Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions about animal rights

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Is a virus or a germ an animal?
***

Any answers?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Is a virus or a germ an animal?
***

Any answers?

Depends on what you mean by rights.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:38:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morals come from society. As a result, the morals that society imposes on the usage of meat, furs, bugs, etc.... is the morality of doing such. There is no objective morality about animal rights, which can be explicitly demonstrated through different culture's usage and consumption of bugs and animals.

Furthermore, if you truly believe in free markets, then the collection of profit comes before such rights.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:45:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:38:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morals come from society. As a result, the morals that society imposes on the usage of meat, furs, bugs, etc.... is the morality of doing such. There is no objective morality about animal rights, which can be explicitly demonstrated through different culture's usage and consumption of bugs and animals.

Furthermore, if you truly believe in free markets, then the collection of profit comes before such rights.

No, I was asking the hippies that think looking at your dog funny should be banned. So the point asked was would these be banned if we applied these laws. I agree with you on this post, though.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Is a virus or a germ an animal?
***

Any answers?

I don't care if people can live on a pure vegan diet, steak is tasty and that means something
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:47:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:45:29 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:38:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morals come from society. As a result, the morals that society imposes on the usage of meat, furs, bugs, etc.... is the morality of doing such. There is no objective morality about animal rights, which can be explicitly demonstrated through different culture's usage and consumption of bugs and animals.

Furthermore, if you truly believe in free markets, then the collection of profit comes before such rights.

No, I was asking the hippies that think looking at your dog funny should be banned. So the point asked was would these be banned if we applied these laws. I agree with you on this post, though.

Animal rights do not necessarily constitute the right to live or the right to liberty. An animal right could be the right to get slaughtered, or the right to be killed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:56:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

I would prefer it to be except for survival purposes.

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

I would not prefer it to be.

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

I would not prefer it to be.

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

I would prefer it to be.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

I would prefer it to be.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

I would not prefer it to be.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

I would prefer it to be obsolete for completely different reasons. In relation to animal rights, I would not.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?

I virus is a virus. It does not experiencing suffering so it would not fall under the protections that I would prefer most other lifeforms should.
***

Any answers?

Nope.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:02:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:56:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

I would prefer it to be except for survival purposes.

Why? there is overpopulation of deer, and hunters have saved many animal populations in the past. One example is the duck. Though I do think restrictions (tag limits) are needed.


Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

I would not prefer it to be.

Why should the government regulate my burgers?


Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

I would not prefer it to be.

Your trolling...


Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

I would prefer it to be.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

I would prefer it to be.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

I would not prefer it to be.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

I would prefer it to be obsolete for completely different reasons. In relation to animal rights, I would not.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?

I virus is a virus. It does not experiencing suffering so it would not fall under the protections that I would prefer most other lifeforms should.
***

Any answers?

Nope.

troll
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:03:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

No, so long as the hunting is done humanely (I.e. You don't actively try to prolong suffering, you intend to aim for a quick, clean kill)

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

No, so long as the slaughter of them is done as humanely as done.

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

No.

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

No, although personal moral qualms can still come into play.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

No, but personal qualms again.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

In a non-humane way? Maybe. Or possibly just a heavy fine.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Of course not.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?

No, most of them could be classified as pathogens.
***

Any answers?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
INB4 Vbaculm has a rage fit.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:03:18 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

No, so long as the hunting is done humanely (I.e. You don't actively try to prolong suffering, you intend to aim for a quick, clean kill)

If we give them equal rights then even a clean kill is murder, right? A clean kill of a human is illegal too so...


Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

No, so long as the slaughter of them is done as humanely as done.

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

No.

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

No, although personal moral qualms can still come into play.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

No, but personal qualms again.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

In a non-humane way? Maybe. Or possibly just a heavy fine.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Of course not.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?

No, most of them could be classified as pathogens.
***

Any answers?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:22:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just a question for all those in favor of animal rights, but answer 'no' to the illegal to kill bugs...

What makes an arthropod any different of an animal from the others you wish to give rights?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:28:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

That very much depends on what the "rights" would be. In some cases, the US believes that certain species have more of a right not to be killed than others. That's why it's illegal to kill a bald eagle but not a deer. By making eagle killing illegal, society recognizes that eagles ought to have their "right" to life protected.

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

Would eating all animals be illegal? Probably not, but eating some animals is already illegal, like bald eagles, for example.

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

Depends on wether the law which codified the right recognized bugs as worthy of "rights." I sincerely doubt it though.

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

That, again, would very much depend on what "rights" would be.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

See above.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

This is possible, if such a law were passed that made the killing of... a bald eagle for instance, illegal. But it's not really likely. Even if we accept that animals do have rights, we don't imply that those rights are the same as or greater than the rights of human.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Wouldn't that be funny though... rofl.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?
***

This is probably the least likely. Who would want to preserve the life of a germ? Antibiotics would become weapons of mass murder.

Any answers?

There are wide concerns about animal rights. Loons like Peter Singer tend to favor the idea of animal rights codified into law, others disagree, I personally maintain that animals have no rights, because rights as entities do not objectively exist. They are invented social constructs which people convince themselves that they have to prevent treatment or conditions which are undesirable. To clarify: animal rights are a farce, but so are human rights, so it is what it is.

However, I want to talk about this concern of the implications of animals "having" rights. A lot of the reason that people tend to reject the idea that animals even could have rights is because they do not believe that animals are on the same level as humans. They believe that giving animals "rights" means giving them explicitly human rights, because they can fathom no other type or kind of rights. This is not the case.

To say that, for example creature a (a) has a right to x is only to say that all other beings in that spectrum of discourse (let's say b, c and d) cannot deprive (a) of this thing x to which he is entitled. It is therefore to imply that (b), (c) and (d) have the duty to respect (a)'s right to x. To explain further, (b) may not have a right to x, even though (b) has a duty to respect (a)'s right to x. The same applies for (c) and (d). Conversely, (b) may have a right to y and not x. (a) may have no such right to y, but would still be obliged -if (b) has a right to y- to respect (b)'s right to y.

To explain that in perhaps a less abstract way, let's talk about the most basic right, the right to life. Let's say that I have a right to continue living, and so does the bald eagle. I have this right to life, as does the bald eagle, because somewhere in US code it is stated that it is illegal to kill either a person (which I am, I promise) or to kill a bald eagle. Now, there are certain exceptions to that law. It is legal to use deadly force to defend your life against the person leveraging the threat. Now, the robber is a person, like me, which theoretically means that he should have the same rights as me, right? WRONG! The implication there being that US Law recognizes that I have right to preserve my life if it is being threatened. (Yes, there are exceptions, but for the sake of this illustration, forget them.) The further implication there being that my right to life, in some situations, overwhelms some other person's right to live, depending on the circumstance. Circumstantial exclusions also apply to the bald eagle's life. Native Americans can kill bald eagles for religious activities. I can't, because I'm not a native american, but I also can't impugn the native american's right to religious freedom. This has very interesting consequences for the bald eagle.

Both I and the bald eagle have a right to live, but those rights vary according to circumstance. That means that no rights are necessarily absolute. What's interesting is that "rights" can only exist in the context of a legal system. They do and can not exist outside of a legal system, because they cannot be enforced outside of a legal system. It is for that reason that I tend to find it amusing whenever I hear someone tell me that "natural law" endows men with "certain inalienable rights." I grant that God outlines codes of conduct by which we are to operate, but natural law?

Now, society (ergo, the various legislatures throughout our fruited plains) does outline "rights" and "duties" for us all. Those rights and duties apply only to the people they apply to, ergo, the people of and within the united states. Those specific rights and duties apply nowhere outside the scope of authority of that body, because they cannot. Recognize that there is a difference in the kind of rights here. The first type comes from law. The second kind -the kind I like to make fun of- come from some nebulous source that no one can agree on, like natural law. Rights of the first order (those from law) are legitimate. Rights of the second order are not, because the metaphysical is tangential to society's functioning, as decided by the 1'st amendment's commanded separation between church and state.

Rights are curious things though, and if I were to argue the topic of animal rights again I would probably in the introduction have a little mini-lesson on rights theory (to prevent idiotic RFDs, but then again, that might be impossible on DDO to begin with), but it is what it is.
Tsar of DDO
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:30:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:22:24 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Just a question for all those in favor of animal rights, but answer 'no' to the illegal to kill bugs...

What makes an arthropod any different of an animal from the others you wish to give rights?

Sentience. A chimpanzee is similar to humans in so many morally relevant ways that it is absurd to grant humans rights against arbitrary killing and torture but not intelligent animals.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:38:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Morals come from society. As a result, the morals that society imposes on the usage of meat, furs, bugs, etc.... is the morality of doing such. There is no objective morality about animal rights, which can be explicitly demonstrated through different culture's usage and consumption of bugs and animals.

Interesting. I disagree but your point about majoritarian tyranny is interesting to say the least.

Furthermore, if you truly believe in free markets, then the collection of profit comes before such rights.

Free markets =/= amoralistic egoism brah.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:30:02 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:22:24 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Just a question for all those in favor of animal rights, but answer 'no' to the illegal to kill bugs...

What makes an arthropod any different of an animal from the others you wish to give rights?

Sentience. A chimpanzee is similar to humans in so many morally relevant ways that it is absurd to grant humans rights against arbitrary killing and torture but not intelligent animals.

Beat me to it. Animal rightists usually assign rights based on a species' fit into the definition of a person which is controversial to say the least. Persons are defined (with variations) as having consciousness, feeling pain, self-awareness, etc. Human-type animals such as chimps and dolphins possess most of these characteristics while ants do not.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:13:21 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:03:18 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

No, so long as the hunting is done humanely (I.e. You don't actively try to prolong suffering, you intend to aim for a quick, clean kill)

If we give them equal rights then even a clean kill is murder, right? A clean kill of a human is illegal too so...

Yes, but there's certain limitations to the rights. I would go in detail, but it's too lengthy to go into over my iPod. To summarize, the animals wouldn't necessarily a right to life, i.e. A right not to be killed ever, but a right not to be killed arbitrarily, I.e. Killing the animals just for the heck of it with no purpose in mind. This still allows us to eat meat and things along those lines.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:36:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:30:02 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:22:24 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Just a question for all those in favor of animal rights, but answer 'no' to the illegal to kill bugs...

What makes an arthropod any different of an animal from the others you wish to give rights?

Sentience. A chimpanzee is similar to humans in so many morally relevant ways that it is absurd to grant humans rights against arbitrary killing and torture but not intelligent animals.

Beat me to it. Animal rightists usually assign rights based on a species' fit into the definition of a person which is controversial to say the least. Persons are defined (with variations) as having consciousness, feeling pain, self-awareness, etc. Human-type animals such as chimps and dolphins possess most of these characteristics while ants do not.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:30:02 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:22:24 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Just a question for all those in favor of animal rights, but answer 'no' to the illegal to kill bugs...

What makes an arthropod any different of an animal from the others you wish to give rights?

Sentience. A chimpanzee is similar to humans in so many morally relevant ways that it is absurd to grant humans rights against arbitrary killing and torture but not intelligent animals.

So the distinction you make is sentience?

This is such a loose term, and an immeasurable quality. There's no real way of determining to what magnitude an animal can feel...

Consider this (http://www.utilitarian-essays.com...) for instance. On pain: "...substance P, a neurotransmitter causing pain in humans, has been found in fruit flies. This post (link now broken) states that some insects share some mammalian-type neurotransmitters, like serotonin, dopamine, and acetylcholine. And earthworms have endorphins."

And lower, on consciousness: "We have literally no idea at what level of brain complexity consciousness stops. Most people say, 'For heaven's sake, a bug isn't conscious.' But how do we know? We're not sure anymore. I don't kill bugs needlessly anymore. [...] Probably what consciousness requires is a sufficiently complicated system with massive feedback. Insects have that. If you look at the mushroom bodies, they're massively parallel and have feedback."

Bottom line, sentience is an indefinite term, and should not be employed in a situation where very strict terms are required, like the law...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:03:18 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:32:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I have no opinion either way on the issue, but these questions make me a little skeptical:

Would hunting be illegal?

No, so long as the hunting is done humanely (I.e. You don't actively try to prolong suffering, you intend to aim for a quick, clean kill)

Would eating animals (meat, insects etc.) be illegal?

No, so long as the slaughter of them is done as humanely as done.

Would it be illegal to kill bugs?

No.

Would it be illegal to sell animal products?

No, although personal moral qualms can still come into play.

Would it be illegal to wear fur coats made before the law?

No, but personal qualms again.

Would you be jailed for murder like killing a human if you killed an animal?

In a non-humane way? Maybe. Or possibly just a heavy fine.

Would driving be illegal? (cars run over ants everyday, so if insects are animals too then driving a car = manslaughter aka accidental killings)

Of course not.

Is a virus or a germ an animal?

No, most of them could be classified as pathogens.
***

Any answers?

Isn't humane slaughter an oxymoron?
Sapere Aude!
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:41:40 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Isn't humane slaughter an oxymoron?

No, you can mass-kill something humanely.

Humane generally refers to whether or not the thing in question was in pain, was being tortured, ect.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:44:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:41:40 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:03:18 PM, Zaradi
Isn't humane slaughter an oxymoron?

Seemingly, yes, but it actually isn't so. Just like we can humanely execute someone, we can humanely kill an animal, I.e. Humanely slaugher animals.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.
yang.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

PETA is a nutshell.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:56:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.

Explain?
yang.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:04:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:56:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.

Explain?

Preference utilitarianism posits that moral actions are those that result in the most preference satisfaction. Thus a healthy human would win out against a chimpanzee, however a brain dead human wouldn't. This has to do with their respective levels of preferences. Species membership wouldn't necessarily decide which one you would choose in a scenario of one or the other. I'd also ask why you think humans necessarily have rights while animals necessarily don't. Explain.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:04:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:56:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.

Explain?

Preference utilitarianism posits that moral actions are those that result in the most preference satisfaction. Thus a healthy human would win out against a chimpanzee, however a brain dead human wouldn't. This has to do with their respective levels of preferences.

You would calculate that based on what though?

Species membership wouldn't necessarily decide which one you would choose in a scenario of one or the other. I'd also ask why you think humans necessarily have rights while animals necessarily don't. Explain.

I don't believe animals don't have rights. I just don't think they are the same as human rights, nor do I believe "animal rights" should be under the blanket statement of "animals". I value the life of a human over a dog, but I value the life of a dog over a spider. I don't kill spiders, but I wouldn't feel as much remorse if I did as I would if I killed a dog. As humans we share a common existence and are capable of empathy. Some animals are also capable of empathy and so I would feel morally wrong to kill them.
yang.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:20:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:17:08 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:04:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:56:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.

Explain?

Preference utilitarianism posits that moral actions are those that result in the most preference satisfaction. Thus a healthy human would win out against a chimpanzee, however a brain dead human wouldn't. This has to do with their respective levels of preferences.

You would calculate that based on what though?

Preferences. Humans have positive preferences based on family, friends, society, etc. Some animals possess preferences like these and others only hold negative preferences (preferences to continue living, not be caged, etc.).
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:22:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:17:08 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:04:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:56:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:53:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/24/2012 6:45:06 PM, tulle wrote:
I think the idea of giving an animal "equal" rights is ludicrous. If you have to hesitate given the choice to save either a baby or a cat of similar size, you do not deserve to live.

Animal rights =/= your scenario brah. See Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism. Also nice one not warranting your claim of automatic superiority of human rights over those of animals.

Explain?

Preference utilitarianism posits that moral actions are those that result in the most preference satisfaction. Thus a healthy human would win out against a chimpanzee, however a brain dead human wouldn't. This has to do with their respective levels of preferences.

You would calculate that based on what though?

Preferences. Humans have positive preferences based on family, friends, society, etc. Some animals possess preferences like these and others only hold negative preferences (preferences to continue living, not be caged, etc.).

So how would you calculate the value of someone who has no friends and family or use to society (eg. a homeless person) over say, a lab primate who has family and scientists who prefer it to live?
yang.