maintain military museums. I had to submit it twice because the NCO who was collecting the forms actually exploded at me when she read my form, because I was supporting a museums instead of her personal choices, PETA and Greenpeace. She threw my paperwork away, and accused me of not caring about animals.

To be fair, I did insinuate that she was supporting terrorist. But only after she started screaming.

Captcha: describe this brand with any words. Response: rude words for female breast

 

[Auron225]

It's not that I don't support animal rights - I agree with them (within reason; dolphins having human rights is a tad stupid), it's just I'm not active in doing stuff about it. I've done a fair bit of stuff for charities that help people though.

Call me what you will but if I had just enough money to feed either a starving dog or a starving child, the kid would get it every time.

 

[TheIceQueen]

snip

To be honest, I never really believe stuff like which charities get more money 'cos things like that can be manipulated so easily. Just watch a video called "8 billion dollar ipod", I did a bit of voluntary work for the British heart foundation and it's quite sickening what other charities try to get away with... Like it will say on the collection bag "only 1p in every pound goes to charity".

I just echo what I've heard without putting too much stock into it, my bad.

I don't know about Britain, but in the US most charity foundations have to report to the government how much of the money they get is actually put towards real charity. When I was in the Army, they'd give out packets for making charitable donations directly out of our pay checks. The packet had hundreds of charities, a description of what they do, and how many cents out of a dollar went to overhead.

It's disgusting how many of them where upwards of 90 cents. I remember one was actually 98 cents per dollar to overhead.

Anyway, I'm sure Britain has the same thing. You just have to be willing to work a bit to make sure your money is not wasted.

As a side note, the last one I did give to charity, I gave 500 dollars a year to an organization that helped maintain military museums. I had to submit it twice because the NCO who was collecting the forms actually exploded at me when she read my form, because I was supporting a museums instead of her personal choices, PETA and Greenpeace. She threw my paperwork away, and accused me of not caring about animals.

To be fair, I did insinuate that she was supporting terrorist. But only after she started screaming.

Captcha: describe this brand with any words. Response: rude words for female breast

Come now, let's be truly fair. If you support PETA, you do support terrorism. PETA has quite a few links to ALF and other arsonists, no matter how much they try to deny it. I'm not going to say anymore about this because I could honestly go on and on and on about the hypocrisy of PETA. It's the Westboro Baptist Church of animal rights groups.

 

[LetalisK]

PETA are a very loud minority that nobody takes seriously.

As for the torture of humans? Certain orginisations take that extremely seriously, they're just not loud attention whores like PETA.

Not least of which because throwing fake blood on a person that tortures humans is just a tad bit riskier.

 

[Spiridion]

What exactly is the defense of people who think that animals rights come before human rights?

Not even a trick question, I genuinely want to know.

I would imagine a lot of it has to do with the fact that humans generally have more ways to defend themselves against other humans than animals do. We have to tools and know-how to do pretty much anything we wish to all other forms of life on this planet no matter how harmful. Animals still experience a significant stress response when abused, but they have no way to advocate for themselves.

Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to put animal rights before human rights necessarily, but I do feel that animals should be respected as living creatures and that the above should be taken into account. Most of the people that are radical about animal rights (such as PETA) are pretty awful anyway. Better to give support to less noisy, more reputable zoos, humane societies, and conservation programs in my opinion.

 

[Strazdas]

Another spin is that without human rights animal rights wouldnt exist to begin with, for if we cant take care of ourselves there is noone left to care for animals anyway

Oh yes, I'm sure the animals would be utterly distraught about THAT one. We've been such gentle, loving stewards of the planetary ecology...

That wasnt the point. Animal rights is something that we came up with that deals with how we treat animals. if we wouldnt be able to contorl our own socierty with human rights we wouldnt be able to make animal rights to begin with.

PETA are a very loud minority that nobody takes seriously.

I wouldnt be so sure. today i met a guy that was planning a boycott for a movie called "Empire state" because the dog featured in the movie was accidentally killed on the set after the filming (it was run over by a car, not related to filming, i guess noone bothered to tie the dog down). Why is he boycotting the movie? because PETA told him to.

 

[deathjavu]

Is anyone else continuously saddened that PETA is the most commonly known animal rights group? Let's run down a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head list of why PETA is awful:

-Sponsors terrorists
-Euthanizes more animals than any other organization in the US, including shelters
-Thinks having pets (that have co-evolved with humans & can't survive without us) is akin to having slaves
-Routinely messes with actual scientific research
-Any animals they do release into the wild are 99% guaranteed to die, as they don't have survival training
-Tortures logic to attack totally innocent targets, in order to steal attention

And yet every time someone mentions animal rights, the first group that gets mentioned is PETA- their noisy attention grabbing is working. "Treat animals better" is such a basic level of decency that almost anyone would agree to, and yet they make animal rights supporters look completely off their rockers.

I've never felt so sympathetic for center-right types who end up represented by the Tea Party. Makes it totally impossible to have your own position without feeling forced to defend the other nutters in your wagon.

 

[Auron225]

It's not that I don't support animal rights - I agree with them (within reason; dolphins having human rights is a tad stupid), it's just I'm not active in doing stuff about it. I've done a fair bit of stuff for charities that help people though.

Call me what you will but if I had just enough money to feed either a starving dog or a starving child, the kid would get it every time.

Of course the kid, or indeed adult, or geriatric gets fed over an animal, it's an animal. Any other decision is sociopathic.

I've heard plenty of people say they'd gladly feed the animal instead - "Why is a human life worth more than an animals?" and all that.

Having said that, I wonder if they would still do it if actually in the situation.

 

[Quaxar]

It's like when millions are spent on pandas. If they are too lazy to fu... I mean "mate", why are we even forcing them and spending so much money on them to make sure they don't go extinct.

Zoos that invest big sums in artificial panda insemination and all that are just badly informed or lazy. Vienna's Schönbrunn Zoo has produced 3 panda cubs so far, all conceived entirely naturally, the first being the first non-artificial one outside of Asia.
The only real problem with pandas is the whole deal with renting them from China for absurd fees and agreements.

OT: PETA is the WBC of animal rights.
How about all the organisations that <url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/18/grand-theft-auto-5-under-fire-for-graphic-torture-scene>went mad over the torture scene in GTA V? Where's your dolphin lovers now?

 

[kirwan464]

It's not that I don't support animal rights - I agree with them (within reason; dolphins having human rights is a tad stupid), it's just I'm not active in doing stuff about it. I've done a fair bit of stuff for charities that help people though.

Call me what you will but if I had just enough money to feed either a starving dog or a starving child, the kid would get it every time.

Of course the kid, or indeed adult, or geriatric gets fed over an animal, it's an animal. Any other decision is sociopathic.

I've heard plenty of people say they'd gladly feed the animal instead - "Why is a human life worth more than an animals?" and all that.

Having said that, I wonder if they would still do it if actually in the situation.

I have done it in that situation, not choosing to feed an animal over a kid or anythin but choosing to feed an animal over myself.
I have always thought that animal rights should be equal to human rights and the fact that there not, just proves that humans are not deserving of the rights they have. the fact that we have intelligence means we should strive to take care of all species on this planet.
there should be far worse punishments is place for people who hurt animals in any way.

 

[DefunctTheory]

It's not that I don't support animal rights - I agree with them (within reason; dolphins having human rights is a tad stupid), it's just I'm not active in doing stuff about it. I've done a fair bit of stuff for charities that help people though.

Call me what you will but if I had just enough money to feed either a starving dog or a starving child, the kid would get it every time.

Of course the kid, or indeed adult, or geriatric gets fed over an animal, it's an animal. Any other decision is sociopathic.

I've heard plenty of people say they'd gladly feed the animal instead - "Why is a human life worth more than an animals?" and all that.

Having said that, I wonder if they would still do it if actually in the situation.

I have done it in that situation, not choosing to feed an animal over a kid or anythin but choosing to feed an animal over myself.
I have always thought that animal rights should be equal to human rights and the fact that there not, just proves that humans are not deserving of the rights they have. the fact that we have intelligence means we should strive to take care of all species on this planet.
there should be far worse punishments is place for people who hurt animals in any way.

But why should we give 'rights' to a species of animal (All of them but us) that don't even understand the very concept of what a right may be?

I'm not saying we should all bust out the seal clubs and whale harpoons, but why should we?

 

[2xDouble]

But why should we give 'rights' to a species of animal (All of them but us) that don't even understand the very concept of what a right may be?

I'm not saying we should all bust out the seal clubs and whale harpoons, but why should we?

For that very reason, because they don't understand. Rights of those incapable of understanding rights must be protected by those that do, else they become exploited, abused, or outright exterminated. It's no different than protecting children's rights, or the rights of the handicapped. Whether or not they appreciate it is irrelevant.

To put it simply: everything that exists has the right to exist.

That includes animals raised for experimentation and food production, by the way. Simply because their existence is predetermined doesn't remove their rights to have it; our interference in their ability to exist on their own takes the responsibility of maintaining that right directly into our hands.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Folks, I hate to spoil your fun, but...

Spoiler: There's no such thing as rights

Next debate, please.

 

[Parasondox]

Folks, I hate to spoil your fun, but...

Spoiler: There's no such thing as rights

Next debate, please.

Hahaha we know that already but some either choose to ignore it or just embrace it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Of course the kid, or indeed adult, or geriatric gets fed over an animal, it's an animal. Any other decision is sociopathic.

I love these all or nothing proclamations.

Do you have a pet? Ever known anyone who had a pet?

Did they feed their pet?

If so, they are now sociopathic by your definition. They could have sent that money to starving children.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

PETA are a very loud minority that nobody takes seriously.

As for the torture of humans? Certain orginisations take that extremely seriously, they're just not loud attention whores like PETA.

/thread

PETA are fanatics that don't have any real political power, so instead of solving real issues they just bash whatever's popular to pretend they're relevant. Anti-torture agencies tend to have better things to do then code mean-spirited flash games.

 

[Xan Krieger]

What exactly is the defense of people who think that animals rights come before human rights?

Not even a trick question, I genuinely want to know.

I think it's because people are generally shit while animals are good. If humans didn't suck so bad I'd be more sympathetic to their problems.

OT: this reminds me of the whole "a human and your pet are drowning" threads. I always pick to save the animal because people haven't been as kind to me over the years as animals have.