Page 1 of 5
Animal Rights
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:26 pm
by ccb056
Do animals (excluding humans) have rights? (Not should they have rights)
Explain.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:14 pm
by roid
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.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:32 pm
by Grendel
"Rights" is a human concept.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:40 pm
by Iceman
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.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:42 pm
by roid
hehe, lions are for encouraging regular human exersize. thank god for lions!
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:14 am
by ccb056
animals do not have rights
we have rights to protect animals
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:59 am
by will_kill
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:06 am
by WarAdvocat
Not to protect, to HUSBAND, against need.
I love animals. They taste good.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:19 am
by TheCope
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?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:58 am
by ccb056
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:27 pm
by Hahnenkam
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."
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:35 pm
by Flabby Chick
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:43 pm
by Dedman
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
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:32 pm
by ccb056
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
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:34 pm
by Flabby Chick
ccb056 wrote:
we only treat humans as humans
LOL
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:52 pm
by Hahnenkam
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:32 pm
by Dedman
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:42 pm
by ccb056
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:49 pm
by woodchip
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:51 pm
by ccb056
Exactly, because those 'coons are your property
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:52 pm
by Hahnenkam
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"
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:00 pm
by ccb056
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
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:16 pm
by Hahnenkam
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?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:35 pm
by Dedman
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?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:33 pm
by ccb056
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:43 pm
by Dedman
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
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:46 pm
by ccb056
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?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:51 pm
by Dedman
Have a good one.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:54 pm
by ccb056
If there was ever a post more useless than this one, it is dedman's post above it.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:26 pm
by Hahnenkam
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:32 pm
by ccb056
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:48 pm
by Ferno
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:50 pm
by ccb056
Where is your argument?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:54 pm
by Ferno
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:00 pm
by ccb056
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?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:07 pm
by Ferno
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.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:10 pm
by ccb056
It is other people, not I, that are throwing out red herrings.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:14 pm
by Hahnenkam
and another thing . . .
ibtl
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:16 pm
by ccb056
ibtl?
I dont't know what that means so I did a google search.
Are you saying 'Injustice By The Law'?
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:22 pm
by Tetrad
ccb056 wrote:How do animals have a just or legal claim to anything?
How do humans have a just or legal claim to anything?