Really people what do you think of animal rights.
I believe as animals are not self-aware they can be classed as things. Things shouldn't have rights.

They're tasty. End of discussion.

Perhaps an exception should be made for chimps and dolphins and suchlike.

Yes.. I know.. It's just I was amused by Adam saying something like "Animals also have feelings":o I just want to get this public opinion.

Chimps seem to be self aware. Ditto dolphins. Just to be the devil's advocate.

Oh, and I think Animals should have plenty of rights. Except the one's that taste good.

Do you think the cute ones should be protected more? I would hate that, lambs are so cute and tasty. I love eating innocent things. :)

WILL SOMEBODY VOTE GODDAMITT!!!

There's no "GODDAMNIT" option.

Originally posted by Xev
Do you think the cute ones should be protected more? I would hate that, lambs are so cute and tasty. I love eating innocent things. :)

Sheeps definitely need to be protected. Welch farmers would be too sexually deprived if they go extinct.

Protecting people with all these laws and ignoring animals is mere hypocrisy. What the hell makes us different from animals? I don't see a single fucking difference.

Well, of course, we must keep in mind that the human race is far more powerful than other species. So we naturally can dictate whatever the heck we want, which is a little sad but inevitable.

Animals are self aware, have feelings and a mental capability that greatly exceeds your pityful existence, ndrs. :rolleyes: And they should definitely get more protection. Judging from what you think of them, they are in desperat need of it too.

Oh? Beb, ya' ever met a self-aware steak.....er.....cow?
Few animals are self aware. It's one of the things that seperates a group of animals (including us) from the rest.

Animals are self aware, have feelings and a mental capability that greatly exceeds your pityful (sic) existence, ndrs.

Which animals? On what evidence do you make this assertion?

Zero:
Protecting people with all these laws and ignoring animals is mere hypocrisy. What the hell makes us different from animals? I don't see a single fucking difference.

I don't see cows creating Gothic churches.

The only thing that separates us from the animals is that we believe we are better than them.

The only thing that separates us from the animals is that we believe we are better than them.

Evidence, please.

In any case, then, they eat other animals. Man is an animal like any other. So why not do the same?

Maybe because you are able to ask yourself that question.

Maybe because you are able to ask yourself that question.

Huh?
I give up. There's a brautwurst in the fridge that looks tasty. :)

Gosh.. Feeling sorry for animals is even worse than slave morality. :)
Bebelina: the fact that I can ask myself the question means that I am self-aware. You said that animals self-aware, so why doesn't the lion ask itself the question? Because he is usually hungry? :)
Now tell me Bebelina, why does it make you a better person to feel sorry for animals?

Okey-dokey, Beb. I hate to sound redundant and all (seeing as how I ask you this everytime we talk), but......
Any proof? Do you have any evidence that all animals are self-aware? Or is this more wishy-washy, new-age bullsmack?

And what, to you, is self-awareness?
"Animals are self aware, have feelings and a mental capability that greatly exceeds your pityful existence" - Bebelina
All animals have emotions? What evidence do you have of that? We have crickets in my house (which are fed to my dad's gecko) and I'd like to know exactly how you can prove they experience emotions? It seems to me they're rather emotionless. They spend every minute together then when one of them dies do you know what they do? They eat him. Seems to me most beings with emotions would tend to feel something when their life-long companion dies. And that feeling wouldn't really involve the desire to chomp him up. Furthermore, my crickets have mental capabilities beyond humans? Well, I understand that you (being the close-minded fool you are on some topics) are offended by the fact that ndrs has a different opinion than you, so I assume this was a joke.

It's this simple:

Humans are animals, in which case why shouldn't we do as they do and eat other animals.

Humans are better than other animals, in which case why should we care about them?

The relevant question in animal rights, as Jeremy Bentham pointed out, is not "are they intelligent?", but "can they suffer?" Clearly they can, and do.

Animals need more rights. We need to expand our moral circle as human beings. We have already expanded the tribe to the nation. We now value the rights of women as well as men. We protect the rights of some minorities now, where we didn't before. Animals are next on the list, as soon as people start to develop a greater moral sense.


<b>Xev:</b>

<i>Humans are animals, in which case why shouldn't we do as they do and eat other animals.</i>

Because it causes unnecessary suffering on a huge scale.

<i>Humans are better than other animals, in which case why should we care about them?</i>

You haven't even thought about this, have you? Humans are better than animals ... why, exactly? Humans <b>are</b> animals, Xev.

So wait..
Animals should also have freedom rights.. As in you can't buy them and they are allowed to roam free?

And gosh... Suffering can also be reduced by some good brainwashing. Pets are already well-brainwashed and don't suffer with being forced to stay in their cage. Only being happy with their owner's.

JamesR:
Humans are animals, in which case why shouldn't we do as they do and eat other animals.

Because it causes unnecessary suffering on a huge scale.

Does the lioness care about the zebra?

Humans are better than other animals, in which case why should we care about them?

You haven't even thought about this, have you? Humans are better than animals ... why, exactly? Humans are animals, Xev.

Don't take me out of context, it's disingenuous.

I do not believe the above. I've never claimed the above. However, there are two alternatives being offered in this discussion:

1: That humans are animals.

2: That humans are better than animals.

I summed up these alternatives, I did not advocate either. Please, no straw men.

Nobody who has thought about the situation would claim 2. However, my point is that even if 2 is valid, why should we then care about something so inferiour?

Xev,

<i>Don't take me out of context, it's disingenuous.</i>

I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were mocking a previous point.

<i>However, there are two alternatives being offered in this discussion:

1: That humans are animals.
2: That humans are better than animals.</i>

Number 1 is pretty obviously correct. I won't bother discussing 2, since you seem to agree that it is false.

The point is that if humans are animals, and humans are granted certain rights to life and liberty, can you give a good reason for denying any such rights to animals?

Let's start with the right not to be factory farmed.

James R:

Sorry if I was a little bitchy in my previous post. Okay:

The point is that if humans are animals, and humans are granted certain rights to life and liberty, can you give a good reason for denying any such rights to animals?

I personally would like to see some improvement in the condition of farm animals - let's start with the New Zealanders :D - but not merely on humanitarian grounds. I think the conditions they are raised in are stimulating the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Purely on basis of pity, I agree with you more than I let on.

But that aside, humans are granted these rights because it is in our best interests to grant them. There's no such thing as an objective morality, thus all moral judgements come down to who has the power to impose them. So far, nobody has really bothered to do this for other animals.

Now, why should we?

ndrs

i would like to give your address to some of the radical animal rights groups.

cheers mate

:)

Originally posted by Xev


But that aside, humans are granted these rights because it is in our best interests to grant them. There's no such thing as an objective morality, thus all moral judgements come down to who has the power to impose them. So far, nobody has really bothered to do this for other animals.

Now, why should we?

'cos deep down, under all that leather, latex and steel meshed clothing, you, my dear xev are a, coochy woochy wittle pwitty softie of a girl.

now go to the pound and adopt something

."How can you justify spending your time on animals when there are so many people who need help?"

There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention; cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected

-peta.org FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings ?!

some of the information there is good, but a lot of it's just absurd!

1: That humans are animals.
2: That humans are better than animals.

Number 1 is pretty obviously correct. I won't bother discussing 2, since you seem to agree that it is false.

The point is that if humans are animals, and humans are granted certain rights to life and liberty, can you give a good reason for denying any such rights to animals?

Let's start with the right not to be factory farmed.
OK.. 1 is correct, but is irrelevant since we should focus on the difference between humans and other animals. (we are made of the same matter as dust, does that make dust something special?)
2 maybe should be phrased as: Humans are better than _other_ animals.
Some people wouldn't agree even with that. People definetly are more intelligent than other animals. That has caused us to survive better. So we way more power people than other animals. Why go back against evolution?

Anyways why should be alleviate suffering?

Why should we alleviate suffering?

Don't you think that is a worthy aim for a being with a moral sense?

James R please
Define what "moral sense"
Is and why we

Should obey
This "moral sense" you
Say we have?

Mmm...cows don't make Gothic churches...but termites do build towers...

I don't exactly see your point here. Most animals don't make creative works due to the level of intelligence they have. Humans are merely intelligent animals. And extrEMEly vicious animals, at that.

Zero your point?
Humans are animals
Of course like duh

We are simply the
Animals that control
Our planet vae victis

I think I lost my train of thought...but yeah...we seem to agree.

My shitty haiku
Destroy Zero's thoughts
Ha ha ha ha ha

I thought you were arguing that humans were different animals because of the Gothic church thing...was I mistaken? What did you mean by that?

"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."
Douglas Adams

Xev,

By "moral sense" I mean humans make a distinction between acts which are considered "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". We categorise actions this way.

We act according to our moral systems because it is impossible for a human being to do otherwise (since we all have a moral sense). Of course, some moral systems are more defensible than others...

** This is a good topic, first off, I do believe animals are more intelligent and loving than we give them credit for. In my neck of the woods the pit bulls,exspecially, are befriended by humans than forced to fight each other to the death. The winnings usually go towards Beer and a ounce of weed.

ok. animals have SOME rights, but, humans have the right-of-way.

btw... in the choices you gave in your poll you mention protection.. protection and rights are two separate things.

I think it's a matter of consciousness... apes, chimps and dolphins are all highly intelligent, they even have the capacity for language. Chimps at least have the ability to plan ahead, once thought a uniquely human gift. The higher the state of consciousness, that is compared to us since we are the only available benchmark... the higher the ethical violation of hurting the animal? Just trying this out. Hehe, not like there aren't a lot of humans who don't mind hurting other humans.

The food chain however, is the food chain. I am accustomed to eating pigs and cows and well, I've got enough shit I'm supposed to change about me, cows and pigs must die to feed me. *shrug*
I'll openly admit that I don't kill them myself nor would I. I can't stand the idea of killing stuff. I do realize though, that it will be done and frankly... I like to eat meat... a lot. I hate the murder, but love the food.

Welcome to life.

btw... in the choices you gave in your poll you mention protection.. protection and rights are two separate things.
Yes, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly..
I was meaning to say protection from violence, which is probably the main rights of a domestic animal.

I think it's a matter of consciousness... apes, chimps and dolphins are all highly intelligent, they even have the capacity for language. Chimps at least have the ability to plan ahead, once thought a uniquely human gift. The higher the state of consciousness, that is compared to us since we are the only available benchmark... the higher the ethical violation of hurting the animal? Just trying this out. Hehe, not like there aren't a lot of humans who don't mind hurting other humans.
I think most people seem to be against hurting of any animal irrespectable of intelligence.
Soon, we will be protecting insects as well?
It's bound to degenerate into something incredibly stupid..
I think I would directly link this to people valuing something as "good", not knowing why, not requiring reason, just "faith"... Example:
James:
By "moral sense" I mean humans make a distinction between acts which are considered "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". We categorise actions this way.

We act according to our moral systems because it is impossible for a human being to do otherwise (since we all have a moral sense). Of course, some moral systems are more defensible than others...
There is a reason why morals are like that. Morals are supposed to brainwash people not to commit crime, be good to each other. (This helps everyone to survive and helped the king to contain order) Animal compassion is just a perverted leftover by people who haven't got a clue...
Morals have always been there to control the masses. Now that in democracy masses have the control, these morals gained some kind of independent existance. Compassion is good without a reason, helping each other is nearly a requirement for you to be a social person. The reason why I chose the topic, is because it displays this objective existance of morals, maybe better than anything else, and it's most perverted side.

ndrs:

<i>Morals are supposed to brainwash people not to commit crime, be good to each other.</i>

You're confusing morals with morality tales or moral injunctions like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everybody has their own moral sense, regardless of what they are told is right and wrong. On top of that comes what they pick up from authority figures, which they can either accept or question. The point is: everybody has some kind of morals regardless of any "brainwashing".

<i>Animal compassion is just a perverted leftover by people who haven't got a clue...</i>

Leftover from what?

Why is compassion for animals <b>increasing</b> rather than decreasing, if it is an outdated concept?

<i>Morals have always been there to control the masses.</i>

No, it is social expectations which are attempts to control the masses. Morals are out there for individuals to accept or reject.

<i>Compassion is good without a reason, helping each other is nearly a requirement for you to be a social person.</i>

Why is compassion good without a reason?

I think you're a little mixed up about moral issues.

You're confusing morals with morality tales or moral injunctions like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everybody has their own moral sense, regardless of what they are told is right and wrong. On top of that comes what they pick up from authority figures, which they can either accept or question. The point is: everybody has some kind of morals regardless of any "brainwashing".
I am talking about the morals that are accepted by majority of people. Since it is those morals that are relevant in relation to animal rights, as in most law cases.
Leftover from what?

It is a leftover from compassion for other humans - the only suffering that innately matters to us is our own. But by caring of others suffering, we help each other. Animal rights is just a leftover from this and has no real value to us (human race).

Why is compassion for animals increasing rather than decreasing, if it is an outdated concept?
Because compassion is increasing for other humans, and compassion for animals is linked to it. I didn't say outdated (I should have used 'side-effect' rather than 'leftover').

No, it is social expectations which are attempts to control the masses. Morals are out there for individuals to accept or reject.
Most people out there are not individuals. They accept whatever values their buddies and/or family have. Thus we have general western morals, which are affirmed by the media.


Why is compassion good without a reason?
I was meaning to say, most people don't look at the reason why compassion exists. They take it for granted. So it is good enough for them to accept it without questioning.


I think you're a little mixed up about moral issues.
Oh.. I have moral issues? :)
My expression powers are a bit limited whit this bottle of wine! :)

ndrs:

<i>the only suffering that innately matters to us is our own. But by caring of others suffering, we help each other.</i>

Would you help an old lady cross the street? Why? Her suffering surely is irrelevant to you, and you'll get nothing out of helping her.

Do you think it is good to send food aid to famine-stricken countries? Why? Surely their suffering means nothing to you, and you will never get anything back from them if you help.

<i>Animal rights is just a leftover from this and has no real value to us (human race).</i>

Do you have any pets? Are they valueless to you? Do you care if they get run over, or set on fire? Why?

Let's look at the bigger picture. Do you care if tigers become extinct? Or pandas? Or polar bears? There's no value in having those animals around, is there? Or is there?

Would you help an old lady cross the street? Why? Her suffering surely is irrelevant to you, and you'll get nothing out of helping her.
No.. I wouldn't.. I never did either.
The only reason you would, is because you were told to respect the elders.
Besides, this point is nothing related to animal rights. You help an old person expecting that you will be helped when you are old. These kind of moral values formed over long times. I doubt they exist in other animal kingdoms, since this respect for elders rests on self-consciuosness (though I am not sure).
Do you have any pets? Are they valueless to you? Do you care if they get run over, or set on fire? Why?

I don't have any pets. A lot of times there is a reason why people keep pets (eg dogs for protection, dogs, cats for company for old people, etc).

Let's look at the bigger picture. Do you care if tigers become extinct? Or pandas? Or polar bears? There's no value in having those animals around, is there? Or is there?
Not really.. There is so many species getting extinct every day, caring about them is difficult. Surely it is sad, there is a loss of variety in wildlife. Besides, we don't want disrupt the food chain, otherwise nature is threatened.
Anyways, this is a different topic. I was more refering to domestic animal rights.

Originally posted by ndrs
No.. I wouldn't.. I never did either.
The only reason you would, is because you were told to respect the elders.

Oh, hell no, ndrs. I would, on the few occasions I see them, in gleeful anticipation of the one who smacks me with her cane for being so stupid as to think she was helpless.

Besides, this point is nothing related to animal rights.

true *subsides*

Oh, hell no, ndrs. I would, on the few occasions I see them, in gleeful anticipation of the one who smacks me with her cane for being so stupid as to think she was helpless.

Yeah, but that's only 'cause you'd be there to rape her when she was unconscious. :p

See, there are three types of people in the world:

Those who knock old women unconscious with their canes.

Those that rape the unconscious old women.

Those that rob the unconscious old woman.

/Is totally shitfaced