Why do animals have rights? Do they?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
41

Always with the personal attacks? ever read any philosophy on that?

Sorry if i mis-labeled innate rights… Isn’t it all the same in a closed argument?

i have read plenty philosophy and frankly, referring to them for credibility is something left for university students 8-[ .

As always you nit pick my arguments, not even responding to any of it, but objecting on any basis you can while belittling me.

All i did with the entire post is explain the difference between which rights singer was referring to, naturally you took immediate offense…

great philosophy Faust, back to the books maybe?

whose actually being incoherent?

42

i make words up as i go along… be prepared to use your brain when dealing with me…

unless you plan to call the informal police you can either choose to accept the meanings i give to words or dont deal with me at all… we’ve been through this…

stop being so dissapointing please…

43

I’ll take option B.

Have fun.

44

So as i was saying, rights in the sense that we are not allowed to cause them unnecessary harm are the rights Peter Singer defended (the rights i defend)…

Animals don’t need responsibilities to secure this right…

45

How does the dog ensure it’s rights when I kick it?

46

how do you ensure your rights when i shoot you?

we’re talking about moral justification…

47

If rights don’t exist, then why are we talking about them and why are you concerned about it Smears?

48

My rights when you shoot me are enforced after the fact by the authorities.

Realun, I didn’t say rights don’t exist. I’m asking why people think that animals have them.

49

Are you saying that you believe rights exist? Or, if they do exist, then why should animals have them?

I guess I could only help you out if I was under the delusion they existed as well–but (luckily) I’m not! :smiley:

50

If they do exist, why should animals have them. Other than the old, “hurting an animal hurts you” argument.

51

Well, if I were to give you an argument based on other people’s perspectives, then I’d give you this old bullshit:

Animals should have rights, because living beings have the right not be treated cruelly.

It’s a load of bullshit though…

Good luck.

52

So they have them because they have them? That can’t be right.

53

Its simple; animal’s have rights the same as a minor child has rights. They are protected to ensure the future of the human species and the earth. Without out children or animals or a sense of right and wrong the human species would have killed this earth and its species by now. Smears , you find pedophilia repugnant, but, a pedophile is just fullfilling the same emotions as you when you kick that dog. They are hurting helpless innocent creature just to feel better. In that you are no different than a child raper if you truly kick that dog. Surely you can see this?

54

I remember Neil Gaiman’s (Stardust, Sandman and Mirrormask) short story piece Babycakes. Very disturbing stuff.

55

The pedophile hurts a person, the dog kicker doesn’t. Even if it’s for the same reason it’s not as bad because the consequences aren’t as bad, (i think).

56

So its the consequences you want to look at? Dead is dead Kicking the dog you could kill it, raping a child could kill it. harm is harm pain is pain, fear is fear. Or are you talking about the consequences to yourself? If you are then you better look up some statistics… Last I heard, on the average animal abusers get longer jail time than baby rapers. That is just one , another is how many people of any decent caliber would hang around and be associated with an abuser of defenseless creatures? 0 to very very few. there are other consequences but, right now I need to go take care of my 4 legged little ones for a bit. BRB

57

Smears has a right to kick dogs.

Kris has a right to be upset when Smears kicks dogs.

Little infants have the right not to be flushed down toilets by parents.

And I have the right not to post in this thread again–which I am going to now exercise for everybody’s sake.

58

Here is the thing, I have met dogs cats and other animals that need a good kicking, be they 4 legged or two legged. All animals can have attitudes that need adjustment, if possible. Some can never be adjusted and thats when they quite possibly need to be put down/ euthanized/ killed. Abuse of any creature just to feel better or feel good is not just morally wrong or ethically wrong , it is harming yourself in the long run. If you abuse a lesser creature, like any addiction just doing it to lesser creatures will become insufficient, you will need more and more First kicking then beating then you begin to need to do it to someone that might be more of a challenge. In the end you will kick the wrong person in an attempt to satisfy your craving to feel better. You will be the one that gets royally kicked, killed or jailed. If altruism does not keep you from abuse then surely self preservation ought to if you have a lick of sense in your head. There is always going to be someone bigger badder and meaner then you. If you start down the road of abuse then you will meet that person much to your regret. Rights really have nothing to do with it that word is just used for legal reasons… common sense has everything to do with it.

59

the rights your thinking of are not the same rights an animal has…

there is no physical law stating that we must respect animals, but also there is no law stating it’s o.k to dis-respect them

60

No by people who wont tolerate cruelty to animals just for the sake of cruelty

And I have a right to kick anyone that kicks a dog,or attack anyone that harms an animal just for fun,or because they lost control and got angry .You dont attack animals,you dont pointlessly harm anything that lives,even insects,simple as that,if you do you should expect to be attacked back by people in some way if you get caught