Animal Rights
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Animal Rights
Do animals (excluding humans) have rights? (Not should they have rights)
Explain.
Explain.
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.
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.
- WarAdvocat
- DBB Defender
- Posts: 3035
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Whatâ??s that have to do with anything?Iceman wrote:Scripture is clear that God made this world and every living thing in it for us to use for our needs.
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?
whoa there.Iceman wrote:Scripture is clear that God made this world and every living thing in it for us to use for our needs.
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."
-
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
no, to treat them humanely is to treat them as humansDedman 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
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
-
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
ccb056, if you were trying to make a joke, disregard my post as I have missed the point. However if you are serious . . .
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.ccb056 wrote:no, to treat them humanely is to treat them as humans
You must have slept through school there chief.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
According to my dictionary:
1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.
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.
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.
dammit Dedman . . . you've outed me for the plagiarist that I really amDedman wrote:According to my dictionary:1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.
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"
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
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
riggghhhhhtt.
Now, try posting the entire definition, not just the portion that suits your argument.
From Merriam-Webster
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?
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?
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?
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?
O_occb056 wrote:That is correctSo by your definition, Heinrich Himmler was humane to the jewish people in his camps during WWII?
Just because when you think of humane, you think of it with cheery care bear overtones, it does not mean it's true.
Says who? You?ccb056 wrote:I said your interpretation of the words is wrong.
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.
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.Says who? You?ccb056 wrote:I said your interpretation of the words is wrong.
hu·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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
and the proper definition is in a dictionary. something that has had linguistic experts approve it. you however, are not an linguistic expert.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.
It's also evident that you are throwing out red herrings to derail this thread.