Debate Rounds (3)
I am against animals rights and all organisations for it quite simply put I believe in unregulated animal abuse and testing.
I will be organizing my three main arguments in the form of questions, they are:
1. Why should animals not have rights?
2. Why are animals property?
3. Do animals feel anything like us humans do?
1. "Why should animals not have rights?"
To start off I would like to define rights - "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.". So rights are in the law since they are a legal entitlement. Now laws were only invented to protect humans from other humans. if someone was all alone in the middle of the woods and never saw another human again he would not need laws since there would be no other human he could hurt. Laws were created by humans to protect themselves so why are animals getting rights all of a sudden? Now animals have had restrictions for ever this is because animals can be used and trained as a weapon. These restrictions are on animals because they can be used and manipulated by humans to cause harm to other humans much like your common knife or tool (I will later define them as property). So it is true they have restrictions but so do humans, the difference is animals are not entitled to anything in society.
Is nailing a cat to a door a crime? No it is not let me elaborate why not. If you were to nail a cat to a door out in a public place it could be seen as an act of aggression but if it was on your own property then what. Then nothing would happen because laws are in place to protect humans from humans, in this case the animal is not being used as a weapon or as a means of causing harm to another human. Yes the cat will suffer (will elaborate on point three) but cats are meant to suffer they do not need to live. No one is getting hurt from this cat being tortured yes it will die a 'horrible' death but it is not human is it is not in my radar. I do not care about the cat and neither should you. As long as it is in our interests (our interest do include 'fun') then it is morally acceptable for an animal to suffer (even horribly) because humans have no relation to animals (see point three), we have evolved beyond them. But if this man were to take another person property and nail it to a door it would be considered stealing. Now let's say the cat does not like being nailed to a door, if it were human it would apply for new rights and regulations by themselves, but since this cat can not apply for rights or even contribute to society then it does not (until it can apply by it self for rights). This separates a baby for an ape, although their intelligence may be the same a baby has the potential to contribute to society in an intellectual way an ape does not.
I would like to take this opportunity to distinguish a common cat from an ecosystem, a common cat has no value to the human race, it will do nothing to advance society. An ecosystem on the other hand protects the earth and in return helps humans so it should have rights.
2. "Why are animals property?"
Can you steal an animal? Can you buy an animal? Yes well of course. Can you buy a human? No well of course not that was abolished a long time ago. So animals are property by definition. In society animals are mere tools or entities, and people can gleefully do what they wish with their tools. If I throw my wrench down a flight of stairs will you get mad at me well of course not even if it was intentional. So by definition throwing a cat down a flight of stairs is the same thing. Animals have no current role in society, BillyTheForumGuy said it himself, "We don't need animals for work. They were obsolete since the dawn of advance technology." - Society debate forum, topic 'Animals in cages (yes) or set free (no)', in response to Conservative12's argument. Since we have no use for animals currently (other than food and cheap clothing which both result in the extermination of the entity) then animals take a secondary role in humanities advancement. By secondary role I mean use as a pass time, yes you can own a painting even if it does not do you anything same goes for animals. Yes you can light a painting on fire same goes for animals currently. Until the day comes where animals can rise up and apply for rights then they will be classified as property.
Let me take this opportunity to differentiate animals in society currently and oppressed groups in history. My example I will using is the African America 'slaves' brought over to the US. They were the victims or a serious error that people made: they judged them on what they had not their intellectual capacity. This was an inexcusable mistake but it is one we can all relate too. But once society realized that we were the same species with the same potential for advancing society in an intellectual way then they were granted rights. Animals can not contribute to society in a meaningful way since they are not conscious like humans and they can not even ration (not to mention have no problem solving abilities or any role in society). Laws are granted off of potential (like a baby) and animals have no potential in society anymore. Animals could get rights if they were to apply for them but until then they will be simple property.
3. "Do animals feel anything like us humans do?"
I would like to start off this point by saying that your sentiments for animals are traceable to a western societal issue: humanizing animals. Animals are too often humanized in society be it through organisations (frickin PETA) or movies. Society has made people think that animals are like us. This is very far from true and these lies have corrupted us. Ask yourself are people who have grown up in a rural environment or come from a troubled past are they more or less likely to give in to animal rights. There are much less likely to give in to animal rights why because they have seen the truth. Animals are second to humans. My grandparents used to teach me how to truly view animals: as property nothing more (they also taught me hunting and fishing, all the fun stuff) they came out of the war and they lived on a farm. In my opinion they saw animals as what they are: nothing (I once saw they leave a squirrel to bleed out because they did not want to waste another bullet that is justice). So in summary we just see animals as human like creature because society has accidentally manipulated us into seeing them. This is something that must be changed there should be no rights for animals, no morals for animals and only the truth for animals.
So I have (hopefully) made you believe that you are humanizing animals and not viewing them as what they really are. If not then I will explain how animals feel pain and how they are conscious. Animals are not conscious so we can not really relate to them they are in a constant state of sleep almost. If they need something they will get it with no regards for anyone else they do not believe in anything, no morals and no 'life' (if they really 'cared' about others why are there invasive species). So by this definition they also feel pain and emotions differently (they feel no emotions by humans standards). Animals feel pain as an alert by their bodies telling them their existence is being threatened. Torture for them is just making that alert go over and over again. They do not feel pain the way we do at all. Yes they will cry out in a seemingly human way when they are being tortured. This cry serves two purposes: one to appeal to your emotional side and make you stop (it does make you stop a lot of the time doesn't it, it is just a clever trick evolution has given them) and two it is a cry designed to make other come to their help (in a way they are related). So you can not 'put yourself in an animals shoes' because they are nothing like us, we can not relate and we should not try to relate.
Before I finish I would like to ask you some questions
1. Do you agree with organizations such as PETA?
2. Do you believe in regulated (or in my case unregulated) animal experimentation?
3. Why do you support animal rights (tracing the source of your beliefs will help you realize some of my points. Really try to do this example: my beliefs in animals came through reading scholarly articles on animal pain and having first person interactions with them)?
4. Do you support fur and meat?
In conclusion I believe in a better tomorrow for humans, one that has no room for animals and yes animals get hurt it is all part of the game.
(And no I am not joking on this you have perviously asked me this for a reason I can not explain)
I am for animal rights and thus certain rights must be granted to them.
I have two main factors supporting my cause:
1) Animals in some ways are like humans, and humans are like animals too.
2) Animal testing is cruel.
3) Animals aren"t just properties.
1. Animals and Humans are like each other.
Personifications (Humanising Animals) may not be specifically true but they do make sense. ALL animals and humans show nutrition, excretion, respiration, reproduction, movement, sensibility and growth. These are "7 characteristics of life" according to biology and common sense, NOT just some lies invented by society. Animals do feel pain and some have emotions and are conscious. If they don"t have these then there is no point of them surviving and thriving, thus no "tools" for you. Animals are aware of each other"s existence. All social animals have means of communication, some make noises and others use body language. For example, Bees are social insects and considered as one of the smartest arthropods. Bees both make buzzing noises and body language. One famous example is the dance they made to indicate the distance of the food. A round dance indicates that food is less than 1 km from the hive while a waggle dance indicates the food is more than 1 km. The distance depends on the waggle duration. (1 second of waggling indicates every 1 km). Primates are biologically like humans and the two"s DNA are similar. Primates and some other animals are caring parents, just like humans.
Animals are living. They have souls, and they were created (by God, mother nature, science or whatever you believe in) to have life. A life is a life, and they must be cherished. They aren"t our properties just because we are the dominant living creatures, and thus we have no rights to exploit or take away an animal"s life unnecessarily. It"s no more different than torture or murder, and it"s only up to our creators (God or Mother Nature) to decide their fate. Its not human"s decision as we were created to have life.
Just because their way of life is so bizarre and not the human way, its not the excuse for unnecessary exploitation.
Con said, "Animals are not conscious"" Can you really prove that?
Some animals show signs of awareness and some don"t. Social animals are already aware of each other; they play and interact with each other. Some solitary animals are aware of potential predators (frilled lizards flaring and Bees buzzing)
Con said, ". If they need something they will get it with no regards for anyone else they do not believe in anything"
This also holds true for humans. If someone desperately needs something, he/she will do whatever it takes to get that thing, with no regards for others. Humans are as greedy as animals are.
Con said, "Animals feel pain as an alert by their bodies telling them their existence is being threatened. Torture for them is just making that alert go over and over again. They do not feel pain the way we do at all. Yes they will cry out in a seemingly human way when they are being tortured. This cry serves two purposes: one to appeal to your emotional side and make you stop (it does make you stop a lot of the time doesn't it, it is just a clever trick evolution has given them) and two it is a cry designed to make other come to their help (in a way they are related)."
So do Humans. Pain is a stimulus. If it is detected in the human body, the sensory organs will send the message to the brain telling that the existence is being threatened. The brain responds by telling any effectors (muscles, glands) to stay away from the pain source. Animals when threatened, their body releases Adrenaline, which helps them fight the threat or run away from it (fight or flight response). The same thing goes to humans.
Again, can you really prove that animals don"t feel pain the way we do at all? Considering the fact that we cannot simply read other animals mind. It is clear that dog do feel pain in the similar way to us. Dogs can feel pain psychologically. If you take away the dog from the owner, which had a very close bond with each other, the dog will cry out. And How? The dog makes their own noise and they become less active. And if you return the dog from the owner, the dog will be happy by wiggling its tail, barking and running around in circles.
The cry also serves those two-mentioned purpose when humans are tortured. You try to kill someone weaker than you. They will cry to persuade you to stop and to call for help too.
To say that animals are emotionless, unconscious, and not sensitive to human standards is just plain wrong. Once again, can you prove it just by looking at the animal itself? There is no way we can get through their mind, and its not good to conclude the fact just by judging their inferiority.
2. Animals testing is cruel.
I don"t believe in animal experimentation that involves chemicals. Not only because it is cruel, It is also becoming expensive and unnecessary and not worth the money. In any type of animal experimentation, animals must be housed, feed, bathed and kept health, expensive maintenance. Sometimes prior to experiments, animals must be in a certain condition like skipping food for a certain period of time. In medicine, animal experimentation is becoming obsolete. It may be mice and apes have almost identical DNA with humans but it still has flaws. A specific virus can infect a human while it is harmless to apes and mice. Or where else, if a virus infects all three organisms, the cure may work on Apes but not on Mice and Humans.
A great alternative would be In Vitro Cell and Tissue Cultures. This involves taking a sample tissue from an animal and allowing it to thrive outside the body. I don"t know the exact procedures for these tests so I would suggest you to desk research it. The benefits are easy procedures, more accurate results, shorter time to analyze the results and definitely cheaper than animal testing. And also animals don"t have to undergo the unwanted suffering caused by drugs, cosmetics or whatever chemical is being tested. In Vitro Testing only looks at a cellular level. But this method can coordinate with other alternatives such as computer modeling, micro dosing and simulations to produce a whole-body effect.
3. Animals aren"t just properties.
Con said, "Can you steal an animal? Can you buy an animal? Yes well of course. Can you buy a human? No well of course not that was abolished a long time ago. So animals are property by definition."
Stealing an animal is equivalent to kidnapping someone. I know we can purchase animals but this doesn"t make them any less than just properties. What"s the difference between an ordinary property (house, wallet, bed, car, books) and an animal property? Well animals show 7 signs of life (see factor 1) and they can feel pain, be emotional and have feelings. How about ordinary properties? All of them can"t feel pain or have feelings. So it is right to do whatever we want to our house or car or bed. But we have no rights to do whatever we want to animals, even if it is our "property". And that doesn"t count slaughtering them for food since we need meat in our body. They are living creatures and they will definitely hate the way humans treat them.
Con said, "yes you can own a painting even if it does not do you anything same goes for animals. Yes you can light a painting on fire same goes for animals currently. Until the day comes where animals can rise up and apply for rights then they will be classified as property"
Stop comparing animals with ordinary properties. Animals are living; they have life, feelings and emotions. Paintings don"t. SO paintings don"t suffer while animals will suffer unnecessarily.
Con said, "Animals can not contribute to society in a meaningful way since they are not conscious like humans and they can not even ration (not to mention have no problem solving abilities or any role in society)."
And again, don"t say something which is not yet proven. Some animals show signs of consciousness and some don"t. It has been proven that animals DO have problem solving skills and are able to solve primitive problems. Take the crow and raven as an example. Place either one in a small room, with a long container holding the water and floating food. The crow/ raven shouldn"t be able to reach the food. What they do is they either use displacement method so water level will rise with the food or uses a bent wire in order to grab the food.
Animals have no role in society? Animals have multiple purposes in society. They are used as a food source, either a food producer or food itself, a pet for recreation and for understanding biology. If they have no role in society, then what"s the point of learning biology in junior science?
Just to clarify, I am not including meat. Meat is something that we eat for thousands of years.
I will be using my three main question as before to fuel my argument
1. Why should animals not have rights?
2. Why are animals property?
3. Do animals feel anything like us humans do?
I will ad one more to make a fourth question
4. Can animals serve a purpose in today's society?
But firstly I will be addressing some of the issues Pro brought up in their argument
"These are "7 characteristics of life" according to biology and common sense, NOT just some lies invented by society"
- Technically then every law and every legislation passed would be a common lie in society. This makes little to no sense because society has proven to be greater than the environment and even biology at times. We have controlled earth in a way that has allowed us to grow, yes at times the growth is unstable but we have the capacity to limit it. We also control the environment by only leaving specific portions for environmental stability. Without these lies invented by society the earth would be left with highly intelligent and destructive beings that would consume the earth. So the lies are the only things keeping the earth from destruction. So because the societal laws have become more important then these primitive biological laws then we must first obey the societal laws and since animals have no purpose in society they should not be granted any rights. Rights are granted on the basis that one contributed to society and in return is granted rights. So they are privileges that all humans are entitled to. But if a human goes against the laws then he/she is revoked these laws, the same goes for animals if animals do not contribute to society then they are going against humanities new purpose which is to create an advancing society.
"Animals are aware of each other"s existence."
- You are attempting to humanize animals (when read in context). Yes they are aware of each other's existence but they are only aware because the other provides them something. They have no social reasoning skills like a common human and thus are not relatable.
"They have souls, and they were created (by God, mother nature, science or whatever you believe in) "
- They do not have souls since souls are a religious thing and God said in the bible - "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.". So now they do not have souls by a religious stand point (if you believe in science then nothing has a soul and yes they were created like us but they serve no purpose in society which is the new order of the planet).
"it"s only up to our creators (God or Mother Nature) to decide their fate"
- Please get your facts right no matter what you believe in then the earth was left to humans. 'Mother Nature' would have simply left the earth to the most dominant species since it is only the order of life.
""Animals are not conscious"" Can you really prove that?"
- Yes when read in context it meant animals do not have the conscious ability that is humans have. Without these levels or even close to these levels of consciousness then it makes them not relatable to us and makes them useless in society.
"If someone desperately needs something, he/she [humans] will do whatever it takes to get that thing, with no regards for others"
- But if a human has an abundance would he/she give some to others well of course, animals would not unless the others could create a significant gain to them. Humans would do it anyways hence kindness. Let's take an example a Corgi. A Corgi is an animal that will eat their own food then carry on to eat the other dogs food without any regard for the other.
"Again, can you really prove that animals don"t feel pain the way we do at all?"
- Yes I can because animals do not have the intellectual or conscious levels we do then it is safe to assume that they can not feel things the same way as us. Intellectual and conscious levels change the way we feel things. In this way it is once again safe to assume that animals can not feel pain the way we do. I do not need to be put in an animals 'shoes' but I can use theory and science to determine that they have a different perspective of pain. This difference in pain perspective makes it so we can not actually relate to them.
"Not only because it is cruel, It is also becoming expensive and unnecessary and not worth the money"
- I agree animal testing should be viewed as how much it costs not by the 'morals' of it. If it costs too much then the company will simply not do it. Why can we say it is illegal to not conduct 'testing' even if it costs more than it produces. In that case we should also eliminate all forms of art since it provides no actually benefit.
"Stealing an animal is equivalent to kidnapping someone"
- No it is not under law kidnapping is defined as "The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force". Taking an animal would just be stealing under law I have already said that animals do not have any rights under society so yes it would just be stealing.
"What"s the difference between an ordinary property [and an animal"
Nothing under societal laws, under the obsolete biological laws there is some correlation but in the end the earth is left to the dominant species.
"animals DO have problem solving skills and are able to solve primitive problems"
- Solving primitive problems has no potential in society, remember we are arguing about animal rights, if they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way then they are useless and primitive problems is nothing.
"Place either one in a small room, with a long container holding the water and floating food. The crow/ raven shouldn"t be able to reach the food. What they do is they either use displacement method so water level will rise with the food or uses a bent wire in order to grab the food."
- Place a human in the room and watch it kill the crow and raven then take the food, humans win. I fail to understand why doing this gives them rights
"They [animals] are used as a food source, either a food producer or food itself, a pet for recreation and for understanding biology"
- So should our food have rights in that case give it to tree too. Textbooks help us understand biology rights for them too, people keep trees as pets too.
Now for my new argument - Can animals serve a purpose in today's society?
- I have already partially explained this argument through my past positions but I will summarize by arguments here. Before the industrial revolution animals served a heavy purpose in society. They were used in many different areas that humans could not fulfil, they even worked extremely well until the industrial age hit and they were replaced by better more efficient machinery. Today animals serve almost no physical use in society because of the steady decrease in price for machines.
- It is an obvious fact that no matter how many puzzles animals can solve they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way. Humans have evolved to the point where we are the only ones who can understand and use our machinery that we have created. We are the only ones fulfilling our true goal and no matter how much people like it we are in this all alone. Humans are the only ones who can relate to other humans, we are the only animal we can truly understand and for these reasons we should only look out for ourselves. Animals can not help us and we can not help them, if they would like to join us in advancing the world then they would, but the simply do not have the capacity, so on an evolutionary standpoint animals have been cut.
- Let's say for argument's sake that animals were conscious and had the capacity for pain, would that change anything? No it would not animals would still be needed for research and food. Also it would not change the fact that animal serve a use in research and food. We have no relations to animals and animals have no relation to us, they serve no use in society and so break the most vital rule in humanities existence. Due to these reason animals serve no intellectual purpose in society and laws are related on an intellectual level, so animals are unable of receiving any laws or rights.
Before I start, I will define animal rights here:
The avoidance of abuse and exploitation of some, if not all, animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain.
~Taken from ‘Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary’
Animal rights simply guarantees freedom from unnecessary exploitation and abuse. They don’t necessarily give animals a place in society and are different from civil and human rights.
“Human/Civil rights provide, in other words, the description of a good and civilized society. To the extent, then, to which we want to live in a society in which animals are not subject to "barbarous acts," we may well want to extend them at least a modest, if appropriately refashioned, set of rights.”
You wouldn’t define a good, working and civilized society the one that keeps exploiting animals.
*This debate is all about animal rights, not whether animals should have a place in society.
•I will be providing my counter arguments here:
Con said, “You are attempting to humanize animals (when read in context). Yes they are aware of each other's existence but they are only aware because the other provides them something. They have no social reasoning skills like a common human and thus are not relatable.”
He said, "Yes when read in context it meant animals do not have the conscious ability that is humans have. Without these levels or even close to these levels of consciousness then it makes them not relatable to us and makes them useless in society.”
This is not personification and not an attempt to humanize animals. I will say it again, some animals show signs of consciousness and some don’t. And we can only prove it by observing their behavior. IT is very difficult to prove something not existing than something existing when it comes to psychology of each animal. Look at advanced animals such as Crows, Octopus, Dolphins, Whales and Apes (ones that has a similar DNA match to humans). They proved to us that they are conscious (and some with self-awareness of their existence). We haven’t discover any sign of consciousness on animals like Pigs, Cows, Chicken, Cats or Insects but this DOES NOT mean they are voided from awareness and social reasoning we humans have. Advanced animals mentioned above are promising; the chances of them having a consciousness level close to humans are high.
How are animals not relatable just because of their conscious level not being similar to humans? Animals are relatable to humans in many other ways. They breathe, eat, drink, move, grow and feel just like us. Most importantly they are living like us.
“According to one of the leading scholars in the field, there is an emerging consensus among scientists that animals share functional parallels with humans' conscious metacognition -- that is, our ability to reflect on our own mental processes and guide and optimize them.”
Taken from: http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Con said, “- Please get your facts right no matter what you believe in then the earth was left to humans. 'Mother Nature' would have simply left the earth to the most dominant species since it is only the order of life.”
No. Earth was left for humans, ANIMALS plants and microbes to thrive. We may be superior to any other organisms, but this does not make others more or less important than us. In order for Nature to thrive, all type of organisms must exist and interact with each other. Everything depends on each other, and without one of them, nature becomes unstable. Talk about the balance of life. Each organisms are unique in many different ways and each contribute to the survival.
Con said, “-Humans would do it anyways hence kindness..”
Humans do not always show kindness. Humans were always greedy and have been exploiting each other for thousand of years now. This is one perfect example of how humans are related to animals. Greed is the reason for animal abuse. Take battery-caged hens as an example. Farmers resorted from free range (having a large perimeter fence and allowing chickens to grow in the open) to battery-caged. Of course farmers goal is profit, and having battery-caged hens increases production of eggs, as there are more hens per square unit than free ranged eggs. This is cruel to hens as they are confined to a small place, lacking freedom of movement; only purpose being served is to lay eggs.
Con said, “Nothing under societal laws, under the obsolete biological laws there is some correlation but in the end the earth is left to the dominant species.”
I agree that the society that we live in is getting more and more stupid. In everyone’s common sense (logic), a painting [ordinary property] is a non-living thing and an animal is a living thing. Burn a painting, the painting won’t hesitate or feel anything. Burn an animal alive, it will feel pain. Both may not talk and both may be purchasable but animals suffer, and that’s what differentiates animals from ordinary properties.
Con said, “Solving primitive problems has no potential in society, remember we are arguing about animal rights, if they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way then they are useless and primitive problems is nothing.”
Yes the argument is all about animal rights [read the definition above], NOT whether animals have a potential in society. Animal rights is about having the right to live it’s own life, free from unnecessary exploitation and abuse. It does not have to grant them a position in society. Pro saying that some animals can solve primitive problems was in response to Con saying that animals have no problem solving abilities back in round 1.
If animals can solve primitive problems, there will be a chance that they can solve complex problems. (look at apes and dolphins, runner ups in Intelligence).
Con said, “- Let's say for argument's sake that animals were conscious and had the capacity for pain, would that change anything? No it would not animals would still be needed for research and food. Also it would not change the fact that animal serve a use in research and food.”
Yes it would change things. If animals were conscious and can feel pain (that is they can), this means animals should be subjected to humane treatment and not to unnecessary exploitation. If animals were to be killed for food, then this must be done swiftly and it shouldn’t cause any unwanted suffering. So sure people will say, the animal will die anyways, so why bother humanely kill them? Animals feel pain and they suffer, this should change the way they are treated.
And also this is the 21st Century, technology advances to the point that animal testing is no longer necessary. It is cruel to do so; test subjects will feel the unnecessary pain. Animal testing also has its flaws: 90% percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human trials due to their dangerous effects on humans. Not to mention better alternatives. In Vitro testing [see round 1 factor 2], computer simulations and micro dosing; these methods combined proved to have more accurate findings than animal testing.
 ~ https://www.dosomething.org...
 ~ http://www.sciencedirect.com...
•So why should animals have rights?
That is because animals are being exploited worldwide for unnecessary reasons, causing unnecessary and harsh suffering. Major examples include animal testing and harsh conditions in industrial-style animal farming.
Also because in a sense, animals are like humans. (This is based on logic and biological facts and it is not humanizing animals). All animals reproduce, breathe, eat, drink, excrete, move, feel and grow just like humans do. All animals feel pain and some have responses like humans – adrenaline in most chordates and humans trigger fight or flight responses (combat the threat or run away from it). Some animals show signs of awareness and some don’t. A few can solve primitive basic problems and a couple share similar genes to humans (Orangutans and Chimps). All of them cannot talk, use machinery or do stuffs humans only can and they may have no purpose or potential in society or the same IQ and EQ capacity as humans but all these creatures need the love and respect humans receive.
"Animal rights simply guarantees freedom from unnecessary exploitation and abuse."
- This is true that animals rights is asking for this. My first point against this is that the term animals rights have been blurred and the entire term has been misused. Take battery caged hens as an example. Farmers use them in close quarters to make them much more profitable then free range hens. Yes they are forced into small cages, but in the end there is more money in his pocket, this is not greed since true greed would harm another human (yes I am including poaching since poaching hurts the ecosystem and thus the environment). This does not hurt another human and instead helps many humans, with battery caged hens it puts more money in the farmers pocket and allows him to spend more aiding more people. It is just conserving money, and it hurts no one. You are forgetting this is not just the farmer's money we are conserving it is everybody's money, and by everybody I do not mean the chickens'.
"You wouldn't define a good, working and civilized society the one that keeps exploiting animals."
- I wouldn't define a good working society as one that keeps spending money unnecessarily on animals when there are humans in need of assistance. Animals are not a priority here people what is is insuring that human race's advancement and survival. Humans can live on without animals having rights or being treated with respect, this is just slowing us down as a race. Every dollar spent on animal rights (thanks PETA) is a dollar wasted. It is equivalent to placing a ten dollar bill on the ground and lighting it on fire. Do lesser developed countries have advanced animal rights as us, no they typically have none. Why because they see the priority in life humans not animals, we have become distracted. Lesser developed countries are not always right with policies but in this case they are. I will ask this question because it seems to be relevant here: what does animal rights do for the economy? Until this question is answered I fear that animals will never be accepted or granted rights. All human beings are in some way forced to contribute to society (the economy) and push it forward.
"Everything depends on each other, and without one of them, nature becomes unstable"
- Tell me how the common household dog contribute to the ecosystem in a relevant way, I have already agreed that ecosystems are vital and deserve rights; however your statement of 'everything' is extremely broad and not correct. So if you were saying that only animals that help nature need rights then I agree but common animals do not support the ecosystem.
"Humans do not always show kindness. Humans were always greedy and have been exploiting each other for thousand of years now. This is one perfect example of how humans are related to animals."
- Yes humans do not always show kindness but we do show kindness sometimes. This is better than animals who never show kindness (definition - "Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others"). An animal will never go out of it's way to help another one if it know there is nothing it can do for it or it's race.
"Greed is the reason for animal abuse."
- Greed - An intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Selfish - a person lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. In this case others is defined as other humans not animals. If no human is getting hurt then by definition greed has nothing to do with animals. As long as the individual is not hurting an ecosystem then it is perfectly ok for them to kill, maim or exploit animals, it still will not be defined under greed.
"Burn a painting, the painting won"t hesitate or feel anything. Burn an animal alive, it will feel pain. Both may not talk and both may be purchasable but animals suffer, and that"s what differentiates animals from ordinary properties."
- False animals do not feel pain like we do, so it is correct to assume that they do not suffer since suffering would be a human definition and would only apply to humans. Pain is not universal it only applies to humans. Animals feel a primitive version of pain (if that) and so can not truly suffer like a human.
"If animals can solve primitive problems, there will be a chance that they can solve complex problems."
- False once again they can not solve any problem that society would not be able to answer by itself. We are smarter than animals and so we have no intellectual need for them.
"If animals were conscious and can feel pain (that is they can), this means animals should be subjected to humane treatment and not to unnecessary exploitation."
- You fail to explain your points using logic or economic reasons. Just because they can think doesn't give them a place in our laws or our governing, to have rights you need to prove you can do something in society (even minor rights). Killing them inhumanely is sometimes more economical and so should be done. By killing them this way we allow less money to be spent on entities and more to be spent on humans.
"And also this is the 21st Century, technology advances to the point that animal testing is no longer necessary."
- Animals are still heavily need in neurobiology (and a lot of other fields but this is an example). Since we can not yet program a brain or a rat's brain we need to test them using other methods that involve a live specimen (or dead). In this way they are still needed in experimentation. Also what about genetics, animals are usually used in tests that allow us to gain knowledge. I think you are under the impression that animals are just tortured in labs, no animals are used there to help humans. May I remind you that almost every medical breakthrough has involved animal testing.
"Animal testing also has its flaws: 90% percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human trials due to their dangerous effects on humans"
- But it works 10% or the time so it is good still. All we are doing here is exchanging animal lives for humans it is another necessary step used to protect human life.
"Computer simulations and micro dosing; these methods combined proved to have more accurate findings than animal testing"
- I agree that animal testing on vaccines may be a little more primitive but it is a necessary precaution we must take. Who are we to say no to animal testing if it aids human, remember we are talking about animal rights not ethics. If it aids human in any way then it will be used.
"That is because animals are being exploited worldwide for unnecessary reasons, causing unnecessary and harsh suffering. Major examples include animal testing and harsh conditions in industrial-style animal farming. "
- I see animal testing and industrial-style farming as a necessary reason for animal use. One of them provides us with scientific knowledge which is the most valued object in today's society. The other provides us with a stronger economy which is the second most valued thing on this planet. You are saying no to advancement and yes to wasteful spending.
"Also because in a sense, animals are like humans. "
- Yes they are but laws are part of society and if animals can not think like we do then they deserve none, simple reasoning. May I remind you that laws that we have put place are non existent without society which humans built they are not part of nature.
"a couple share similar genes to humans"
- Perfect example why we need animals in testing
"All of them cannot talk, use machinery or do stuffs humans only can and they may have no purpose or potential in society or the same IQ and EQ capacity as humans but all these creatures need the love and respect humans receive."
- Laws are hypothetical the universe does not follow the laws we create. We can not tell a tornado it is illegal to go over there. Laws were put in place for humans, if a being can not understand these hypothetical laws then they reject them.
Laws were put in place as a reward. If one follows the law then one gets rights in return. If animals can not follow simple rules we put in place then they can not be rewarded with rights. Unless an object is necessary to human survival (ex an ecosystem) then it has not place in society and thus no place in law. Even if you believe animals are conscious and can feel pain similar to us (both of which would be false under context) then it does not matter in the eyes of the law. They are mere object if they reject society and objects do not need ethics, or rights.
BillyTheForumGuy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.