about animal rights...

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe I am writing this post because of my soft spot for animals, or maybe because i just got back taking my dogs to the vet for their heartworm check-ups..... At either rate, I've seen things that have struck a cord with me.... A neighborhood duck which is nice to everyone, and a middleschool kid was gonna shoot at him with his beebee gun.... As I am 27, I usually never would get too angry at a kid, but I felt I had to protect this duck, because I knew she was innocent..... On tv, I see people who starve their dogs and beat them.... This honestly brings a tear to me eye, as I feel like my dogs are my children. This being said, one thing that definately pisses me off is people who abuse innocent animals. If I were an animal control officer, I'd be fired the first time i seen someone do something like this, because I'd bust their head open. Does anyone else feel like this?

Whenever they catch people abusing innocent animals, I think the perps should be treated just like they treated the animals. Like cock (not that cock lol)/dog fighters, or people who starve their pets, or beat them.... They should be thrown in prison and treated just the same way they did those animals... Animal fight promoters would be forced to fight to the death while people pay money to watch them and place bets on them. Its an eye for an eye.

...and we'll all be blind!

I agree laws should be tougher, but not abusive measures, but longer prison stretches and bans that actually work.

I hate seeing it too though, when I was younger I saw a sheep dead on the road, a lorry driving too fast over the moors had done it and I drew a picture for the sheep.

There's a lot of hypocrisy over animal rights in this country; it's what I call Basil Brush syndrome: if it's cute and fluffy then it must be protected at all costs. Whilst this is happening, the death and destruction wrought elsewhere is ignored — out of sight out of mind kind of thing. For example, I was walking over a 20 acre area of grass and wetland the other day. It's full of wildlife like rabbits, shrews, mice, rats, frogs and toads. In a few weeks time a couple of D6 bulldozers will rip through there and bury the lot as the topsoil is stripped and pushed into stockpiles prior to construction.

On a similar note, when do you ever see anyone take a stand for those poor rats that are poisoned in their thousands every year? Yet when a bunch of country folk dress up in red to ride to hounds in pursuit of a few foxes then every limp-wristed tree-hugger in the land comes out of the woodwork in protest.

I can't understand people.

Having said that, I do like animals. I just try and keep things in perspective.

snake you have a good point, as does ascan as well, although ascans position on the matter is not entirely clear from his post, all animals, and just nature in general, should be treated with far more respect than it is by humans.

well, besides where people have to kill animals (for food and what not), I don't see why an animal's life should be of any less importance than that of a humans. I mean, don't get me wrong, I eat meat myself (I don't particularly like many veggies other than potatoes). But that's different, it's for food. That animal has every bit as much of a right to live as we do though, and even if I had to kill an animal for food, I would still respect the animal. I do agree some of these groups have went a bit far, like those maniacs who doused a kid at disney world in monkey blood.
I do believe in an eye for an eye type of justice, I think if someone does something like that to someone, they deserve a dose of their own medicine. People never learn the tree hugger way because theyr too ignorant.

The only thing is that we don't HAVE to kill animals at all in our modern societies and complete vegetarianism is possible. Meat in our society is a luxury and something we consume for our pleasure so by eating meat you are in effect stating that your wants and desires(note that I did not say needs) are superior to the lives of animals. This in effect means that animals are not equal despite your claims of equality as the consumption of meat IS a complete affront to such a claim.

Now given that killing animals for pleasure is acceptable if we eat them, why should killing them for pleasure not be acceptable in other cases? I must affirm that I don't like senseless death, however, I think that there clearly is an ethical inconsistency with the nature of our relationship with animals something that ascan pointed out as well, however, I find the claim that animals have equal worth to us to be inconsistent with our interests and the nature of the world as either humans would have to become less valuable or environmental stability will be impossible(if we can't allow the lion to eat the man then we cannot allow the bird to eat the worm) and I find it to go against my consequentialist views on society.

I am probably close to Awesomelyglorious position on this issue.

I am against unnecessary cruelty to animals, however I also don't think animals should have rights in the way that humans have rights. Because of this I have no objection to hunting (even though I could not do it myself), medical experimentation on animals (which I feel are necessary for the good of humanity), or eating meat (which I do partake).

Also: Historically, while those who are cruel to animals often end up being cruel to humans, this does not prevent those who are unusually humane to animals from being cruel to humans.

I'll agree to that.

I must be the only one that doesn't care about animal cruelty. If you allow them to go to the slaughterhouse, you have no right to criticize what people do to animals.

Ah, but what line should we draw and why. As well, can we really draw as direct of a relationship between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans as you imply? After all, not all people who are cruel to animals are cruel to humans, and many sports and activities we still have are have liked historically are cruel or violent to either animals or humans or imply such cruelty or violence, such as wrestling, boxing, hunting, bullfighting, gladiatorial matches, or even modern video games and movies where killing often occurs. Given the role of violence in modern and historical entertainment and the fact that animals are subject to our desires can we not argue that what we typically call animal cruelty should be allowed as it is done by humans to improve the quality of their lives.

Well, actually it seems that headphase has sort of advocated the same position that I am attempting to argue. He is sort of correct too, if it is alright to have an animal killed at a slaughterhouse for your pleasure then what is the moral difference between that and killing the animal personally for your pleasure? The animal dies and the individual gets pleasure from that death in some form or fashion. To state that one form of pleasure is better than another is in its own way imposing your morality on that other person.

Well.... The ONLY reason I'm such a carnivore is because I can't stand certain cheeses, green leafy vegies (other than lettuce), and garlic. Those things make me wanna vommit. And, you can barely name a single vegetarian meal that doesn't have atleast one of those things in it. If they had wider vegetarian options, I would probably be a vegetarian...... But, vegetables live too though.... And plants have feelings as well, they can feel pain....... Well life thrives on death, I think we should try as much as possible though to use good taste and judgement where this is concerned. I mean, meat is a source of protein that is essential to growth and development, and only in more recent times have medical experts found ways to get around this and remain healthy. Still, food is a need for survival. If I were at war and the only source of food for miles around was the dead enemy soldiers I had killed, you better believe I'd eat them (and I'd be a cannibal ) But, I can understand meat from the supermarket is a different scenario though.... But if the killing is in the aims of sustaining our own lives, I think it's acceptible.... Just as it is when a lion eats a person. If someone's just excessively abusing an animal for a power trip, or something of that nature, they should be punished.

Oh, one more thing.... I didn't ever say animals were equals, atleast not politically speaking. But I do think they have just as much right to be here as we do though.

Why should they be punished though? The only reason I have seen so far is your moral opposition to such action. But why should your morality be the judge for all of society. What consequence for human society will your morality bring about that would be more positive than just letting people act freely?

Well, if we invoke some metaphysical concept of rights perhaps, but the only thing is that one can reasonably argue that neither humans nor animals have a right to live and/or that metaphysical concepts are therefore meaningless when deciding human policy.

To your 1st question, I don't think it's just "my morality". "what consequences for human society will your morality being about that would be more positive than just letting people act freely"... And, this is once again, primitive animal self centerdness. Yes, theyr just that way too, maybe moreso. But, with our "divine intellect", it's ok to make the innocent suffer for no better purpose than our ammusement?
As to your 2nd question, all life deserves a right to live. It's not like we chose to be here.

I agree to an extent. I dont think people should punch their dog or throw a phone book at a bird but we eat them (animals), so.

Having said that, maybe this kid wanted to eat the Duck?