Animal Rights?

[Saucie]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

[ThisYouWillDo]

The right not to suffer at mankind's whim.

Can't think of anything else offhand.

[Saucie]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

[Moonraker]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

[Ozme52]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

[_ID_]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

[Warbaby1943]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?I do believe they should be protected but not have more rights then human beings have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

No man needs to torment any animal. Ever. He might need to eradicate dangerous, disease carrying vermin, but he can do it humanely, as befits the conduct of a human being. He might need to kill animals for food or clothing, but he can do that swiftly and painlessly. He can tame an animal and treat it as a pet, but he must not then abandon it if it is unable to fend for itself in the wild.

An animal's right not to suffer is the corrollary of mankind's duty to treat all living things considerately and with human compassion. It is not the same thing as falling victim to a cat which will torment its prey; cats know no better. We do. And we feel ill-at-ease when we learn of mistreatment, which is why we punish people who do neglect or abuse other creatures.

TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

[Aadenn]

What about animal testing? Do animals have the "right" not to be experimented on?

I say no. "Rights" is something that gets thrown around an awful lot without full consideration of what it means.

While I think testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is incredibly vain and immoral, I dont believe animals have any rights in that dept nor do I feel testing on animals for medicinal purposes is immoral or vain.

[Thorne]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.

[mkemse]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.


altho I do beleive in animal right myslef, i agree with you 100% when you say that anoyne who kills an animal justtowathc it die, for the "Thrill Of The Kill" should be placed as you suggested, just do not know if i would want to subjectthe animals to them

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

[Ozme52]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.


So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

[Ozme52]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away.

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

[_ID_]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

[Thorne]

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

I have no opposition to using animals, of any kind, for MEDICAL tests. I don't consider testing of cosmetics, except in very rare circumstances, to be medically related. I do think that a lot of animal testing can be eliminated by proper use of computer simulations, but eventually you MUST perform animal, or human testing before finalizing your research.

[Thorne]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

[fantassy]

We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

[Saucie]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility. I support animal testing (fuck yeah, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, and guess how commercial insulin got developed), and as long as an animal isn't endangered and there's no cruelty involved (cruelty defined as unnecessary infliction of pain), then I'm fine with hunting, food production, and fur production.

My big trouble is when a person's property rights conflict with an animal's interest. As a Social Contractarian with very strong Libertarian leanings, I take property rights very, very, very seriously. But I hate animal cruelty... I don't want to be inconsistent in my ethics, but on the other hand, I'm not heartless. And so I think about it, and think about it... :)

[Ozme52]

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

[Saucie]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?

[Ozme52]

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

[Saucie]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

[Saucie]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

What is a "natural right"? Where would it come from? Whose responsibility would it be to enforce those rights? Can they be taken away for any reason, and if so, how? People use that phrase all the time, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means in concrete terms. Would you clarify?

[Saucie]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

[Ozme52]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?


Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

[Saucie]

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

Perhaps. If testing on animals means that a certain medication is less expensive, and the woman with no insurance can afford to buy it, then wouldn't that outweigh an animal's suffering? I say let the testers do as they will, and those labs that use animals less, or more humanely, or whatnot, will make certain that consumers know about it. (Case in point: organic groceries.) Then, consumers can choose products based on their own personal ethics and incomes.

[Ozme52]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

[Saucie]

Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

Ah, the state of nature. :D I'm such a Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau groupie. Anyway, I agree with this post completely. For some reason, in your other post, I thought you were saying something else entirely. My mistake.

[Saucie]

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

[Ozme52]

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?


Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood. :rolleyes:

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

[Saucie]

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood. :rolleyes:

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

[Ozme52]

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or politically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

[Ozme52]

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

You were arguing the issue of the necessity of luxuries and who defines it. But you were arguing against my specific question to ID. I happen to agree with your point. (but not with using the guitar v. tree analogy. LOL)

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards mentioned in an interview I heard that if we accept the theory of evolution, there's nothing specific that sets all of humanity apart from animals. As research, (and time) progresses the known differences will be less and less.

This makes making different laws governing humans and animals impossible. Making special laws for humans gets stuck on purely superficial properties.

Animal Rights people seem to be more into which animals are the fluffiest and have the cutest eyes. Where is the organisation fighting for the rights of endangered insects? Bats? Sharks? Who cares about respecting the privacy of earth worms when they mate? And then where the difference between animals and microbes? Do we have to care about the "feelings" of bacteria.

We cannot empathise with a cat or a dolphin. We live in completely different perceptive realities. Their universe is different from ours. They love differently. When they come and rub up against us, we have no idea what it means to them. We have no idea how they suffer and why. We have no idea how they perceive pain. If they remember it and if it is traumatic for them.

Assuming humans alone have consciousness and saying our actions are guided by free will which makes us different, is making things way too easy for oneself. This is an extremely difficult subject right now.

Is the computer program:

If stimuli > 10
then computer = pain

...experiencing real pain? Is pain simply a information feedback system? Why should we care?

That said, I'm playing the hypocrite card. I just don't care enough about them... and lamb is so very tasty. As far as animal rights are concerned humanity has always been on the level of might makes right, and most people, (including me) seems to be cool about that. Maybe it'll change, maybe not? But I'm adamant about not giving up my fillet because some tree-huggers hypothetical theory on the feelings of animals. Maybe I'm just a negative Nancy? Maybe I'm just greedy and want to keep my tasty fishes? Maybe might gives right? Maybe?

[Moonraker]

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility.

There are no inate rights. Historically almost all rights have been granted after a struggle of some form and rights can just as easily be taken away. Yes, it's impossible for animals to have rights since they cannot come to the bargaining table and consent to the "contract". It's possible I guess to appoint a body as their spokesperson with "power of attorney" as another poster implied. But we are going into murky legal waters and begging the question by what right does this group speak for animals. What next, the right of trees not to be cut?

This is why I prefer to approach the problem from the other side of the coin and agree with Ozme, that we should have the right to have a clean conscience and to pass onto our children a world with animals . We pay taxes for governments to pass the laws we want and create the society we want to live in.

It seems to me that there is a tendency to take a word, make it fashionable and then misuse the word in another context. Animal "rights" being the case in point. Democracy is another word that seems to be a recent fashion word. Maybe a simple thing like using different terminology could clear up much confusion regarding many issues.

Personally I can see no need for any cruelty to animals. I once read that the total cost of the space program over the first decade was less than what american women spent on cosmetics in any single year. If we can develop technology to put a man on the moon I can't see it as beyond our ability to make animal testing a thing of the past.

And while we're at it, let's broaden the topic of animal cruelty. If somebody burned your home and crops you'd find that pretty cruel. So what about man encroaching on animal habitat and food supplies. And the converse of course, what about your right to defend yourslef from animals eating your crops and living in your home. I mention this one because it is often used by fox hunters in my country, ah the foxes eat the chickens so we have to chase after them in our finery on horses to kill them and smear their blood over out childrens faces.

[Moonraker]

oops posted same post twice. Trigger happy. How to delete a post I wonder?

[TomOfSweden]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

[Moonraker]

One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize.

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

[Thorne]

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

[_ID_]

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

I don't think we can prevent animals exercising their natural rights, unless we put them in unnatural situations, like zoos or experimental laboratories. We can affect how wild animals behave, for example, many wild animals will avoid urban areas, so their "right to roam" is affected, but they will still roam freely elsewhere. Isn't this reflected in nature where wilderbeast will avoid a watering hole if lions are already drinking there?

In unnatural situations, animals are completely at our mercy, and we have a moral duty to treat them with all due consideration. It is true that there is no "natural right" not to be tortured or to be experimented upon, but we are under legal obligations (in most jurisidicitions) not to cause unnecessary suffering. Our legal duties give rise to quasi-legal rights for animals, although any poor creature whose rights are abused cannot enforce them in the Courts, and it is up to other people to prevent such mistreatment happening, if they are so inclined.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

TYWD

[Saucie]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or poticically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

[Ozme52]

LOL it is so funny. on a forum for people into bdsm you have everybody agree that laws and rights and ethics is just something you can agree on or not. when we discussed this in school almost everyone, even the teacher, and _ALL_ of the girls were certain that stuff like human rights and so are something that is beyond human decisions. (which i thought sounded pretty stupid, but i didn't say anything, sadly). but it makes sense that this idea isnt so popular here... :)

That's theology in disguise. The belief that humans are somehow endowed with something special that innately separates us from animals. Well, we don't even have a monopoly on intelligence nor emotions. We just have enough intellegence to delude ourselves that we are innately special and enough emotions to be happily content with our delusion. LOL

But don't kid yourself. There's not all that much unanimity here. Just a particularly vocal bunch of us who are willing to discuss human foibles.

[Ozme52]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.


60 billion by 2050? Is that a typo or... where did you see that statistic?

Regardless, I'll only quibble a bit about the part I highlighted. That's correct, but it's not like every bit of land where we grow grass, hay, alfalfa, and other pasture products is suited for growing human consumable crops.

And even those that are so suited, are far more productive if you rotate the types of crops you grow. So pasture products will be grown regardless and we'll graze and/of feed animals regardless.

Lastly, we're born of omnivores and are at our healthiest with a mixed diet. So I think meat will always be with us... or at least for a very long time... maybe until, as you suggest, we can vat-grow it.

The rest, I'm on board with you and have no issues with medical experimentation... and as you say, most experimenters are as humane as possible in the execution of their tasks.

[Ozme52]

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

I happen to agree. I don't care much for horse racing for a number of issues. This is about where you draw the line. How to know what the animal would "do" if it had a choice. We anthropomorphize a lot... say that horses love to run. That's bullshit of course. They're bred to run... originally from predators. What about using dogs to help us hunt? Is it mutilation to spay and neuter dogs and cats? There are so many nuances and issues that the topic can easily snowball.

LOL, it even got a comment about terrorists and prisoner interrogations. (Not a laughing matter.... just that it occured in this thread.)

[Ozme52]

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

[Ozme52]

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).
If it's a natural right as you suggest and the animal cannot be condemned... then isn't it hypocritical to say it would be wise to destroy it?

Rights are a human construct. And we only have to agree to what the rules are to be. Animals have no natural rights... only those rights we humans wish to confer on them.

If you disagree, then in accordance to your example, a man who kills an animal in self-defence should not be condemned but should likewise be destroyed none the less.

Therefore, the rest of your post regarding natural rights and unnatural situations fails (in my eyes) because I believe it's based on an incorrect premise.



(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)
Off topic... the comment you didn't read is whether or not abortion is a luxury... which is also off topic in an animal rights conversation. (But that's up to Saucie... it's her thread.)


Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else. I'm not sure if that's the point Tom was trying to make... but I'm not sure it wasn't either. Tom?


He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.
On this I agree. Animals react to pain as we do, we don't like pain, and therefore it is reasonable for us to empathize and wish to avoid causing animals unnecessary pain... which is why (here I go) we, humans, get to decide on what rights we wish to confer on animals.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

No. The guy with the shotgun was going against the law (at the time) and was being unethical. Those who owned slaves were 100% ethical within the belief system at that time. We believe today that those beliefs were wrong. Our ethics have changed. They are malleable based on knowledge, culture, and beliefs.

And yes, the Emancipation Proclomation was ethical... and if not for the civil war, if it had been passed beforehand, compensation to "property" owners, (i.e., slave owners,) would have been part of the new law. It was or had been under discussion in Congress. Owning slaves, prior to the civil war was considered ethical in the south.


I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.I think you're arguing what is and isn't ethical... and I'm arguing about the defintion of ethics.

(Though I admit I raised the question 'was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical' in the prior post... but that was in response to your previous post.... the threads or the conversation grow fuzzy in my mind. lol)


Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

It's significant if you believe in innate 'animal rights' as opposed to whether any rights they have are at our descretion.

I went back and looked at your intial question.


Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I don't think we can get to the question "should have rights" until we agree whether or not they have innate rights... and that's what the thread is churning over.

[_ID_]

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I would agree, but I am still going to use them for these purposes.



I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.


That's what makes intelligent debate so cool. We can understand each other, but disagree.


BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

I'm not an an ant-abortion camper, just one that believes it should be out of necessity not as a substitute for a Trojan.

[Aadenn]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

Saucie, what exactly do you mean by property rights? This raises an interesting question of territorial domain and animal preservation. Do you think mankind has the "right" to dominate the ecosystem and push endangered animal species into extinction through habitat destruction?

Is there such a thing as a 'right to more land?' or a 'right to develop land?' I come back to your definition of a right as being a contract. If this is indeed a 'right' of corporations or individuals, then what is their responsibility that goes along with that right? What is the contract? And who decides? and when does that decision come under the global flag of "animal rights" or is it semantically more appropriate to refer to it as environmental policy?

I dont think "animal rights" should include that kind of restriction, but I also think an individual's property rights (in my mind the right to own land) should come with the responsibility of not doing excessive damage to the ecosystem.

[TomOfSweden]

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

It's not justifying cruelty. It's acknowledging that it is a cruel activity, but chose to look away when it suits us. As I do. There is no way to justify torture, but we can accept it. We can accept that we just don't care enough about the animals. That we don't empathize enough with them.

People who try to justify animal experimentation on some moral grounds are the worst hypocrites of all in this issue. Those to who try to devalue animals worth, at the same time elevating ours. It's like a bully on a playground. Nobody can stop the bully from taking the sweets from the smaller kid. From that reaching the conclusion that it is right for the bully to take the sweets is just offensive.

Even so, I'm still all for animal experimentation. I'm a greedy crud who'd rather not suffer later in my life from debilitating diseases I'm genetically inclined for. Better them than me.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme

To deal with the wolf question (which is entirley contrived, by the way): no it's not hypocritical to kill the wolf, it's an act of self-defence on the part of man: man has the same natural rights as animals, and the right of self-defence is one of them. If another wolf perceived that this man was a threat to its existence, it would be justified in attacking him and killing him ... and so on ad infinitum. However, in the real world, this would be a ridiculous scenario; a consequence of pursuing logic to the nth degree. If you are trying to make me say that the legal system is bound to condemn a human being to death being for killing an animal, you have a long wait. Natural rights as I use the term (your 2nd definition, remember) fall outside any legal system.

I agree that moral and legal rights are invented by men, but these are not the "rights" I called natural rights earlier. Those rights are, to use your words, ones that are in "the nature of animals"; they are instinctive - inate. These are the rights that all living creatures take to themselves and which no-one can take away, save, perhaps, by imprisoning them. Rights may not have been the best word to use, "freedoms" might have been better. "Abilities" might be even better. Check a thesaurus for other possibiliities.

Better minds than mine have used rights in the sense I have used it, so I don't intend to apologise.

I maintain, therefore, that animals have the natural rights of self-defence, to hunt (or graze), and to roam freely. (This is not a definitive list, but indicative only.) These rights are not given by anyone. Animals can be given legal rights if the law makers wish to do so, but animals will never know they have them, and cannot enforce them.

The legislature can also impose duties and obligations on humans which benefit animals, and gives them quasi-legal rights. People would be expected to know what those laws are (ignorantia legis non excusat), and to break them would be a criminal act. The appropriate law-enforcement agencies would then take action.

I believe my earlier posts stand.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well. :rolleyes:

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.


OK: but I was merely repeating the words you offered. :)

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.


Yes, I agree man will ultimatley have the last word (or, in this example, make the last killing), because he is cleverer. But as for your comments about rights, see below

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.


I do say they have rights, which I concede might be better called something else. When I use the term natural rights, I do not mean artificial rights dreamt up by man which are decided upon by courts of law and are enforced by police forces, I just mean the ability to do something. In fact, it's so obvious that animals have these abilities, it was stupid of me to mention them, and it has led to false arguments being raised about whether animals defend themselves, hunt and roam with our permission or consent, which plainly they do not.

Natural rights are not conferred by anyone, they just exist wherever any form of life exists (maybe not at the microbial level, I don't know: can microbes protect themselves?). And they don't have to be written down - for two reasons: in nature, one does not care about the natural rights of others, one merely exercises one's own; and there are many instances of even human laws being unwritten -


England & Wales have no written constitution, nor does anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

In common-law jurisdicitions such as the USA, one has to test the law to find out what it is. It's probably the same under codified legal systems too, but I don't know.

There are very few "moral codes" that have been written down (and those that have been all differ!).

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.


Maybe, but we're not so far apart when it comes to legal rights: animals' legal rights are man-made and depend upon whether man decides to uphold them. The animal has no say in the matter.

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

[Ozme52]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.


I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately
All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

[TomOfSweden]

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.


All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

That's right, animal behaviour: their (and our) natural right.

I don't believe animals should have any legal rights because it would be pointless. I do believe mankind should be forced by law to observe certain standards of behaviour towards them, however, which gives animals "reflected" legal rights, if you like. I expect we would be in broad agreement what those should be.

Yes: ALL animals. If a mosquito is squashed for biting you, or because it is a malaria risk, that's one thing, and we can kill it for our own self-protection; but if its proboscis, wings and legs are torn off while it lives, for idle amusement, that's quite another.

One should have compassion for any living thing one is able to empathise with.


Quote: by Tom:


Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

I stated a belief: I believe that ...

But where a formal jurisdicition imposes laws, or where convention applies a moral code to protect animals, then it is to those laws and conventions I allude. I am not questioning their validity.

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Couldn't resist

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/default.aspx?id=53d046a5-72fc-4ea1-a940-33632480a66d

[ThisYouWillDo]

Lol

[Flaming_Redhead]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:1-3

However, along with the dominion, we were given responsibility. I have no problem with eating meat, wearing leather (or even fur if I could afford it), medical testing, hunting, fishing, entertainment, etc. I have a problem with people who can torture an animal to death by putting it in a microwave, pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire, starving it, etc. Most serial killers begin with cruelty to animals before moving on to bigger and better prey, so I'm all for those people being kept away from the rest of us. *nods a lot*

"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it." Exodus 23:5

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.


But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?

It sounds a lot like you're greedy, (like me) but don't like to reconcile that fact, and therefore hide behind an arbitrary religious text. Isn't that so?

[Rational Head]

I wonder they even know or understand the meaning of "rights" who tries to defend for animal rights.
Rights are ethical principles–principles that identify and empower man’s freedom of action in the social order. The authentic foundation of rights is man’s possession of a rational ability.
The capability to reason includes the option to focus consciously one’s intellect and to incorporate perceptual facts into conceptual knowledge.
The notion of human rights protects man’s liberty of action in the social order. It allows him to use to his own rational verdict to lead his life and well-being.
Rights are the power, which provides a man, to objectify is options regarding any issue. Just like right to vote, every right provides a man, to say Yes or No.
The set of rights protects the freedom of all by prohibiting the instigation of any sort of physical or mental force by one man or group of men against another person.
Children have rights because they are the developing form of adult with an increasing intellectual faculty to reason out and explain/express.
To express is a quality, which defines the rationale basis, hence helps in determining the rights and wrongs. The freedom of expression is a fundamental right, which helps in furtherance of liberty. As freedom of expression is one’s power, to safeguard and further his living and well-being, the press, the media and individual expressive liberty must be free of any corporeal force at any level.
Unless a person in coma is not fully brain-dead, he has proper set of rights, because of the likelihood of their gaining of the full-functional rational-faculty, concept of rights is futile when applied to living beings inept of reason.
Can animal rights have any moral ground?
A human must not cause harm to animals because they can feel pain and compassion is a virtuous concept, but it cannot be a basis of any moral or constitutional right. We cannot stop medical researchers from experimenting on animals on regards of any moral or legitimate right. We cannot and should not say that it will be morally illegal to experiment on an animal even though it may result in a cure of a deadly disease of human kind.
The attitude of human towards animals and other beings should be compassionate, but one must avoid creating debates over vegetarian or non-vegetarian habits of eating, or medical researches over animals.

taken from

Reason for Liberty (http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/rights-and-wrongs.html)

[Thorne]

Originally Posted by Voodoo_Child View Post
No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.
But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?


I'm not sure I understand how you make the connection between the quoting of a religious text with the concept of animals being Christian. All I see is the use of the bible to justify our use of animals, whether for food or clothing or even medical testing. It has nothing to do with the possible religious leanings of your cat!

Like Redhead, I don't have a problem with the use of animals for these things. Nothing better than a nice thick slice of cow, or a juicy pig thigh. Want to shoot a Bambi for its meat? Go right ahead! I don't particularly care for venison, but if you enjoy it, have a ball. I don't even have a problem with those people who enjoy eating dog or cat, though I would be hesitant to try them. We each have our own tastes.

But, also like Redhead, I draw the line at wanton cruelty for its own sake, the sadistic and malicious torture of animals for no other reason than torture.

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals. Most researchers are aware of the pain they cause, and will minimize it when they can. But if you can save even one human life with animal testing, how can you protest it? Are the lives of laboratory animals, most of which have been specifically bred and raised for that purpose, more valuable than the lives of people? I don't think so!

Sure, many of the tests which at one time were performed on live animals are now able to be done virtually, mainly because of all of the data derived from live animal testing in the past. But eventually you have to test your products on living animals. It's the only way to be sure. Unless, of course, there are some volunteers out there?

[Thorne]

Accidental duplication removed.

[denuseri]

slides in the thread, naked, sweaty, my slave heat running down my thighs, my little bell on my clit ring jingels as i slaunter over, a collar and leash restrain me, a wanton beast, a kajira, under the dominion of her owner, property just like all his other possessions

Where is the line drawn?

throughout all recorded human history patriarchial systems of dominance over the female form have existed in one form or another until very recently such standards extended much further than today, not long ago a woman couldnt even legally refuse the sexual advances of her husband own land, vote, wear certian clothes etc etc

yes i am my owners property, but i am also perhaps his most valuable possession and if mistreated he would be angry, just like he would be angry if someone abused his other property, like our cat, or our feed animals etc etc, right is right, wrong is wrong

animal rights? why yes, i have rights to some degree the glass cieling hasnt been comletely removed,nor the collars from some necks weg thank god and no matter what anyone says i shall never really be truelly equal in everyones eyes

why compare myself to an animal?

simple, different degrees of "self initiated control" apply to all mankinds possessions, we as a species do own the earth and all thats in it, as a species we dominate all the other species on the planet, even the really slow ones like trees.

a hierachy of dominion (as my owner would say) exists, it is undeniable, and apparent to any observer, predators hold over prey, as beasts of the field take what they can of the grassess and berries, so too we from then and so forth, my owner likens it to a massive state of coexistance and war for survival, a struggle for dominance

different levels of freedom exist for those in different parts of the hierachy, and with this dominace comes responsibility to see whats under our dominion grow and prosper

what is acceptable in these matters is ussually greatly contested by any society that has risen above the general nessesities of basic survival (the cavemen never questioned animal rights in there day, they killed and ate it),

where do we draw the lines? i dont personally know unless i see a specific circumstance, i know what feels right and wrong to me, cruel mistretment and slaughter for the sole purpose of entertainment seems wholey wrong to me. raising an animal for food, is still a nessesity in my opinion alltough i certianly dont agree with how some are comercially kept, mabey the old ways were best,

if all our food could be chemically produced and no living thing had to die, i would be all for it,

but why stop at animals? why not plant rights too? they are certianly living creatures abet if differently constructed from us, and dont give me the they dont feel pain spin, plants pull away from pain too (at least the ones that have developed some movement skills), just slower than us, do we not deny the plants thier lives too?

perhaps the utilitarian principles of Mills could work best here

[Kuskovian]

I see the "she-sleen" training took hold rather well my little beast. LOL.

[denuseri]

blushes thanku Master

[Shwenn]

raising an animal for food, is still a nessesity in my opinion alltough i certianly dont agree with how some are comercially kept, mabey the old ways were best

I completely disagree with this. Our agriculture has reached the point where we no longer need herd animals to convert inedible grasses into edible meat for us. We don't even really graze our herd animals anymore. We feed them foods which are also edible to us. Raising animals for food wastes a lot of arable land.

From a Darwinian standpoint, human consumption of animals is very beneficial to the animals themselves. It isn't good for us. And it gets worse for us as the population rises. There is an increasing paucity of food in the poor areas of the world. There are food shortages. There is a great deal of starvation.

[Meena]

There are food shortages. There is a great deal of starvation.

If all changed to vegetarian food, it is a known fact that many millions will starve to death.

Its a well observed and reasonified fact that raising animals for food is a necessity and will remain a necessity.

Furthermore, its not only reprehensible but ultimate cruelty against individual humans to forcefully try to decide what should they eat, or should they eat non-vegetarian food or not.

Such talks only confirms the reality that animal rights activists are actually "Anti-human".

[Meena]

Animal Rights Activists—the Terrorists
What about killing an Indian farmer just because he is poor and cannot afford a tractor to plough his farm? What about some animal rights activist attacks that farmer just because 'he' thinks that the farmer is exploiting the bulls which he uses for ploughing his fields?
What about the animal rights activists who bombs and threatens to kill scientists just because scientists are involved with researches on mouse?
Vlasak said the bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim, but were instead "trying to send a message to this guy, who won't listen to reason, that if he doesn't stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken ... it's certainly not an initial tactic, but a tactic of last resort."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/03/MNMI124HSI.DTL&tsp=1
Last week in America at CA, the animal rights activists bombed two UC Santa Cruz biologists; they exploded the car of one of the scientists and bombed the house of other scientist which caused him some minor injuries while he was trying to safeguard his family against the attack.
Obviously such an attack on a researcher or scientist whose work includes introducing genes into living mouse brains, and is aimed at understanding how brain connections form during development, with special focus on the visual system and is important to learn how to fix these connections after damage due to injury or disease is reprehensible. After all it will be we, the beneficiaries of such researches and scientific discoveries, won't we be?
What if some mad animal rights activist had stopped Alexander Fleming from researching over cows to discover cure of the smallpox, the penicillin?
It is not surprising when supporters of animal 'rights' use violence and intimidation, because their cause is fundamentally anti-human.
Animal rights activists assert that their purpose is to stop gratuitous torture inflicted for no reason. But that is just a false smokescreen. They fight against such benign practices as keeping animals in circuses and zoos, or even as pets--no matter how well-loved and well-cared-for they are. To worsen things, they oppose the use of animals in scientific research, no matter how compassionately they are treated and no matter how many lives could be saved from the medical advances this makes possible.
And all this happens because of the false notion that animals have 'rights'. But the concept of 'rights' properly only applies to rational beings, who can recognize and respect the rights of others. In the name of the imagined 'rights' of animals, they have no hesitation about assaulting the actual rights of individual people.
"It is a mistake to regard these criminals as 'extremists' who are hijacking an otherwise valid cause. It is the cause of animal 'rights,' itself that is vicious and anti-human."

[Shwenn]

I'm an anti-human terrorist because I am a proponent of vegetarianism.

That's lovely.

Well, looks like I'll be hittin' the old dusty trail now. You guys enjoy the thread.

[denuseri]

Oh dont go Shwenn, please, i admit thier are many levels of rights activism and not all of them are wrong,, thier are radical extremists in every movement that give it a bad name,

i believe its very wrong to do certian things to animals, but i also believe they are our property to be controlled for our benifit, unnessesary cruelty is not in my opinion to be condoned, just as farming the old fashioned way isnt mean if donr right, yu mistreat your farm animals and you wont have a good farm with traditional agriculture at any rate, animal consumption for food is going to be around for a very very long time, we are not genitically nor socially natural herbivours, a purely vegetarian diet is full of problems as its very difficult to get everything the body needs then without suplements etc

[In2kink]

An interesting topic Saucie. Clearly animals do in fact enjoy limited rights as every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty but just as clearly they don’t enjoy personal rights to the degree that we as human beings do. The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

Clearly I do think some people overly personify animals (attribute to them human qualities). I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. But just as clearly to me at least, there is much more to an animal that meets the eye. Consider this excerpt from the writings of Voltaire;

“Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”

[Thorne]

The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.
While it is true that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic based religions (among others) justify the domination of animals, I don't agree that they represent the source of this idea. Basically, we developed from our tree dwelling ancestors into omnivorous ground dwellers, where meat was an important part of our diets. All animals were fair game, and most were as dangerous as they were delicious. The idea of domesticating animals could only come about when the value of the work the animals did exceeded the nutritional value to the tribe. Formalizing this concept through religion was only a way to justify it.


One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.
I agree with you 100% here. If the bear were to come into your home, or your neighborhood, you would not be unjustified in killing it, if you can, in order to protect your family or your neighbors. And the reverse is true: if you go into the bear's neighborhood, expect to be attacked.

In fact, I would venture to offer a suggestion to those activists who place more value upon the lives of animals than they do upon the lives of humans: take your manifestos and your speeches out to the African veldt and preach to the lions. They are eagerly waiting to hear from you, and will undoubtedly invite you to dinner. Perhaps you can convert them into vegetarians as well!

[Kuskovian]

LOL. Well said Thorne, invite the Lions to dinner.

Some people have too much time on thier hands or are lured into some of these militant vegan groups to easily. Hipocracy comes in many forms. My favorite is the animal rights advocate that eats "Whoppers from McDonalds" and wears designer leather jackets.

Cost of production and or desire for a paticular product will allways out wiegh the "rights" of that which is under our dominion.

Which by the way, has its roots from a latin word to signify what is under the domination or control of one. Not a word of christian origin. The King James translation of the Bible just happens to be the western worlds "easiest to remember source for it".

All that being said, I do not condone unnessesary cruelty to animals. This does not stop me from "hunting". Nor does it stop me from appreciating the wild, I in fact love it, and wish we could all live in a much more primative and natural setting. Animal rights activists didn't complain when we cruel hunters fed them back then, now did they? LOL.

[Shwenn]

Oh dont go Shwenn, please, i admit thier are many levels of rights activism and not all of them are wrong,, thier are radical extremists in every movement that give it a bad name,

i believe its very wrong to do certian things to animals, but i also believe they are our property to be controlled for our benifit, unnessesary cruelty is not in my opinion to be condoned, just as farming the old fashioned way isnt mean if donr right, yu mistreat your farm animals and you wont have a good farm with traditional agriculture at any rate, animal consumption for food is going to be around for a very very long time, we are not genitically nor socially natural herbivours, a purely vegetarian diet is full of problems as its very difficult to get everything the body needs then without suplements etc

I wasn't insulted by what Meena wrote about me. I just have a personal rule about debating wackadoos.

I don't know that it is totally accurate to say that we are genetically omnivorous. There is a great deal of debate about that. It's not entirely certain what 'genetically herbivore' would even mean. Most herbivores will eat meat if they are hungry enough. And, it's very odd that we have to cook our meat for it to be safe and edible. We have to modify it. A big clue that you were genetically designed to eat a certain food is that you don't have to put it over a fire in order to keep from dying when you eat it. See what I mean?

Also, just about every single plague that has whiped out huge populations was a result of our consumption of meat. Every single one started in a different animal and jumped species. The vast majority jumped from our cattle to us. The current one is bird flu.

I also want to stress that a purely vegetarian diet is no more full of problems than any other diet. Getting everything your body needs without suplements is difficult and it's not something a lot of people do or try, even the meat eaters.

And there is a HUUUUUGE problem with including meat in your diet and not being careful about it:

Meat becomes very unhealthy if you eat too much. You get high blood pressure and cholesterol problems and heart attacks. Eating too many vegetables isn't going to kill you the way too much meat will. A diet with meat can be life threatening if done wrong. A vegetarian diet can possibly only lead to poor nutrition, but so can an omnivorous diet.

I pay close attention to my nutrition and getting what would otherwise have gotten from meat is the easy part.

[denuseri]

i think the need to cook our food stems from the fact that we have been cooking it for so long we lost the ability to safely digest it raw in some cases , most omnivoes like chimps, dont eat a great deal of meats, evolutionaraly speaking however our digestive system has gotten smaller than that of our more herbivoreistic cousins and allowed for larger brain development becuase we took meat and especially becuase we took cooked meat into our diets, (any cooked food takes less work to break down and in some cases provides more nutrients animal fat is very high in these things), science has found a direct correlation-relationship between this, larger brains take up lots of energy and are the primary competer with the digestive track for the bodies energy, muscular structure aside, a smaller more efficent digestive system is not possible without cooked food especially high energy content cooked foods such as meat

[In2kink]

Support your right to arm bears. :D

[Shwenn]

i think the need to cook our food stems from the fact that we have been cooking it for so long we lost the ability to safely digest it raw in some cases...

Fair enough but you can't really express certainty on this point. It's very debatable and very speculative.

Once you walk into the realm of 'what nature intended' or start using terms like 'genetically designed', you're in a quagmire. And that is especially true when you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens. We're bipedal mammals with the highest brain size/body size ratio who use tools and have a highly sophisticated language.

We still have no idea how any of these things impacted each other, which of them came first, which were causes and which were effects.

Let's look at humans as they are now.

I think it would be great if humans ate meat on rare occasions, the way chimps eat monkeys (doesn't that seem like cannibalism? I know it isn't but it still creeps me out). But that isn't how we do it. Not even close. Don't you agree at least that that is a problem?

[Thorne]

Fair enough but you can't really express certainty on this point. It's very debatable and very speculative.

Once you walk into the realm of 'what nature intended' or start using terms like 'genetically designed', you're in a quagmire. And that is especially true when you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens. We're bipedal mammals with the highest brain size/body size ratio who use tools and have a highly sophisticated language.

We still have no idea how any of these things impacted each other, which of them came first, which were causes and which were effects.

Let's look at humans as they are now.

I think it would be great if humans ate meat on rare occasions, the way chimps eat monkeys (doesn't that seem like cannibalism? I know it isn't but it still creeps me out). But that isn't how we do it. Not even close. Don't you agree at least that that is a problem?

I agree that determining which came first is speculative at best, since no one was there at the time. However, it is fairly well agreed upon that the addition of meat to our ancient ancestors' diets played a significant role in their survival, and learning to cook that meat made it even more important, as denuseri has noted. Meat allows us to take in larger amounts of protein per pound than vegetables, and in the type of environment they lived in that was important.

Besides, there are many kinds of vegetables which require a lot of processing before they are able to be eaten. Some can be poisonous if not prepared properly. So I don't think the need for cooking can be considered an indicator of a problem.

And as for looking at us the way we are now, there are some of us who enjoy meat and some who don't. Personally, I'll take a good steak over a salad any day. So what if it's not as good for me as the salad? It's my life. If I want to shorten it by eating things I enjoy, who are those animal rights fanatics to deny me that? What about my rights?

And besides, I don't consider it healthy to be so concerned over every gram of food I put into my mouth, worrying about cholesterol and fats and trans-fats and all that other crap. If I enjoy something, I'll eat it. If I don't, I won't.

[Shwenn]

I agree that determining which came first is speculative at best, since no one was there at the time. However, it is fairly well agreed upon that the addition of meat to our ancient ancestors' diets played a significant role in their survival, and learning to cook that meat made it even more important, as denuseri has noted. Meat allows us to take in larger amounts of protein per pound than vegetables, and in the type of environment they lived in that was important.

Besides, there are many kinds of vegetables which require a lot of processing before they are able to be eaten. Some can be poisonous if not prepared properly. So I don't think the need for cooking can be considered an indicator of a problem.

This was all talk about the whole 'genetically designed' argument. I don't think it is possible to determine nor do I think it has bearing. The question we should address is our current consumption of meat. Today. 2008. Is is helping us or hurting us as a species?


And as for looking at us the way we are now, there are some of us who enjoy meat and some who don't. Personally, I'll take a good steak over a salad any day. So what if it's not as good for me as the salad? It's my life. If I want to shorten it by eating things I enjoy, who are those animal rights fanatics to deny me that? What about my rights?

And besides, I don't consider it healthy to be so concerned over every gram of food I put into my mouth, worrying about cholesterol and fats and trans-fats and all that other crap. If I enjoy something, I'll eat it. If I don't, I won't.

My point about meat being bad for you answered the claim that a purely vegetarian diet is bad for you. My problem with meat, the problems I've offered on my own, not in response to arguments put to me, have nothing to do with the welfare of an individual as regards his consumption of meat.

My issues with it tend toward the global. Almost all of my issues with things have that tendency. Plagues and starvation. Those are the problems I've raised.

[Alex Bragi]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I have this kind of weird ambivalence towards animal rights. I would never wear fur but I do wear leather. I adore my pets but feel no guilt eating meat. I enjoy fishing but can't abide seeing whales being slaughtered (Yes, yes, i know they're not fish, but it's still weird, isn't it?)

[Meena]

Meat becomes very unhealthy if you eat too much.


Its getting funnier.

One thing which I must clear out, Being an Indian and a Hindu by birth (atheist by choice) me and my whole family is strict vegetarian. I never ate any meat, I never ate any egg too. I am an strict vegetarian.

The only thing which i want to clear out is, "If you eat too much WHEAT, or RICE or ladyfingers or carrot or apple or mangoes etc it will be very very very unhealthy for you."

Irrespective of being a borne vegetatrian, I know on the basis of reason, that animal rights activists and all those environmentalists are culprits and criminals against humanity.

One more thing which should be clarified is, I didn't commented about Shwenn, I commented about "Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and other similar exteremists. it may be the case that Shwenn feels he is one of them, but my intentions were not to write about or against Shwenn, I wrote about the Animal rights activists and environmentalists.

[denuseri]

actually we have more and more data accumulating in the scientific community to support my earlier explanations conserning human evolution and diet in regards to brain size etc, a good special was even on the history channel about it recently too, so its becoming more widely accepted and not near as speculative but emperical as time goes by and more scientific experiments support the theories involved

[Shwenn]

One more thing which should be clarified is, I didn't commented about Shwenn, I commented about "Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and other similar exteremists. it may be the case that Shwenn feels he is one of them, but my intentions were not to write about or against Shwenn, I wrote about the Animal rights activists and environmentalists.[/B]

I am an environmentalist. It's how I make my living. I work exclusively on Green initiatives. I help green companies and products make themselves available to the public. I help them get their products into the marketplace. And I help further the discussion of future products. These are people who are making much less money than they could be making but they would rather save the human race.

I work with the kinds of environmentalists who have things like....I don't know....PhDs from MIT. Good people. Smart people. Reasonable rational people who want to do good for humanity.

You didn't just say those things about me. You said them about a whole host of people I respect and care about.

Some environmentalists my be crazy and they may do horrible things. That doesn't mean it is true of every environmentalist. It doesn't excuse what you wrote.

Stalin was an atheist. By your logic, that makes you a mass murderer and a tyrant.

I don't care if you realized the claims you made applied to me. You were wrong to make them regardless.

[Shwenn]

actually we have more and more data accumulating in the scientific community to support my earlier explanations conserning human evolution and diet in regards to brain size etc, a good special was even on the history channel about it recently too, so its becoming more widely accepted and not near as speculative but emperical as time goes by and more scientific experiments support the theories involved

The one on evolution? I found that special contained incredibly dated information. Their explanation of bipedalism was pretty much dug out of the trash bin. Thier explanation was one pretty much nobody subscribes to anymore. It was the greater visibility explanation which is old hat.

[denuseri]

that doesnt refute the science of it, i only mentioned the show because it was a mainstream thing that laymen have ready access to without having to resort to boolean serches and the like, its no more preposterous then the shell fish diet and water wading explanations propoessed in the late 80's which were used to support the ideas of why humans had larger brains and swim unlike most primates.

biological data and actually medical experiments are beging to erudite the fields of anthropology and archeology in conjunction with other convergent fields of study between disiplines to give us a better picture of the how and why all the time

and respectfully when someone apologizes its rather rude to just slap thier face all over again, there are a lot of enviromentalists and animal rights activists giving those areas of study and consern a bad name with over zealous and illegal practices, much akin to the anti-abortionist movements, its allways sad to see such violence used in the name of causes that by their own offical dogmas shouldnt condon such measures

[Thorne]

This was all talk about the whole 'genetically designed' argument. I don't think it is possible to determine nor do I think it has bearing. The question we should address is our current consumption of meat. Today. 2008. Is is helping us or hurting us as a species?
To be honest, I don't care if it's helping or hurting the species. I'm more concerned with myself. Odds are the species will outlive me by a couple of years, at least.



My issues with it tend toward the global. Almost all of my issues with things have that tendency. Plagues and starvation. Those are the problems I've raised.
Well, chances are, if we eliminate meat from mankind's diet, millions will starve because there won't be enough vegetables to go around. There isn't enough to go around now. Instead of worrying about whether eating meat will harm the species, you should be worrying about the amount of food which is wasted instead of feeding the hungry. Although, if you aren't one of the hungry ones, why should you care?

[Thorne]

I am an environmentalist. It's how I make my living. I work exclusively on Green initiatives. I help green companies and products make themselves available to the public.
Okay, now I see why you care. More power to you. I appreciate your dedication.

I don't claim to understand it, though. Basically, I'm a selfish person. I'm a consumerist. Use it while we've got it, because like it or not it will get used up. If not by people like us, then by the very rich and privileged who will be the only one's able to afford it when politically correct legislators tax it up the wazoo.

[Kevin100]

Not sure if I am following your reasoning here but...
You seem to be saying that a human does, or does not, have the right to torture an animal? You say it is cruel. But the question is... Does a human have the right to buy a dog in order to torture it? Does a human further have the right to torture a dog as he or she pleases for as long as he or she pleases?
Interestingly... Under most legal systems people do not have that right,

Kevin

[Kevin100]

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals

I am not sure I understand this.
Torture is not torturous?

Kevin

[Thorne]

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals

I am not sure I understand this.
Torture is not torturous?

Kevin

I suppose it depends on your definition of torture. Going to the dentist is painful, or torturous, for us, but it is not torture. The pain is inflicted for a specific, ultimately beneficial reason, and, of course, it's pretty much voluntary.

By the same token, though the animals don't volunteer for it, the ultimate aim of medical research is for the benefit of humanity, ideally. Therefore, scientists can offset the infliction of pain to their test animals because of the potential gains for people. And even then the reputable ones will, if at all possible without screwing up the test results, sedate the animals. And any pain inflicted is not done for sadistic or gratuitous reasons, which is what I would consider torture.

Now, using animals for cosmetic testing, to my mind, is much less justifiable. I couldn't justify in my mind that those animals have to undergo such pain just to make me look better or smell better or feel better about myself. (And believe me, in my case that would require a LOT of pain!)

The other thing you have to remember, though I don't know how much bearing it has, is that the vast majority of these test animals are living only because they are test animals. Is this right? I don't know. Again, I think you have to balance the needs of humanity with the means for meeting those needs.

[Shwenn]

and respectfully when someone apologizes its rather rude to just slap thier face all over again,

Meena didn't apologize to me. She made that "ridiculous" dig at me. Then she explianed why she didn't owe me an apology, but not to me. She made it clear she was addressing others in the comment.


there are a lot of enviromentalists and animal rights activists giving those areas of study and consern a bad name with over zealous and illegal practices, much akin to the anti-abortionist movements, its allways sad to see such violence used in the name of causes that by their own offical dogmas shouldnt condon such measures

Stipulated. I don't see how that excuses what Meena wrote. I think she owes me an apology. Trust me, I'm not holding my breath.

I abhor those people you speak of. Nothing bothers me more than when people who have the same opinion as me resort to tactics I find despicable or horrific.

On the other hand, I think it helps my cause when the people who disagree with me are petty and childish.

If a person I agree with is behaving that way, I distance myself. If I try to support them, I will end up looking very feeble and insecure about my own stance. I will look so uncertain that I feel the need to boster my numbers with any radome, fractious stranger, since my argument alone is not enough.

Ask yourself, are you the same? Do you really agree with Meena's behavior or are you not taking issue with it because she is on your side? Am I really the one here most in need of a lecture on how to comport yourself respectfully?

Think about it.

[Shwenn]

Well, chances are, if we eliminate meat from mankind's diet, millions will starve because there won't be enough vegetables to go around. There isn't enough to go around now. Instead of worrying about whether eating meat will harm the species, you should be worrying about the amount of food which is wasted instead of feeding the hungry. Although, if you aren't one of the hungry ones, why should you care?

I do not believe this is true. In fact, I feel the opposite is true. Raising cattle is not a closed system. You have to invest far more calories in the creature than you will ultimately harvest from it.

Now, I am not a strict vegetarian by any means. I eat fish I catch myself. I eat the deer and boar that my father hunts. And I do eat cattle that are properly grazed by honest to god cattle ranchers, people for whom I have a great deal of respect.

I do not eat corn-fed beef. And most beef is corn fed. I think it is a complete waste of corn.

[Thorne]

I do not believe this is true. In fact, I feel the opposite is true. Raising cattle is not a closed system. You have to invest far more calories in the creature than you will ultimately harvest from it.

Now, I am not a strict vegetarian by any means. I eat fish I catch myself. I eat the deer and boar that my father hunts. And I do eat cattle that are properly grazed by honest to god cattle ranchers, people for whom I have a great deal of respect.

I do not eat corn-fed beef. And most beef is corn fed. I think it is a complete waste of corn.
Generally, though, the cattle are eating vegetation which humans cannot eat, or cannot eat easily. But like you, I don't think feeding corn to food animals is a good idea. It raises the price of corn, for one thing, making it more difficult for the poor to afford. Even more ridiculous is using corn to make ethanol to use as a gasoline additive, but that's a whole different topic.

I only had deer meat once and didn't care for it. But that may have been the fault of the guy who cooked it. I'm not a hunter myself, nor do I like fish. And I can't honestly say I check what my meal was fed. My wife buys it, prepares it and cooks it. I eat it. It's that simple for me!

[Torq]

OK, FOLKS !!!!!

Time for the STAY ON TOPIC POINT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments about the TOPIC!!! Dis-agreements about the TOPIC!!!!! OPINIONS about the TOPIC!!!!!!

Following my drift here. EVERYONE stop the personal
"Digs" ,, "Comments" ,, "Issues",, "Apology Requests",, ETC ETC ETC ETC

EVERYONE is intitled to their OPINION on the TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are NOT entitled to attack each other's opinions PERSONALLY!!!!! That equals flaming and will be dealt with !!!!

This is a really good thread with good discussion,lets keep it that way.

IF I am not clear here send me a PM and we'll discuss further!!!!!!

Thanks Allll

Be Well

T