What's Your View on Animal Rights?

Raven's Nest

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,955
0
0
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
Nokshor said:
Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.
So long as you are acutely aware of why this is your opinion I'm not going to be able to pursuade you.

human life is greater then animal life = fact. animals have no potential they will always be the same they can not fix problems let alone understand most. without us (humans) animals have no hope for a future this earth will not last forever and only humans could solve such a big problem.


should people do things like make dogs fight, I don't really care but it sound boring compered to watching people fight that's for sure (and i don't really like fighting)
Do me a favour, go and research the word "evolution" before I come back to ridicule your opinion. I believe in a fair fight after all...
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Im fine with animal testing for medical stuff. But for crap like shampoo and makeup, we really should be pass that by now and should no what we can or cant use for cosmetics. Animals are ok to eat as food as long as they are treated humanly as possible. Also animals should be free from abuse and violence from their owners. Also any hunting for anything other than food is wrong, especially if its for a fur coat or to put its head on your wall.

As for PETA, people would take there cause more seriously if they didnt keep pulling retarded stunts all the time.

An if their are any vegetarians commenting here, im happy you dont eat meat. Well done. Just stop bringing it up just because others prefer to have a steak. We are all free to eat what we choose, but not all of us feel the need to belittle others over those choices.
 

Venator_Prime

New member
Oct 28, 2011
2
0
0
Having a right without having the ability to execute on it is of interest to no one failing lobbyists and lawyers. Imagine a quadriplegic with a right to walk. That, coupled with the fact that "rights" is a man-made concept, makes the whole animal-rights business silly, in particular when fantastically ridicules entities like PETA get involved.

Worse still, these people are exceptionally hypocritical: a few years ago I was having a cigarette while sitting on my motorcycle in a strip-mall parking lot, I was wearing lots of leather, gloves, boots, jacket as were a number of my riding buddies. With something remotely resembling interest, as we are in Toronto and these people seem to gravitate to the city, we were watching a group of protesters with signs reading something about fur being murder. Not one of them as much as looked at us twice. While I cant be certain, I have a strong suspicion that had there been a group of women in fur coats they would have gotten a lot of attention from the protesters. So animal rights are worth fighting for as long as the people you are fighting look harmless? Remarkable.

What animals deserve, from a human perspective, is fair treatment - meaning, no unnecessary pain, no cruelty for the sake of it, and so on. That said, there is nothing wrong with eating meat, hunting (again, for the purposes of food, not sport), fishing or wearing leather or fur. There is quite a lot wrong with experimenting on animals when it comes down to cosmetic products but not when it is for medical research.

In conclusion, it needs to be understood that the controlling species gets to determine what rights everything else in its domain has. In first world countries we have done a decent job of being fair about it. Asking for more rights crosses into the land of increased uselessness and obscurity.
 

Fanfic_warper

New member
Jan 24, 2011
408
0
0
I can say I 'like' animals in the sense that I adore kittens, love cows for hamburgers, pigs for sausage and chicken for...well chicken.

Regarding animal RIGHTS though....well when huminaty is at peace with itself and we aren't killing each other for land, religion or rescources THEN I MIGHT give some attention to animal rights.
 

Harveypot

New member
Feb 20, 2011
268
0
0
I believe that you should only kill animals for food or for defence. I eat meat a lot but I think that battery farming is disgusting and killing an animal for fun is horrible and cruel. I do think that animal testing is ok for medical reasons but not for cosmetics. Also, fuck PETA. Did anyone know that they kill hundreds of dogs and cats every year instead of trying to re-home them? Yeah, good animal rights protesters.
 

DanielDeFig

New member
Oct 22, 2009
769
0
0
My brother did his Extended Essay on this (Basically, a University-level paper/essay as part of the 2-year IB high school programme). And his conclusion was we should support on animal welfare, rather than animal rights.

The argument was that if we want to give animals rights, then we must treat them like we treat other human beings. Not only could we not harm/kill them, we would also have to protect them from each other. Also, by giving an organism rights, you make them responsible for their own actions. We would end up with a society that puts the lion on trial for the murder of the Zeebra, with Antelopes as witnesses (And that's just plain silly. Not to mention impossible for law enforcement to keep up with).

Animal welfare, on the other hand, demands that we treat animals well. That we don't needlessly harm them (this includes giving animals destined for food a quick and painless death), that we take care of the domesticated ones, as they cannot fend for themselves like wild animals (Or kill them, rather than let them live out their lives in a cramped cage, waiting to be adopted). Finally, outright cruelty to animals, at the hands of human beings (who are fully responsible for their actions), should be punishable by law.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Eggsnham said:
Lately I've been doing a paper for Civics on why I dislike PETA and many other AR organizations.

I think that their ideas are stupid and naive at best, and that they spend too much time focusing on animals suffering, rather than the benefits that other animals may get from it.

For instance, medical research done on animals, or hunting and farming animals for food (although there are certainly some instances of animal farming that are just plain messed up, like Veal).

I love animals, but I don't ignore that meat is half of the human diet, and that a lot of medical science we have today wouldn't be available without testing on other animals. Granted, if you are a supporter of animal rights, and your ideas and opinions actually make sense and can hold up in a debate about it, then I'd be more likely to agree.
I believe in Human Responsibilities, not Animal Rights.

If animals had rights like humans then we'd have to be out there in the national parks making sure eagles, coyotes and other predators were not cruel to their prey. Nature is a cruel and unfair place, it always will be.

Humans have a responsibility to be HUMANE to animals not because they are animals but because WE are humans. So that means if there is to be a kill it is made only if sustainable (if that is desirable) and is quick and clean. And medicals testing is a balance of harm with need. Cosmetic testing is not appropriate use of test monkeys. But finding a cure to deadly or debilitating human diseases is, only if it is unethical to test on humans. Like a cure to childhood paralysis... that could be incredibly deadly. You test on chimps first as what if you kill one of the kids who is taking the experimental new treatment, I think risking the lives of a few primates is worth saving little children. That is the correct balance of right and wrong.
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
Raven said:
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
Nokshor said:
Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.
So long as you are acutely aware of why this is your opinion I'm not going to be able to pursuade you.

human life is greater then animal life = fact. animals have no potential they will always be the same they can not fix problems let alone understand most. without us (humans) animals have no hope for a future this earth will not last forever and only humans could solve such a big problem.


should people do things like make dogs fight, I don't really care but it sound boring compered to watching people fight that's for sure (and i don't really like fighting)
Do me a favour, go and research the word "evolution" before I come back to ridicule your opinion. I believe in a fair fight after all...

evolution is a load of bs i have never seen an animal change to another kind of animal there is no recorded history of it. other then Microevolution but that is not the same thing you can breed dogs all you want and you will get a dog every time.it may be a big dog or a little dog but its still a dog that is a fact. (there is some varying degrees in intelligence but they will never build a space ship or get anywhere close to it)
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Fanfic_warper said:
I can say I 'like' animals in the sense that I adore kittens, love cows for hamburgers, pigs for sausage and chicken for...well chicken.

Regarding animal RIGHTS though....well when huminaty is at peace with itself and we aren't killing each other for land, religion or rescources THEN I MIGHT give some attention to animal rights.
So never, basically?

We've accomplished a lot, but in the end, it's our nature to come into conflict. That doesn't mean we can't worry about other things too.
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
Custard_Angel said:
Being cruel to animals is not cool.

Cruelty in this case means antagonising an animal without a productive end goal.

So... if you want to shoot birds with a slingshot, that's a dick move. If you want to shoot a pig for meat, that's fine.

Also domesticated animals should be treated right. That means dogs should not be farmed to make coats and fuck you too Ms. Cruella.

That's about as far as my opinions go.
Being superior to animals means we should be responsible when exploiting them. It doesn't give us the right to be cruel to them.
I believe in Human Responsibilities, not Animal Rights.

If animals had rights like humans then we'd have to be out there in the national parks making sure eagles, coyotes and other predators were not cruel to their prey. Nature is a cruel and unfair place, it always will be.

Humans have a responsibility to be HUMANE to animals not because they are animals but because WE are humans. So that means if there is to be a kill it is made only if sustainable (if that is desirable) and is quick and clean. And medicals testing is a balance of harm with need. Cosmetic testing is not appropriate use of test monkeys. But finding a cure to deadly or debilitating human diseases is, only if it is unethical to test on humans. Like a cure to childhood paralysis... that could be incredibly deadly. You test on chimps first as what if you kill one of the kids who is taking the experimental new treatment, I think risking the lives of a few primates is worth saving little children. That is the correct balance of right and wrong.
This basically. No animal cruelty, the rest is fine. No destroying of animal habitats either, biodiversity is a good thing.

evolution is a load of bs i have never seen an animal change to another kind of animal there is no recorded history of it. other then Microevolution but that is not the same thing you can breed dogs all you want and you will get a dog every time.it may be a big dog or a little dog but its still a dog that is a fact. (there is some varying degrees in intelligence but they will never build a space ship or get anywhere close to it)
It's a shame people like you still exist in first world countries. My god...
 

dickywebster

New member
Jul 11, 2011
497
0
0
I dont really see any problem with animal rights groups in theory, but when groups are willing to harm people to protect animals, then i think theyve got a little bit of a hypocrisy thing going. harming animals bad, but harming humans is ok?...

But i guess thats also partly cause i view humans as animals so attacking humans is just more animal abuse.
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
Animal Rights have been blown way out of proportions. PETA and the like always seem to try their hardest to appear as complete and utter nutcases, often finding their cause more important then actual human rights/lives. In fact, if I recall correctly, wasn't PETA listed as a low level domestic terrorist threat or something?

Basic animal rights to prevent unesecary cruelty and abuse however I find acceptable, cause sicko's might kill kittens for fun.
 

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
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.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
Nokshor said:
Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.
So long as you are acutely aware of why this is your opinion I'm not going to be able to pursuade you.

human life is greater then animal life = fact. animals have no potential they will always be the same they can not fix problems let alone understand most. without us (humans) animals have no hope for a future this earth will not last forever and only humans could solve such a big problem.


should people do things like make dogs fight, I don't really care but it sound boring compered to watching people fight that's for sure (and i don't really like fighting)
Do me a favour, go and research the word "evolution" before I come back to ridicule your opinion. I believe in a fair fight after all...

evolution is a load of bs i have never seen an animal change to another kind of animal there is no recorded history of it. other then Microevolution but that is not the same thing you can breed dogs all you want and you will get a dog every time.it may be a big dog or a little dog but its still a dog that is a fact. (there is some varying degrees in intelligence but they will never build a space ship or get anywhere close to it)
It's so nice to be able to submit a quote to Fundies Say the Darndest Things.

Now, this is the part where I hope he's for real, because otherwise the quote probably won't get through...
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
Red Bomb said:
Personally I support a lot of animal rights. I am veggie, I work as a horse sports massage therapist (so always around animals), I try not to use products that test on animals, I think animals get a really raw deal in general for testing stuff. It's absolutely disgusting. Use guys on death row instead - they pretty much voided their "human rights" anyway.
So you don't think it's alright to kill animals for food, but that it's alright to kill a human being for revenge? That's a little bit hypocritical, if you ask me.

I hate to generalise, but this is the vegetarian view that really annoys me. I know not all vegetarians think like this, but the ones that do really wind me up.

Strictly speaking, humans are animals too, so why do you believe it's alright to execute some of them for a petty sense of justice but not test products on animals that could potentially benefit all of mankind; even save lives?

OT: Animal rights is a stupid term, but they shouldn't be treated cruelly because there is absolutely no reason to. It's the same reason I'm an atheist: why live according to an antiquated set of rules and beliefs when I could choose to be a good person because it's how I want to live my life.
 

Jamieson 90

New member
Mar 29, 2010
1,052
0
0
I don't think it's right to be cruel to animals but I turn off when people start preaching to me as though animals are more important than humans. For me Humans are always more important. My mum wouldn't have her Insulin if it wasn't for animal testing. Is it my mum's fault her pancreas packed in and now she needs Insulin.

That's what it comes down to. Some little kid dying because we never developed the medicine or them surviving because we actually tested the drugs and can now use them to save lives. Well go cry me a river because some animal got hurt. If it's a choice between a human suffering and an animal suffering I know which one I would prefer.
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
Personally I support a lot of animal rights. I am veggie, I work as a horse sports massage therapist (so always around animals), I try not to use products that test on animals, I think animals get a really raw deal in general for testing stuff. It's absolutely disgusting. Use guys on death row instead - they pretty much voided their "human rights" anyway.
If I were on death row without chance of appeal I certainly would donate myself to science. Some sort of 'donate to science' program should be setup for death row inmates, opt-in of course.
 

AreYouDumb

New member
Aug 6, 2009
8
0
0
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
AlexNora said:
Raven said:
Nokshor said:
Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.
So long as you are acutely aware of why this is your opinion I'm not going to be able to pursuade you.

human life is greater then animal life = fact. animals have no potential they will always be the same they can not fix problems let alone understand most. without us (humans) animals have no hope for a future this earth will not last forever and only humans could solve such a big problem.


should people do things like make dogs fight, I don't really care but it sound boring compered to watching people fight that's for sure (and i don't really like fighting)
Do me a favour, go and research the word "evolution" before I come back to ridicule your opinion. I believe in a fair fight after all...

evolution is a load of bs i have never seen an animal change to another kind of animal there is no recorded history of it. other then Microevolution but that is not the same thing you can breed dogs all you want and you will get a dog every time.it may be a big dog or a little dog but its still a dog that is a fact. (there is some varying degrees in intelligence but they will never build a space ship or get anywhere close to it)
Probably off topic but what the hell!

If you accept micro evolution then you have to except macro, as macro in simplistic terms is the culmination of so many small changes (micro evolution) that animal becomes a different animal from the parent species.

Secondly you seem to be suggesting that if an animal evolves it becomes smarter.

"(there is some varying degrees in intelligence but they will never build a space ship or get anywhere close to it)"

This isn't true, it becomes better adapted. It would only become intelligent if it would it help survive in its environment.

EDIT

Also the fact you have a dog proves that evolution (though man made in this particular case) happens. Lets face it there were no dogs in the past just some docile wolves and some smart men.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Animals have far more rights nowadays than they ever had.

So have cars.

And anything that will make lawyers very well paid when defending them.

Cruelty to animals though? Also on the increase. But then, cruelty to humans, cars and lawyers is also increasing.

Perhaps if we stopped fighting for non-existent rights, we could give out respect instead?