Animal Rights

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:24 pm

Good point. My answer is because we say we do.

Animals haven't communicated this to us in an adequate way.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:42 pm

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

well...err..umm we invented this whole civilization thing ya' see and since someone had to be the rulers uhh..we chose us

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:31 pm

Ok, lets follow this logic train of yours ccb. You said animals have no rights. However, you say that we have rights to protect animals. By that definition, animals DO have rights because we created animal cruelty laws.

Case closed.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:50 pm

Just because you have a right to do something doesnt mean it should be done. You have the right to sit all day and do nothing. Should you sit at all day and nothing? Do you have to sit all day and do nothing?

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:57 pm

ccb056 wrote:Just because you have a right to do something doesnt mean it should be done. You have the right to sit all day and do nothing. Should you sit at all day and nothing? Do you have to sit all day and do nothing?

What is your point here? Are you deliberately trying to look like an utter retard? Cuz its working.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:59 pm

I am saying your argument is not valid.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:19 pm

Yup, it's working alright

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:20 pm

ok ccb056, i see that you wish to redefine "Humane". Although it's a noble idea, to avoid confusion i'd rather you used a different term - as by popular/contemporary definition the word "Humane" does not mean "to act human" (even though this may be the origin of the word). You may say that it SHOULD mean this, and yes i sympathise, but as it stands now it DOESN'T mean that - and it's very confusing for you to be throwing the word around - attached to your unique definition - in amongst other people who are using the word with the popular definition in mind.

You should be using a different word. Please. For the sake of debate call it "Acting Natural", "Darwinism", "Animal Nature" or something, anything. And just accept the word "Humane", in this thread, as meaning "to act compassionately".
With double definitions we'll end up with confusing statements like "i mean Humanely, not Humanely!".

You have brought up interesting points however in your suggesting for the RE-definition of "Humane". You have shown that the word is based in Morals, and we all know morals are subjective, therefore the word "Humane" should also be subjective. However, sadly, in it's contemporary definition it is NOT subjective - and solidly means: "to act compassionately".

The word "Humane" is likely ment to be an all encompassing definition that can be used the world over. It perhaps should describe the common traits we share as a species - but that is the definition of "Human Nature", the expression "Human Nature" is commonly used to describe good AND BAD traits that all humans share, as such i think this is the expression you are really looking for.
The contemporary definition of "Humane" does NOT include anti-social behaviours. As such the contemporary definition of "Humane" is more a definition of the SUPER-EGO. It's idealised, has a positive flavour, and excludes behaviours which are considered anti-social. (even though the definition of "anti-social" would also itself be subjective).

i'm in the mood for a thread like this. lets dance

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:27 pm

you have a very good argument regarding the word humane
I agree with your argument roid

How and why does 'humane' and 'humanely' relate to 'animal rights'

TigerRaptor · Post by **TigerRaptor** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:34 pm

Oh come on. Will you just STFU and stop answering a question with a question. Youâ??re not getting any where with this backwards gibberish of your. Stop over analyzing the subject and speak up.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:39 pm

TigerRaptorFX wrote:Oh come on. Will you just STFU and stop answering a question with a question. Youâ??re not getting any where with this backwards gibberish of your. Stop over analyzing the subject and speak up.

Correction, no one else is getting anywhere. My position is that animals do not have rights. No one else in this thread has been able to prove that they do. I do not answer questions with questions. When someone asks a question, I answer with a statement. Is it wrong that I, after making a statement, ask a question? I ask questions in order to more thoroughly understand the other person's argument. Once I understand it, I can either agree with it, or disagree with it. If the argument has faults, and those faults are significant to the meaning of the argument, they will be brought to light by me.

BTW, what a great why to enter a thread. You havent even voiced your opinion, yet you criticize mine. How big of you.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:41 pm

Welcome to the human race ccb!

Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us. Since communication between humans and animals hasn't reached a level where we can actually ask "do you think you should have rights?", we as humans can only speculate as to how animals feel about the whole matter as you have done in your post.

I personally feel that animals did not have rights in the strictest sense that we as humans believe that we have certain "rights" rather I think animals simply do not think in terms of "rights". Animals think in terms of survival.

You as a human are as all of us are, free to consider more than simply survival, and humans have slowly but surely evolved a sense of morals and rights to help protect ourselves and those we care about.

You could argue that one is free to do as one please's and that to do one thing versus another is the same, however you'd be in the minority. One thing that has guided humanity through the ages is majority rules, and majority rules, or common opinion is king.

In some countries, they eat dogs, and in others they worship cows. These are beliefs and like all beliefs, they are open to question. However, if a societies beliefs become strong enough and held by enough members of the society, you'll find they move from beliefs to morals, and finally rights, possibly even laws.

Now, you are free to believe what you want and free to do what you want, all of us are. Asking what all of us think about whether or not animals have rights only tells you the beliefs of those member who respond to this thread. Sounds to me like you don't personally believe animals have rights, so why even ask the question here?

Do you ask only so you can rebuke the person for their beliefs? Do you ask so you can respond with your beliefs in some futile effort to change the persons belief? Either way, you seem to only want to believe what you believe, which leads me to wonder what possible purpose besides being antaganostic you could have?

Anyways...If you want to know what I believe, I believe we all have to live together on this lonely rock in space. We all should try to agree on the rules, and stick to them. Whether or not an individual agrees with the majority is moot. I for one want to live in a society that cares for and protects those humans AND animals that can not protect themselves. I do not believe in protecting insects. I do not believe in protecting animals that are dangerous to humans.

But hey, beliefs are just that, beliefs. But animals do in fact have "rights" in America and if you harm an animal, you could find yourself with a hefty fine or jail time. Is that right? Well, it is the majority rule and therefore feel free to argue it to your hearts content but that'll make little difference to those that uphold the laws.

Finally...

I can not understand how you can be so obtuse over the meaning of the word "humane" or the word "humanely". You obviously do not understand that words have meaning because the majority believes that a word means a certain thing. Arguing that a word means only your narrow viewpoint, when so many see it as meaning something else, is naive and actually makes you appear immature and combative. Perhaps you might check out what the rest of us think of when we hear the word humane...

Humane...
Humane Society
American Humane
Humane USA

Humanely...
http://www.news.wisc.edu/8646.html]

The goal of the course, say its instructors, is to teach lab-animal users on campus how to care for the animals properly and, above all, humanely. This includes learning about animal welfare issues, such as ways to hold a lab rat to alleviate its stress, new equipment and better techniques that enhance animal well-being.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN ... f=ENG-360]

Afghanistan/USA: Prisoners must be treated humanely
"All those in US custody following the military operations in Afghanistan must be treated humanely, with full respect for international standards," Amnesty International said today.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/s ... cus5.html]

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:46 pm

Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us.

That statement is entirely false. Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us that had the capacity to create such concepts. Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:59 pm

(this was ment to follow on from my last post.. but it still fits in even with other ppl's posts inbetween)

ok so..

animals don't have rights.
and neither do humans.

is there anything morally or ethically stopping a lion from eating you? Is that lion denying your rights? Not really, the lion doesn't care what "rights" you say you have (purely a problem of communication, as lions DO have their own morals that denote how they deal with their own species*). The lion is acting on "Lion Nature". Lions will also play with food, it's cruel in my eyes, but there it is. And they will even kill for fun, going on killing rampages without eating their kills.
So do lions even have morals or ethics? They do have some some kindof social laws that govern their prides (lion groups). I guess the way to look into this would be to deeply study lion psychology, try to make a list of all the things lions could possibly WANT to do (ID), & a list of all the things their social groups expect from it's members (SUPEREGO), & then using those 2 lists (and more lion study) make up a 3rd list of what the lion actualy does to stay inbetween what he wants to do and what his society expects of him (this 3rd list would be the EGO).
It could be interesting, because normally we consider animals to just be their ID, we think they have no EGO or SUPEREGO. But animals do not live in utopian collectives (where the ID, SUPEREGO, and EGO are all the same, there is no conflict) - NO! they have fights and squabbles! So maybe they do have SUPEREGOs and EGOs, just like humans do

. And thus maybe they even struggle with questions of their own morality as well. Feeling that strain between the ID and the SUPEREGO, the conflict manifesting itself as negative emotions (ie: depression).

(* and arguably also how they deal with other species, as can be seen when sometimes an animal will adopt or befriend another species of animal and treat it as a member of it's own family/species. Like a cat that adopts some puppies.)

is there anything morally or ethically stopping you from killing a lion?

the definition of what a "RIGHT" is, is interesting to me as well. i'm gonna wiki around.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:04 am

Guess ya missed the very next sentence...

I personally feel that animals did not have rights in the strictest sense that we as humans believe that we have certain "rights" rather I think animals simply do not think in terms of "rights". Animals think in terms of survival.

Please...If you are going to try and have an argument, you should actually read everything that is said.

But I am curious...Since you said that my statement was entirely false I'd love to see your evidence. Got any links?

Muffalicious · Post by **Muffalicious** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:04 am

I have to agree with Sheep because he expained what I feel best. I have puppies and I luv them like they were my children. That is why I luv the fact they have rights in the USA.

ccb056 wrote:
Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us.
That statement is entirely false. Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us that had the capacity to create such concepts. Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.

As for you ccb, that is so weak! Is that the best you can do?
I think you have nothing left to argue on the original topic.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:06 am

Roid, I am not going to counter your argument because we are both saying that animals do not have rights.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:12 am

I have to agree with Sheep because he expained what I feel best. I have puppies and I luv them like they were my children. That is why I luv the fact they have rights in the USA.

Just because you feel something to be true doesnt mean it is true. Just because you feel that animals should have rights means that they do have rights.

Ask a retard what they feel 2^16 is. Chances are, their feelings will not be 65536.

TigerRaptor · Post by **TigerRaptor** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:13 am

ccb056 wrote:
TigerRaptorFX wrote:Oh come on. Will you just STFU and stop answering a question with a question. Youâ??re not getting any where with this backwards gibberish of your. Stop over analyzing the subject and speak up.
Correction, no one else is getting anywhere. My position is that animals do not have rights. No one else in this thread has been able to prove that they do. I do not answer questions with questions. When someone asks a question, I answer with a statement. Is it wrong that I, after making a statement, ask a question? I ask questions in order to more thoroughly understand the other person's argument. Once I understand it, I can either agree with it, or disagree with it. If the argument has faults, and those faults are significant to the meaning of the argument, they will be brought to light by me.

BTW, what a great why to enter a thread. You havent even voiced your opinion, yet you criticize mine. How big of you.

Youâ??re the only who isnâ??t getting any where, since you fail to understand a life of an animal. Your earlier reply in the NHB is a joke when you tried compare a plant and a life of animal. I question your logic and your respect on life. Donâ??t tell me how to reply to this thread since you couldnâ??t reply to my question in the NHB.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:15 am

But I am curious...Since you said that my statement was entirely false I'd love to see your evidence. Got any links?

I am surprised the statement I am going to make is not entirely obvious to you.

A being cannot think it has a right if it does not have the ability/capacity to think it has a right.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:19 am

Youâ??re the only who isnâ??t getting any where, since you fail to understand a life of an animal. Your earlier reply in the NHB is a joke when you tried compare a plant and life of animal. I question your logic and your respect on life. Donâ??t tell me how to reply to this thread since you couldnâ??t reply to my question in the NHB.

What are you saying? Are you saying that I don't understand that animals are alive? You can question anything you want. I could care less about your questions if you don't voice them. I left the thread in the NHB and stated that if anyone wanted to discuss the issue of animal rights, I would discuss the issue in the E&C because that is what the E&C is for, not the NHB.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:36 am

ccb056 wrote:
But I am curious...Since you said that my statement was entirely false I'd love to see your evidence. Got any links?
I am surprised the statement I am going to make is not entirely obvious to you.

A being cannot think it has a right if it does not have the ability/capacity to think it has a right.

And, the proof of this is in your mind? or perhaps you have something else?

ccb...better be careful with statements such as...

Ask a retard what they feel 2^16 is. Chances are, their feelings will not be 65536

You are borderline on arguing against your own argument. Your statement relies on your belief that we all believe that 2 is a number, ^ is the "power of" notation and 16 is a number. You believe this because you believe that the majority believes this. Well, if the majority believes that animals have rights, then I guess by this statement of yours, you would too.

Anyways...I believe I don't wish to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person anymore. Your responses are unthinking and I'm getting bored. Have fun!

Muffalicious · Post by **Muffalicious** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:37 am

Now I understand what you're arguing is should animals have rights, not if animals have actual rights(because they do).

So under that note....
I feel that I have a connection with my puppies so I defend them. I have respect for them. So they have rights in my book. And that goes for any animal. If I intrude on other animals habitat they will tend to defend. That is their right.

TigerRaptor · Post by **TigerRaptor** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:38 am

No Iâ??m saying you fail to understand a life of something that can not protect its self.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:52 am

Supersheep, just because the majority belives something to be true does not make it true. Before it was discovered that the earth was round, the majority of the people beleived it was flat. Is the earth flat? If the earth isn't flat, then the majority of the people were wrong, my proof is still valid.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:54 am

Muffalicious, I am not arguing if animals should have rights or not. I am arguing that animals do not have rights. You obviously do not understand the argument. Look at my first post. Since I started this thread, it is the post at the beginning of the thread, you know, at the top of the first page.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:55 am

TigerRaptorFX, I understand that not all forms of life can protect themselves.

Muffalicious · Post by **Muffalicious** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:45 am

ccb056 wrote:Muffalicious, I am not arguing if animals should have rights or not. I am arguing that animals do not have rights. You obviously do not understand the argument. Look at my first post. Since I started this thread, it is the post at the beginning of the thread, you know, at the top of the first page.

I DO understand but IN the USA animals DO have "animal" rights.

And this is an argument is about peoples beliefs/opions if animals should have rights at all.

Maybe you need to learn how to start a debate

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:04 am

Again, that is not the argument. The argument is not do animals have rights in the United States. The argument is do animals have rights.

At one time the United States said that white people have the right to own black people. At one time, the United States said that women could not vote. At any point in time, the United States says something, however, not everything that the United States says is true.

Maybe you should think before you post.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:05 am

ccb056 wrote:Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.

Ask your neighbor's dog if you have the right to walk across his yard.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:22 am

ccb056 wrote:Maybe you should think before you post.

Are you familiar with the old adage about those who live in glass houses? Might want to look it up.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:29 am

Ask your neighbor's dog if you have the right to walk across his yard.

scottris, welcome to the thread; thread, welcome to scottris, his post being a prime example of a knee-jerk reaction

You completely misunderstood what I said. You think I said this:
Animals do not have the capacity to create concepts.

When what I actually said and therefore meant was this:
Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.

Now, I'm sure you have played this game in your childhood: One of these things is not like the other. Just apply that. What is the difference between what you think I said and what I actually said? Stumped. I'm surprised. I included the word "such" in my original statement to refer to the fact that animals do not have the capacity to create concepts of animal rights.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:31 am

ccb056 wrote: Good point. My answer is because we say we do.

Who is this "we"? How did "we" say "we" had these rights to begin with? What is a "right" for that matter?

Why are you so vehemently arguing against anything anybody says against your three line "proofs" with these abstract concepts that aren't well defined at all, or as illustrated above, outright contrary to defined understandings?

What is your point with all this anyway? Do you really have to go so round about to say that animals do not have rights because they are not a part of our, no can be a part of the greater society of humans?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:52 am

Who is this "we"? How did "we" say "we" had these rights to begin with? What is a "right" for that matter?

This thread isn't about human rights, it's about the existance of animal rights. Mr. Thread, meet Mr. Red Herring

Why are you so vehemently arguing against anything anybody says against your three line "proofs" with these abstract concepts that aren't well defined at all, or as illustrated above, outright contrary to defined understandings?

First, vehemently is a very strong word.

Second, this thread is about an abstract concept, animal rights
Third, being contrary to defined understanding does not correlate in any way with being wrong

What is your point with all this anyway?

Again, Mr. Thread, meet Mr. Red Herring.

Do you really have to go so round about to say that animals do not have rights because they are not a part of our, no can be a part of the greater society of humans?

Maybe third time is the charm: Mr. Thread, meet Mr. Red Herring.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:05 am

Edit: No. That was very rude of me.

Curses. You already read it.

Can't put it back.. it's gone. Can't take it back. It's said. So.. Yeah. There was a rude post here. I'm sorry. Moving on...

Edit again: There was something about ccb not being able to understand the issue, and my saying I was through etc. I'm only saying this now because I think it's cheap to remove a post like that after someone replied.. makes the reply out of context. Yeah. The whole "if you can demonstrate... until then" is mocking my post. And rightfully so.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:11 am

Ok, since you will refuse to post what you think, I am going to take the liberty to post what you think for you.

Ask your neighbor's dog if you have the right to walk across his yard.

You think the yard belongs to the dog.

If at some future point you can demonstrate that you understand that the yard does not belong to the dog, then I will be happy to continue this discussion with you.

Until then.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:39 am

The ownership of the yard is not at issue. The issue is control. The dog doesn't own the yard. In fact he most likely views it as belonging to his "owner", whom he regards as his superior. My point is that the dog views your trespassing as wrong. In his world, his master has the right to claim territory, and he has the right and duty to defend it. He may grant the right of passage to certain persons, and not to others.

The concept of rights, those actions which are socially acceptable and those that are not, is hardly limited to humans.

Furthermore, the dog understands what rights have been granted him by his owner. He may, for example, have free roam of the house, but the sofa is off limits. He has the right to relieve himself in the neighbors flower garden, but doing so in his master's bedroom is strictly forbidden.

I don't see how you can argue that animals don't understand the concept of rights. When living with us, they have demonstrated that they can learn the rights we choose to grant them, and those we deny. When left to their own devices, they will frequently form social structures with their own set of rules. They may not write them down, but they exist. They may not have an organized judiciary system, but they will still punish those who violate their rules. Humans at one point were no different. In many cases we are still no different.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:47 am

You have confused rights with responsibilities

The owner of the dog makes the dog responsible for not allowing tresspassers on the yard. When the dog does allow tresspassers on the yard, the dog is punished. You cannot punish someone for not fullfilling their right, you can punish someone for not fullfilling their responsibility.

The same logic applies to the other scenarios you used in your post.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:09 am

I'm trying to be kinder now because I felt I was being inappropriately rude before. I don't wish to engage in further mudslinging, however... I can't let this go. Although I know I should...

ccb wrote:You think I said this:
Animals do not have the capacity to create concepts.

What is this gibberish? Where did I ever say anything to this effect?

You said: "...the concept of animal rights...yadda yadda... Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts."

I read: "Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts. [as animal rights]"

Now, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you meant "rights" in general. Since to say that "before humans, animals didn't understand the human concept of animal rights" would be rather stupid. Given that, my reply was intended to demonstrate that animals do indeed have a concept of "rights".

Now, was I wrong to read your post as "Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts as rights"? Because if that's not what you meant to say, you might want to consider phrasing it differently.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:18 am

was I wrong to read your post as "Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts as rights"? Because if that's not what you meant to say, you might want to consider phrasing it differently.

I said this:

Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us that had the capacity to create such concepts. Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.

Supersheep said this:

Before humans showed up, the concept of animal rights would have only existed in the minds of those life forms that were here before us.

Yes, you are wrong in your understanding of what I said. I meant and mean exactly what I said, I don't understand why you cannot comprehend it, but I will reword it just for you

The concept of animal rights only exists in the minds of life forms that have the capacity to create such concepts. Animals do not have the capacity to create such concepts.
Such concepts = concepts of animal rights.

Animal Rights

Do animals have rights