Animals - Do they have rights?

[Guest GhostRanger]

cotton plants lets see SURVIVAL we use cotton for clothes which we need to survive though we could live without clohes would we risk the human race to the winter coldness?

 

 

 

Who says that we need cotton? We survived before we discovered cotton, didn't we? There are other methods of keeping warm as well, aren't there? Are you just making an excuse because cotton is a convienent type of clothing that you have personally grown accustomed to? Are you willing to give up using cotton entirely and finding other sources of clothing? Wool...for instance, doesn't require the killing of sheep to obtain. Will you switch to using all wool garmets?

[assassin_696]

But animal testing...

 

I don't think that's right, just because we're bigger and think we're smarter then the other animals dosen't mean that we should torture them to see if that new cologne gives you rashes. It's the same as a kid bullying another kid on the playground, there bigger and they want something (wether it be self-confidence of enough money for a peice of pizza) They feel the right to pick on another kid because he dosen't fit in or is smaller then everyone else.

 

 

 

It shouldn't always be torture if it's done correctly, the principle is fine but I agree sometimes it is probably carried out badly. It's different though from a bully beating up someone for lunch money, the bully probably doesn't need that money so badly; but our development of anti-biotics and medicines is important for our survival as a species. I don't agree with cosmetic animal testing, but if we could develop cures and antibiotics through testing on other species then i'm all for it, if it's done properly and the animals aren't needlessly harmed.

[Iantiger]

Now this whole "Plants are living thing too!" crap. Plants cannot think (to my knowledge.

 

Define think. Can animals think? All animals do is react. You shoot a gun, they run. Perception is a part of thinking, and animals certainly don't plan the day ahead, and commit organized crime. If they get thirsty, they seek water. If they get hungry, they seek food. There is no thought pattern. They are exactly equal to plants in that respect.

 

 

 

~Ian

[Nadril]

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

 

 

 

Of course I wouldn't. However, if i'm right, animals try and escape as well when we try to kill them, right? if a supperior speices came to our planet, of course we would try and stay alive, it's basic instinct for about any creature.

 

 

 

The thing is though, is that humans can actualy come up with a plan, or an idea to escape or destroy the aliens. Even if they were a superior race, we may be able to win by outsmarting them.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, for once, I would have to agree with striker6. We are the supperior race, and to me, animals truly have no 'rights'. The way I see it, they are a resource in a way.

[SAGE]

They have the right to remain tasty?

[Riku3220]

ok first off what if all the sheep died off by a disease what would we turn to cotton and i'd like t start asking you questions ghostranger

 

 

 

mice? and dolphins? what are you talking about monkeys are the best anyways :D and like i said would you like it if animals had a human season they should to see how we like it. c ya guys im gunna offer myself as a sacrifice :shock: wait what!?!?

 

 

 

I responded to your post, would you please answer my question instead of just ignoring it. Do you consider bacteria and viruses to be living things? (Hint: They don't evne have seasons, they try and kill us all the time)

 

 

 

i guess we dont have a reason to exist cause we kill animals all the time do you think it would be fair its fair if we get to kill animals for our survival and they dont get to kill us for there survival? do you want them to start targeting animals?

[runesmithie]

ok first off what if all the sheep died off by a disease what would we turn to cotton and i'd like t start asking you questions ghostranger

 

 

 

mice? and dolphins? what are you talking about monkeys are the best anyways :D and like i said would you like it if animals had a human season they should to see how we like it. c ya guys im gunna offer myself as a sacrifice :shock: wait what!?!?

 

 

 

I responded to your post, would you please answer my question instead of just ignoring it. Do you consider bacteria and viruses to be living things? (Hint: They don't evne have seasons, they try and kill us all the time)

 

 

 

i guess we dont have a reason to exist cause we kill animals all the time do you think it would be fair its fair if we get to kill animals for our survival and they dont get to kill us for there survival? do you want them to start targeting animals?

 

 

 

I can't tell for sure, but it looks like that sentence refers to diseases of sorts and yes, they do kill animals.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I'm going to do my best to answer your question(s). That's because that is the respectful way to engage in intelligent discourse and I want to teach you how to do that. After I answer your question, I'm going ton repost my previous post that was full of questions you failed to answer. Maybe if you answered my questions, you would understand my point, and not have to ask me such ridiculous things. But since you didn't, I will show you how to properly answer a question someone asks you.

 

 

 

i guess we dont have a reason to exist cause we kill animals all the time do you think it would be fair its fair if we get to kill animals for our survival and they dont get to kill us for there survival?

 

 

 

To answer your question, yes I do think it would be fair if we get to kill animals for our survival and they don't get to kill us for their survival. But I don't understand your point, because animals do get to kill us for their survival. Unfortunately for them, we are much better at killing them than they are at killing us, so it happens much less often. If you don't believe that they are allowed to kill us just as we are allowed to kill them, go find a pride of lions and start throwing rocks at the females. I bet you will end up as their dinner (dinner is part of survival).

 

 

 

do you want them to start targeting animals?

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure who the "them" is you are referring to. If you mean viruses and bacteria, they already do (and yes, I want them to be fair in their assaults on life). If you are referring to people, then yes, I want them to target animals because I like steak a lot (medium rare). If you mean other animals (not human), then yes, I want them to because natural selection keeps the cycle of life continuing.

 

 

 

Now, I've answered your questions and I would like you to answer mine. These questions were already asked before and so I would like it if you took some time to answer them. Oftentimes, you understand another person's point if you take the time to respond what they say instead of ignoring them and making more completely ridiculous posts. (Yes, I did read your response about the sheep dying off but that was not an adequate answer to my question because the sheep have not died off by a disease.) Please answer the following, especially the part about you being willing to stop wearing any type of clothing that killed a living thing in order to be manufactured.

 

 

 

 

 

Who says that we need cotton? We survived before we discovered cotton, didn't we? There are other methods of keeping warm as well, aren't there? Are you just making an excuse because cotton is a convienent type of clothing that you have personally grown accustomed to? Are you willing to give up using cotton entirely and finding other sources of clothing? Wool...for instance, doesn't require the killing of sheep to obtain. Will you switch to using all wool garmets?

[Anesthesia]

Define think. Can animals think? All animals do is react ... There is no thought pattern. They are exactly equal to plants in that respect.

 

 

 

Not true, that. What about the chimpanzees and dolphins that solve puzzles - surely that is more than a mere reaction. In fact, young chimpanzees show better problem solving abilities than young human children...

 

 

 

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/Chimp ... ormity.htm

 

http://www.embodimentwiki.org/index.php ... _cognition

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/10/5937.pdf

 

http://www.pulseplanet.com/feat_archive/Oct01/

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588ED9F

[arianwynn]

Personally, i dont believe in animal slaughter, I don't have a problem with you if you do, but you can't call it fair or just if you are.

[arianwynn]

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.

 

 

 

Ah yes, not much thought was put into this.

 

 

 

In Africa, lions eat zebras. They have to to survive, they live just on what they need. They are a happy ecosystem.

 

 

 

How can you say the compsumption of humans isfair, when most populated countries waste 20 percent of their food product, which would be millions of animals slaughtered for no reason what so ever.

 

 

 

What about people killing tigers for fur? They wont be here in 10 years, if the fur trade isnt stopped to a standstill. Is this fair? Put yourself in the animals position -

 

 

 

Killed so that someone else can look " fashionable"

 

 

 

I don't see a lioness bringing down an antelope and wearing its hide for fashion.

 

 

 

Another example - the native americans. There existence with the buffalo was perfect, they depended on and killed the buffalo, but respected them and never took more than they needed. A happy existence, lasted for more than 50, 000 years. Then the settlers came, hunted down every buffalo they could out of greed till the numbers went from 6 million to about 100. I dont see this as fair either.

 

 

 

My point is- Killing other animals to survive is fair, taking more than we need which we are doing now, is defenitely not fair. Please think before making another post like that.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ah yes, not much thought was put into this.

 

 

 

In Africa, lions eat zebras. They have to to survive, they live just on what they need. They are a happy ecosystem.

 

 

 

How can you say the compsumption of humans isfair, when most populated countries waste 20 percent of their food product, which would be millions of animals slaughtered for no reason what so ever.

 

 

 

What about people killing tigers for fur? They wont be here in 10 years, if the fur trade isnt stopped to a standstill. Is this fair? Put yourself in the animals position -

 

 

 

Killed so that someone else can look " fashionable"

 

 

 

I don't see a lioness bringing down an antelope and wearing its hide for fashion.

 

 

 

Another example - the native americans. There existence with the buffalo was perfect, they depended on and killed the buffalo, but respected them and never took more than they needed. A happy existence, lasted for more than 50, 000 years. Then the settlers came, hunted down every buffalo they could out of greed till the numbers went from 6 million to about 100. I dont see this as fair either.

 

 

 

My point is- Killing other animals to survive is fair, taking more than we need which we are doing now, is defenitely not fair. Please think before making another post like that.

 

 

 

So I assume you only have exactly enough clothes you need to survive (one pair) and that you don't support the mass making of cotton t-shirts and other types of clothing that living things have to be killed in order to be produced.

 

 

 

Please tell me what qualifies as "survival" because I'm certain the computer you are currently using isn't a part of survival. And I can guarantee that I can trace you being able to use your computer back to the killing of something that was alive.

 

 

 

Are you willing to give up ALL luxaries in order to spare killing anything that is alive, because luxaries are not needed for survival?

[Anesthesia]

Personally, i dont believe in animal slaughter, I don't have a problem with you if you do, but you can't call it fair or just if you are.

 

 

 

I don't call it just or fair, I call it life.

 

 

 

Ah yes, not much thought was put into this.

 

 

 

I say the same to you. You try to discredit my post saying that things are not necessary, yet you lead a life filled with luxuries all of which impact on the earth and so many animals in it. Your argument holds no water when you don't practice what you preach.

[Rattica]

I support 100% the harvesting of cotton, as far as I know the cotton shrubs are fine after harvesting as it's just the fluff growing around the seeds we use.

 

 

 

Bacteria and virus', do they really need to have rights? They already have that 'right' in a sense considering that without bacteria in particular we wouldn't be able to live and as for virus' - well they just do what they do and I don't think they need any more help. Seeing as virus' depend on hosts I think we all have a right to control their population as without any hosts they're dead :twisted:

 

 

 

You don't really have to eat meat to gain all nutrients/protiens if you can get hold of dairy products. With dairy products cows have a non-edible purpose in life (well just the girls)...

 

Btw I don't understand why eggs are often seen as no-go munchibles for vegitariens and vegans as they are unfertilised so it's not like you're eating a baby chick.

 

 

 

We probably have evolved beyond having to eat meat. When we all swung down from the trees we were indeed prey to pretty much everything that could catch us and we were scavengers. Being bottom of the food chain and a scavenger sucks because you are usually the last to get to the remains and all that is left is in the skull (yuk) and in the bones (Mmm Marrow). This must have finally prompted a bright spark to grab a stick or something heavy... Ok I have presented this as fact, it's a theory like evolution itself I just think it fits well considering all i 'know' :?

 

So maybe it wasn't just the meat that made our brains bigger, but the fact we probably had to push ourselves to get it because it was an unexploited food source. We probably kept eating it as it's just that tasty :D

 

 

 

I also think in all honesty we have enough challenges these days that without meat we wouldn't devolve or anything so drastic. As long as we have our dairy produce and other protiens from veggies we'll stay energetic enough to remain curious enough to push ourselves to find ways to live on mars or finish that cryptic crossword or whatever.

 

Plus our brains are no longer challenged when getting our meat really, is it? And There are plenty folks out there, veggies and almost pure carnivores alike, who are incredibly daft so I'm not sure...

 

 

 

IMO all life that supports me deserves respect as eating at all is really a great privilege, not a right as such. Poor folks are malnourished and starving all over the place as they don't have the privilege (and luck) of living in a counrty/lifestyle where food waste is often the norm.

 

 

 

This is how I'd decide which animals e.t.c have a right not to be subjected to undue pain wherever possible:

 

1. Back it into a corner

 

2. repeatedly cause it some form of pain (non-lethal and preferably non debilitating e.g. nose flicking)

 

3. There will come a point where even the most timid of creatures are going to try to defend itself by munching your fingers or trampling you into the floor. ( lol we'll make an exception for these guys i hope http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jimknapp/goats.html :lol: )

 

 

 

All my long-windedness aside eating meat is neither here nor there as long as it's in moderation. It's a natural thing to do but we do it in unnatural ways, for convenience, greed and probably as we are too lazy and distracted nowadays to care where it comes from never mind do it as nature intended.

 

Plus if we ate what was healthiest for us we might stop wasting so much food, meat or other wise so killing a cow could be done in a more humane fashion like with a shotgun to make sure the job is done quickly before the cow knows what is what. That stun and slit the throat thing does not seem as quick and painless as death could be.

 

 

 

And lastly although I won't give up purely medical animal testing or the achievements attributed to it already, it should be painless as possible. Plus we could fund more alternatives. For cosmetics use people, what's a small rash on my back due to a patch test of somthing dodgy going to do to me? As for medical tests, well we may not need any person/animal at all soon, as stem cell research e.t.c has come on in leaps and bounds.

 

 

 

O.K that's every opinion I think I have on that subject and many apologies as I wrote such a long post (now visible from space) blame the author of the thread for making the topic :wink: as it really got me thinking <-- I.M.O lol

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Not true, that. What about the chimpanzees and dolphins that solve puzzles - surely that is more than a mere reaction. In fact, young chimpanzees show better problem solving abilities than young human children...

 

 

 

Plants can solve puzzles in much the same way animals do. In most cases animals require some kind of reward to motivate them into doing a puzzle (usually food), if you put a plant at the bottom of a maze and shine a light through it, the plant will successfully navigate the puzzle. Is the plant truly thinking, depends on what you call thinking.

[runesmithie]

 

Not true, that. What about the chimpanzees and dolphins that solve puzzles - surely that is more than a mere reaction. In fact, young chimpanzees show better problem solving abilities than young human children...

 

 

 

Plants can solve puzzles in much the same way animals do. In most cases animals require some kind of reward to motivate them into doing a puzzle (usually food), if you put a plant at the bottom of a maze and shine a light through it, the plant will successfully navigate the puzzle. Is the plant truly thinking, depends on what you call thinking.

 

 

 

Have a website for that? If so, that is the coolest plant thing I've ever heard of :D (Well, other than those ones you touch and they move automagically)

[Make7upu101]

 

Not true, that. What about the chimpanzees and dolphins that solve puzzles - surely that is more than a mere reaction. In fact, young chimpanzees show better problem solving abilities than young human children...

 

 

 

Plants can solve puzzles in much the same way animals do. In most cases animals require some kind of reward to motivate them into doing a puzzle (usually food), if you put a plant at the bottom of a maze and shine a light through it, the plant will successfully navigate the puzzle. Is the plant truly thinking, depends on what you call thinking.

 

 

 

Not really into biology but isn't that just the plants growing toward the light? If you have a site of some kind of refrence I would like to see it it does sound interesting.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Not really into biology but isn't that just the plants growing toward the light? If you have a site of some kind of refrence I would like to see it it does sound interesting.

 

 

 

Yep, no different then a rat going through a maze to get to the cheese; they both want food. See below for a couple of websites that show tell you a bit about it.

 

 

 

 

Have a website for that? If so, that is the coolest plant thing I've ever heard of :D (Well, other than those ones you touch and they move automagically)

 

 

 

Don't really have a website for it, but I found a bunch of experiments by typing in "plant maze" in google.

 

Here are couple of sites from I picked out.

 

 

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/15215/Activities/Projects/bean_maze.html

 

http://www.fastplants.org/pdf/activities/know_the_way.pdf

 

 

 

And here are a bunch of other processes that plants undertake:

 

* Chemotropism: Movement or growth in response to chemicals

 

* Gravitropism: Movement or growth in response to gravity

 

* Hydrotropism: Movement or growth in response to moisture or water

 

* Heliotropism: Movement or growth in response to sunlight

 

* Phototropism: Movement or growth in response to light

 

(Light and Sunlight are two different things; some plants do things like bend their leaves to follow the sunÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s movement during the day, rather then just moving towards light in general)

 

* Thermotropism: Movement or growth in response to temperature

 

* Thigmotropism: Movement or growth in response to touch or contact

[assassin_696]

Ah yes, not much thought was put into this.

 

 

 

In Africa, lions eat zebras. They have to to survive, they live just on what they need. They are a happy ecosystem.

 

 

 

How can you say the compsumption of humans isfair, when most populated countries waste 20 percent of their food product, which would be millions of animals slaughtered for no reason what so ever.

 

 

 

What about people killing tigers for fur? They wont be here in 10 years, if the fur trade isnt stopped to a standstill. Is this fair? Put yourself in the animals position -

 

 

 

Killed so that someone else can look " fashionable"

 

 

 

I don't see a lioness bringing down an antelope and wearing its hide for fashion.

 

 

 

Another example - the native americans. There existence with the buffalo was perfect, they depended on and killed the buffalo, but respected them and never took more than they needed. A happy existence, lasted for more than 50, 000 years. Then the settlers came, hunted down every buffalo they could out of greed till the numbers went from 6 million to about 100. I dont see this as fair either.

 

 

 

My point is- Killing other animals to survive is fair, taking more than we need which we are doing now, is defenitely not fair. Please think before making another post like that.

 

 

 

So I assume you only have exactly enough clothes you need to survive (one pair) and that you don't support the mass making of cotton t-shirts and other types of clothing that living things have to be killed in order to be produced.

 

 

 

Please tell me what qualifies as "survival" because I'm certain the computer you are currently using isn't a part of survival. And I can guarantee that I can trace you being able to use your computer back to the killing of something that was alive.

 

 

 

Are you willing to give up ALL luxaries in order to spare killing anything that is alive, because luxaries are not needed for survival?

 

 

 

I think there's a different level though between buying nice clothes and inadvertantly supporting mass production; and actively supporting the ivory trade or buying a tiger fur etc. It's hard to campain and fight against what we can't see, i.e. the side affects of what we buy and then end up putting money into, but I don't think buying an ivory carved ornament is not necessary when you KNOW that the elephant has been poached.

 

 

 

I think the greatest problem is not in fact the animals we see on land, but the desecration of the oceans. The destruction of the coral reefs through chemicals, and overfishing of species like cod and haddock and tuna. The fact that 90% of a catch is thrown away as waste, usually dead. That's where we need to campaign for change, because although i'm not getting sentimental about each fish in particular, it's important that we maintain the environment with enough fish for our needs. This at the moment though is severely imbalanced.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I think there's a different level though between buying nice clothes and inadvertantly supporting mass production; and actively supporting the ivory trade or buying a tiger fur etc. It's hard to campain and fight against what we can't see, i.e. the side affects of what we buy and then end up putting money into, but I don't think buying an ivory carved ornament is not necessary when you KNOW that the elephant has been poached.

 

 

 

I think you're wrong and you're making excuses for the luxaries you've become used to. Are you sayaing that when you see a wooden desk you don't KNOW that a tree was chopped down to create this desk? If you don't know that, you're just silly. If I supported mass production by buying a leather belt, certainly I KNOW that leather comes from cows. If you don't know that and you are buying the belt, you are irresponsible, but that's no excuse. Either killing for luxaries is wrong or it isn't. You can't say some luxaries are okay and some aren't just because its convinient for you to not by ivory or tiger skins.

 

 

 

I think the greatest problem is not in fact the animals we see on land, but the desecration of the oceans. The destruction of the coral reefs through chemicals, and overfishing of species like cod and haddock and tuna. The fact that 90% of a catch is thrown away as waste, usually dead. That's where we need to campaign for change, because although i'm not getting sentimental about each fish in particular, it's important that we maintain the environment with enough fish for our needs. This at the moment though is severely imbalanced.

 

 

 

I support maintaing the ocean enviroments so that we won't run out of fish to satisfy human needs. Just as I support the maintaning of farms so we won't run out of yummy cows and chickens for me to eat (and wear).

[Anesthesia]

You wear chickens? Everything is becoming clearer now.

[Guest GhostRanger]

You wear chickens? Everything is becoming clearer now.

 

 

 

I do! (I guess I should've switched the cows and chickens in that sentence so my reference to wearing cows was more clear... :oops: ) I do support the wearing of chicken costumes - although I don't think real chickens are used for those. :wink:

[maximus]

Animals have no rights in my mind. Id rather not stomp a kitten though.

 

Humans are superior and rule the world; however animals feel pain and shouldn't be stomped, beatin, wounded

[assassin_696]

I think there's a different level though between buying nice clothes and inadvertantly supporting mass production; and actively supporting the ivory trade or buying a tiger fur etc. It's hard to campain and fight against what we can't see, i.e. the side affects of what we buy and then end up putting money into, but I don't think buying an ivory carved ornament is not necessary when you KNOW that the elephant has been poached.

 

 

 

I think you're wrong and you're making excuses for the luxaries you've become used to. Are you sayaing that when you see a wooden desk you don't KNOW that a tree was chopped down to create this desk? If you don't know that, you're just silly. If I supported mass production by buying a leather belt, certainly I KNOW that leather comes from cows. If you don't know that and you are buying the belt, you are irresponsible, but that's no excuse. Either killing for luxaries is wrong or it isn't. You can't say some luxaries are okay and some aren't just because its convinient for you to not by ivory or tiger skins.

 

 

 

I see your point here, sorry I didn't make mine clear enough. Personally I don't have a problem with chopping trees down for wood, as long as it is done in a way that preserves the rainforests to the greatest extent possible. When I buy my desk I don't know if the wood has come from a company that does this or not. It's a risk I take, I just morally hope I get the right one.

 

 

 

That however is a different issue from tiger and elephant poaching etc. Tigers are now becoming an endangered species, they've never really been hunted responsibly, same with most big game. Therefore when you buy a tiger rug you know that the rug could of come from a mother tiger, possibly with cubs.

 

 

 

Animals may not have total rights, and I don't have a problem with my leather belt coming from a cow, because I know cows are farmed, not killed recklessly. But we have a moral responsibility as the dominant species to try and maintain the natural ecosystem and not hunt species to extinction for rugs which could just as easily be made from wool.

[How2PK]

I just bought a pair of leahter shoes. :)