What's Your View on Animal Rights?

Raven's Nest

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,955
0
0
ShadowsofHope said:
Raven said:
AlexNora said:
this reply is to everyone that quoted me

Listen I do not need a biology professor to explain evolution to me I am not stupid.
I have scene and heard the "evidence" evolution has to offer. However no matter what angle I look at it I can not bring myself to think of it as nothing more then fantasy. Its a sad story that is fitting only as a fairy tale long ago and far away.
You have a better explaination for the biodiversity of life then? I?d love to hear it and have you show me the evidence.
She/He's a Creationist, mate. I've had the debate with her/him before, it always comes down to "God proofed everything into existence as it is now" somehow is less "fairy tale" than "life evolved over time". Most of it, however, is an argument from ignorance and/or an argument from personal incredulity, as is the usual case.
I had already figured that, there is always a glimmer of hope to get through to them though. A personal quest you might say...
 

Raven's Nest

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,955
0
0
Jack the Potato said:
Animals have no rights. Well, the dumb ones don't. Dolphins, some monkeys, and crows are really the only animals I'd ever consider intelligent enough to care about on a personal level. Of course, dolphins murder for fun, monkeys are dirty, and crows are assholes, so that care only goes so far. :p

Now, I'm not going to go out of my way to hurt an animal for no reason, but if it serves a purpose I have no qualms about killing animals or making them perform for our entertainment. Besides, performer animals get paid in food, room and board, and care-taking. PETA's claims that the orcas in Sea World are our entertainment slaves is malarkey.
Where as I don't support PETA, I think they have a point with that one. An orca in captivity pretty much is a slave for human entertainment. There are no conservation benefits whatsoever and the environment in which they are housed and trained is completely unnatural. I can assure you there is nothing natural about an orca performing "tricks" with humans riding on them... and this comes from an elephant keeper!
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
ShadowsofHope said:
Raven said:
AlexNora said:
this reply is to everyone that quoted me

Listen I do not need a biology professor to explain evolution to me I am not stupid.
I have scene and heard the "evidence" evolution has to offer. However no matter what angle I look at it I can not bring myself to think of it as nothing more then fantasy. Its a sad story that is fitting only as a fairy tale long ago and far away.
You have a better explaination for the biodiversity of life then? I?d love to hear it and have you show me the evidence.
She/He's a Creationist, mate. I've had the debate with her/him before, it always comes down to "God proofed everything into existence as it is now" somehow is less "fairy tale" than "life evolved over time". Most of it, however, is an argument from ignorance and/or an argument from personal incredulity, as is the usual case.
I guess supported by a vast amount of evidence and observations isn't enough. Wanna bet he doesn't believe in atoms either 'cause he can't see them'?
 

boyvirgo666

New member
May 12, 2009
371
0
0
Tigers have rights because they can kill me, Veal calfs do not because i can stomp one to death. Survival of the fittest and i love veal.
 

Robertus2210

New member
Apr 8, 2010
41
0
0
my vieuw on it might be a bit weird.

for example i feel bad for those dancing bears that get all their teeth pulled out and forced to fight rabid dogs, but i feel that fur should be allowed and not at all frowned upon (after all we get to wear leather jackets aswell no?)

I get angry at people who kill their neighbours cat for shitting on their lawn but I can understand testing things on animals (worthwhile things like medicine, not stuff like make up)

also i think when an animal is resceud and healed up in a zoo, its more inhumane to let it back out then to keep it, because those animals forget how to live in the wild, forget how to find their way and their group and are likely to be unable to survive outside a zoo anymore. a recent example would be some seal they threw back in the sea, swam around for a few days in circle then dissapeared. presumed dead.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,615
1,986
118
Country
United States of America
Animals aren't members of my society, nor are they members of other societies or organized groups with which mine can have fruitful relations. They are useful as food, material, or pets. They have no rights. We may be kind to them at our pleasure and convenience. Some may derive certain privileges from the property rights of their owners.

Fight a war over it if you want, PETA.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
OmniscientOstrich said:
ElPatron said:
So a quick death by firearm is slaughter, but animals suffering for profit isn't? Okay.


Hunting is leisure. Nobody said you leave dead meat behind. Look at me. I have relatively soft, unsharpened nails and my jaw can't force teeth into wild animals. If that isn't a handicap for a predator, do you want me to use bow and arrow? Fine by me.

And I imagine that for you the fact that animals have predators in the wild is irrelevant?
Oh bullshit, predators in the wild have no other means of sustenance, whereas fox hunting for example (from the UK here) is done purely out of sport, practiced by the welthy, the chase instilling fear and distress in the fox as well as more often than they'd like to admit has it's flesh torn to pieces by the hounds rather than 'a quick death by firearm' which isn't guaranteed either depending on their aim. Plus there is no fucking way the majority of people doing this is out of some notion of creating ecological stability, it's just killing something for recreations sake.
Well don't blame me for your country's mentality, I never knew anyone who hunted foxes.

"Varminting" is a NEED in many places.

I don't know if you have caught my drift, but the "other" ways of subsistence deal a LOT more pain and suffering to animals.
 

Eggsnham

New member
Apr 29, 2009
4,054
0
0
THAC0 said:
I do not condone research on animals, even for medicine, because i don't think you can justify hurting something, just by saying that it will help something else in the long run. i think that is a stupid and selfish argument.
You make a lot of good points, but this one in particular I have a problem with.

If a lab rat dies in the search for a cure for cancer, which would save millions of lives, then surely it's justifiable.

Could you really tell all the millions of people that they'll have to continue fighting and dying because some healthier people believe that non-human animals shouldn't be tested on?

I support the idea that human testing should be done much more than non-human testing, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not going to happen anytime soon. And to get it out of the way, cosmetic testing shouldn't ever be done on animals, that much I agree with.

Also: "because i don't think you can justify hurting something, just by saying that it will help something else in the long run."

Does this mean that you would be okay causing humans intentional suffering, but no other species of animal?
 

vento 231

New member
Dec 31, 2009
796
0
0
I think that there aren't severe enough punishments for it, when people are cruel and hurt things out of pleasure, they deserve more than a month or two behind bars, I have worked with some dogs from a fighting ring, and rehabilitated a bait dog. One particular dog named Dutch had oil poured on him after loosing a dog fight. The man who did it got 6 weeks in jail. I do not support PETA what so ever tho, they are extremists.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
Tenno said:
i like animal rights, hate the activists, there all terrorists or support terrorism, and there all dumb enough to try and force there dumb vegaterian/vegan lifestyels on there pets. and fuck E.L.F if i ever met an E.L.F member id burn there house down and threaten to kill there familly memburs, see how they like it
ok trying to force veganism on everyone else is one thing...but PETS? are you fucking kidding me??? how can people like animals so much have no fucking clue about nature (no Im not advocating the "its good/bad because its nature argument")

but gaaahhhh the whole vegan/vegetarion thing pisses me off, its so annoyingly self rightous and "I feel SOOO much healthyer, really you shoudl try it" OR ever worse they promote their propaganda to convince people that we are somhow "not equiped" to eat meat

everything in moderation duuuhhh

animal cruelty, is dusgusting HOWEVER the fact is we eat meat and animals are going to get slaughtered, I think pracitces should try and not have any needless cruetly, but they are going to die eather way, unless animals are endangered I dont think animal welfare should come before human welfare

also as Ive said many times before, if thease people has a different cause then they would be labeled an extremist group,
 

Insubordination

New member
Oct 28, 2011
5
0
0
Animal testing was only introduced and heavily enforced so they could put safety stickers on products even when science clearly points that too much of one certain chemical is harmful these redundancy tests are enforced for our over protective society.

Again animal rights activists aren't all in the same organization or walk the same path as you put it "terrorists". It's generalization.
 

speccy4i

New member
Feb 11, 2011
10
0
0
Here's my problem: With rights come responsibilities. The right to free speech, for example, comes with a responsibility to use that speech appropriately (such as not being needlessly provocative - i.e. trolls).

Now, how many animals have the ability to comprehend the responsibilities that we give them?

It's not about rights, it's about respecting life.

If something is a alive in even the broadest of definitions (because we aren't 100% sure how to define life yet) then it is worth being treated with respect. That said, it is only us humans with a concept of this respect; it's not that animals can't talk that 'requires' groups like Peta to campaign on their behalf. With the exception of plants, all life needs to consume life to survive and for all our intellectual notions of rights and respect, our survival instinct will always override everything. I doubt that a bear would consider a human's rights if it was ripping him limb from limb...
Thus we have to reconcile our intellectual ideas with our basic needs.

Personally, I think that it's OK to kill an animal for food if the animal has been treated well and all of the animal has been used. I don't know how water-tight this perspective is but it's the best way of reconciling our baser instincts with our higher goals.
 

ran88dom99

New member
Feb 3, 2011
84
0
0
meat is not tasty. it is just texture. what u want is fat and salt. take the meat sauce and pour it on boiled broccoli; you wont taste the difference. wont feel as good though.
 

THAC0

New member
Aug 12, 2009
631
0
0
Eggsnham said:
THAC0 said:
I do not condone research on animals, even for medicine, because i don't think you can justify hurting something, just by saying that it will help something else in the long run. i think that is a stupid and selfish argument.
You make a lot of good points, but this one in particular I have a problem with.

If a lab rat dies in the search for a cure for cancer, which would save millions of lives, then surely it's justifiable.

Could you really tell all the millions of people that they'll have to continue fighting and dying because some healthier people believe that non-human animals shouldn't be tested on?

I support the idea that human testing should be done much more than non-human testing, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not going to happen anytime soon. And to get it out of the way, cosmetic testing shouldn't ever be done on animals, that much I agree with.

Also: "because i don't think you can justify hurting something, just by saying that it will help something else in the long run."

Does this mean that you would be okay causing humans intentional suffering, but no other species of animal?
I do not condone the infliction of suffering on any creature. You say that the sacrifice of a lab rat is justified if it would save the lives of a million people, but i say to you, would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of a million people to save 1 rat? If you say no, then you are placing the lives of your own species above others. If you are comfortable with that, then i don't hold it against you, but i do not believe that 1 life is worth another, and i believe that all harm is wrong, yet sometimes justified.

for me, i say it depends on intimidate need. if you are starving, kill a cow, or a bird, or a cat. if you are being attacked, defend yourself. But don't ask for the death of a cow when there is perfectly good food that is available at the same store you would buy the dead cow meat from (vegetarian for many years). Don't kill a dog because it might attack you someday.

If you want to test a drug, do it on humans that consent to the experiment. would that make things slower? yes. would more people die? yes. would we be a better species because of our compassion? yes.
 

KelsieKatt

New member
May 14, 2008
180
0
0
I generally tend to look at human and animals rights on a fairly even playing field.

And while I do believe that animals need more rights in certain areas, there's a limit. I do not agree with PETA on any level that people should be vegetarian, it simply isn't part of our intended diet.

I would say if anything, the thing I find the most annoying is how arrogant humans tend to be how much they over value themselves over other creatures. I tend to look at most life in a similar manner, if I person dies I don't feel any more or less remorse than I would if it were a cat or cow or whatever. Life is life and I don't care who it is (unless it's obviously someone close to me. Which is obviously going to hurt, I can't change my emotions about that, nor should I.)

I also don't have an moral issues when it comes to food. I don't selectively pick certain species I find cute and generalize their lives as being important based on this. So, yeah, guess what, I'd eat a cat or a dog if it was available. I love pets, but the thing is, that cat on my plate is not my pet, nor does that entire species get special treatment because I like my pet. One thing I've always found rather amusing and intriguing about fictional vampires is that they put humans onto the food chain and give them a taste of what it's like to be just another animal. Also, in case anyone is wondering, I have no moral issues about people eating humans, if that were legal either. Granted, it's a tad bit strange since it would be cannibalism but I still don't have a problem with the concept of humans being a food source. (Obviously I don't want to be eaten by something, but I'm also not likely to legally oppose it in order to save my selfish ass.)

Some things I do find really disturbing about lack of animal rights is how screwed up the living conditions are for most animals bread for food, which really needs to be changed. As it is, I consider hunting for food in the wild to be far more humane by comparison. Sure, everyone likes to think about the big bad hunter shooting the cute wittle animal, but you know what? Those animals had a far better life than what you buy at the grocery store. Another thing I find disturbing is how if a person is accidentally killed, the police will mount an entire investigation into the entire thing and go to extreme lengths to punish whoever is responsible. An animal gets accidentally killed a simple "Oops" will suffice and everyone moves on, no investigation required.

There's loads of other things I could ramble about, but I think I'm going to cut it off here before I get into Wall of Text Land.