What's Your View on Animal Rights?

Furioso

New member
Jun 16, 2009
7,981
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)
There is actually substantial evidence to support evolution, scientific theory and theory are two different things, just because you don't see it happen within the relatively microscopic life span of a single human doesn't mean it isn't so, I have yet to see a volcano emerge from the ground because it happens over a very long period of time, but we know it happens
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
I have only one firm rule in regards to animal rights: Do not cause unnecessary suffering. But I suppose the catch is what people would declare necessary or unnecessary.

Let's be clear: Nature does not give rights to animals. Nature KILLS animals all the time. Billions, upon billions of species have gone extinct, and that was before Humans even evolved. Nature didn't give a damn. Nature never does. Nature is mindless and random and simply does not care about anything, since Nature lacks a mind and therefore cannot care about anything.

Rights come from beings with intelligence. WE create rights. WE enforce laws in regards to rights. Don't tell me that humans are the cause of all evil - nature and the wild is plenty evil on its own. A lion eats a Antelope, a Snake devours a rat, a spider dissolves the internal organs of its prey, killer whales will occasionally kill penguins just for the hell of it (as do Polar Bears) and Nature is just... FULL of aggression.

Of course, that doesn't mean WE humans have to act like that - we have a mind, we have a sufficiently advanced intelligence to start to break free of the hold of nature. But let's be clear - we are the only creatures that can do so. All rights are created BY US and given BY US or taken away BY US. Nature lacks the capacity to even comprehend the very notion of universal rights - and certainly no animal has ever drafted a constitution or held a court. A pack of wild dogs would tear apart a human in a forest if they got the chance - this idea that somehow humans are violating the natural rights of animals by interfering with them is ludicrous - animals HAVE no natural "rights". Rights don't EXIST in nature, nature red in tooth and claw.

So humans determine what rights animals have. This has always been the case. In my mind, humans should strive to treat animals based on their ability to feel pain and their mental complexity as well as their lifespan. Obviously bacteria, despite being alive, are afforded no rights - they don't have brains or nerves. They can feel and think nothing. Protozoa, and insects, are similarly primitive - their minds are so minuscule and tiny that I sincerely doubt they have the ability to comprehend anything other than "lay eggs in rotting meat" and "move if something fast is coming towards you". If flies and ants had any real intelligence, I've seen no indication of it. I strongly doubt an ant or a fly has the ability to even form a personality. Certainly most ants are slaves and are happy being slaves to their Queen.

Lizards, Birds, Rodents - these creatures are more complex and live longer than insects, and are thus afforded more rights... but not much more. If they aren't causing any problem to human beings, then they should be left alone. But if they get in our way, if they carry diseases, if they keep on moving into our buildings - get rid of them. It's not like the Lizard's family is going to cry over it, or bury it in a cemetery. It's a lizard - it's mental functioning is two to three steps above a Roomba Robotic Vacuum Cleaner for god's sake. And sorry, but I never seen a Lizard show any great emotion. Do you know, they frequently EAT THEIR OWN YOUNG?! And engage in cannibalism?! They care so little for themselves - so why should we?

Higher order animals - dogs, then monkeys, maybe whales, and definitely dolphins all exhibit some degree of memory, personality and can express emotions. You only have to see an elephant commit suicide in a zoo to know that it can feel despair. These animals should not be harmed unless we have absolutely no choice - as in, if an Elephant is charging at a group of children, you'd have to shoot it. Otherwise, don't kill it under any other circumstances. These animals also tend to live longer - decades, or sometimes even longer than humans.

I put animals on a sliding scale. We, of course, occupy the highest rung on the ladder. Why? Because we are the only creature capable of self-improvement, dreams and science. No other animal can do this. And DON'T say "evolution allows animals to improve" - no it doesn't. Animals evolve due to nature - they've got no say in the matter and they don't consciously evolve. Plus, Evolution is only ADAPTATION. Not self-improvement. Animals actually don't have the capacity to comprehend creating something or doing something other than survive from day to day. Humans can comprehend, or envision, something better for themselves. We can envision rights, we can envision a point in time where we can build a better future. Animals can't.

Should we eat animals? Sure, if they're dumb. Chickens aren't very intelligent. Pigs... I'm not so sure. They've been seen to occasionally display remarkable intelligence. Cows? They're dumb, so dig in (I don't eat beef, only due to the health concerns of Red Meat). Fish? I've never seen a fish look at the stars and wonder what the future held for it. I've never seen a fish form a culture. So go ahead - eat it. Fish are dumb as bricks. If they were intelligent, you'd think they MIGHT have learned that "shiny hook with worm = bad"

Humans are the only creatures that have a CHANCE at avoiding extinction. Nature routinely kills of animals all the time. The universe certainly doesn't care much for life, if the amount of asteroid impacts that have hit the earth are anything to go by. And the sun will one day run out of fuel. Life on this planet is PURELY TEMPORARY. It has lasted billions of years and will last about a billion more (after a billion years the sun will have grown in size due to the using up of much of its fuel, so that Earth will become an uninhabitable hell like Venus).

Only humans can avoid this - nature has no conservation parks of its own. You don't see woodland creatures banding together to "Save the Buffalo". Nature DOESN'T CARE IF SPECIES GO EXTINCT. IT NEVER HAS AND IT NEVER WILL. Only humans can save life from inevitable extinction. Only humans have EVER GIVEN A DAMN about creatures going extinct. Rights, conservationism, ethical animal treatment - that's all our doing. Not natures. So since we are the genesis of Animal Rights, we have complete control over them.

So - eat the dumb animals, use animals for medical testing (not cosmetic testing) and avoid causing unnecessary pain - not death, only unnecessary pain. If you are going to eat a cow, more power to you, but make sure you make that cow die as quickly and painlessly as possible. No need to draw out the process. Cows and most other mammals and animals CAN feel pain - they have nerves and they'll sure as hell react if you try to stick a fork in em when they're alive. So just take that into consideration - minimize suffering where it is possible and convenient to do so.

The minute I see the majority of animals treating EACH OTHER with any semblance of ethics is the only time I'll ever even think about any sort of "natural" animal right.
 

JambalayaBob

New member
Dec 11, 2010
109
0
0
Generally speaking, animal testing isn't really that bad, plus it's very necessary. If you honestly care about every rat that gets shocked on its way through a maze or a dog getting sick from a certain chemical, then you're insane. In reality, very few animals get killed from the kinds of tests we put them through anyways, and I personally would rather it be animals over humans, because the tests have to be done one way or another.

Oh yeah, I need to add that many many tests are now done on cell cultures from samples taken from many species rather than live animals, but not all tests can be done this way. So really, it's not anything to worry about at all.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
And we have to use animals for medical testing. There's no other way. We CAN'T use humans. I am an actual scientist - I've worked in labs, I've done research. You know how many mice we use in our experiments? Hundreds. And they have to be carefully controlled, they have to have similar genetic backgrounds (which is possible due to back-crossing, etc), and they have to be easy to handle and cheap and reach maturity (or a specific life point) quickly. Mice and Rats are perfect for this - easy to breed, easy to maintain, cheap, easy to back-cross and breed in specific ways and on the cellular level they share many, many of our genes and genetic mechanisms. Rats don't LOOK like humans very much - but their cells often function in very similar ways. Hell, even YEAST cells share common genes and functions with human cells. Do you know how much of the cell cycle and the basics of DNA replication and Cell division we have learned from Yeast alone? A LOT. And that biology CAN and IS applied to humans.

Rats and Mice are used because we can grow and keep hundreds in ideal conditions. They don't complain. They don't want to do anything other than eat and sleep and run around on their stupid wheels. And when we kill them, we usually do it quickly and cleanly. We often either gas them or snap their necks - we prefer to gas them to sleep and death, but sometimes we can't since it might affect the results of the experiments.

We CAN'T use humans. We can't control the genetic background of humans. We can't breed humans easily. Humans are costly to maintain, and have many more emotions, desires and wants than mice and rats. It's relatively easy to keep a mouse happy. It's not so with a human. Now, someone here mentioned testing on death row inmates as an alternative. Buddy, there aren't enough death row inmates in THE WORLD to supply even ONE large university with enough test subjects. We can't test on one or two or ten people - we'd need to test on HUNDREDS of people. Also, death row inmates are unlikely to be co-operative with testing and they are violent and scientists, as a general rule, don't like being near homicidal maniacs. It tends to upset our nerves somewhat. Hell, we don't even like dealing with regular human volunteers, let alone death row inmates. Plus, I doubt most death row inmates have detailed medical and genetic backgrounds for us to look at - thus, most of the data we'd get would be USELESS, since we'd have no idea what caused the results. It might be the compound, or it could be an old medical condition.

Testing on humans is infeasible, 100x more immoral than animal testing, incredibly expensive, and useless. The Nazis tested on their prisoners a lot - they barely learned anything new. Not only was it immoral - they got barely ANYTHING from it, and it wasn't efficient. The Germans could have gotten exactly the same results without hurting people - no the Nazis didn't test on people because it was practical - they did it because they were cruel bastards who wanted to cause suffering and kill jews and dissidents and russians as quickly as possible.

It always gives me a laugh when animal rights activists say that we should test on humans and that testing on animals is not useful. Buddy, you're not a scientist. I am. There is simply no other way to get the results we need. Tissue cultures are far too simplistic and are only suitable for very early stage toxicology testing and efficacy - we need to learn how drugs work IN A SYSTEM, not a monoculture, and so we almost always have to move to animal testing. Sure, there are one or two drugs that haven't been tested on animals. Not very many.

If I didn't have to test on animals or use animals EVER AGAIN, I'd be a happy lab worker. We don't LIKE killing animals. We don't LIKE handling them. We don't LIKE keeping them either. If we COULD just use cell cultures, buddy, WE'D USE CELL CULTURES. Scientists are nothing but practical people. It's one of the defining aspects of our profession. We don't like to make things more difficult for ourselves, we have ENOUGH trouble doing our research. If there really was an alternative to using animals that was even 50% as efficient, we'd JUMP on it. But there isn't. And until we can grow and sustain organs in tubes, there's not going to be.

Besides - so what if we killed a mouse. So what? They only live a couple of years at most anyway. It's not like it was going to DO anything with its life.
 

Joos

Golden pantaloon.
Dec 19, 2007
662
0
0
I want to eat happy cow. I want to eat happy pork. I want eggs from happy hens that doesn't taste fishy and my chicken unsaturated with hormones and antibiotics. I don't want people to eat meat of endangered species.

I want medicines to be effective. I want to know that products I consume aren't bad for me. I want to know that the tests done to certify this are as humane as possible and the animals sacrificed in the name of science and progress are treated with respect.
 

Venator_Prime

New member
Oct 28, 2011
2
0
0
[/quote]



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.[/quote]

Leave it to the atheists to make arguments from reason and not appeals to emotion / personal habitual behavior and belief. Well done.

As for your reference to certain annoying vegetarians - this is the same thing all over again: you can chose to live your life anyway you like. I can chose to live mine and she can chose to live hers etc. The problem arises when one of us starts expressing that this one particular choice is better than all others for no other reason than their own personal preferences (i.e. emotional, habitual behavior).
 

Whytewulf

New member
Dec 20, 2009
357
0
0
I prefer their lefts, they taste better...

Ok jokes aside, as others have said.. there is a proper way to treat, hunt, kill, caputre, maintain, care for, handle, etc. animals. People should not abuse their "power".

With that said, PETA and many organizations like theirs, could actually being doing good, if they didn't make a joke out of themselves so often.
 

FolkLikePanda

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,710
0
0
For:
Medical Testing (though we could just use murderers, rapists and paedophiles because they're scum, then again you don't know if they've been framed plus as someone posted above me it would cost alot)
Food (because we're top of the food chain)

Against:
Hunting (unless its for food or to help the population of the animals or for the benfit of the enviornment)
Cosmetic Testing
Cruelty (e.g. attacking, humiliating, forcing to fight one another)

But still I hate PeTA even though I have a friend who is a partial member/supporter/idontknowhwatsheiswiththem
 

legend forge

New member
Mar 26, 2010
109
0
0
I know it may sound cruel... but I don't think animals have the same sorts of rights as people at all. I love animals and there are not many things that upset me more then animal cruelty, but still. They are not humans. If an animal has to die for a human to live, there is no question in my mind who to choose. That goes for food, we are biologically built to consume meat as well as plants so I will consume what my body needs to live. Animal testing is incredibly important from a medical standpoint, and I have many family members who would be DEAD if not for it. PETA pisses me off because they are telling me that MY LIFE and the life of my parents doesn't matter and we should all die. Literally. I have a family history of diabetes, and insulin would not be possible without animal testing.

I am not saying that animals have no rights, just we need them to live. They kill other animals for food and other things, why should we be different?
 

Don Savik

New member
Aug 27, 2011
915
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
All of those quotes are pretty naive and stupid. Humans are primates yes, but our intelligence puts us apart greatly from other animals. To say that there's no difference between a cat and a man is pretty poetic, but hilariously stupid. Enslaved the rest of animal creation? *facepalm* Human civilization cannot expand with animals roaming wherever the fuck they want. Maybe lesser companies/countries kill animals inhumanely, but we have laws. We do what we have to. Animal testing? Would you rather it be on humans? or not at all? and what the hell is compassionate hunting?
 

Stew Coard

New member
Aug 14, 2011
141
0
0
ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS!!!! the right to be tasty
http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/10/27/ricks-cafe/
 

Srs bzns

New member
Feb 4, 2011
129
0
0
Zeriah said:
I eat meat and support animal testing for necessary medical research. However there's a lot of fucked up stuff that would make you sick to your stomach that goes on in some countries in the process of doing these things. Real unnecessary cruelty happens in so many slaughterhouses in third world countries - real fucked up shit. Recently an undercover Australian reporter got some first hand footage of what happened to the Cattle we sent to Indonesia. She went to several slaughterhouses and the results were shocking to say the least, basically all of Australia was in an uproar and this is just one country.
To think here in Australia we've just reintroduced live exports to those countries.

My opinion on animal rights, its a good song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBp9mNOFDLk

In all seriousness eating animals or animals bred for game I'm fine with, if they're being treated well. However people have different definitions of 'treated well' it seems.
 

BoredAussieGamer

New member
Aug 7, 2011
289
0
0
I'm OK with farming meat, fishing (in a sustainable way) and hunting (purely for the sake of food).

PETA are simply eco-terrorists who impede medical science.
I'm OK with use of lab mice for experimentation, but very few animals else.

However, people who make dog fighting rings (FUCK YOU MICHEAL VICK!), partake in Bull fighting, cock fighting, whatever, they are utterly detestable.

PS: Meat is delicious, and Bacon makes just about anything awesome.
 

SD-Fiend

Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
2,075
0
1
Country
United States
i'm for animal welfare not animal rights. they don't really deserve them until they either learn to talk or build something complicated
 

Professor_Page

New member
Oct 5, 2011
23
0
0
HardkorSB said:
Animals should have the right to vote and the right to a fair trial.
Unfortunately for you they cannot either hold a pencil to mark their voter cards nor be swayed to one political ideal or another so their votes would be random if not completely unreadable. animals have only one right, the right to be tasty and served with mashed potatoes.......ok but seriously i agree with most of you guys and gals. killing for food is fine but dont be a dick and just do it to be cruel.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
ran88dom99 said:
stop eating them
Sorry, but it's too darn tasty. It really, really is. Plus, some animals eat other animals. If we gave them rights, we'd have to, by law, force them not to eat other animals.
 

Rin Little

New member
Jul 24, 2011
432
0
0
I'm not a vegetarian or anything (I would probably starve if I tried to be) but I do support most animal rights. Hurting/killing animals for the hell of it with no real reason (and yes I get that hunting season is partially for population control) is a load of bullshit. I watch shows like "Animal Cops" and it makes me want to go and curb-stomp every asshole that neglects and abuses a pet. The fact that I tend to like animals more than people doesn't hurt either. All in all, I have respect for animals, but I also respect the food chain.

Wushu Panda said:
Recently on Conan O'Brien he addressed the lawsuit PETA is making for whales working at Sea Worlds and other similar places.
Actually I hate Sea World, PETA is stupid for trying to sue in that manner, but I'm not a fan of places like Sea World. This is mostly because of how they obtain they're dolphins. There's a movie called "The Cove" which is nothing short of disturbing. It's a documentary based in this small town in Japan where they have a dolphin slaughter between the months of September and I think March. And I'm not exaggerating, it's literally a slaughter for the dolphins that aren't chosen to be shipped to places like Sea World. It's a pretty informative movie, thus my hatred of parks like SW.
 

XT inc

New member
Jul 29, 2009
992
0
0
So far my stance on animals, is that if we are going to eat them, treat them with the utmost care and respect.

Let's face it they are damn tasty, I can't see a future where I have completely stopped eating meat, or animal byproducts, unless they are all gone.

But I can more than do with out red neck hoo ha's snapping chicken legs, abusing cows, and all the other horrible shit we know they do before they get killed.

Just be humane and everything will be fine, animal cruelty annoys me because the animal can't really fight back.