Animals - Do they have rights?

[Iantiger]

Are you a vegetarian? Do you support the idea? Have you ever been a vegetarian? Are you ever likely to become a vegetarian? If not, why not? If yes, why? Do you believe in animal testing? If no, what about for lifesaving drugs and medicines? Do animals have any rights and what are they? Discuss.

 

 

 

Personally I value human life over animal life and would test on animals, perphaps even for cosmetics but I'm not sure about this (borderline). I believe the only way we will further our own species is to treat ourselves with superiority to the animals we share the planet with, and not to effectively "babysit" everything else.

 

 

 

What do you think? I'm interested in your opinions.

 

 

 

~Ian

[Striker6]

No, we are the superior species, we rule this world.

 

 

 

We can do what we want.

[Lusy]

I disagree. I haven't eaten meat in 5+ years, and in that time, I've had to think about my reasons every day. I stopped consuming animal products at 19. I couldn't justify murder and torture anymore. I think animal testing is outrageous. Study after study after study has shown that animal testing is no longer needed in labs, but many companies continue to do it anyway because that's the way they've always done it. Ian, you made an interesting contradiction when you said "the only way we will further our own species is to treat ourselves with superiority to the animals we share the planet with". The fact is, it's not up to us to further our own species, that's a ludicrous idea. That's best left up to nature, and everytime we go to far, nature puts us in check. We share a planet with these animals, and the key word here is share, some of them have been here longer than we have. What I'm saying is, we don't need meat, animal we don't need animal testing. We do these things out of selfishness and greed. This system that we've adopted though, isn't going to be sustainable for much longer. Between, mad cow disease and avian flu, I think nature's about to put us in check again.

[megakiller32]

i dont think animals have rights, im not going to be attacked by a mob of chickens just because i eat one for dinner :lol:

[Lusy]

I think that's a pretty skewed view of "rights". I can think of many things, people, and places that have rights that wouldn't attack if you violated them. It's a matter of ethics however. If you know something's wrong, you just don't do it.

[Mercifull]

This comment is aimed at Lusy really and ill probasbly post a proper post a bit later in the week when i have more time.

 

 

 

So.. if animal testing wasnt needed anymore, and there truely was a cheaper and more efficient alternative do you really think that these capitalist drug companies wouldnt go for it? Thats crazy talk.

[cadburys_egg]

No, we are the superior species, we rule this world.

 

 

 

We can do what we want.

 

 

 

How narrow minded are you? If aliens came from another planet claiming they were the superior species would you let them kill you?

 

 

 

I think all animals have different levels of rights. They should all be given a second chance if possible (say if it got a disease, people would try their best to cure it and not just kill it to save money/time), its the rightful thing to do.

 

But animals that are bred purely for food should be kept that way. I wouldn't really want cows to become domesticated just so people won't eat them.

 

But animals that are bred for domestication (cats/dogs) should not be eaten. I was almost violently ill when I saw someone eat a dog. Its just not right, I wouldnt want my dog to be put in a pot, boiled and eaten.

 

But then again, I probably on see it this way because I want to become a vet when I leave school. Im sure there are other people with very different views.

[Iantiger]

I agree; if I saw my cat being eaten I would probably instictively proceed to murder whoever was eating him - but that's only because we've developed an emotional attachment to domesticated animals. Some people eat duck, other people can't stand the idea. Likewise with horses. If you've developed the attachment, you wont eat it.

 

 

 

However I believe eating meat is natural. The point in history when ice-age man decided to start eating meat thus becoming an omnivore rather than a herbivore can also be linked with one of a series of abnormally large evolutionary jumps in the size of the brain and therefore intelligence. Meat eating is partly responsible for where we are today as a species.

 

 

 

~Ian

[Anesthesia]

I couldn't justify murder and torture anymore.

 

 

 

Interesting choice of words there. Murder meaning the unlawful killing of a human and torture being pain for the sake of pain inflicted for punishment or to extract information... Neither of which apply to animals. You might as well accuse people of treason or fraud against animals, it would be just as ludicrous.

 

 

 

As for 'letting nature' further our species, that's just nonsensical hippytalk. Every species fights for their advancement and survival, it is the entire purpose of life. To deliberately hamper your progress is NOT natural.

 

 

 

What almost every animal rights activist/terrorist seems to forget is that animals kill other animals - it happens everywhere and it happens all the time. They don't call it unnatural when an omnivorous animal like a dog kills a rabbit to eat, humans are animals too so to not extend the same reasoning to us is unfair.

 

 

 

Just because we have more advanced means of obtaining prey doesn't mean it isn't natural. Nature isn't a mystical magic force that dictates what will happen. To suggest that we are the only creatures on the entire planet that can somehow transcend nature is pretty arrogant.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

...Similarly, people call human cities unnatural, but gloss over the buildings and colonies that animals make.

 

 

 

I'm not exactly an animal rights activist, and it doesn't keep me up at nights... however, I don't agree with harming things unnecessarily -- be they human or otherwise.

[indy500fan]

i believe animals have no rights whatsoever. while i find torture of animals cruel, it is up to the owner of the animal what they decide to do with it. it does make them look, well insane i guess.

 

 

 

those are just my views, i see nothing wrong with killing animals, for food or sport. i only have killed animals for food before (fish, squirrels), and thats all i plan on killing them for.

 

 

 

How narrow minded are you? If aliens came from another planet claiming they were the superior species would you let them kill you?

 

 

 

i would fight back as much as i could. but much like, say for example deer and humans, the aliens would just hunt us, and would probably kill us anytime they wished. i dont think this really deals with "rights" though.

[Lusy]

So.. if animal testing wasnt needed anymore, and there truely was a cheaper and more efficient alternative do you really think that these capitalist drug companies wouldnt go for it? Thats crazy talk.

What you're forgetting is that vivisection is a multimillion dollar industry, and multimillion dollar industries don't just go away. I could go into all the reasons animal testing doesn't work if you'd like.

 

 

 

I think all animals have different levels of rights. They should all be given a second chance if possible (say if it got a disease, people would try their best to cure it and not just kill it to save money/time), its the rightful thing to do.

My question for you is then how do we determine which animals deserve higher levels of rights than others? And if you believe that animals have the right to live free of disease, shouldn't they also simply have the right to live?

But animals that are bred for domestication (cats/dogs) should not be eaten. I was almost violently ill when I saw someone eat a dog. Its just not right, I wouldnt want my dog to be put in a pot, boiled and eaten.

Cows are already considered domesticated animals, as are chickens, sheep etc. I find it interesting that you can draw a line of distinction between these groups when deciding which group is acceptable as food.

 

However I believe eating meat is natural. The point in history when ice-age man decided to start eating meat thus becoming an omnivore rather than a herbivore can also be linked with one of a series of abnormally large evolutionary jumps in the size of the brain and therefore intelligence. Meat eating is partly responsible for where we are today as a species.

If you can recognize the evolutionary scale here, can you also recognize that now humans have evolved PAST the stage where we need to kill to survive? We no longer need meat in our diets.

Interesting choice of words there. Murder meaning the unlawful killing of a human and torture being pain for the sake of pain inflicted for punishment or to extract information... Neither of which apply to animals. You might as well accuse people of treason or fraud against animals' date=' it would be just as ludicrous.[/quote']I didn't realize this was going to be a semantics argument. I'm not interested in one of those, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of veganism/vegetarianism, feel free, but I'm not going to argue what a word means, it's pointless and counter-productive to the rest of the discussion.

 

As for 'letting nature' further our species, that's just nonsensical hippytalk. Every species fights for their advancement and survival, it is the entire purpose of life. To deliberately hamper your progress is NOT natural.

Can you show me some data on that? I'm very interested in seeing a study that concludes that every species fights for advancement. I think what you're calling "deliberately hampering progress" I'm calling "evolving past my need to kill to eat". You see the difference there?

 

What almost every animal rights activist/terrorist seems to forget is that animals kill other animals - it happens everywhere and it happens all the time. They don't call it unnatural when an omnivorous animal like a dog kills a rabbit to eat, humans are animals too so to not extend the same reasoning to us is unfair.

I don't think it's unfair in the least. Dogs still need to depend on meat to survive, humans don't.

Just because we have more advanced means of obtaining prey doesn't mean it isn't natural. Nature isn't a mystical magic force that dictates what will happen. To suggest that we are the only creatures on the entire planet that can somehow transcend nature is pretty arrogant.

I never once suggested that' date=' quite the opposite in fact. I blatantly stated that I felt nature was going to put us in our place.

...Similarly, people call human cities unnatural, but gloss over the buildings and colonies that animals make.

The difference being that animal dwellings work with nature. Human cities don't.

[Anesthesia]

I didn't realize this was going to be a semantics argument. I'm not interested in one of those, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of veganism/vegetarianism, feel free, but I'm not going to argue what a word means, it's pointless and counter-productive to the rest of the discussion.

 

 

 

If you don't want to be corrected on your wording then don't use inappropriate words to describe things. My point was that you use these strong sounding words which don't apply to the argument at hand - they are just buzzwords used by animal rights activists/terrorists all the time. I suggest that your use of such irrelevant buzzwords is counter-productive to the rest of the discussion.

 

 

 

Can you show me some data on that? I'm very interested in seeing a study that concludes that every species fights for advancement.

 

 

 

Some data on animals trying to survive? Doubtful seeing as it would be as necessary as a study to show that we breathe. Can you show me some data that shows that animals actively try and hamper the progress of their species? Or how about a study that concludes that animals, when faced with an easier way of getting food will not take it. No? Are we just getting into the realms of the stupid now?

 

 

 

The difference being that animal dwellings work with nature. Human cities don't.

 

 

 

There you go again, thinking that humans are the only beings that are able to transcend nature, thinking that somehow we are capable of doing things that are unnatural... If this magical force of nature were real then we wouldn't be able to do unnatural things. That is unless you consider us to be on a higher plane of existence than other beings in some way.

 

 

 

As for nature putting us in our place, see my signature.

[Iantiger]

If you can recognize the evolutionary scale here, can you also recognize that now humans have evolved PAST the stage where we need to kill to survive? We no longer need meat in our diets.

 

To quote you:

 

Can you show me some data on that?

 

True, we can SURVIVE without meat, but we'd be at a terrible disadvantage without it. There are many, many benefits to eating meat; nutrients and vitamins that we just can't gain from being vegetarians. I'm not going to pretend I'm some biologist and list all of these nutrients, but I can tell you that they exist. It follows that if our brain increased in size after becoming omnivorous, it should in theory, eventually decrease in size if we stop eating meat.

 

 

 

You give a condition -> Reaction

 

You remove that condition -> Reverse Reaction

 

 

 

It's not a set-in-stone fact, but there's a high probability of this occuring.

 

 

 

~Ian

[cadburys_egg]

But animals that are bred for domestication (cats/dogs) should not be eaten. I was almost violently ill when I saw someone eat a dog. Its just not right, I wouldnt want my dog to be put in a pot, boiled and eaten.

Cows are already considered domesticated animals, as are chickens, sheep etc. I find it interesting that you can draw a line of distinction between these groups when deciding which group is acceptable as food.

 

 

 

Bah, well you know what I mean. I wouldn't want to live in a house with a cow wondering about. They aren't bred for constant close contact with humans. Of course they need a certain level of this but not as much as a dog would.

 

Im not sure how I would explain this :?

[Death_By_Pod]

Study after study after study has shown that animal testing is no longer needed in labs, but many companies continue to do it anyway because that's the way they've always done it.

 

 

 

No, no they havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t; any evidence of such claims?

 

 

 

What you're forgetting is that vivisection is a multimillion dollar industry, and multimillion dollar industries don't just go away. I could go into all the reasons animal testing doesn't work if you'd like.

 

 

 

Cows are already considered domesticated animals, as are chickens, sheep etc. I find it interesting that you can draw a line of distinction between these groups when deciding which group is acceptable as food.

 

 

 

If you can recognize the evolutionary scale here, can you also recognize that now humans have evolved PAST the stage where we need to kill to survive? We no longer need meat in our diets

 

 

 

Can you show me some data on that? I'm very interested in seeing a study that concludes that every species fights for advancement. I think what you're calling "deliberately hampering progress" I'm calling "evolving past my need to kill to eat". You see the difference there?

 

 

 

I don't think it's unfair in the least. Dogs still need to depend on meat to survive, humans don't.

 

 

 

The difference being that animal dwellings work with nature. Human cities don't.

 

 

 

Simulating animal testing is also a multi-million dollar industry. All good testing centres use the 3 RÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (reduce, refine, replace), there are times when you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t simulate animal testing, if we could simulate conditions perfectly why do we continue with it. Companies can make money in simulation software as well as live testing.

 

 

 

If you lived on a farm and had pet chickens, you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be so quick to put them on a plate. It all comes down to how much emotional attachment you have to certain animals.

 

 

 

Vitamin B12 is only naturally found in meat. If a vegan diet was a perfectly fine diet and could be adopted globally, then why have parents been arrested over child abuse due to providing children poor nutrition?

 

 

 

So what species donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t fight for advancement (what species just sit back and couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be happier about their impending extinction)? Also what about killing plants, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s nature too. You need to kill some form of nature off to survive; we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t directly live off the sun.

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fair that we have a shrunken appendix which hampers our ability to digest plant matter. DogÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bodies are built for meat as much from ours; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the way we evolved, we just donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t magically transcend that.

 

 

 

So what do you propose? We kill off 5 billion people or so, so that we can work with nature? If apes lived in similarly cramped environments then would it still be called working with nature? Our buildings are apart of nature so how do they become not-nature? The built environment is just as natural as the non-built, the difference being the physical complexity of the environment. Antarctica is less complex then a jungle which is less complex then a city.

[Iantiger]

DBP, everything you said is completely logical and I agree with it completely.

 

 

 

The only issue I side with the animals on is hunting for sport. That's just mean, unnecessary, and a reckless waste of life.

 

 

 

~Ian

[jackalope14]

DBP, everything you said is completely logical and I agree with it completely.

 

 

 

The only issue I side with the animals on is hunting for sport. That's just mean, unnecessary, and a reckless waste of life.

 

 

 

~Ian

 

 

 

I agree that hunting for sport is unnecessary. You might as well just go target shooting.

 

Other than that I see no problem with eating animals.

[Giordano]

it is up to the owner of the animal what they decide to do with it. it does make them look, well insane i guess.

 

 

 

You piece of [cabbage]. So does that mean I can torcher my dog because I he's mine? No, everything that has life doesn't deserve to be hurt for no reason. Humans were all monkeys/ape type of animals, but then they evolved. So we are animals, so if you say animals have no rights, you're saying you have no rights.

 

And yes, humans were monkeys/ape type of animal and it wasn't some made up hobo who brought us here.

[assassin_696]

I'm not a vegetarian and never will be. The only convincing argument i see for vegetarianism is the ineffectivness of energy transfer from crops to meat, but we're not at a stage where that is a crucial issue. Humans have evolved to eat meat and I see no reason why as the dominant species we shouldn't be able to use animals for food.

 

 

 

I think animals have rights up to a point. I used to go along on a game shoot now and again, but now i've realised I disagree with the idea of it. Not because i have a problem with killing animals, but because of the mentality of it. The fact that people are going out there killing for fun is what i have a problem with. I don't care whether or not they eat the product, they don't go out shooting to feed their family nowadays.

 

 

 

I believe in animal testings for medicine if it is done correctly. Human life should always take precedance over the life of an animal, it's our right as the dominant species.

 

 

 

I don't agree with unnecessary animal suffering (bear baiting, [rooster] fighting etc.)

[Anesthesia]

The fact that people are going out there killing for fun is what i have a problem with. I don't care whether or not they eat the product, they don't go out shooting to feed their family nowadays.

 

 

 

It isn't as simple as just wanting to feed the family, given the opportunity I would go hunting for game not because it is fun, but because it tastes really good and it often hard to find. Out of all the people I know who have hunted, they do it because they like eating game. They don't go out to kill for fun then just eat it because they feel morally bound to, they kill to get their hands on some really tasty meat that they can't find in shops. I don't know about supply of this sort of thing in other parts of the world, though.

 

 

 

Where I'm from, if you want pheasant, partridge, quail, rabbit etc. you have to go find it yourself (or get a poacher to find it).

[logic-is-overrated]

So does that mean I can torcher my dog because I he's mine?

What's to stop you from torturing your dog?

 

No, everything that has life doesn't deserve to be hurt for no reason.

If hurting animals makes a person happy, then trying to gain happiness would be there reason.

 

Humans were all monkeys/ape type of animals, but then they evolved. So we are animals, so if you say animals have no rights, you're saying you have no rights.

Every animal/human has the right to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants. In return the animal/human acted upon has the right to impose a form of punishment/reward in return. Every creature has the same rights, it's just humans are able to take advantage of them more effectively.

[assassin_696]

The fact that people are going out there killing for fun is what i have a problem with. I don't care whether or not they eat the product, they don't go out shooting to feed their family nowadays.

 

 

 

It isn't as simple as just wanting to feed the family, given the opportunity I would go hunting for game not because it is fun, but because it tastes really good and it often hard to find. Out of all the people I know who have hunted, they do it because they like eating game. They don't go out to kill for fun then just eat it because they feel morally bound to, they kill to get their hands on some really tasty meat that they can't find in shops. I don't know about supply of this sort of thing in other parts of the world, though.

 

 

 

Where I'm from, if you want pheasant, partridge, quail, rabbit etc. you have to go find it yourself (or get a poacher to find it).

 

 

 

That's an interesting matter of taste. Personally i'd prefer a steak anyday to pheasant or partridge, duck are more easily farmed. Fair enough if you really want that meat, it's just never a meat that I would choose over a steak or joint of beef.

[dusqi]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't force animals to undergo the suffering of being bred to be killed, for sport or for food. So, yes, I believe that animals should have rights, the right to life being one of them.

 

 

 

I think that since most people do not see where their food comes from, it's easy for us to become detached from the reality of the situation. However, threaten to bash someone's pet cat with a hammer, and they suddenly remember about the rights of their beloved furry friend.

[Barihawk]

My thoughts on the matter:

 

 

 

I am opposed to animal testing, but what else would we use? Would you rather we scrap up some homeless people on the street and test thing on them? I can live with the testing.

 

 

 

As for eating meat, why not? If a bear got the chance, it would eat you! It's called the food chain. Humans are fortunate to have the technology to make ourselves the top of the food chain. Every animal has as much a right to hunt and eat eachother as wel do, and they practice that right.