not according to law.
Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?
- Thread starter Fenrisulven
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Then law is flawed. Link please ?
Ancient jurists declared that law had been created just for human beings. Although philosophy and science have long since recanted, the law has not."
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v007/7.1everett.html
Under Austrian law, only humans are entitled to have guardians.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080529-chimp-human.html
Through lawsuits and scholarship drawing on scientific developments that show animals have far higher levels of cognition than previously thought, the lawyers are trying to raze the legal wall distinguishing people from animals.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20000310/ai_n10136053
from a short search.
the funny thing is, i can't find a legal definition of "human"
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So where does it say humans are not animals ?
doesn't the links i provided imply the law distinguishes between the two?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am not denying that humans have some 'special' characteristics that sets them apart from other animals.
You, however, said that the law says that humans are not animals. You have not yet shown that to be the case.
i said "not according to law".
i have provided links that say exactly that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Please quote your articles here.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There is nothing in post 423 that indicates that humans are not animals according to the law.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They make a distinction between humans and other animals, nowhere does it say that humans are not considered animals.
so lawyers are trying to raze the legal wall that distinguishes between people and animals for what reason?
am i missing something here? the law distinguishes between the two. i don't know how simpler to put it. if the law considered humans as animals then there would be no reason to distinguish between the two.
am i missing something here? the law distinguishes between the two. i don't know how simpler to put it. if the law considered humans as animals then there would be no reason to distinguish between the two.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And why is that ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Voyager, don't we also distinquish between dolphins and elephants ? Both species are still animals.
Nothing more ? You make it sound like it's a bad thing..
Whether you like it or not, humans ARE animals.
And yes, I would certainly teach my children that humans are animals. It's the truth.
you poor soul.
i feel really sorry for you.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, I could have made that clearer, mostly it was a response to this post:
Fundamentally, I don't see any difference between a person killing a cow for food, and a Cheetah killing a Gazelle for food.
I don't think that starvation should have to come into it.
Killing animals for food as a generalization (as opposed to killing them for sport when you have no intention of eating them) yes, I can agree with that, but eating meat shouldn't be considered as a last resort - unless you've consciously made that choice for yourself.
Trippy:
So, you just need to take that thought to its logical conclusion.
No human wants to suffer. No human wants to die, either (or, if you prefer, no healthy human wants to be killed and eaten).
So, what makes a cow or a pig or a chicken any different? Surely taking such an animal's life for something that is unnecessary is immoral. Is it not?
But it has to die. You remove any future it would have had just so you can satisfy your own pleasure (in killing and/or eating).
Biggest difference: the cheetah must kill to live. The human doesn't have to.
Second big difference: the cheetah does not claim to be a moral animal with a superior capacity for thought, compassion and empathy.
You admit you do not kill the vast majority of your own meat.
But that's not the reason you should give it up. One reason you should give up is that it is immoral to kill another for your own selfish pleasure. Another is that meat eating is bad for the environment. Another is that the meat industry involves cruelty to animals, which you've already said you do not support. Finally, each animal is an individual, like you, and it is wrong to arbitrarily treat an individual as simply a means to your own ends.
So, you just need to take that thought to its logical conclusion.
No human wants to suffer. No human wants to die, either (or, if you prefer, no healthy human wants to be killed and eaten).
So, what makes a cow or a pig or a chicken any different? Surely taking such an animal's life for something that is unnecessary is immoral. Is it not?
But it has to die. You remove any future it would have had just so you can satisfy your own pleasure (in killing and/or eating).
Biggest difference: the cheetah must kill to live. The human doesn't have to.
Second big difference: the cheetah does not claim to be a moral animal with a superior capacity for thought, compassion and empathy.
You admit you do not kill the vast majority of your own meat.
But that's not the reason you should give it up. One reason you should give up is that it is immoral to kill another for your own selfish pleasure. Another is that meat eating is bad for the environment. Another is that the meat industry involves cruelty to animals, which you've already said you do not support. Finally, each animal is an individual, like you, and it is wrong to arbitrarily treat an individual as simply a means to your own ends.