Brief explanation of my position on animal rights.

Are animals in the united states treated humanely?

  • Yes.
  • No.
0 voters

If one were to place all species on a continuum, most would be likely to place microorganisms on the left, progressively followed by “higher” life forms. Most people would probably place humans at the top because of our “intelligence” or because we have dominion over the world. Our control of the world is not evidence of our intelligence, but rather our unrelenting perniciousness.

For those that can attempt to comprehend infinity, the continuum is expanded beyond human beings to include “superior” beings, whether they be god(s) aliens or other entities with “superior” intelligence. Those who can begin to comprehend infinity realize that there is no beginning and no end to the continuum. Hence, it becomes completely arbitrary to assign one entity or species to be the sole ascendant power. We are all earthlings, and analogous to our infinite continuum, we are all part of the same universe. We share this reality.

There is no way to answer yes or no.

I have fought many battles for animal rights because of the cruelty. Again their are many who love their animals and those who respect them.

I’d bet that there is a finite amount of forms of beings.

agreed raven, agreed.

It’s funny how humans act as if this is our world, when in reality we (all organisms) are all in this mess called life together.

It’s just our nature though and it will never change. At least there is a little bit of a hope and there are a few good compassionate people out there though.

It is our nature because we are the most powerful of all creatures through intellgence, therefore we feel we are more important. Feeling more important makes us do many things.

Animals are treated wrongly many times, however, some creatures that seem to be more intelligent, are treated with more respect, because I guess we feel they’re more aware.

I find beating a dog, testing products on mice, and making animals into slaves in whatever form, is worse than what I do; hunt.

It’s hard to justify hunting in a total fashion. However, the benefits are of course. A bonding time with friends and family, a fun sport and hobby, a way to get a good meal, and most of all a way to help out creatures from over populating. I have cried at times when I’ve missed a killshot on an animal and had to watch it suffer, most true hunters aren’t sadists. But animals will die, either by a long suffering death, or by another animal.

I would never dream of killing a monkey, but a squirrel wouldn’t bother me. Intelligence makes a huge difference, you can’t tell me animal rights activists also believe killing a spider is wrong.

But I know someone will disagree, especially out of how cute or beautiful that animal is. What’s not beautiful is when theve been hit by a car, pussing at the mouth, missing a leg, and possibly starving to death. It’s not worth paying to cure that creature that wont’ show appreciation in the slightest form, it’s better to kill them and put them out of their misery.

I love my cat to death by the way, he’s sitting on my bed now.

If there is an alternate way to test things we should. But if mice and other small animals are the only way, I say I’m for it, I would rather save a human life than a mouse.

I echo Club’s sentiments. As a person that has 38 feline and 14 canine kids. I love this world and all creatures in it, but, really, this is a world in which certain things must be done which are always going to be distasteful. I kill for food and defense. I do not like to even make a spider or fly suffer a non clean kill.

I am opposed to the pointless killing of any earthling whether it be a spider or a dolphin or a human.
In some cases killing is justified, we have the right to look out for what is best for us. For example if we get a bacterial infection, we ought to attempt to destroy the bacteria from our body so that we can live. Similarly, the bacteria have the right as a fellow earthling to try to find a host where it can grow and multiply. John Locke showed us something along these lines, something he called “natural rights”

We as humans ought to use our intelligence to benefit the universe around us.
Are humans sentient?
Are Dolphins sentient?
Are fellow primates sentient?
Are deer sentient?
Are dogs sentient?
Are fish sentient?
Are spiders sentient?..

Are we committing the line-drawing fallacy, by destroying some animals but not others based on which are best exploited in order to suit our greedy desires?
It is one thing to kill an animal in an emergency situation so that one might survive. But is it the same thing to enslave animals on factory farms, exploiting them and ultimately leading to a life of miserable conditions and suffering.

Pigs are considered more intelligent than dogs, but here in America dogs are pets and pigs are slaves.

Does our love of flesh justify enslaving animals?

  1. A vegan diet provides all nutrients essential for optimum human health.
  2. Less animal suffering is a consequence of adopting a vegan diet.
  3. For the reason that animals are recognized as sentient, less animal suffering would be a good thing to any compassionate person.
  4. Raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all motor vehicles in the world combined.
  5. Thus, we ought to be vegan, in order to benefit ourselves, animals, and the environment.

Ok so what are we to do with all of the food animals that are alive? Turn them loose? Deny their right to breed? You wanna go and castrate a bull? I volunteer to film it.

what happens to these creatures? what is the plan for them? I hear all of this vegan dogma but, no plans to protect the environment from barnyard animals. shall we turn them loose? What happens to the land then?

Sorry, animals have been creating methane since animals could. The populations increase and decrease with each era. you want us to;

A: Slaughter all farm animals
B: turn them loose
C: Castrate them all/ Oh and I want to make Vegans do that and film it. I would win some prize money somewhere.
D: other and I am not sure what that could sanely possibly be.

One can never comprehend infinity at all. Therefore, it is a non-concept.

You speak of cruelty; but how can you know the feelings of an animal? What I mean is: how can you know if the hurt an animal feels stands in any relation to the hurt you would feel if you were in its place?

Nietzsche once said that the suffering of all the animals that had so far (late 1880s) been used in experiments did not amount to the suffering of one contemporary hysterical female.

In the first place, they should be treated better while they are alive. If they must be killed, it should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I don’t think animals have rights or that their suffering matters. Thanks god that alot of drug researchers and disease researchers feel the same way.
Taking it a step further, I’m actually a fan of dog fighting. I think that fact that Michael Vick is being burned at the stake while real human American troops are getting killed everyday in Iraq. What a sick commentary on the state of PC nonsense that currenty prevails. PETA, the ALF and the ELF and the ASPCA are terrorist groups who break the law and act irresopnsibly with almost every action that they take. It’s pathetic that people care more about animals than they do people sometimes.

D. Other, Example: (Hypothetical)
The killing of farm animals is outlawed. The new law goes into effect January 1st 2009. Overpopulation would only be a problem due to the fact that animals are mass produced for food. In our hypothetical scenario, factory farms would be outlawed, and thus the animal “food” supply would be depleted in a matter of months.

Worried about too many animals? Without factory farms this wouldn’t be a problem. No longer would mother cows be hooked up to machines their entire lives, perpetually being impregnated in order to give milk. Without demand (human desire for animal products) supply (animals) would be diminished.

The fact that we are more intelligent does not give us the right to exploit animals. We have inherent natural rights to watch after ourselves and mankind. And to me human suffering comes first over animal suffering. However, that does not mean that we thow our morals out the door or disregard the problem. Our suffering as humans does not justify the suffering of other earthlings.

Interesting that now one seems to be addressing the original question which is about animal rights specifically.
I wouldn’t advocate that animals should be afforded rights, but i wouldn’t advocate them towards humans either.
The problem with rights is that they set in stone protections, which may be appropriate for one time, but become quickly outdated antiques.
The right to bare arms in the United States is an example of such an anachronism. in 1776, it might have been a good idea then, but it would be virtually impossible to change that part of the constitution now even if there were a will to do so-rights mean imposing restrictions, or giving freedoms in circumstances which cannot be foreseen.
The flexible political system that exists in the UK allows us to change the law regarding animal welfare, any time there is the political will to do so, and in due course change that law back again if we so choose.

the only rights anyone or anything has are those that can be enforced.

morals and the morality of suffering have nothing to do with anything.

if little bunny foofoo can’t defend himself from the evil scientist, he becomes expermiental data…

-Imp

If sick people can get medicine, and poor people can get money from the suffering of animals then any reason given to conclude that those things are wrong puts animals above sick and poor people. If animals can enforce the so called “natural rights” that you’ve given them, (which incidentally, I think is a mischaracterization of what the term natural rights even means) then they can have them. Let the rats and dogs revolt, just like humans do. Then they have rights.

Edit: I think I read you wrong. But my opinion is still right there…^

What if you are in a coma and coma and couldn’t defend yourself from an evil scientist, and he experement on you…he may want to check your frontal lobe, to see if there is one…then again he might not.

morals and the morality of suffering have nothing to do with anything?