Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal Rights

cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:49:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are you for/against animal rights? Why?
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 6:09:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Absolutely, for reasons innumerable. I'll give you four.

Logically, inasmuch as I believe in human rights, I believe in rights for all other animals as well.

Artistically, I acknowledge the beauty and wonder of life on this planet.

Biologically/scientifically, I realize that this planet's ecosystem is based on a balance that it is prudent not to compromise.

Morally, it's because we would plead for the same in the event that we fell lower on the food chain.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:09:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:49:01 AM, cameronl35 wrote:
Are you for/against animal rights? Why?

Since life exists on a spectrum, with no clear or solid dileneation between species, how we treat other animals is, in part, indictative of how we treat each other. Consider: one common factor among psychopaths is cold animal torture/cruelty.

Yet, laws must be discrete, based upon arbitrarily defined boundaries. When you attempt to apply discrete boundaries on continuums, you run in the sorites paradox.

So, yes, I believe in animal rights to the degree that the violation of those rights is similar too, or a strong indicator of, a violation of human rights. For example, I believe in Great Ape Personhood. But I don't not believe in, say, Earthworm Personhood.

And that's about it. I really don't care about the quality of life of the chicken I ate this morning. Nor do I think our ecosystem is as fragile as people make it out to be. Over 95% of the species that have ever lived are extinct, and went extinct long before humans descended from the tree tops.

Basically: we should give animal rights as a means to the ends of benefiting humanity.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:10:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There should be stricter laws against animal abuse and such, but no PETA vego-fascist crap, lol. I do like that many countries have outlawed the declawing of cats, which is something I do consider to fit under the animal abuse category.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:40:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:49:01 AM, cameronl35 wrote:
Are you for/against animal rights? Why?

At the minimum, we must grant that animals have a right to be free from torture - whether the torture is done in a sadist's basement or in a factory farm or slaughterhouse.

It can be argued that animals already have legal protection from the sadist. It can't be argued that they have any legal protection from the torture that is endimic to the farm and the slaughter house.

If we say we are concerned about the torture of animals, we can't logically discriminate between animals based on whether or not they make good pets. This isn't "vego-fascism", it's consistency.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 4:06:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a society where people allowed torture because it benefitted them, it was moral to do so. In a society in constant war, peace seemed immoral. It simply depends on the context and what people think on the issue.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 8:30:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 5:40:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:49:01 AM, cameronl35 wrote:
Are you for/against animal rights? Why?

At the minimum, we must grant that animals have a right to be free from torture - whether the torture is done in a sadist's basement or in a factory farm or slaughterhouse.

It can be argued that animals already have legal protection from the sadist. It can't be argued that they have any legal protection from the torture that is endimic to the farm and the slaughter house.

If we say we are concerned about the torture of animals, we can't logically discriminate between animals based on whether or not they make good pets. This isn't "vego-fascism", it's consistency.

This.

And I agree with INH about the declawing of cats. Declawing, cutting tails, shaping ears, etc is all cruel and should be banned.
We really do need stricter laws on how animals are treated.

I don't believe in PETA and their stuff...the only thing I like about them is they do bring some serious issues to mind (Killing for fur, the poor treatment of animals for food, the cruelty of animal testing, etc) but I dislike how their extreme vegan nazis and would stab you in the eye for having some milk with your oreos, or making a cake (with eggs!) or other such things.
I think I might want to start my own poultry area, maybe expand to pigs and cows later. Local food for those around me, and I have the ability to know that my food wasn't tortured. But then again I'd be eating a "pet" that I prob would grow to care for...oh well, that's the way life goes, people eat their friends all the time.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 10:16:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.

I have the right to not be raped. So does my dog.
How people are allowed to treat each other are rights.
How people are allowed to treat animals are rights too.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 10:33:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 AM, Ren wrote:
Absolutely, for reasons innumerable. I'll give you four.

Logically, inasmuch as I believe in human rights, I believe in rights for all other animals as well.

Yes, arm the bears, shall we?
Artistically, I acknowledge the beauty and wonder of life on this planet.

I love animals just as much as the next neo-socialists, but trying to save a non-essential animal from going extinct for the means of animals rights is beyond irrational. I'm not going to go out of my way to save some animal for it's "beauty" just for my kids to see oneday when there are starving humans around the world that could be feasting on said animal!

Now, if said animal had a certain place in the ecosystem, then sure, defend it.

Ex: Polar bears are going extinct. This is bad due to the virtue of the fact that they control the seal population. If the seal population goes out of proportion, the seals would cause a drop in the population of the fish in the North Atlantic. This is BAD because we, as humans, depend on these fish as a form of nutrition and a means of bolstering our economy
Biologically/scientifically, I realize that this planet's ecosystem is based on a balance that it is prudent not to compromise.
I addressed this above.

Morally, it's because we would plead for the same in the event that we fell lower on the food chain.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't plea due to the simple acknowledgement that non-humans do not have cognative reasoning nor the ability to engage in critical thinking. They have strict habitual instincts.
turn down for h'what
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 10:33:24 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 AM, Ren wrote:
Absolutely, for reasons innumerable. I'll give you four.

Logically, inasmuch as I believe in human rights, I believe in rights for all other animals as well.

Yes, arm the bears, shall we?
Artistically, I acknowledge the beauty and wonder of life on this planet.

I love animals just as much as the next neo-socialists, but trying to save a non-essential animal from going extinct for the means of animals rights is beyond irrational. I'm not going to go out of my way to save some animal for it's "beauty" just for my kids to see oneday when there are starving humans around the world that could be feasting on said animal!

Now, if said animal had a certain place in the ecosystem, then sure, defend it.

Ex: Polar bears are going extinct. This is bad due to the virtue of the fact that they control the seal population. If the seal population goes out of proportion, the seals would cause a drop in the population of the fish in the North Atlantic. This is BAD because we, as humans, depend on these fish as a form of nutrition and a means of bolstering our economy
Biologically/scientifically, I realize that this planet's ecosystem is based on a balance that it is prudent not to compromise.
I addressed this above.

Morally, it's because we would plead for the same in the event that we fell lower on the food chain.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't plea due to the simple acknowledgement that non-humans do not have cognative reasoning nor the ability to engage in critical thinking. They have strict habitual instincts.

We don't know if that's true about aliens that may come and take over earth one day.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 10:52:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm undecided currently on the issues of animal rights. I do however find the argument from marginal cases somewhat convincing. Basically, any criteria of rights that is not completely human-based(meaning any theory that does not assign rights to humans just because) must deal with the fact that marginal cases exist where some humans do not possess the supposed criteria. Take for example the capacity to reason. It seems to be a popular criteria. There are obviously cases in which humans are not able to reason whether temporarily as in the case of infants or more importantly can never have that capacity such as in the case of those who are severely mentally handicapped. By the reason-based criteria of rights, there would be no logical reason for them to be afforded rights.

The main response to this which I have come across is the argument from species normality. Basically, the rights-criterion(let's again use the example of the capacity to reason) are found in most humans, therefore since the mentally handicapped are of the same "type" that would be afforded rights(in the most general way), they ought to be afforded the same or at least similar rights. In an article I read on the argument an example of a chair missing a leg is used. It's still a chair isn't it?

But this argument isn't convincing to me. For one, the argument ignores the flip side of rights, which is responsibility. If you have rights, you must also have the responsibility not to infringe on another's. This is the core principle of negative rights after all. Since no one would hold an infant morally responsible for murder, it seems that the argument from species normality rests on a crucial inconsistency. Second, the chair analogy is non-analogous. A chair missing a leg might still be a chair, but in this case, the leg it is missing is specifically what is supposed to make it a chair(the leg is supposed to be analogous to the rights-criterion). So if the analogy is to be truly consistent the chair must be defined as something different altogether.

I still have reading to do on the issue of course such as how animal rights would fit into or change my political philosophy or whether animals should be afforded the same rights as humans or just something basic like the right not to be killed. This is just my two cents on the matter.
: 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.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2011 1:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 10:37:07 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/22/2011 10:33:24 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 AM, Ren wrote:
Absolutely, for reasons innumerable. I'll give you four.

Logically, inasmuch as I believe in human rights, I believe in rights for all other animals as well.

Yes, arm the bears, shall we?
Artistically, I acknowledge the beauty and wonder of life on this planet.

I love animals just as much as the next neo-socialists, but trying to save a non-essential animal from going extinct for the means of animals rights is beyond irrational. I'm not going to go out of my way to save some animal for it's "beauty" just for my kids to see oneday when there are starving humans around the world that could be feasting on said animal!

Now, if said animal had a certain place in the ecosystem, then sure, defend it.

Ex: Polar bears are going extinct. This is bad due to the virtue of the fact that they control the seal population. If the seal population goes out of proportion, the seals would cause a drop in the population of the fish in the North Atlantic. This is BAD because we, as humans, depend on these fish as a form of nutrition and a means of bolstering our economy
Biologically/scientifically, I realize that this planet's ecosystem is based on a balance that it is prudent not to compromise.
I addressed this above.

Morally, it's because we would plead for the same in the event that we fell lower on the food chain.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't plea due to the simple acknowledgement that non-humans do not have cognative reasoning nor the ability to engage in critical thinking. They have strict habitual instincts.

We don't know if that's true about aliens that may come and take over earth one day.

Well, ostensible argument is ostensible. Le'ts stick to realism, shall we?
turn down for h'what
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:41:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 10:52:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm undecided currently on the issues of animal rights. I do however find the argument from marginal cases somewhat convincing. Basically, any criteria of rights that is not completely human-based(meaning any theory that does not assign rights to humans just because) must deal with the fact that marginal cases exist where some humans do not possess the supposed criteria. Take for example the capacity to reason. It seems to be a popular criteria. There are obviously cases in which humans are not able to reason whether temporarily as in the case of infants or more importantly can never have that capacity such as in the case of those who are severely mentally handicapped. By the reason-based criteria of rights, there would be no logical reason for them to be afforded rights.

The main response to this which I have come across is the argument from species normality. Basically, the rights-criterion(let's again use the example of the capacity to reason) are found in most humans, therefore since the mentally handicapped are of the same "type" that would be afforded rights(in the most general way), they ought to be afforded the same or at least similar rights. In an article I read on the argument an example of a chair missing a leg is used. It's still a chair isn't it?

But this argument isn't convincing to me. For one, the argument ignores the flip side of rights, which is responsibility. If you have rights, you must also have the responsibility not to infringe on another's. This is the core principle of negative rights after all. Since no one would hold an infant morally responsible for murder, it seems that the argument from species normality rests on a crucial inconsistency. Second, the chair analogy is non-analogous. A chair missing a leg might still be a chair, but in this case, the leg it is missing is specifically what is supposed to make it a chair(the leg is supposed to be analogous to the rights-criterion). So if the analogy is to be truly consistent the chair must be defined as something different altogether.

I still have reading to do on the issue of course such as how animal rights would fit into or change my political philosophy or whether animals should be afforded the same rights as humans or just something basic like the right not to be killed. This is just my two cents on the matter.

Well after debating this topic for a few months in tournaments I come to the conclusion that rights in of itself are not necessary. All rights, negative or positive do come with inherent responsibilities as you stated. As far as the mental argument goes we do not grant rights or make laws based on special cases. I don't understand how the argument is valid at all. By principle we are rational beings thus we get rights. You'll see me debate this topic sometime soon. But basically due to their irresponsible, amoral, and irrational nature granting rights is not by any means just. All humans should be obliged to give to animals is welfare. The only way we should grant animal rights is if the term 'rights' is redefined however there is no necessity.
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:37:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.

So what? Babies and the severely mentally disabled don't have the capability to understand rights. That doesn't mean they don't have rights. That's not a good enough reason to assume that animals don't have rights.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:41:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Short answer: I think most people believe that animals have rights. I most certainly do.

What rights they have, on the other hand, is a different story.

I believe they have a right to be free from cruel, unusual, and unnecessary physical pain and stress. Their pain and stress is just as real and true as ours. We should respect that.

And man, don't even get me started on PETA. The fact that they are nationally recognized as an organization that advocates for animal rights should be embarrassing to all vegetarians, vegans, and people who advocate for animal rights in general. They truly are an embarrassment.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:41:55 PM, Oryus wrote:
Short answer: I think most people believe that animals have rights. I most certainly do.

What rights they have, on the other hand, is a different story.

I believe they have a right to be free from cruel, unusual, and unnecessary physical pain and stress. Their pain and stress is just as real and true as ours. We should respect that.

And man, don't even get me started on PETA. The fact that they are nationally recognized as an organization that advocates for animal rights should be embarrassing to all vegetarians, vegans, and people who advocate for animal rights in general. They truly are an embarrassment.

The problem is it is a necessity at times to use animals cruelly and unusually. Many tests have used animals in cruel ways to preserve human life.
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
define animal rights, domestic animals deserve rights, wild animals do not, and in what extreme are the rights?
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
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 11:50:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:17:26 PM, cameronl35 wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:41:55 PM, Oryus wrote:
Short answer: I think most people believe that animals have rights. I most certainly do.

What rights they have, on the other hand, is a different story.

I believe they have a right to be free from cruel, unusual, and unnecessary physical pain and stress. Their pain and stress is just as real and true as ours. We should respect that.

And man, don't even get me started on PETA. The fact that they are nationally recognized as an organization that advocates for animal rights should be embarrassing to all vegetarians, vegans, and people who advocate for animal rights in general. They truly are an embarrassment.

The problem is it is a necessity at times to use animals cruelly and unusually. Many tests have used animals in cruel ways to preserve human life.

That is true. We do use animals cruelly for our own gain. However, I don't think that negates the fact that they have rights. I think it just shows that when it comes to certain things, we are consequentialists. In that- we believe that it is o.k. to violate the rights of a small amount of beings for the greater good. We treat humans in the same way. For example, recently a whistleblower came forward to say that the U.S. government was selling weapons to mexican drug cartels in order to track down the weapons and, thus, the folks who run the drugs. When one of the guns was used to kill a fellow DEA agent, a whistleblower (John Dodson- actually, somebody I know personally) was told by his superior that if you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. Does that mean that that DEA agent does not have rights? No. It just means that we are fine with violating the rights of a small amount of sentient beings in an (sometimes misguided) attempt to serve the greater good.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 11:57:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh, a more obvious and pressing example of when we use people as a means to an end and believe it it is justified for the greater good- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously, we believe that the Japanese civilians have a right to life. Sometimes, we just prioritize a large populations rights over a smaller populations rights. Very utilitarian.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/6/2011 11:57:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
Oh, a more obvious and pressing example of when we use people as a means to an end and believe it it is justified for the greater good- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously, we believe that the Japanese civilians have a right to life. Sometimes, we just prioritize a large populations rights over a smaller populations rights. Very utilitarian.

That mentality presupposes that some people(the U.S.) has the right to void the rights of others(the people killed by the dropping of the Atomic bombs) when it is considered utilitarian.
: 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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:05:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They don't have rights because they don't pay taxes. The same applies to children and hobo's.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:25:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:49:01 AM, cameronl35 wrote:
Are you for/against animal rights? Why?

There is no such thing as animal rights.

There are only laws regulating treatment and housing of animals that apply only to humans. Geeze this is such a no brainer.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:31:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 8:57:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/6/2011 11:57:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
Oh, a more obvious and pressing example of when we use people as a means to an end and believe it it is justified for the greater good- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously, we believe that the Japanese civilians have a right to life. Sometimes, we just prioritize a large populations rights over a smaller populations rights. Very utilitarian.

That mentality presupposes that some people(the U.S.) has the right to void the rights of others(the people killed by the dropping of the Atomic bombs) when it is considered utilitarian.

I'm not saying I agree with it. Just that our society generally does when it deems it "necessary"-usually for safety.

That was said only to make the point that just because we (as a society) find it necessary to test on animals for the greater good doesn't mean that we deny animals have rights. It just means that we're o.k. with violating rights sometimes.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 10:16:15 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.

I have the right to not be raped. So does my dog.
How people are allowed to treat each other are rights.
How people are allowed to treat animals are rights too.

Dogs rape other dogs a million times a day. Nothing is ever done about that. A human raping a dog falls under animal treatment regulations. The human is judged by other humans. The dog has all but forgotten what happened to it 5 minutes later, let alone be able to testify against me in a court of law. And if I am going to be tried in a court of law I have a "right" to face and question my accuser. Case dismissed.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:33:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:05:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
They don't have rights because they don't pay taxes. The same applies to children and hobo's.

Children and hobos still have rights. They have the right not to be hurt physically, not to be murdered, raped, kidnapped, etc.
Children have the right not to be starved or neglected, etc.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:31:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
define animal rights, domestic animals deserve rights, wild animals do not, and in what extreme are the rights?

What makes you think wild animals do not deserve rights?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:37:23 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.

So what? Babies and the severely mentally disabled don't have the capability to understand rights. That doesn't mean they don't have rights. That's not a good enough reason to assume that animals don't have rights.

Ah, ya it is. People own animals. People buy them. They are no differnt than buying a loaf of bread at the supermarket. Humans have parental or legal guardians that act in ones behalf if they are incapacitated in some way or are a minor. You cant buy and sell people anymore, That is why people have rights and animals don't.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:44:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:32:51 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/21/2011 10:16:15 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/20/2011 8:50:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
Um, animals couldn't give a rats behind about my rights. Don't confuse "rights" with laws regulating unnecessary cruelty to an animal. People who talk about animals having rights just show intellectual stupidity with regard to what "rights" are and how they are applied. Animals don't even have the capability to even understand the concept. This is such a no brainer.

I have the right to not be raped. So does my dog.
How people are allowed to treat each other are rights.
How people are allowed to treat animals are rights too.

Dogs rape other dogs a million times a day. Nothing is ever done about that.

-_- Dogs are amoral.....

A human raping a dog falls under animal treatment regulations. The human is judged by other humans.

-_- Humans are moral.....

"The dog has all but forgotten what happened to it 5 minutes later, let alone be able to testify against me in a court of law. And if I am going to be tried in a court of law I have a "right" to face and question my accuser. Case dismissed."

So what if the dog forgets and can't testify? Is raping a blind mute with a memory problem o.k. because they can't see you, testify against you, or remember the event?
No. They still feel pain and you still violated their rights.
Case dismissed, indeed.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:45:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:33:03 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:05:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
They don't have rights because they don't pay taxes. The same applies to children and hobo's.

Children and hobos still have rights. They have the right not to be hurt physically, not to be murdered, raped, kidnapped, etc.
Children have the right not to be starved or neglected, etc.

So they can grow up and pay taxes and therefor gain rights. Hobo's on the other hand have no rights.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.