NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I was watching the news today and saw that P.E.T.A has released a vidoe of supposed animal abuse at Tyson Meats (.INC?) and the Issue today. Now i mean to offend no one... well maybe if your connected to PETA or some other group of that nature.
I am a farmer so when this stuff gets thrown around and made a big deal of people look at you differently. Now when it comes to a farmer or someone shiping a live animal they are rarely abused. Why you might ask, becuase any bruiseing or flaw on the meat is thrown away by the packer becuase the public doesn't understand that the meat doesn't taste any worse.
Meat is bought on looks, if you look in the case and see a really pale looking steak next to a nice cherry red steak which will you pick up, the cherry red more then likely. But now i've ranted and never really got around to the main question are you a Meat eater, Vegitarian, or Veigan (eats/drinks nothing that comes from animals).
Well everyone rip into this if you want put atleast vote please.

I think that PETA is a horrible group. They say they are against the exploitation of animals, and yet they show that film? Isn't that a bit of hypocracy?

Farmers do an admirable job, and PETA should stop bitching just because not everyone is vegetarian.

People don't realize that most farmers, especially on small scale farms, treat their animals very well up until the end. One of my frat brothers raises Black Angus Cattle. The fields are large, the grass is green and thick, there is warm shelter in the winter and and a shady grove in the summer...and I'd never seen such relaxed animals around caretakers...they were happy as far as a cow could be. They were very well taken care of.

V-E-G-A-N.

No I.

V-E-G-E-T-A-R-I-A-N.

Just the one I.

Sorry for the misspell by the way try some red meat sometime you might like what you taste.

I will be quite happy to give animals the same rights as I have when the animal in question can assure me that it understands that it has an obligation to extend these same rights to others. Until then, they get what they are given.

This does not mean that I think animals should be mistreated.

Sorry for the misspell by the way try some red meat sometime you might like what you taste.

Last time I tried it was 16 years ago. Not my thing. Try living a vegan lifestyle - you might like it.

Omnivore, to be precise.

PETA does more harm than good for animals rights

I will be quite happy to give animals the same rights as I have when the animal in question can assure me that it understands that it has an obligation to extend these same rights to others. Until then, they get what they are given.

This does not mean that I think animals should be mistreated.

I don't really think anyone is talking about giving animals the same rights: I have yet to see anyone (even the clinically insane) claim that animals over the age of 18* should be allowed to vote.

Are you likewise going to argue that rights should not be extended to neonates because they are not able to assure you that they can extend these rights to others?

EDIT: because a misplaced space made me look like a retard. Carlsberg and the internet...




* or whatever the age of majority is in your country.

i dont know about RIGHTS

but animals should be treated as humanely as possible. cows should not be kept barned up so to make the production of milk easier. chickens should not be kept in such crowded condtions that their beaks must be removed to keep them from pecking each other to death. animals in medical experiments should be housed as nicely as possible and only subjected to testing that is necessary for learning. people should not be allowed to keep so many cats that they live in filth and disease.

that said, i have no problem with raising ccows for meat, in raising sheep for wool, in raising minks for fur, in raising roosters to be fighting cocks, in keeping sled dogs, in hunting under controlled circumstances.

Try living a vegan lifestyle - you might like it.
During harvest as long as the garden has done well i live off what I can pick on the way to the combine after school. So in response to that I might like it I don't mind it but give me a nice med-rare steak anyday.

I don't really think anyone is talking about giving animals the same rights: I have yet to see anyone (even the clinically insane) claim that animals over the age of 18* should be allowed to vote.

Are you likewise going to argue that rights should not be extended to neonates because they are not able to assure you that they can extend these rights to others?

EDIT: because a misplaced space made me look like a retard. Carlsberg and the internet...

* or whatever the age of majority is in your country.

I was using a rhetorical technique call hyperbole, but it obviously passed you by (Probably that Carlsberg). The point I was making is that adult animals will only receive rights from me when they can be shown to accept the accompanying responsibility. This does not have to be all rights, I mean any rights. Until then I have an obligation to treat them well, but not to regard them as right bearing beings.
Neonates will depend upon the species. I am not ageist. A human neonate or other human child does not have the same rights as an adult, but it does not have the same responsibilities either.

(You also assume that I live in a democracy! As it happens I do, but not everywhere has the right to vote.)

The point I was making is that adult animals will only receive rights from me when they can be shown to accept the accompanying responsibility.

So, those humans who due to mental or physical conditions cannot be shown to accept accompanying responsibilities will not be granted any rights by you, or is it sufficient that they belong to a species whereby other members possess the capability to show that they are able to accept said responsibilities?

(You also assume that I live in a democracy! As it happens I do, but not everywhere has the right to vote.)

I assume that you are not lying when you say you are located in Brazil.*


* and that democracy has not been repealed there since I last checked.

vegan for two years, and as for trying some meat sometime, i have in the past and it is overrated.

I understand PETA has found occurrences of Tyson farmers flushing eggs down the toilets. Must be very disturbing for the chickens.

So, those humans who due to mental or physical conditions cannot be shown to accept accompanying responsibilities will not be granted any rights by you, or is it sufficient that they belong to a species whereby other members possess the capability to show that they are able to accept said responsibilities?

Children and the mentally handicapped do not, legally have the same rights and responsibilities as adults with full mental faculties. What we do is we give them rights by surrogating the responsibility onto other humans. We actually do this with some animals, implicitly (namely pets). What I question is whether those that argue for animal rights would be willing to be responsible for the consequences of the action of the animal in question, or all of them if it is generalised.

I am a parent, I have a child for whom I am responsible. He does something wrong and it is I who will be punished, not him. Now if individuals wish to extend these types of rights to animals, will they accept the responsibility for the animals behaviour. Those that I have asked about this have avoided answering this question. When pressed, they confess that they will not accept this responsibility, after all they do not control the animal.

The dangerously insane, psycopathic sociopaths, we restrict to secure units. By any psychological evaluation almost all animals are sociopaths, and some a psychopathic. Let us use the same measures, and abide by the results. (A strange idea, but one that if you think about it makes a warped kind of sense.)

Oh, and the location bit. I am not lying, but I could have been, and the voting age here is 18 compulsory (16 voluntary) but I can't vote as I am not a citizen. (I still have to pay tax though.)

I eat meat, but I think animals have the right to live and be killed in ways that are not insanely cruel.

Animals have 2 rights: the right not to suffer unnecessarily and the right to be tasty and delicious.

i want animal right's just as much as all of you but i'm newer to this game and i don't know how to make animal right's dammit

I eat meat and I really don't care how the animals are treated so long as it doesn't lead to me getting diseases from eating the meat. Aside from pigs, most of the animals slaughtered for meat are DUMB. I mean, really dumb. Have you heard stories about dumb chickens staring up at the sky when it rains, confused, and drowning? Probably not true, but seriously, these animals have been bred to be retarded and yeild a lot of meat. They're organisms like a plant is an organism. They have about the same capacity for thought, too.

I'm vegetarian, but it's got nothing to do with animal rights. It's about purity of spirit and mind; about realizing that I'm able to support my physicality through less and less reliance on the reality of others.

Omnivore here, but I try awfully hard to respect the lifestyle choices of others. What you eat, who you sleep with, if/when/where you go to church, what you do for a living, etc. etc. are all personal choices that should be made by the individual, not dictated by an outside force.

My objection to PETA is the same objection I have to the people who stand on the streetcorner in San Francisco and tell me that I'm going to Hell for not believing in their god:

Don't tell me what to do!!!!

You are free to believe whatever you want. And yes, I believe that animals should be able to live better lives. To this end (and because I personally can afford it - I realize this isn't the answer for everyone) I buy free range chicken, beef and pork from local ranchers, and troll caught fish that isn't farmed. I speak to the corporate machine in the best way I know how - with my money.

I think that the PETA people are extreme. In my mind, they equate with the Pro-Life people who blow up abortion clinics. I appreciate their cause, but their methods don't accomplish anything besides making normal people (the people they are supposedly trying to convert) say, "Jeez, those PETA people are whack-jobs!" They make the rest of the animal "rights" movement look bad.

Anway, I've rambled enough.

http://www.freewebs.com/alienninjamonkey/petakills.html

During harvest as long as the garden has done well i live off what I can pick on the way to the combine after school. So in response to that I might like it I don't mind it but give me a nice med-rare steak anyday.

yah, a nice pink rib-eye

I don't really mind people that eat meat because they don't want to, or for health reasons or what have you. The only problem I Have with today's animal rights movement are the jackasses who firebomb testing labs and commit various other idiocies in the name of 'animal liberation.'

A lot of PETA nutjobs try to equate their movement to the nazi resistance in WWII. The idea that the fate of a chicken is morally identical to what happens to a human is sickening and insulting.

They also like to resort to violence [see the ALF] and properrty damage to acheive their end. This is called 'terrorism.'

My favorite quote on the subject comes from Dr. Jerry Vlasic [sp?] of the Animal Defense League, Los Angeles: "Violence and non-violence are not moral principles, they're tactics."

I eat meat and I really don't care how the animals are treated so long as it doesn't lead to me getting diseases from eating the meat. Aside from pigs, most of the animals slaughtered for meat are DUMB. I mean, really dumb. Have you heard stories about dumb chickens staring up at the sky when it rains, confused, and drowning? Probably not true, but seriously, these animals have been bred to be retarded and yeild a lot of meat. They're organisms like a plant is an organism. They have about the same capacity for thought, too.

I eat meat as well, but I still don't want any animal to suffer unnecessarily.
To me, that doesn't have anything to do with their mental capacities (I grew up on a farm and yes, chicken are dumb beyond believe. Pigs on the other hand are intelligents, but bastards) but with the fact that they suffer the same, intelligent or not. A plant doens't have the neural capacity to suffer as mamals and birds do.

I don't really mind people that eat meat because they don't want to, or for health reasons or what have you. The only problem I Have with today's animal rights movement are the jackasses who firebomb testing labs and commit various other idiocies in the name of 'animal liberation.'

A lot of PETA nutjobs try to equate their movement to the nazi resistance in WWII. The idea that the fate of a chicken is morally identical to what happens to a human is sickening and insulting.

They also like to resort to violence [see the ALF] and properrty damage to acheive their end. This is called 'terrorism.'

My favorite quote on the subject comes from Dr. Jerry Vlasic [sp?] of the Animal Defense League, Los Angeles: "Violence and non-violence are not moral principles, they're tactics."

Arguing whether you do or don't agree with PETA's tactics does not really get to the heart of the matter, which is how animals should be treated.

I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue of animal rights. I am largely vegetarian (I do occasionally eat game, or other meat when it is culturall appropriate), but that is more because of the messed up ecology of raising animals than anything else ... I'm not sure I can justify the sheer amount of land under cultivation and water it takes to fatten up a cow. It seems to me to be an incredibly inefficient use of increasingly scarce resources.

But whether animals have inherent rights? Other than to eat and be eaten? I'm really not sure.

PETA can borrow my goat-killing club any time they wish. It's a pine bough I whittled myself.. pine isn't the hardest of woods, but this particular bough was so dense and heavy, I simply had to put it to use.

Anyway, the point is: pine bough + skull = painless death. I'm really gonna be getting a lot of use out of it, too, when I get to the Philippines next month.. goat roast! :)

Arguing whether you do or don't agree with PETA's tactics does not really get to the heart of the matter, which is how animals should be treated.

I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue of animal rights. I am largely vegetarian (I do occasionally eat game, or other meat when it is culturall appropriate), but that is more because of the messed up ecology of raising animals than anything else ... I'm not sure I can justify the sheer amount of land under cultivation and water it takes to fatten up a cow. It seems to me to be an incredibly inefficient use of increasingly scarce resources.

But whether animals have inherent rights? Other than to eat and be eaten? I'm really not sure.

Animals cannot reason. Animals cannot form or understand concepts like we can; they have perception, but little or no understanding of it. Add to that the fact that we [and every other animal on the planet] have been eating them for the entire history of animal life on this planet, I can see no reason why we should stop the tradition. Meat is food!

In arguing with animal rights folks, I tend to get the "but lions don't raise antelope just to eat" argument, which is an idiotic thing to say. Lion's dont raise antelope not because they don't want to, but because they lack the means and knowledge to do so. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do it if they had our reasoning ability and, say, opposable thumbs.

Vegetarian.

bcos, there is no reason to eat a corpse when there are delicious and healthy alternatives around.

I am a veggie bcos it is good for body and the soul.

what is this PETA ? is it some kind of organization?

Used to needle me for eating meat, especially fish (they creep her out for some reason).

Anyway, she's been a vegetarian since she was 11. She also just discovered that Miso is a fish-based soup... and she's been eating it like it's been going out of style for years.

Proof that your body wants and needs animal proteins. :)

omnivore. Where's the omnivore choice? I chose meat eater. Anyway, why are we suddenly superior to all other forms of life? After all, we are the ones who are destroying the earth. The rabbits destroying Australia disaster is our fault. Rabbits don't know how to build boats. They don't know how to escape from cages. If you think the meat plants are cruel, check out the fur plants in China. The animals aren't even dead or asleep when their skin is painfully peeled off and their screaming bodies thrown into a pile to slowly die. Aerial hunting of wolves is mean. Even unarmed humans have a disadvantage when put in that situation. That kind of hunting is a crime against democracy when the Alaskan people voted to keep it banned and the governer caved into the will of hunting groups that barely make up 15% of the population and 5% of the voters. Why have elections when the results will be ignored? We are doomed to kill ourselves thanks to our stupidity when it comes to using our intellect. We destroy forests without a care in the world. We cause massive extunction rates without a care in the world. The extinction rate has been about a few species a week for many decades now. People are good. People are evil. People are smart. People are stupid.

I think that omnivore was sort of implied under Meat eater. Wont get far eating just meat, after all.

I just had tacos, and let me tell ya, it wouldn't have been the same thing without that delicious spicy animal flesh/shoesole/fingernail clippings/whatever they put in ground meat.

I can only imagine what the grill platter at the restauraunt I ate at the other day would have tasted like without meat. Why PETA, why are you trying to take my precious meat away from me? :(

Animals cannot reason. Animals cannot form or understand concepts like we can; they have perception, but little or no understanding of it.

got any evidence of that? i'm fairly sure that we have rather nicely shown that cognitive abilities in the entire animal kingdom form a continuum rather than any sharp divide. all sorts of animals have been shown to have reasoning skills, varying by degree, not by kind.

In arguing with animal rights folks, I tend to get the "but lions don't raise antelope just to eat" argument, which is an idiotic thing to say. Lion's dont raise antelope not because they don't want to, but because they lack the means and knowledge to do so. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do it if they had our reasoning ability and, say, opposable thumbs.

though of course, the vast majority of human history was also spent without domesticated herds of food animals either, and they certainly had the means and the knowledge and the opposable thumbs for it. and if you ask the remaining foraging people about it, they will tell you it is because they don't want to.

got any evidence of that?

Umm... common sense? Centuries of observation?

i'm fairly sure that we have rather nicely shown that cognitive abilities in the entire animal kingdom form a continuum rather than any sharp divide. all sorts of animals have been shown to have reasoning skills, varying by degree, not by kind.

Some of the higher animals do have the ability to learn from past experiences, identify certain objects, open doors, etc etc. This does not mean that they can reason to the extent that we can, it just means they're intuitive in a different way. I'll bet it'd take you a hell of a lot longer to teach a 5 year old cat how to flush a toilet than it would take to teach a human of the same age.


though of course, the vast majority of human history was also spent without domesticated herds of food animals either, and they certainly had the means and the knowledge and the opposable thumbs for it. and if you ask the remaining foraging people about it, they will tell you it is because they don't want to.

Not sure I understand that last bit, but in response to your first:

The vast majority of human history was also spent without cell phones or computers. Why don't we stop using those too? Sure, we got along fine for a while without raising livestock, but only in small groups-- in, say, tribes and small bands of hunter/gatherers. However, civilization as we know it would have been impossible to build without a significant agriculture/livestock base, and would have probably developed much faster had we adopted these practices earlier.

They also like to resort to violence [see the ALF] and properrty damage to acheive their end. This is called 'terrorism.'

so are lots of things; largely by people selling something. doesn't make it so. i have a rather hard time ascribing the word 'terrorism' on actions that go out of their way to prevent harm to living beings and do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror. i do have issues with many alf actions, because i just don't think releasing several hundred mink is all that good for the other parts of the ecosystem. but it isn't terrorism unless we render the word completely meaningless beyond "actions that those in power do not like".

My favorite quote on the subject comes from Dr. Jerry Vlasic [sp?] of the Animal Defense League, Los Angeles: "Violence and non-violence are not moral principles, they're tactics."

yeah, and? perhaps it would make more sense to you if you put it in the language of the agents that claim to have a legitimate right to use force:

"war and diplomacy are not moral principles, they're tactics."

Some of the higher animals do have the ability to learn from past experiences, identify certain objects, open doors, etc etc. This does not mean that they can reason to the extent that we can, it just means they're intuitive in a different way.

no one claimed anything about anything having exactly the same mental capacities as humans. mainly because humans themselves seem to have a faitr bit of range in the mental capacity department.

so what would you claim as a good test for the ability to reason?

I think that PETA is a horrible group. They say they are against the exploitation of animals, and yet they show that film? Isn't that a bit of hypocracy?

you mind trying to explain how using videotaped evidence of cruelty to animals as a means to prevent further cruelty could possibly count as hypocrisy? i just don't see the connection.

so are lots of things; largely by people selling something. doesn't make it so.

What?

i have a rather hard time ascribing the word 'terrorism' on actions that go out of their way to prevent harm to living beings and do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror.

How about people suicide bombing restaurants in Israel to free their comrades from prison or demand a stay of execution? How about folks driving planes into skyscrapers to stop Western oppression of their people?

You can't honestly be saying they "do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror," since that's exactly what they're doing: using terror. What the hell do you call millions of dollars in property damages?

i do have issues with many alf actions, because i just don't think releasing several hundred mink is all that good for the other parts of the ecosystem.

Well then, I shouldn't have a problem with burning your house down, but the smoke might get in the minks eyes. Ridiculous.

but it isn't terrorism unless we render the word completely meaningless beyond "actions that those in power do not like".

*Buries face in hands*

yeah, and? perhaps it would make more sense to you if you put it in the language of the agents that claim to have a legitimate right to use force:

"war and diplomacy are not moral principles, they're tactics."

They're both assholes. Point?

no one claimed anything about anything having exactly the same mental capacities as humans. mainly because humans themselves seem to have a faitr bit of range in the mental capacity department.

Well... yeah. And? That's sort of my point.

so what would you claim as a good test for the ability to reason?

Well, Christ, how much do you want to pick this apart? I don't see elk building freaking cities or honey badgers driving cars anywhere around here. I honestly don't know what's trying to be said here.

so u would not eat a car-driving honey badger, but u will eat a badger that does not !!!

that is discrimination.

:: Applauded the words of Melkor Unchained. ::

Umm... common sense? Centuries of observation?

Some of the higher animals do have the ability to learn from past experiences, identify certain objects, open doors, etc etc. This does not mean that they can reason to the extent that we can, it just means they're intuitive in a different way.

Not sure I buy it ... we may be the smartest darn chimpanzees around, but we are still chimpanzees. I'm not sure this puts us on a whole other level from the rest of the animal kingdom.

What?

How about people suicide bombing restaurants in Israel to free their comrades from prison or demand a stay of execution? How about folks driving planes into skyscrapers to stop Western oppression of their people?

and this has what to do with the alf? oh yes, absolutely nothing.

remember when you said,
"They also like to resort to violence [see the ALF] and properrty damage to acheive their end. This is called 'terrorism.'"?

do try to keep up.

You can't honestly be saying they "do not aim to motivate change through the use of terror," since that's exactly what they're doing: using terror. What the hell do you call millions of dollars in property damages?

i'd call millions of dollars in property damage "millions of dollars in property damage". the point of alf actions are not to terrorize people other than the direct victims of an attack with the intention of coercing those others or a state into doing certain actions. in fact, no one is terrorized at all, nor would they be. the mink ranches that i know of have written in the costs of semi-regular animal liberation actions into their operating expenses, which is also exactly what the alf states as one of its intended goals. they do not liberate animals with the intention of terrorizing the general populace, they do so firstly to directly end particular cases of animal suffering and secondly to impose additional economic costs on those engaged in such practices, with the larger project of eventually raising those costs so high as to make the whole project economically unfeasable.

Well, Christ, how much do you want to pick this apart? I don't see elk building freaking cities or honey badgers driving cars anywhere around here. I honestly don't know what's trying to be said here.

you claimed the statement 'animals cannot reason' as a premise in your argument about the rightness of eating meat. surely one so concerned with reason sees the importance of using true premises and defending premises when they are called into question. so what sort of test would you use to demonstrate the truth of the claim 'animals cannot reason'?

I eat meat, and that will never change. I despise PETA and it drives me crazy when people join and/or donate money to PETA when they aren't even sure what PETA stands for (especially when celebrities do it).

Observations?
for centuries, people noticed that the sun appears to go around the world. That led them to believe that the sun goes around the world. For centuries, people noticed that the world appears to be flat. For most of human history, people have believed that the earth is flat. Just because elks don't have nuclear power plants or that wolves haven't built rocket ships to the moon doesn't mean that humans are above all other forms of life. After all, only humans and some domestic animals humans have bred for centuries kill for fun. Wolves kill to feed their families because they can't live off of anything else. So do lions and vixens(female foxes). It appears that animals are more moral than humans. They act in need instead of want. When was the last time a wolf put an elk's head on display? Of course, people will give me the fur and food argument. There's a difference between humanely killing an animal in order to use it for things vital for survival and pumping a moose full of bullets just to have a trophy you got from the bloodsport known as hunting. Animals seem to act more ethicly than humans. Does that mean morals=lack of intelligence? Animals act for needs. Humans act for wants. Of course, dogs can overeat, but that's instinct. If they didn't in the wild, they would starve. If a human did it in the wild, people will ask questions. You can't base something purely on what you have observed. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. We didn't know about Pluto until 1930. Does that mean that it didn't exist before then? The foolish hear and glance. The wise listen, see, and understand.

Promoting the
Ethical
Treatment of
Animals. Yay. :)

I despise PETA

why?

Animals cannot reason. Animals cannot form or understand concepts like we can; they have perception, but little or no understanding of it. Add to that the fact that we [and every other animal on the planet] have been eating them for the entire history of animal life on this planet, I can see no reason why we should stop the tradition. Meat is food!


Wellllll,

What about the higher primates?

Chimps are self-aware. They can make rudimentory tools. Tell lies. Problem solve. Have a social structure that involves political posturing (an interesting read "Chimpanze Politics"). Make war and it's been argued that there was a rudimentary strategy involved. They even teach what they learn. Washo, a signing chimp was observed teaching her offspring signing.

As to comparing our ability for concepts? Well what would a chimp need with Euclidian Geometry? ;)

"Meat as food" should also have warnings. One of the arguments for how aids appeared was the practice of bushmeat in africa(ie eating chimps).

Animals cannot reason. Animals cannot form or understand concepts like we can; they have perception, but little or no understanding of it. Add to that the fact that we [and every other animal on the planet] have been eating them for the entire history of animal life on this planet, I can see no reason why we should stop the tradition. Meat is food!

Also, I think it is possible your two lines of reasoning conflict here. If we are justified in killing other animals because of our superior ability to reason, then how is, for example, a dog justified in killing a cat, given that they have similar ability to reason?

I would think that a counter-argument would be that with a greater ability to reason comes a greater responsibility to treat fellow animals well. But maybe I misunderstood your argument.

why?

Where do I start.....

Well, my main problem with PETA is the way that they mislead people about hunting. As a hunter, a lot of the crap they say offends me.

Where do I start.....

Well, my main problem with PETA is the way that they mislead people about hunting. As a hunter, a lot of the crap they say offends me.

For example?

For example?

Sorry about that, kind of left you hanging....

They try to make it look like ALL hunting is bad. They make it look like all hunters trophy hunt, take the antlers, and leave the rest of the deer (or whatever you might be hunting) to rot. Also, they tell people about these IDIOT hunters that even regular hunters can't stand. For example, rifle hunters that blow a deer's head off from 300 yards away for sport, and never go to find it.

Hunting has led to some arguments involving the fact that people hunt the same animals wolves eat. Now, a few hundred wolves shall be pumped full of lead just so people can blast all the elk and moose they want.

Foxes die horribly in fox hunts because of the hounds. They are still alive when they have their intestines and kidneys ripped out. They can also die from stress and exaustion when the hunter doesn't kill them. Hunters also hunt vixens when they are still heavy from pregnancy.

If anything, the hunters lie.

i'd call millions of dollars in property damage "millions of dollars in property damage". the point of alf actions are not to terrorize people other than the direct victims of an attack with the intention of coercing those others or a state into doing certain actions.

So physically attacking doctors isn't terrorism because it is only an attack on the doctor?

Bombing an animal facility isn't terrorism if no one happens to be there? If someone does happen to be there and die, does that make it terrorism?

These are the sorts of things the more extreme "animal rights activists" are doing.

Observations?
for centuries, people noticed that the sun appears to go around the world. That led them to believe that the sun goes around the world. For centuries, people noticed that the world appears to be flat. For most of human history, people have believed that the earth is flat. Just because elks don't have nuclear power plants or that wolves haven't built rocket ships to the moon doesn't mean that humans are above all other forms of life. After all, only humans and some domestic animals humans have bred for centuries kill for fun. Wolves kill to feed their families because they can't live off of anything else. So do lions and vixens(female foxes). It appears that animals are more moral than humans. They act in need instead of want. When was the last time a wolf put an elk's head on display? Of course, people will give me the fur and food argument. There's a difference between humanely killing an animal in order to use it for things vital for survival and pumping a moose full of bullets just to have a trophy you got from the bloodsport known as hunting. Animals seem to act more ethicly than humans. Does that mean morals=lack of intelligence? Animals act for needs. Humans act for wants. Of course, dogs can overeat, but that's instinct. If they didn't in the wild, they would starve. If a human did it in the wild, people will ask questions. You can't base something purely on what you have observed. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. We didn't know about Pluto until 1930. Does that mean that it didn't exist before then? The foolish hear and glance. The wise listen, see, and understand.



OK, I think you make a number of good points, but I think referring to hunting as a bloodsport is a sweeping generalization. Arguably trophy hunting is a bloodsport. Otherwise, hunting is for many people a way of putting food on the table, and an important cultural practice. Done properly, hunting is often a more ecologically sound way of producing food than agriculture.

That's what I meant. Sorry for being vague.

Sorry about that, kind of left you hanging....

They try to make it look like ALL hunting is bad. They make it look like all hunters trophy hunt, take the antlers, and leave the rest of the deer (or whatever you might be hunting) to rot. Also, they tell people about these IDIOT hunters that even regular hunters can't stand. For example, rifle hunters that blow a deer's head off from 300 yards away for sport, and never go to find it.

actually, i think their complaint is that nearly all hunting in modern cultures is entirely tangential to the subsistence of the hunter. they may eat the meat, but nearly all hunting is really sport hunting - they don't rely on hunting to live and they won't starve if they give it up. and once you accept the premise that animals have at least some rights, then hunting them when you don't have to becomes a rather sketchy moral position.

hunting is in need of a good moral justification. i know a guy who is working on this as a philosophical problem actually.

If anything, the hunters lie.

No that's not true.

There are a great many yahoos who get a gun and a license and show "look ma I am a manly man" These are usually found in California. ;)

There are others that a "real" hunters. As in fly to the middle of nowhere and meet a guide. One of my in-laws is such a guy. Hunted bear for a short spell till the two he caught almost killed him.

A friend hunts pig. We can scream that is bad but as he points out one female has several litters a year. He takes the meat.

Back to the bad people who hunt. I remember a case involving a moutain lion attack that killed a boy. They shot the lion and found he had been shot by a bow hunter. The lion could not hunt on its own and out of desperation attacked the boy. The cat weighed 50 pounds when it should have been about 140. The Rangers said there were no notifications of a wounded Cat. An anonymous call would have alerted us and we would have looked for the cat, darted it when found, and helped it. That hunter killed the boy.....

Hunting has led to some arguments involving the fact that people hunt the same animals wolves eat. Now, a few hundred wolves shall be pumped full of lead just so people can blast all the elk and moose they want.

Foxes die horribly in fox hunts because of the hounds. They are still alive when they have their intestines and kidneys ripped out. They can also die from stress and exaustion when the hunter doesn't kill them. Hunters also hunt vixens when they are still heavy from pregnancy.

If anything, the hunters lie.

You lost me on the wolf thing. I don't really have an opinion on fox hunting. I don't know anyone who fox hunts, it's not very common where I live.

actually, i think their complaint is that nearly all hunting in modern cultures is entirely tangential to the subsistence of the hunter. they may eat the meat, but nearly all hunting is really sport hunting - they don't rely on hunting to live and they won't starve if they give it up. and once you accept the premise that animals have at least some rights, then hunting them when you don't have to becomes a rather sketchy moral position.

hunting is in need of a good moral justification. i know a guy who is working on this as a philosophical problem actually.

I see your point, and I know animals do have some rights, but I feel no remorse at all when I shoot a deer. I know some people just can't stand the thought of hunting, but I think you would face some problems if hunting was outlawed or banned.

In Alaska, efforts to kill some wolves to boost moose and elk populations for hunters are underway. This is pure greed, cowardice, and a crime against nature.

hunting is in need of a good moral justification. i know a guy who is working on this as a philosophical problem actually.

As I said, for some people it is an important, even sacred, cultural practice. Try telling a Native American or First Nations person that they can't hunt like their ancestors have for thousands of years because some westernized urban intellectual decided there is no moral justification for hunting.

So physically attacking doctors isn't terrorism because it is only an attack on the doctor?

depends. is the attack done to send a message and terrorize other people? if yes, it might be terrorism. if no, it's assault.

we could reasonably define every violent action as terrorism, i suppose. but i don't see the point - we've already got words for those actions. terrorism ought be a particular kind of use of violence.

Bombing an animal facility isn't terrorism if no one happens to be there? If someone does happen to be there and die, does that make it terrorism?

These are the sorts of things the more extreme "animal rights activists" are doing.

again, that depends. was the message of the bombing 'be afraid, because we can kill anyone at any time if we don't get our way', or was it done to prevent the use of that facility without intending to terrorize the general population?

You lost me on the wolf thing. I don't really have an opinion on fox hunting. I don't know anyone who fox hunts, it's not very common where I live.

I think what he/she is attempting to explain is a scenerio.

The preditors are severly reduced because they are a threat, etc., etc.

As such the prey population expands so they have to be reduced in order to help them(ie starvation).

There is some truth to it.....

In Alaska, efforts to kill some wolves to boost moose and elk populations for hunters are underway. This is pure greed, cowardice, and a crime against nature.


Well that's a stupid idea. Stuff like that, and hunting ranchs sicken me.

hunting is in need of a good moral justification. i know a guy who is working on this as a philosophical problem actually.

Also, I think it could be morally justified on ecological grounds. As I stated, if done properly, hunting can be more ecologically sensitive than farming.

As I said, for some people it is an important, even sacred, cultural practice. Try telling a Native American or First Nations person that they can't hunt like their ancestors have for thousands of years because some westernized urban intellectual decided there is no moal justification for hunting.

oddly enough, i'm firmly in the camp that thinks that if there is a moral justification to be found for hunting it will come from the perspective of an actual hunting and gathering culture, and probably be stated in animistic terms.

As I stated, if done properly, hunting can be more ecologically sensitive than farming.

there certainly is merit to that. worth crunching the numbers on, in any case.

Interestingly, I think I see more agreement than disagreement on the substantive issues. While PETA's tactics may leave something to be desired I don't think most people, hunters included, would disagree that animals should be treated ethically. At the same time, while some of the tactics of unethical hunters may raise the ire of animal rights activists, I think they piss off most hunters as well.

I see your point, and I know animals do have some rights, but I feel no remorse at all when I shoot a deer. I know some people just can't stand the thought of hunting, but I think you would face some problems if hunting was outlawed or banned.

Can I bring this back to the point about rights, and away from the hunting and or terroism arguments for now.

Animals should not be abused or mistreated, that is something that I think we all agree on. The bad hunters are bad, not because they hunt, but because they leave animals to suffer. Whether consciencous (sp?) hunters are bad or not is another question.

SL here said that he recognises that animals do have some rights? I would repeat my demand from the opening page, that the animal shows that it is aware of the responsibilities that come with these rights, or that it has some surrogate who will be responsible for it.

Those who wish to argue degree rather than kind in intelligence differences, have got to show that an animal, any animal other than a human, has the capability of identifying and acting in response to moral duties. Not instinct, not pure short term self interest, but acting for the good of those around it as well as for itself. I hold that this level of awareness of the consequences of action and of responsibilities toward others is a difference in kind. It is not an intellectual problem solving process, such as opening a door, or obtaining the last banana. It is a completely different form of self awareness.

We doi have this self awareness, and the responsibilities that come with it. One of these responsibilities is to look after those that can not look after themselves. This does not mean to not eat meat, as a vegetable is no more capable of looking after itself in these terms than a cow. It does, however, mean treating the cow well while it is alive, and killing it as painlessly as possible.

The use of laboratory animals in medical research is thoroughly justified in the terms of our responsibilities as a species. Their use for cosmetics testing is not. What matters here is the suffering that is being avoided in the future, both by humans and by other animals. Cosmetics do not relieve any suffering.

I'd like to start by saying I do eat meat, and I LOVE eating meat. Yummy yummy animal flesh. I haven't always been an omnivore, for almost 5 years I was a vegetarian.

That being said, I respect every individual's right to make choices based on their tastes and morals on whether or not to eat animals. If you are a vegetarian/vegan, and that's what gets you through the day, power to you. I won't try to slip meat into your food, I won't try to badger you into eating meat. In the same vein, if you don't want to wear fur and leather because you think that it's cruel to kill an animal to make a jacket, that's fine too...

However, I choose to eat meat. I choose to wear leather jackets, leather boots, and rabbit fur coats. That is MY choice, and I'm so tired of hearing from complete strangers that know absolutely nothing about me that I'm a terrible person for propagating the murder of innocent animals just so I can feel stylish. I'm sure I catch a lot more hell on this count than most, since PETA is based in Norfolk, VA and I live in Virginia Beach, VA. Check a map, they're right next door to me.

Regardless of anything, it is up to the individual person to decide whether or not eating meat and wearing leather/fur is wrong, and I think PETA should keep their damned noses out of those individual's decisions. If someone wants to know what PETA thinks, I'm sure they can get ahold of PETA and ask.

there certainly is merit to that. worth crunching the numbers on, in any case.

Yes, when you consider the amount of land cleared, pesticides sprayed, water used, and "critters" killed in order to raise a crop of soybeans, one really has to start wondering whether eating tofu is necessarily better for the planet than a nice piece of caribou (and this is coming from someone who eats both).

depends. is the attack done to send a message and terrorize other people? if yes, it might be terrorism. if no, it's assault.

What do you think? If I attack a doctor, yelling about animal rights, would that not send a message to other doctors that they should stop doing research as well? Do you really think such an attack is directed only at that particular doctor?

again, that depends. was the message of the bombing 'be afraid, because we can kill anyone at any time if we don't get our way', or was it done to prevent the use of that facility without intending to terrorize the general population?

It is quite obviously meant as a message to all other facilities that they should stop or fear the same bombing. Or are you suggesting that these terrorists only want one or two facilities shut down?

why?

ActivistCash.Com (http://www.activistcash.com)

The above is a database on various organizations with questionable tactics and aims not just PETA.

However, PETA is basically a hypocritical opportunist group that constantly pushes for society to give up animals on all facets of society, even ones that would benefit humanity such as agriculture and medicine.

One of their biggest hypocrisy is constantly crying about the alleged mistreatment of animals by others when they themselves slaughtered a good number of homeless cats and dogs.

I have nothing against meat-eating. For me to hate meat-eaters would be for me to hate myself. I am against such bloodsports as hunting(when it is a sport, hunting is bad. If you hunt to live, it is not a sport.) and dog fighting should be banned. I am not praising the terrorist tactics of ALF or whatever group, I am praising those who don't have a #1 attitude. I am praising those who don't look for human intelligence in animals to prove a point. Animals have reason. How do you think a fox outsmarts its attacker or how a bunch of wolves take down an entire moose without getting killed. Learning is our instinct. Making cities required learning. Therefore, building cities has to do with our instincts. We have an instinct to get the most out of things and to prosper, therefore, we have robberies. We have the instinct to look out for others. Therefore, governments and families are possible. Everything we do is because of instinct. The instinct argument against animals is invalid, unless it is also against humans.

Those who wish to argue degree rather than kind in intelligence differences, have got to show that an animal, any animal other than a human, has the capability of identifying and acting in response to moral duties.

Are morals a kind of intelligence? Or are they something separate? Is a mentally retarded person less moral than a genius?

Not instinct, not pure short term self interest, but acting for the good of those around it as well as for itself. I hold that this level of awareness of the consequences of action and of responsibilities toward others is a difference in kind.

Some apes have been shown to react adversely when those they are close to are treated unfairly (ie. being "paid" differently for the same work). Others have taken pets - such as a kitten.

Of course, most social animals act for the good of those around them as well as themselves. How exactly do we determine if this is pure instinct or not?

snip

Funfact: Peta owns shares in outback steakhouse.

Everything humans do is because of instincts. We have the instinct to learn. We have the instinct to do things the easy way. We have the instincts to look out for #1 as well as #2. What did we get from these instincts? Cars, governments, currency, houses, electricity, and everything else we developed ourselves.

A
Some apes have been shown to react adversely when those they are close to are treated unfairly (ie. being "paid" differently for the same work). Others have taken pets - such as a kitten.

Of course, most social animals act for the good of those around them as well as themselves. How exactly do we determine if this is pure instinct or not?

Oh yes!

An example: There was a gorilla in the San Franciso Zoo by the name of Bwana(as I see you mention Koko, he was her father). When he finally gave up the alpha slot to his son, he still acted as the peace maker for the group. Even if it meant challenging his son.....

Meat all they way ! RAWR !
o o
,..,

Learning is possible thanks to the instinct to learn. Therefore, learning is an instinct because it is hardwired geneticly to our brains. Nothing we do we do without instinct. Instincts gave us all our abilities, from crying and love to driving and building rocket ships and nuclear reactors. If it wasn't for our instinct to learn, we would know nothing. What are we, but animals with technology?

omnivore and top of the food chain (and darn happy about it).

PETA are a bunch of whacked out morons looking for media attention.
the real people doing good things for nature are the scientists and volunteers who will never be on tv because they are to busy actually doing things in the lab or in the field....until PETA or the ALF or ELF attack them for some percieved slight.

remember WHEAT is murder ;)

trophy hunting is murder. bloodsports are murder. the only times killing an animal isn't murder is when your life depends on it.

Are morals a kind of intelligence? Or are they something separate? Is a mentally retarded person less moral than a genius?
Well that will take you into a huge philosophical debate between the advocates of "moral sense" and the advocates of "rational morals". Me, I hold that they are a result of our ability to place a value judgement on our own actions and the actions of others. This is not intelligence in the limited retarded - genius scale, as a genius may not make such judgements, when a mentally retarde person does so. Moral judgements are not the result of logical reasoning, nor of pure rational thinking. To define if they are separate from intelligence you would have to define intelligence which is not something I am willing to even consider doing. (It has tripped up everyone from Pythagoras forwards).
I do however consider that the ability to judge the value of an action is not something that animals are capable of doing. To judge some action as valuable this action has to have some effect toward some end that is accepted to be a good. This effect has to be recognised, and apreciated for the action to be approved of. The effect may only be psychological, it may just be the intention that is expressed in the action that is approved of, etc.
Animals are not, as far as I have seen any evidence of, driven by the intent to obtain a good, as such. They may have short term immediate goals, but they do not consider the overall status of their lives or their actions. To obtain this food, or that mate, they will act in intelligent ways, but to be approved of by (not to intimidate) others, or to make life better for all, are not goods that I have any evidence of animals attempting to obtain.



Some apes have been shown to react adversely when those they are close to are treated unfairly (ie. being "paid" differently for the same work). Others have taken pets - such as a kitten.

Of course, most social animals act for the good of those around them as well as themselves. How exactly do we determine if this is pure instinct or not?

To answer the last questiuon first, we can not. It is a judgement that we have to make. If the same behaviour is repeated by all members of the species in the same, or similar circumstances, then it is likely that it is instinctive. Withdrawing ones hand from a fire, one day old babies swimming and suckling, extending your arms when you fall, are all instinctive human actions, and actions that everyone makes in the same circumstances. Considered actions are much more varied in response.
Now I recognise that in the field it is not this cut and dried. There are actions that we happily accept as instinctive, but not every creature of the same species exhibits (pointing in dogs for example) ther are also actions that are not considered instinctive but almost all humans do (trying to catch something when you drop it, beware of losing your fingers if it is a sharp and heavy knife!) But it is a good enough guide for us to judge from. Yes we will make the odd mistake, but not to many, in our judgements.

That social animals act for the good of those around them, by choice, or out of instinct is one question. Certainly in the higher apes more choice seems to be involved. However does this extend to their concern for 'ape' society, as an abstract whole, or just a concern for their 'friends' and relatives. The abstraction away from the individual circumstance is the part that I find difficult to attribute to even Bonobo apes. The 'If I were you, I wouldn't like it" thought process that is essential in making judgements of our own actions is an abstraction of this kind.

I hold that rights are dependant upon this ability to identify with the other, to abstract away from the personal circumstances of the thinker, and generalise. For this reason, I do not feel that we can extend rights to animals.

For those that blindly support PETA, I must tell you that they want TOTAL animal liberation. That means no more pets, no more oil drilling ANYWHERE, so no cars, no zoos, no circuses, no honey, no milk, no fish eating, no lipstick (made from whale blubber), no cotton clothes either.


May I suggest the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on PETA.

Funfact: Peta owns shares in outback steakhouse.

That's one of PETA's tactics. Try to buy controlling interests in a steakhouse or some other restaurant, then once that happens they lump on deliberately ridiculous policy changes that are intended to drive the company out of business. PETA of course does not give a shit about the numbers of people who may lose their jobs and livelihood from this dirty approach.

I do however consider that the ability to judge the value of an action is not something that animals are capable of doing. To judge some action as valuable this action has to have some effect toward some end that is accepted to be a good.

Well I think you are using a little anthropomorphism on this argument. Actions by human standards?

Most actions are done for personal gain. Be it money, power, a happy feeling.

Chimps judge their actions quite well and even make alliances to further their position.


Animals are not, as far as I have seen any evidence of, driven by the intent to obtain a good, as such. They may have short term immediate goals, but they do not consider the overall status of their lives or their actions. To obtain this food, or that mate, they will act in intelligent ways, but to be approved of by (not to intimidate) others, or to make life better for all, are not goods that I have any evidence of animals attempting to obtain.

Again examples:

A chimp called Goliath once adopted two young chimps after their mother died. He was not their father.

The process to become Alpha is not always a short term process. It is always ongoing.

Chimps will also announce a new food source for the others(well after having a bit to eat first ;).

Colobus take turns doing guard duty looking for preditors.

A gorilla troop will usually have a young male on the outer circle that acts as a lookout.....

ActivistCash.Com (http://www.activistcash.com)

The above is a database on various organizations with questionable tactics and aims not just PETA.

and, surprisingly enough, is full of random accusations from unnamed sources and guilt by association with rather little actual data. which i guess makes sense since it is one of the propaganda arms of an industry pr firm front group, the center for consumer freedom.

they shouldn't play this game - we're better at it than they are. and we have the added benefit of not being evil.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html

Well I think you are using a little anthropomorphism on this argument. Actions by human standards?

Most actions are done for personal gain. Be it money, power, a happy feeling.

Chimps judge their actions quite well and even make alliances to further their position.
The anthropomorphism is done by those who wish to extend the concept of rights to include animals. Not by those who point out the consequences of rights and ask if animals are capable of understanding and acting on these consequences. I am pointing out a difference, not a similarity, how is that anthropomorphic?


Again examples:

A chimp called Goliath once adopted two young chimps after their mother died. He was not their father.

The process to become Alpha is not always a short term process. It is always ongoing.

Chimps will also announce a new food source for the others(well after having a bit to eat first ;).

Colobus take turns doing guard duty looking for preditors.

A gorilla troop will usually have a young male on the outer circle that acts as a lookout.....
Nice examples of local and short term concerns, (Short term is relative, our moral judgements will affect future generations, and ecxtend beyond our lifetimes.) I have never denied these. What I am arguing that animals are not capable of is abstraction. Details of this are in my last post, but you appear to have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and deal with a misinterpreted minor point instead.

However, you are entitled to believe that animals are capable of this abstraction, and trust that they would treat you in the same way as they would like to be treated by you, if you wish. Good luck in intensive care.

You can not expect animals treat you with respect. You can not expect people to treat you with respect. Why don't we all get in a fuss about not being allowed to kill people.

just because you think something is someway doesn't make it so. Some animals can experiment and learn. This one type of bird(forgot which type. It was on the discovery channel) saw fishes come to the surface as kids threw bread crumbs in the water. The bird saw cause and effect and it wanted the effect badly. It grabbed some bread crumbs and put it on the water. A fish came up. The bird ate it. Not all the birds of this species do that. The bird saw. The bird learned. The bird did. True story, or at least the Discovery channel says so.

The anthropomorphism is done by those who wish to extend the concept of rights to include animals. Not by those who point out the consequences of rights and ask if animals are capable of understanding and acting on these consequences. I am pointing out a difference, not a similarity, how is that anthropomorphic?


Anthropomorphism is the ascription of human characteristics to things not human.

You expect them to act as a human would.

Acting on consequences happens all the time. A chimp will not challenge the alpha unless he thinks he has a chance of winning. Consequence: he will be top dog or he will get his butt kicked.

Your use of anthropomorphism is the fact that you expect them to think ramifications that will affect future generations just as a human will do.

Unless you can read the mind of a chimp, you can't answer that question.

000 Blues
New Member

SNIP



For the love of god please do some editing on that.....

Dang. That one person had sopme time on his or her hands.

Anthropomorphism is the ascription of human characteristics to things not human.

You expect them to act as a human would.

Acting on consequences happens all the time. A chimp will not challenge the alpha unless he thinks he has a chance of winning. Consequence: he will be top dog or he will get his butt kicked.

Your use of anthropomorphism is the fact that you expect them to think ramifications that will affect future generations just as a human will do.

Unless you can read the mind of a chimp, you can't answer that question.

Thank you, I do know what anthropomorphism is.
(Typical of old ladies who, when dealing with small irritating dogs, call them "my little darling" or "my little baby" and such like.)

Hence my opinion that attributing rights, a basically human concept, that is normally applied to humans, to animals is the anthropomorphism. Arguing that animals are different to us in their mental processes is not anthropomorphic.

I do not expect animals to think as humans do, and that is why I do not think that they can have rights. Is that clear.

What I am demanding is that those who want to attribute rights to non humans have to show the appropriateness of this attribution, of this anthropomorphism.

Hence my opinion that attributing rights, a basically human concept, that is normally applied to humans, to animals is the anthropomorphism. Arguing that animals are different to us in their mental processes is not anthropomorphic.

I do not expect animals to think as humans do, and that is why I do not think that they can have rights. Is that clear.

What I am demanding is that those who want to attribute rights to non humans have to show the appropriateness of this attribution, of this anthropomorphism.

Ok what rights are you talking about? Voting, paying taxes, etc?

My involvment is that you made a few questionable statements and offered examples.

Maybe you should define what these rights you think people think they should have.

But as demp pointed out. Using the mental process argument is not very strong. A retarded person does not think the same level as you as such they don't deserve rights.

So again what are these rights you are bothered about?

You can not expect animals treat you with respect. You can not expect people to treat you with respect. Why don't we all get in a fuss about not being allowed to kill people.

just because you think something is someway doesn't make it so. Some animals can experiment and learn. This one type of bird(forgot which type. It was on the discovery channel) saw fishes come to the surface as kids threw bread crumbs in the water. The bird saw cause and effect and it wanted the effect badly. It grabbed some bread crumbs and put it on the water. A fish came up. The bird ate it. Not all the birds of this species do that. The bird saw. The bird learned. The bird did. True story, or at least the Discovery channel says so.

I am assuming that this is directed at me.

I can expect people to treat me with respect. That some, a minority, do not, is cause for concern about the humanity of that minority. The vast majority of people in this world respect my rights to the degree to which I respect theirs.

I do not argue that animals can not learn, nor that they can not acquire new talents, or copy actions seen. What I do deny is the capability of any non human earth native animal to abstract from the specific case and circumstances to a general one.

The bird can learn to fish, but it has no concept of bait, or the general principle of giving something to get something. If there are no bread crumbs nearby, it will not go and pick up some fruit to use as bait. It will only copy, exactly, what it has seen. Yes this is a form of learning, it is a type of intelligence, but it is nothing close to the level of sophistication required for the bird to understand the reciprocity inherent in a right.

Do not think I am being down on animal intelligence, in many cases I consider animals to be a lot smarter than humans, but I do deny that they can think in the style of thinking required for rights to be valid for them.

Ok what rights are you talking about? Voting, paying taxes, etc?

My involvment is that you made a few questionable statements and offered examples.

Maybe you should define what these rights you think people think they should have.

But as demp pointed out. Using the mental process argument is not very strong. A retarded person does not think the same level as you as such they don't deserve rights.

So again what are these rights you are bothered about?

I am concerned with the concept of rights. The title of this thread is "Animal Rights" and I find this to be an oxymoron. Humans have obligations toward animals, but animals have no rights whatsoever. It is a category mistake to attribute any rights to them, in my opinion.

I answered Demp's objections in detail, and I had earlier posted my position regardign surrogate responsibility, as is used by us as humans to extend rights to those humans not capable of grasping the concept. I also made it clear that if animal rights activists would be willing to be responsible for the rights violations that animals would inevitably be involved in if they were to be extended rights such as freedom of movement, then I couls tolerate such positions. However the activists I have debated this issue with have always declined to be vicariously responsible for the actions of animals. (Wisely so, probably, but inconsistently so.)

To keep you happy some specific rights:

The right to life
The right to freedom of movement
The right to the pursuit of happiness.

All of these are things that animals are capable of doing, but do not have the right to as they are incapable of recognising the commensurate rights of other animals were these rights to be granted.

I have no intention, however, of entering in a case by case argument, as the whole concept of rights simply can not be applied to animals, without evidence of their capacity of understanding this concept being produced.

The bird might not use fruit if it does not work. Isn't that how we got where we are today? Humans learned that squares don't make good wheels. People learned new ways of making fire. People learned that oil can catch on fire, but most metals do not(not including chemecal fires). Do you think someone just drew some random pictures and that became an effective blueprints for a nuclear reactor? No. People worked day and night on it in the Manhatten Project. Of course, this led to 2 inventions: the atomic bomb which, while killing hundreds of thousands, might have saved even more people by ending WWII and the Nuclear reactor, which powers Navy vessels and provides electricity. We could never have come up with effective plans without knowledge gained through trial and error. We, as humans, tend to view ourselves as the best species ever. We tend to view that everything else is inferior. This human concept has also spread into a human to human issue with such results as the Holocaust and slavery. Besides, many serial killers got their start killing animals. Maybe that boy strangling that dog down the street might break into your house and stab you. Didn't think of that, did you. Caring about animals is a moral ideal that can be a catalyst for caring about other issues. Ever think of that?

@ Avika.

I am not opposing in any way that we should care about animals. I am just opposing the concept that they have RIGHTS.

I have stated repeatedly, that we as humans have obligations towards animals. I have also been explicit in stating that people should care about the welfare of animals. None of this, however, constitutes rights for animals. They are moral duties we have, not reflexive concepts that they have.

Wellllllll.


I think you are basically reducing the whole concept to a sound bite.

Animal rights means different things to differnt people. There is no "formal" set of rights that all follow. They range from many things from Peter Singer, to Peta, to people who think they shouldn't be treated as something to use and abuse.

Do they deserve some "rights" sure.

For example;

They should have the right not to be abused just because they are animals. In many cases, we have such laws in place.

The should have the right to have as kind of a setting in research as possible. As Dr. Goodall once said "Doing research on animals that are always stressed and or depressed may not give the results we are looking for" (Not exact).

Should they have the right to sue over murder and what not? How can they? Yet, should people have the right to sue over abuse and or illegal hunting? Yes.


Ahh well. Much more could be said but that is for another time.

I have stated repeatedly, that we as humans have obligations towards animals. I have also been explicit in stating that people should care about the welfare of animals. None of this, however, constitutes rights for animals. They are moral duties we have, not reflexive concepts that they have.

Ahhh but that is the problem.

What do you do when humans routinely fail to honor such obligations?

Ahhh but that is the problem.

What do you do when humans routinely fail to honor such obligations?

Humans do not 'routinely' fail to honour such obligations. A few humans fail to do so, in some circumstances.

Additionally, given that we do have obligations towards animals, and some people ignore these obligations, what difference would attrributing rights make. These same people would ignore the rights as well.

The vast majority of animals in this world are well treated or not treated at all by people. Yes, some have short unexciting lives on their way to our dinner tables, some may even have short stressful lives.
If we were to remove the human factor from their lives, they would be just as short and on average more stressful.

The bone of contention is probably here. In our beliefs, and they are just beliefs, concerning whether human actions are overall good or bad for the animals we interact with. I hold that they are good, but even if they were to be bad, we, ourselves, are part of nature and as such the impact our actions have on other species is simply the consequences of our natural existence.
(This latter is a controversial position, I know. It implies that there is no referrent for the adjective artificial.)

They range from many things from Peter Singer, to Peta, to people who think they shouldn't be treated as something to use and abuse.

Ahh well. Much more could be said but that is for another time.

I agree there is much still to be said, and it can wait for another time.

I would just comment that I find Peter Singer's ideas on speciesism highly problematic but an interesting read, and I do not think I need comment on PETA.

Speceism is like sexism or racism. The 'ist thinks that his or her group is #1 and that all others don't even deserve to matter. Don't be an 'ist. Support the non-violent efforts to save us from our own stupidity. Stop stupid wars. Save an animal or two. Save the trees. Don't worry about being labeled. Just be glad you deserve some respect for doing something good for a change. I hate it how wolves, who barely number in the thousands, are considered overpopulated when their prey are considered as underpopulated with their populations nearing the million mark. I think that the hunters who hunt dozens at a time are a bigger threat than wolves who kill only what they need to live. Seriously, rabbits overpopulate alot and so do people.

I forget why, but I hate PETA now.

Is it the fact that they harm the environment far better than protect it?

Speceism is like sexism or racism. The 'ist thinks that his or her group is #1 and that all others don't even deserve to matter. Don't be an 'ist.

I was not wanting to get into this whole discussion now, but there are essential and fundamental differences between speciesism and sexism, racism, ageism etc.

These differences centre on, yet again, the concept of reciprocity.

I should not be sexist towards women, in return women should not be sexist towards me. I.E. We should be treated equally as human beings.
I should not be racist toward the aborigine, equally he should not be racist towards me. I.E. We should be treated equally as human beings.

Now let us transfer this to the speciesism argument.

I should not mistreat this creature because it is not my species. Equally it should not mistreat me because I am not its species. I.E. We should be treated equally as living animals.

Now you are going to tell me that a hungry hyena, or a thirsty mosquito is going to pay any attention at all to thios principle. I am not going to believe you if you try.

A racist, deserves to be treated badly by people of a different race, a sexist deserves to be castigated by those of the opposite gender. Why? Because they are capable of understanding the reciprical nature of the rule they have broken. A Hyena deserves to be mistreated by us because it did not respect us? No. It never had an inkling of this rule, let alone understood the reciprocity of it.

Speciesism is a one directional road, and as such is not comparable to the other "isms" and is considerably flawed as a piece of moral philosophy.

Speceism is like sexism or racism.

WElllllllllllll

Specism is a Singer thing. Peter does have some good ideas but he is also a little quiky.

Specism is a fact of life. Why do some people like cats but not dogs. You don't hear humans saying "I like Colobines but those prosimians can go to hell!" ;)

Specism basically happens in the wild. If you introduced primates to Madagascar, you would see the Lemurs go extinct as the primates would out perform them.

Well, it's a different matter when your life depends on it or if you were geneticly programmed to do something. A hungry Hyena needs food to live. Why use that as an excuse for the extreme speceism that tends to fly around? Nature can be a cruel mistress, but we all owe our existance to her. Where else does our water come from? Where else does our oxygen come from?

Animals are food

Food has no rights.

Therefore ................


Clear now.

Animals are food

Food has no rights.

Therefore ................


Clear now.

Mmmmm!

Man is a mammal

Mammals are animals!

Therefore we can eat man!

Got it!

Mmmmm!

Man is a mammal

Mammals are animals!

Therefore we can eat man!

Got it!

Some do.

Who am I to judge.

I'd like my steak with extra murder, please.

Food has no rights.

in addition to the just plain silly problems with the argument, i'd hold that this premise needs an argument of its own.

in addition to the just plain silly problems with the argument, i'd hold that this premise needs an argument of its own.

Go on, - i suspect this is just leftist gasbaggery.

Animals will have rights when they learn to sign their name on the social contract.

I have nothing against meat-eating. For me to hate meat-eaters would be for me to hate myself. I am against such bloodsports as hunting(when it is a sport, hunting is bad. If you hunt to live, it is not a sport.) and dog fighting should be banned.
<snip>

No arguements about animal-fighting/bear-baiting, et al as entertainment.

As for hunting...
Is it okay to kill deer?

http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/w..._findings_a.htm

* An ecologically balanced density of deer is between 10-20 deer per square mile. Estimates from the CT Department of Environmental Protection indicate a population density of between 40 and 60 per square mile for the Wilton region. Some reliable estimates indicate that the population could be considerably higher.

* The white-tailed deer population has the potential to double every 2-3 years. Deer live up to 18 years; a healthy doe produces 2 per year.

* Each deer eats 5-10 pounds of forage each day.

* Deer are destroying the density and diversity of the forest understory. This results in the near elimination of new tree growth , native shrubs and wildflowers, which in turn seriously reduces the habitat carrying capacity for other animals and most notably, songbirds, moths and beneficial insects.

* Lyme disease has grown to epidemic proportions in Wilton. The town-sponsored survey indicates the 54% of the Households of Wilton have at least one case of Lyme disease in the past five years. The national average for the same time period is 3%. The long term effects of Lyme are still not completely understood but must be taken seriously. The population of deer and the incidence of Lyme are directly related.
There were 50 Deer car accidents in the 6 months from May till Nov. in the town limits. This rate is directly related to the high deer density.

* CT Department of Environmental Protection estimates 6,000 – 8,000 deer are killed annually on CT roadways.

* In 1900, there were 12 white-tailed deer in Connecticut, in 2000 there were 76,000.

In short: deer are now vermin in Connecticut. Deer "birth control methods" got us INTO this mess by not culling them in the 80s and early 90s.

Basically, it's time to have MASSIVE hunting within town borders and start stocking the soup kitchens! And really, what's better, a quick arrow though the heart, or getting hit by a Buick at 55 miles per hour?

That social animals act for the good of those around them, by choice, or out of instinct is one question. Certainly in the higher apes more choice seems to be involved. However does this extend to their concern for 'ape' society, as an abstract whole, or just a concern for their 'friends' and relatives. The abstraction away from the individual circumstance is the part that I find difficult to attribute to even Bonobo apes. The 'If I were you, I wouldn't like it" thought process that is essential in making judgements of our own actions is an abstraction of this kind.

If you are looking for altruistic actions that extend even beyond a concern for those close to them - ie. their tribe - you have just excluded most tribal societies, especially ancient ones, from humanity. Even today, most people are only concerned with the good of their "tribe" or nationality - all others be damned.

Nice examples of local and short term concerns, (Short term is relative, our moral judgements will affect future generations, and ecxtend beyond our lifetimes.) I have never denied these. What I am arguing that animals are not capable of is abstraction. Details of this are in my last post, but you appear to have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and deal with a misinterpreted minor point instead.

However, you are entitled to believe that animals are capable of this abstraction, and trust that they would treat you in the same way as they would like to be treated by you, if you wish. Good luck in intensive care.

You quoted me on something I did not say. Kindly change it. =)

Animals will have rights when they learn to sign their name on the social contract.

I don't remember signing any social contract. Do I still have rights?

There's a difference between killing out of need and killing out of want. If you kill for fun, shame on you. If you kill for food because you are starving or if you kill deers because there are too many for the environment to handle, then let me get you that shotgun. I'll even load it for you.

For the instincts argument, all animals act because of instincts. Even man has cars and knowledge because of his instincts to learn and to do things the way he thinks is the best way they can be done. Why did we send astronauts to the moon? We are programmed by nature to want to learn. We want to understand things because we were basicly born to want to learn and understand the world around us. Learning can not be learned. How can one learn to learn if one lacks the ability and/or the desire to learn in the first place? It's like eating so you can figure out how to eat or to read in order to figure out how to read in the first place.