Animal Rights

[SuperSheep]

mmmk Roid...

What follows was said before things got "personal"...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should think before you post.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

I guess when someone continues to flaunt what they feel to be their mental superiority over others over a topic that really is a matter of opinion, others may get offended.

Just my 2¢

[roid]

it was getting subtley personal earlier again. it can be surprising just how subtle it can be, yet the ego still picks it up and feels that something isn't right.

[SuperSheep]

Subtlety is not one of ccb's finer points which is probably what prompted the personal nature of the responses not to mention he's an arrogant little pr*ck.

Whoops, there's another one.

[SuperSheep]

Almost forgot...

Muff quoted ccb's exact words as I also read the post in question. Seems to me that when ccb get's backed into a corner, he picks on those that won't attack him.

So, ccb, you wanna dance with someone, dance with me next time.

[Vertigo 99]

THREAD SUCKS

[Testiculese]

Do not animals also have privileges given to them by other animals?

Nah, either they aren't prey to a particular animal, and therefore ignored, or they're not eaten because the predator already ate.

Although..non-human animals seem to have more respect for each other than humans do. You rarely see animals killing each other over trivialities, not even over food. Food is damn important in the wild. But if a hyena (or several) comes too close to a lion's kill, the lion doesn't go kill it, it just chases it a bit and yells at it. Maybe you're mixing up the words 'respect' and 'indifference' with 'privilege'? Or are you on a different track?

[Nosferatu]

Rights are assigned to them not because the animal has unalienable rights though I'm sure PETA is trying to assign them such. In the case of the eagle, they have the same right as you to move through their element unmolested. The only difference may be the punishment to those's who infringe upon their rights.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals?

Oh they have a conniption if you use that joke.

[scottris]

Nah, either they aren't prey to a particular animal, and therefore ignored, or they're not eaten because the predator already ate.

In many cases this is true, but it's too simple to apply to all animal behavior. Many species of animal frequently exhibit more complex behavioral patterns. Typically within their own species, but sometimes extending to a limited range of other species as well. Many species form complex social structures, in which certain behaviors are accepted and other behaviors are not. Is this not the basic definition of rights? Primates are obviously a good example of this, but they are by no means the only species. I have heard that elephants (surprisingly) exhibit very complex social behavior. I believe dolphins do as well, although they're more difficult to study in groups. Even our favorite house pets, dogs and cats, are quite socially aware.

Food is damn important in the wild. But if a hyena (or several) comes too close to a lion's kill, the lion doesn't go kill it, it just chases it a bit and yells at it.

In this case, I suspect the lion is not letting the hyena live out of respect, but merely because it's not worth the effort to catch and kill. Lions do however show respect (or disrespect) for other lions. Furthermore, I belive they are likely to be much more respectful of other lions from the same pride. They are also a social species.

--

Since I feel I should provide some support for my claims, I'll refer you to this site which I found after a quick Google search. The articles are not extensive (they are in fact very brief), but they all include references which should make the site a good jumping-off point for further study. For those who are so inclined.

[Sirius]

Yeah, to actually come to any logical conclusion on this topic, you need to define how you know what rights something has.

That is really, really difficult to do. In mainstream western society, the prevailing opinions of the society in question decide the moral rules such as what rights are given to whom/what.

However, as earlier pointed out, most of them feel there is a more fundamental source of these rights; the problem is no-one agrees on what that source is. Many have tried and failed to settle on an absolute morality, including philosophers (I think Kant touched on the subject); all we really have are our consciences to guide us as to the rules of such a morality.

Or, if that fails, of course there are others in society who rely on theirs.

Some point towards God as a source of morals and ethics, and thus the one who defines right from wrong. If people generally accepted this, it would take little more work to determine whether animals really DO have rights (personally I am not sure they do under this system, but there is an obligation to treat them with decency).

The problem is, people don't... and I doubt you can really come to any agreement on this topic therefore. All you have is popular opinion, which comes from many, many different places.

[scottris]

I think morality, the concept of right and wrong, is a product of two factors: Some degree of thought and reasoning capability (specifically the ability to consider a situation, and consequences of certain actions or inactions therein, prior to reacting), and the instinctual desire to survive (individually and as a species). Furthermore what is right and what is wrong is determined by that need to survive, and the ability to recognize situations, actions therin, and the consequences thereof, which may help or hinder survival.

Rights (with an s) on the other hand are about power and control. Requiring a situation where one or more creature(s) have the power to control or influence the actions of other creature(s), and the desire to do so based on their (the controller(s)) ideas of right and wrong.

In my opinion.

So maybe you're all getting rather tired of this thread, and I should perhaps just let it die, but I want to post this anyway. So there.

[Sirius]

Eh, don't worry about it. Seems right on the nail to me.

[Will Robinson]

Animals have the right to run like hell, pull the plow, or be tasty!