Animal Rights

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:26 pm

Do animals (excluding humans) have rights? (Not should they have rights)

Explain.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:14 pm

perhaps no-one has rights. although i may say we have responsabilitys to treat other beings well.

everyone can take what they should, or
everyone can give what they should.
either way, or a mixture of both, would work i guess.

i don't want things to suffer. So i can either say that they have the right to not suffer (ie: they take that right). or i can say that i won't make them suffer (ie: i'll give them that kind treatment).

so i guess by doing something wrong in this regard i'm either breaking my own (give) law, or someone else's (take).

i guess if they had rights it would be a further protection. so yeah i'll say they should. but i don't think they do. so no.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:32 pm

"Rights" is a human concept.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:40 pm

No, animals do not have rights. Should we be humane to them? Of course ...

Scripture is clear that God made this world and every living thing in it for us to use for our needs.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:42 pm

hehe, lions are for encouraging regular human exersize. thank god for lions!

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:14 am

animals do not have rights
we have rights to protect animals

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:59 am

ccb056 wrote:animals do not have rights
we have rights to protect animals

That's right...as civilized 'animals' we have the moral duty to protect those creatures less fortunate than ourselves. It just makes all the sense in the world.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:06 am

Not to protect, to HUSBAND, against need.

I love animals. They taste good.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:19 am

Iceman wrote:Scripture is clear that God made this world and every living thing in it for us to use for our needs.

Whatâ??s that have to do with anything?

Domination is part of a functioning eco-system it happens everyday. Humans are just pussys that need weapons to fight their fights. If the playing field was level there would be more â??humans as foodâ?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:58 am

Humans are not merely animals. By having rights, humans are above animals. If humans didn't have rights, then they would be animals. If animals had rights, then they would be human.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:27 pm

Iceman wrote:Scripture is clear that God made this world and every living thing in it for us to use for our needs.

whoa there.

By "scripture" I'm assuming you are referring to the bible. Why should the Bible decide the state of animal rights, as opposed to, for instance, Hinduism? I don't know about you, but I would sure miss my hamburgers.

For the record, I think animals have the "right" to be treated humanely. I suppose it all comes down to how one intereprets "rights" and "humane."

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:35 pm

EnC is once again becoming "God said it so therefore it must be true" kinda place. I Guess it's why i'm falling for Drak's 3-line rule all the time.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:43 pm

Non-human animals do not have rights. However, we human animals have a responsibility to treat the non-human animals humainly. Except for food animals, they're screwed

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:32 pm

Dedman wrote:Non-human animals do not have rights. However, we human animals have a responsibility to treat the non-human animals humainly. Except for food animals, they're screwed

no, to treat them humanely is to treat them as humans
we only treat humans as humans
you dont have to treat something that as not human as human
you treat something by what it is
an animal is not a human
therefore, you treat an animal as an animal

you dont treat animales humanely, you treat them animely

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:34 pm

ccb056 wrote: we only treat humans as humans

LOL

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:52 pm

ccb056, if you were trying to make a joke, disregard my post as I have missed the point. However if you are serious

. . .

ccb056 wrote:no, to treat them humanely is to treat them as humans

Nope. To treat them as humans would be to treat them humanistically. To treat them humanely is to treat them with mercy and compassion. To treat them animely would involve making cartoons about them.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:32 pm

ccb056 wrote:no, to treat them humanely is to treat them as humans
we only treat humans as humans
you dont have to treat something that as not human as human
you treat something by what it is
an animal is not a human
therefore, you treat an animal as an animal

you dont treat animales humanely, you treat them animely

You must have slept through school there chief.

According to my dictionary:

1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:42 pm

No, you are not getting the point

Humans are to act as humans
To act as a human is to act humanely

All humans act humanely simply because they are humans
Different people act different ways because they are different

When someone makes a conscious decision, or an act that only humans can do, then they are acting humanely

The person that defined humane as 'Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion' defined it as such because that is the way he acts

Not all people act the same, his definition does not apply

The true interpretation of humane is to act as a human

If you were to kill an animal, you are acting humanely

Animals don't have rights. Humans have the right to act humanely.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:49 pm

Any of you who think you can come around and use my raccoons for your "Needs", will find them protected by me, Mr Smith & Mr. Wesson.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:51 pm

Exactly, because those 'coons are your property

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:52 pm

Dedman wrote:According to my dictionary:
1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.

dammit Dedman . . . you've outed me for the plagiarist that I really am

ccb056 . . . "different people act in different ways because they are different." Damn dude, that's deep.

You are the one not getting the point AT ALL. Go look up the definition of "humanely".

EDIT: and then go look up "humanistic"

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:00 pm

humane
marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns

humanistic
of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion

compassion
deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it

another
a different body or entity within the same group or class

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:16 pm

riggghhhhhtt.

Now, try posting the entire definition, not just the portion that suits your argument.

From Merriam-Webster

1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture :

According to you, to act as a human is to act humanely? So, if I go club a baby seal with a louisville slugger, that's me acting as a human and therefore acting humanely?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:35 pm

ccb056 wrote:All humans act humanely simply because they are humans

So by your definition, Heinrich Himmler was humane to the jewish people in his camps during WWII?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:33 pm

So by your definition, Heinrich Himmler was humane to the jewish people in his camps during WWII?

That is correct

Just because when you think of humane, you think of it with cheery care bear overtones, it does not mean it's true.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:43 pm

I guess just about every dictionary in the English language is wrong then. My apologies. Next time I have a question as to the real meaning of a word, I'll PM ya

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:46 pm

I don't know why you think that. I never said the dictionary was wrong. I said your interpretation of the words is wrong.

We are really focusing on the wrong aspect of this discussion, in order to asertain if animals have rights, shouldn't we look at what a right is?

A right is 'a just or legal claim or title.'
How do animals have a just or legal claim to anything?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:51 pm

Have a good one.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:54 pm

If there was ever a post more useless than this one, it is dedman's post above it.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:26 pm

ccb056 wrote:
So by your definition, Heinrich Himmler was humane to the jewish people in his camps during WWII?
That is correct

Just because when you think of humane, you think of it with cheery care bear overtones, it does not mean it's true.

O_o

ccb056 wrote:I said your interpretation of the words is wrong.

Says who? You?

Please, work on your reading comprehension. Mobius would never hire you.

I cannot believe I'm even having this argument. Time for me to work on that self-control . . . I knew I was too grouchy to be posting in E+C.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:32 pm

ccb056 wrote:I said your interpretation of the words is wrong.
Says who? You?

Obviously I am saying it. Who else did you think was saying it? Where is your argument? Since you did not post an argument, I can only assume you do not have one because either one does not exist, you you do not have the mental capacity to formulate an argument.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:48 pm

huÂ·mane

Pronunciation Key (hy-mn)
adj.

1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge.
2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.

but; by your definition ccb, stalin was humane to people, hitler was humane to people, amd mussolini was humane to people. because these were also people.

riiiight.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:50 pm

Where is your argument?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:54 pm

my argument is this: just because you are human doesn't mean you act humane all the time.

If i were to go up to someone and gut them.. am I acting humane? if I were to run someone over, am I acting humane? If i were to bomb someone's house.. am I acting humane?

your line of thinking is absurd and borderline psychotic.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:00 pm

My way of thinking can be interpreted any way you please. The question isn't whose line of thinking is correct. The question is whose interpretation of the word humane is correct.

The word humane has a definition. That definition has a denotation and a connotation. I recognize the denotation of the word as truth. The denotation for me is the same as the connotation. You see the connotation of the word differently than I see it. And therefore your connotation is different compared to the denotation of the word.

I also want to bring up this point:
A right is 'a just or legal claim or title.'
How do animals have a just or legal claim to anything?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:07 pm

ccb056 wrote:My way of thinking can be interpreted any way you please. The question isn't whose line of thinking is correct. The question is whose interpretation of the word humane is correct.

The word humane has a definition. That definition has a denotation and a connotation. I recognize the denotation of the word as truth. The denotation for me is the same as the connotation.

and the proper definition is in a dictionary. something that has had linguistic experts approve it. you however, are not an linguistic expert.

It's also evident that you are throwing out red herrings to derail this thread.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:10 pm

It is other people, not I, that are throwing out red herrings.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:14 pm

and another thing . . .

ibtl

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:16 pm

ibtl?

I dont't know what that means so I did a google search.

Are you saying 'Injustice By The Law'?

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:22 pm

ccb056 wrote:How do animals have a just or legal claim to anything?

How do humans have a just or legal claim to anything?

Animal Rights

Do animals have rights

Animal Rights