Is it right to put people first?

Animal rights activists have perpetrated, encouraged, and benefited from a lot of violence while allegedly trying to convey the message that animals have rights. I contend that humans have the right to be top dog. Human rights, to eat, to use the materials that animals are made of, to live where we want to, and to own and use as we see fit, are superior to any rights that animals might have.

So the topic of this thread includes the right to own animals as property, whether violence is appropriate, or even the use of laws to prevent this, and whether we should put people, meaning humans, first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you honestly surprised james?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By what? The fact that I wrote something that makes sense?

 

James, all animal rights agendas benefit from the atmosphere of terror that reduces meaningful protests. There simply aren't as many people pushing back as there would be if we didn't have to fear having our houses burned down. We do because it has happened several times in the last few years.

When rights conflict, human rights do take precedence. Every species protects its own interests first. This is their right and this is our right.

 

Animals have the right to be tasty and fit well.

 

But we dont have the right to abuse this privileged status,as imo those who abuse it are no more than animals....which at the end of the day we humans are a type of anyhow.

 

There is very little that can be done that would be an abuse of human status. Eating meat, using fur and leather and other materials, and keeping livestock and pets are proper for our status.

 

I don't have the right to kill a young child becuase I'm stronger and more intelligent (so I say), so what you're talking about MetaKron is persecuting non-human animals simply to satisfy human whims.
Sounds like you'd be happy with cock fighting, dog fighting, bull fighting, live animal skinning (why waste energy killing an animal before you skin it, right?), unrestricted destruction of animal habitats, etc.
Say it aint so!!

 

With this 'status' comes responsibility.....
Why do we have to protect endangered species which have been hunted to near extinction for fur and meat from ourselves.
The rights of top dog I can agree to some extent but the truth is that it does not mean kill,eat and use whatever we want to what ever degree we feel,It means control and balance.
Plus i dont think eating meat,using certain materials keeping livestock are anyway rungs of a status ladder...A rat eats meat and ants keep livestock does that make them high up on the ladder?
Control by maintaining balance puts you at the top..a prime example of failure by us to be able to do this is the rainforest.

 

There is also the aspect of being 'Humane' you can kill for food,leather etc but as humans (the 'top dogs') that is how we should do things by inflicting as little suffering as possible to act 'Inhumanely' is to act like an animal, we have a concious awareness of causing suffering which animals do not.

 

He won't say it ain't so.

 

It isn't. Humans tend to raise livestock humanely and to treat pets as family. I saw we go with our strengths. Putting our interests first serves their interests better.

 

What about the millions of animal species that aren't pets or livestock ?

 

Who made up those "rights"? And did all the animals on Earth accept that proclamation unanimously or what?

Rights come directly from the muzzle of a gun!

Baron Max

 

The control and balance that you talk about, and inflicting as little suffering as necessary, are part of doing the dominion thing better.

Requiring people to be perfect is just a scam.

 

I appreciate your input, Baron, but I think that there has been a lot of negotiation and give and take. Animals usually see living with humans as a good thing.

 

Perhaps. But did anyone ever ask any of the animals about it? ...and get an agreement of any kind?

Perhaps. But do cows see it as a good thing when they're being led into the slaughter house? Just guessing here, but I think they might prefer to be left in the pasture with the other cows.

Baron Max

 

In the eyes of the law, humans DO have more rights than animals. In fact, 'animal rights' in itself is a fairly ambiguous term, referring to the laws against animal cruelty and the campaigns to see them enforced. Whereas human rights are very clearly set down.

However, I think that you're suggesting that animals should completely be in the hands of humans - which is a dumbfuck thing to say.
If we want more wood, we shouldn't try and stem this demand or recycle more, we should just cut down more habitats because the human species is the trump card of all organic existence. What about when this has an indirect effect on us? What about when the climate changes and the weather becomes more volatile*, or when a break down of the food chain means we're now missing out?

Now run along and play in the sandpit of ignorance with Pronatalist.

* (e.g.) Less trees -->> More CO2 etc. etc. etc.

 

Cellar Door, did anyone ever tell you about the fact that more trees are planted by humans than are cut down? This can be a dangerous trend too because we need our clear areas and other plants besides trees need room to grow.