NationStates Jolt Archive

Today I was on an IM page and there was this PETA-nut ranting about how "fur is evil" and that "animals are humanity's equal" and a whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe). He then went on a rant about how evil we were for not instantly converting to what I call "PETAism" and acted like a jackass until I left in disgust. So here is my view on "Animal Rights".

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

Why do you hate freedom? :(

While I'm not a fan of PETA, and find them to be a little unreasonable and extreme, suggesting that other life on this planet shouldn't be treated with at least a modicum of respect because they can't use the internet is a bit much.

For instance, I wouldn't be reading your rant if you were say, a cow, mink or braying donkey, so that's one step in favour of the 'non-sentient' species.

We should do our best not to hurt animals unecessarily but in the end, humans come first.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience)

Interesting. So what do you define as sentient?

Self-Awarness is the major requirement and guess what?


no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience.

And you know this how? Are you Doctor Dolittle?


And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.


Well you haven't proved them wrong yet.

The Jellyfish doesn't need the Internet so the argument isn't valid.

We aren't the only omnivores.


Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

I give you a D for effort.

Save the animals!

I say that, besides dolphins, apes, cats, and dogs, if it tastes good, eat it (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE HUMANS, BTW, SO NO:

"ZOMG! How can u say eating humans is OK??!!!").

My opinions on eating:

cows: mmm... beef
chicken: Not as good as beef, but a good meat nonetheless
turkey: like chicken, but (maybe) better...
pigs: BACON!!!!!!!!!
fish: Not my thing, but...
rats: I guess...
dog: Sorry, but no.
cats: if not dogs, why cats?
Monkey: ... no.
tuna: the old kind is the only good stuff, but sure.

Why do you hate freedom? :(

It smells bad.

First poster, I applaud you. PETA-Nutsos and their inane politics regarding animal "rights" are absurd and deserve no credit.

Animals aren't human too, and like I respect their choice to NOT harm animals, they need to respect my choice to do so.

The Jellyfish doesn't need the Internet so the argument isn't valid.
And we do?

I think you can tell a lot about a person by the way he treats his animals, but beyond that, meh.

I think (with a few exceptions) Jim Gaffigan said it best:

"Fun to pet, better to chew!"

(which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe).
er, no buddhist monks have to beg for their food, Vegans can go to their local health food store...

and no, being vegetarian doesn't equal being anorexic, its not only possible but quite easy to get a balenced diet without meat.


ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

Ok, how about you try ignoring them then?:eek: :eek:

Today I was on an IM page and there was this PETA-nut ranting about how "fur is evil" and that "animals are humanity's equal" and a whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe). He then went on a rant about how evil we were for not instantly converting to what I call "PETAism" and acted like a jackass until I left in disgust. So here is my view on "Animal Rights".

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

Yea for extremisim!
PETA is about the most worthless organization ever created in the history of the world. But some animal rights are a good thing.

My view is that if God didn't want me to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

My view is that if God didn't want me to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

And made them so tasty. :)

And we do?

Let's see how long you would last without the Net their lad! No more on-line porn! :p

whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe).

While, I am Buddhist, and I am vegan, the two aren't at all the same, and I don't use the former to justify the latter, although I would consider it if I wasn't vegan to begin with. Being vegan, there are a huge number of things you can eat that a Buddhist monk would never eat. Anything that you would enjoy too much would be a hinderance. Monks can't eat root vegetables, and would not add any sugar or spices to their food to liven it up. They don't become anorexic, either; they follow the middle path, although some teenage girls call themselves vegetarian as an excuse to not eat.

Interesting. So what do you define as sentient?

Well lets see, the first obvious answer is... us! (Otherwise we wouldn't be having this little talk, or any talk at all)



Well you haven't proved them wrong yet.

The Jellyfish doesn't need the Internet so the argument isn't valid.

We aren't the only omnivores.

Can you prove that PETA is right?

Jellyfish don't really need anything since most scientists think that the neurological makeup of Jellyfish makes them more like automa than like your average animal.


I give you a D for effort.

I didn't know that this was a test dammit! You didn't say that we had to praise PETA as a holy and sacred institution in the report!

Let's see how long you would last without the Net their lad! No more on-line porn! :p

In the beginning, just after God had created the heavens, the earth, and all that lives therein, He was observing the creatures He had created and noticed one tiny flaw - there was something important missing from Man.

So God created the Hand. And it was good.

My view is that if God didn't want me to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.
so, are u saying, that since we we too, as humans, are made of meat, "God" wanted us to eat each other?? Thats hard-core fanatical Christianity. Forget the Islamic fundamentalists.

If it taste good and doesn't give you lip, eat it. If it does give you lip, smack it with a sack of oranges.

Well lets see, the first obvious answer is... us! (Otherwise we wouldn't be having this little talk, or any talk at all)

Pointing to a possessor of a quality is not a definition of said quality.

Can you prove that PETA is right?

PETA has a fairly strong argument. Have we not unfairly valued certain humans - other races, women, etc. - as less than their true worth? How do we know that that is not the case today? What real justification can exist for the brutal treatment of millions of living beings? Perhaps they cannot speak, perhaps they cannot think as we do, but they can suffer.

so, are u saying, that since we we too, as humans, are made of meat, "God" wanted us to eat each other?? Thats hard-core fanatical Christianity. Forget the Islamic fundamentalists.

Well, look at communion.

Fur is evil ... that's why we must kill and eat the animal within the fur and hang the fur on our bodies as a warning to other fur.

Fur is evil ... that's why we must kill and eat the animal within the fur and hang the fur on our bodies as a warning to other fur.
People usually don't like to see their loved ones in pain, so we take people's dogs and skin them alive with spoons. That way we'll all remember the lesson. and never harm animals again.

People usually don't like to see their loved ones in pain, so we take people's dogs and skin them alive with spoons. That way we'll all remember the lesson. and never harm animals again.

Well ... at least not that one anymore ... ;)

Pointing to a possessor of a quality is not a definition of said quality.

I hate to break this to you but those with the ability to think make the definition of that ability and can apply to those creatures that lack this ability.


PETA has a fairly strong argument. Have we not unfairly valued certain humans - other races, women, etc. - as less than their true worth? How do we know that that is not the case today? What real justification can exist for the brutal treatment of millions of living beings? Perhaps they cannot speak, perhaps they cannot think as we do, but they can suffer.

First of all, an animal is not a being, it is just an organic version of a mindless robot. All an animal is, is a creature that runs a specific program and is incapable of rewriting that programming in any tangible way.

A human being however is capable of things like abstract thinking and can use this ability to make long-term plans which can be used to change the enviroment around him or her to whatever that human being desires. The only limit is the capacity of that human being's imagination and the tools available to that individual at that particular time.

By the way if PETA's argument was so strong then WHY do they engage in cheap publicity stuns like "I'd rather be naked than wear fur!", throw blood at people who wear fur, "boycott" KFC (a restaurant that no real Vegan can eat at anyway), calling eating animals a "Holocaust on your plate", and attempt to justify euthanizing more animals at their shelters than most privately run animal shelters in America?

First of all, an animal is not a being, it is just an organic version of a mindless robot. All an animal is, is a creature that runs a specific program and is incapable of rewriting that programming in any tangible way.

So lets tortue them!

I hate to break this to you but those with the ability to think make the definition of that ability and can apply to those creatures that lack this ability.

How could they recognize themselves as thinking beings without having preconceptions as to what constitutes thinking beings? And how does this excuse your failure to define sentience?

First of all, an animal is not a being, it is just an organic version of a mindless robot. All an animal is, is a creature that runs a specific program and is incapable of rewriting that programming in any tangible way.

A human being however is capable of things like abstract thinking and can use this ability to make long-term plans which can be used to change the enviroment around him or her to whatever that human being desires. The only limit is the capacity of that human being's imagination and the tools available to that individual at that particular time.

That is, the human's program is more complex. So what? If "mindless robots" lack moral value, and beings running programs are the equivalent of "mindless robots," I don't see why humans should get an exemption.

By the way if PETA's argument was so strong then WHY do they engage in cheap publicity stuns like "I'd rather be naked than wear fur!", throw blood at people who wear fur, "boycott" KFC (a restaurant that no real Vegan can eat at anyway), calling eating animals a "Holocaust on your plate", and attempt to justify euthanizing more animals at their shelters than most privately run animal shelters in America?

Because PETA is PETA, and they like being iconoclasts. Their idiotic tactics have nothing to do with the efficacy of their argument.

I hate to break this to you but those with the ability to think make the definition of that ability and can apply to those creatures that lack this ability.




First of all, an animal is not a being, it is just an organic version of a mindless robot. All an animal is, is a creature that runs a specific program and is incapable of rewriting that programming in any tangible way.

A human being however is capable of things like abstract thinking and can use this ability to make long-term plans which can be used to change the enviroment around him or her to whatever that human being desires. The only limit is the capacity of that human being's imagination and the tools available to that individual at that particular time.

By the way if PETA's argument was so strong then WHY do they engage in cheap publicity stuns like "I'd rather be naked than wear fur!", throw blood at people who wear fur, "boycott" KFC (a restaurant that no real Vegan can eat at anyway), calling eating animals a "Holocaust on your plate", and attempt to justify euthanizing more animals at their shelters than most privately run animal shelters in America?

Man, you need to chill just as much as they do. It's going to be OK. It doesn't matter whether people do or don't eat meat. Open your mind a little, and realize why people think the things they do. You can't take such a strong stance against something you can't know, like animal sentience, especially when people who actually work with them everyday take a stance on both sides of the issue (mostly against you, btw).

I think animals are sentient, because I've been around animals and see theres something else there. I'm not comfortable eating them, for that reason, and because it is just gross to me. No big deal. Relax, man.

Because PETA is PETA, and they like being iconoclasts. Their idiotic tactics have nothing to do with the efficacy of their argument.

Why can't you just admit that no SANE group would do half of the cheap publicity stunts that PETA has done if they knew that their argument had ANY merit whatsoever.

An argument with merit should be able to stand on it's own two feet without blood being thrown at old ladies wearing mink coats.

Why can't you just admit that no SANE group would do half of the cheap publicity stunts that PETA has done if they knew that their argument had ANY merit whatsoever.

An argument with merit should be able to stand on it's own two feet without blood being thrown at old ladies wearing mink coats.

Yes, because we all know that the only people who advocate animal rights are members of PETA.

Why can't you just admit that no SANE group would do half of the cheap publicity stunts that PETA has done if they knew that their argument had ANY merit whatsoever.

An argument with merit should be able to stand on it's own two feet without blood being thrown at old ladies wearing mink coats.

He's not saying what they do is spectacular, he's saying their argument has merit beyond what PETA does. You don't have to be a member of PETA to think animals can think.

Yes, because we all know that the only people who advocate animal rights are members of PETA.

Well considering the fact that PETA is at the forefront of the "Animal Rights Movement" (The words "Animal" and "Rights" really don't belong together by the way) I would hate to see what the fringe groups look like...

Oh wait, I do know of a couple, the ALF and ELF... But they are TERRORIST groups!

Well with other animal rights groups like that who needs enemies?

Well considering the fact that PETA is at the forefront of the "Animal Rights Movement" (The words "Animal" and "Rights" really don't belong together by the way) I would hate to see what the fringe groups look like...

Oh wait, I do know of a couple, the ALF and ELF... But they are TERRORIST groups!

Well with other animal rights groups like that who needs enemies?

Oh, you just know about the crazy animal rights people. Some groups hand out fliers on campus and don't throw blood, y'know. Some, like me, don't try to make other people go veg. Don't take the an extreme group and say they are the model. It is like saying Al Qaeda is an example of Muslims in general, or that Fred Phelps is a representation of what it means to be Christian.

Animals may not be able to reason or to "speak", but they can still suffer. They should not be made to suffer unnecessarily.

Animals may not be able to reason or to "speak", but they can still suffer. They should not be made to suffer unnecessarily.

When do you consider their suffering necessary?

Here is an example of a benign animal rights group: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/
They stage peaceful protests with signs, and hand out fliers, and offer tips and help to people who decide to go veg. That is it.

Animals may not be able to reason or to "speak", but they can still suffer. They should not be made to suffer unnecessarily.

Suffering isn't an issue for something that won't remember the suffering 24 hours later. In fact, I think you are confusing feeling pain with suffering. Animals feel pain when they are hurt because it triggers the defenses against something that can hurt them. However, they do not go through the sentient process of horror as they feel the pain, because the pain isn't something they understand.

We don't hurt people because of their emotional response, not because of their physical response. We don't harm other people because we know we don't like (another skill animals can't really use) feeling pain, and assume they don't either.
--- ---

I've got no problem with vegans or vegitarians, as long as they keep it to themselves and let other people make their own damn choice. The moment they make it an issue in public, I reach for my beef jerkey and put on my fur coat.

Animals may not be able to reason or to "speak", but they can still suffer. They should not be made to suffer unnecessarily.

What if they lack the ability to suffer? I'm referring to animals that lack a central nervous system.

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Nor do human infants. Indeed, an adult chimp has significantly more awareness and more capability for language than a human toddler.

I'm assuming you are prepared to endorse my Baby Eating platform forthwith.


Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."
PETA should be regarded as the scum of the Earth because they don't give two shits about actually protecting animals. They are crazy radicals who are in love with the sound of their own voices. They lie, they steal, they kill (both humans AND other animals), and they generally throw tantrums and make messes for grownups to clean up.

However.

The debate over animal rights should not be dragged down by the existence of fringe loonies like PETA. It's a very important--and interesting!--topic, particularly if you decide to start defining personhood by sentience or cognitive function.

Nature= survival of the fittest.


If you want animals to have rights, advocate human rights as well because we are animals too. We have the right to test our products on animals as much as we have to test them on humans.....and those experimentations are controlled and regulated.

We poach and hunt animals just as we do humans.

We kick and abuse animals just as we do children and signficant others.

It's all equal in the end.

;)

The debate over animal rights should not be dragged down by the existence of fringe loonies like PETA.

So could you point us to an animal rights organization that you would consider to be reputable?

What if they lack the ability to suffer? I'm referring to animals that lack a central nervous system.

That would be a position that would not make sense. If you were to take that position, and say it is the life itself you want to save, instead of trying not to cause suffering, you could only eat certain fruits, and you have to be certain to plant and water the seeds to make sure they grow. You would also have to be adamantly pro-life, against male masturbation, and try to get women to get pregnant every month they can to keep the egg from dying.

So could you point us to an animal rights organization that you would consider to be reputable?

The Humane Society.

So could you point us to an animal rights organization that you would consider to be reputable?

I posted a reputable one a few posts back.

I posted a reputable one a few posts back.

I'm sorry but I did not ask you.

I'm sorry but I did not ask you.

Yea, but my opinion is just as valid as his, and I can post what I want on this forum as long as it goes by the rules. You asked for a reputable organisation, because you either didn't think one existed, or thought it'd prove a point, or something. I had already posted one.

Yea, but my opinion is just as valid as his. You asked for a reputable organisation, because you either didn't think one existed, or thought it'd prove a point, or something. I had already posted one.

For the record, Bottle is a woman, and I wasn't interested in your opinion.

Good day sirrah! (madam?)

For the record, Bottle is a woman, and I wasn't interested in your opinion.

Good day sirrah! (madam?)

I'm sure Bottle doesn't mind my mistake, and maybe you shouldn't express your opinion if you don't want others expressing theirs to you.

Good day indeed.

Animals aren't human too, and like I respect their choice to NOT harm animals, they need to respect my choice to do so.

I'm pretty sure going around killing cats is not going to be a respectable choice.

I'm pretty sure going around killing cats is not going to be a respectable choice.

And why not?

Because cute little fluffikins shouldn't be hurt? :rolleyes:

You only mention cats because they are cute. Obviously, there's a difference between my accepting that my lifestyle hurts animals, and my going out of my way to hurt animals for the fun of it. I only hurt the animals I need to hurt. Why?

Because it's wasteful to do otherwise. You never know when an animal might become valuable. I beleive in using resources wisely.

Basically, Animal Rights activists need to follow the policy of live and let live, or I reach for my leather jacket. It's either play by the rules that non-vegitarians live by, or they non-vegitarians start responding in turn.

So could you point us to an animal rights organization that you would consider to be reputable?
Why? I don't believe I said anything about "animal rights organizations." Frankly, "animal rights organizations" do about as much to protect animal rights as "pro-life organizations" do to actually protect life. More often than not, this kind of organization will be engaged in activities that directly oppose their stated goals.

As an example, an "animal rights organization" once liberated a batch of salt-water critters from a lab I worked in. They liberated them right into a freshwater lake. Under our care, the animals would have lived nearly their full life spans and died painlessly; thanks to the "animal rights" advocates, they died slowly and painfully while still juveniles.

No, my concern is not with propping up the egos of any particular organizations. My interest is in the debate over animal rights and ethical treatment of living things. I've found the most serious and thoughtful discussions (not to mention the most pragmatic and effective actions) to be undertaken at institutions such as the university I work at. We have a full staff of bioethicists and vets, along with several administrative bodies dedicated to monitoring animal care and usage. All researchers who work with animal material are required to complete animal ethics training. When it comes to actually improving the status of animal rights, this stuff does more in a day than PETA does in a year.

And why not?

Because cute little fluffikins shouldn't be hurt? :rolleyes:

Nah, because it's usually against the law. And because most people find it morally repugnant.

Why? I don't believe I said anything about "animal rights organizations." Frankly, "animal rights organizations" do about as much to protect animal rights as "pro-life organizations" do to actually protect life. More often than not, this kind of organization will be engaged in activities that directly oppose their stated goals.

As an example, an "animal rights organization" once liberated a batch of salt-water critters from a lab I worked in. They liberated them right into a freshwater lake. Under our care, the animals would have lived nearly their full life spans and died painlessly; thanks to the "animal rights" advocates, they died slowly and painfully while still juveniles.

No, my concern is not with propping up the egos of any particular organizations. My interest is in the debate over animal rights and ethical treatment of living things. I've found the most serious and thoughtful discussions (not to mention the most pragmatic and effective actions) to be undertaken at institutions such as the university I work at. We have a full staff of bioethicists and vets, along with several administrative bodies dedicated to monitoring animal care and usage. All researchers who work with animal material are required to complete animal ethics training. When it comes to actually improving the status of animal rights, this stuff does more in a day than PETA does in a year.

I think that comparing your average, peaceful animal rights group to a radical group that gets media coverage is like comparing your average, peaceful muslim to al-quaida since you hear more about terrorist muslims than you do about muslims that won't kill you. Of course you're going to hear more about PETA than the average group. You hear more about Bin Laden than you do about the average muslim. You hear more about Tom Cruise and his Scientology here than you do about your average star AND religion.

And for an animal rights group that doesn't blow up labs and such, you might want to research the ASPCA. No, they don't blow up labs.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

Ted Nugent started a group called "People for Eating Tasty Animals". That's the only PETA that's worthy of respect. The other group of the name is comprised primarily of people who have nothing important to do, single women who live with cats, which fill the void in their lives that otherwise would be filled by children, and psychotic self-hating humans who secretly hope for the extinction of Homo sapiens so the pwecious wittle bunnies can go back to hopping merrily along.

Ingrid Newkirk, one of the top nuts on the PETA fruitcake, is on record as equating poultry production with the Holocaust and desiring to be butchered, barbequed and consumed after her demise to show her solidarity (if not similar flavor) with the chickens of the world.

IMNSHO the PETA types can all go in a field somewhere and graze.

As for animal "rights", the only rights animals have is those we humans are generous, or misguided, enough to confer on them. They have NO natural rights of their own. They certainly don't have the right not to be killed and eaten. If they did, lions would die of starvation.

So don't abuse them, raise them to be fat, dumb and happy, then turn 'em over to Frank Purdue and Farmer John. :D
_______________________

"Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs." -- House of Pain

Oderint dum metuant.

Today I was on an IM page and there was this PETA-nut ranting about how "fur is evil" and that "animals are humanity's equal" and a whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe). He then went on a rant about how evil we were for not instantly converting to what I call "PETAism" and acted like a jackass until I left in disgust. So here is my view on "Animal Rights".

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

I find PETA to be annoying in the extreme. And while I do agree that animals don't have rights as such, I do believe that they must have protections. As far as is known, animals don't understand the concept of "rights" and the responsibilities they entail; and you cannot have "rights" unless you understand and accept those responsibililties (this is also why children don't have "rights"). Part of the responsibilities inherent in those rights is the responsibility of protecting those who are unable to comprehend this. Hence, we protect children and animals.

Well lets see, the first obvious answer is... us! (Otherwise we wouldn't be having this little talk, or any talk at all)

Oh so you mean they aren't of the genus homo.

Yes you are correct.

If you were talking about being self aware, then you are wrong. For example, the chimpanzee dot tests answered that question.


Can you prove that PETA is right?

Jellyfish don't really need anything since most scientists think that the neurological makeup of Jellyfish makes them more like automa than like your average animal.


That is the point. You "judging" a creature on the basis of use of the Internet.

Basically you are comparing apples and oranges.

Head out into the middle of the pacific. No land mass for miles. Who is going to survive the jelly fish or the human? Doesn't that make the jelly fish superior?


I didn't know that this was a test dammit! You didn't say that we had to praise PETA as a holy and sacred institution in the report!

You assume I am a supporter of PETA. I find they go over the top. However, there is nothing wrong with a little fanaticism for a cause. They tend to bring up issues that people would rather ignore. Good and bad.

Look ... as long as we understand that PETA = People for the Eating of Tastey Animals or we can actually accept what we find when we google search PETA porn, then all is well.

Otherwise, we're merely trying to infringe on one another's civil liberties (in the form of telling each other what we can, or cannot, kill and eat - including human - soylent products are awesome!) and that's just an all around bad thing.

If you disagree with this post, the terrorists win.

Suffering isn't an issue for something that won't remember the suffering 24 hours later. In fact, I think you are confusing feeling pain with suffering. Animals feel pain when they are hurt because it triggers the defenses against something that can hurt them. However, they do not go through the sentient process of horror as they feel the pain, because the pain isn't something they understand.

We don't hurt people because of their emotional response, not because of their physical response. We don't harm other people because we know we don't like (another skill animals can't really use) feeling pain, and assume they don't either.
--- ---

I've got no problem with vegans or vegitarians, as long as they keep it to themselves and let other people make their own damn choice. The moment they make it an issue in public, I reach for my beef jerkey and put on my fur coat.

You're implying that it's impossible for animals to form memories?

You're aware that they put dogs down daily because they've been so severely abused that no amount of affection can keep them from being mistrusting?

Ravens have problem solving intelligence, which was proven in an experiment I'll link if I can find...that might just be anecdotal, so I won't stand by that statement, but I've heard it's true.

You just don't seem to have a high opinion of animals. Certainly they're not like humans, but saying they're incapable of suffering, of feeling pain, of forming memories is ridiculous. They can and do show affection, and preferences.

I'm not saying they're humans in animal form, and certainly using them for the betterment of life is important. But just treating them like wet robots is ignorant. They're more than that. They have preferences and are quite capable of recognizing people. If you'd like to go out and abuse a stallion through a fence with a cattle prod, and then climb in with him the next day, I'm sure you'd be in for a hoof-laden suprise.

There's a reason there are laws against abusing animals, same as people and property.

My word you people are insane ....

We're talking about a cow. A COW!

Yes, it can form memories. Yes, it can feel pain. Yes, it can think life sucks as it goes through the slaughter process. Yes, it may even know it's about to be some other creature's food.

That's why cows are so much more Zen than us.

They accept it! They're ok with it.

If we figured out that we were being used as food, we'd rebel (a la V) or run in the streets screaming "SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! PEOPLE!!!!!" or we'd figure out that "To Serve Man" is a cookbook and go ape-shit.

We should take a lesson from the cow. Mammals are tastey. Deal with it. The world keeps on spinnin'.

My word you people are insane ....


Sticks and Stones love. Turn that finger around! ;)

Sticks and Stones love. Turn that finger around! ;)

No! Cuz then I'd have to accept you regardless!

Hehehe

Actually, that's the point I've been making all along. Ok, dude, you eat meat ... rock on, buddy. Ooh ... you don't eat anything produced by an animal? Not even honey? Rock on, dude.

That's my stance, baby, and I'm sticking to it!

Of course, I'm also a member of the ACLU, OXFam, PETA, and whatnot.

This thread is a slam against me ... a member of PETA ... even though I'll enjoy a nice mutton chop now and then.

Mostly what it tells me is that they all watched the South Park episode about PETA - which was amusing - but they took it as truth and forgot that South Park is Comedy or Hyperbole.

No matter. I will still continue to enjoy the giggles that this forum gives me about pre-conceived notions.

Head out into the middle of the pacific. No land mass for miles. Who is going to survive the jelly fish or the human? Doesn't that make the jelly fish superior?



Man can build a tool (IE ship) to survive in a location he normally could not.

Put the jellyfish in the middle of Iowa. No saltwater for miles. Who is going to survive: the jelly fish or the human?

If the jellyfish could build him(it?)self a device in which it could survive in adverse circumstances, then it has achieved the same level of superiority that we have.

Can we make a priviso about cute animals?


Even though I desperately want to eat pandas?

Man can build a tool (IE ship) to survive in a location he normally could not.

Put the jellyfish in the middle of Iowa. No saltwater for miles. Who is going to survive: the jelly fish or the human?

If the jellyfish could build him(it?)self a device in which it could survive in adverse circumstances, then it has achieved the same level of superiority that we have.

You missed the no land mass part of the example.

Never mind the fact that few people know how to make a boat that can handle the ocean.

The point everybody is missing is the fact when you define the chart of course you are going to be superior.

Even with our problem solving capabilities, we haven't found a way to deal with the common cold, aids, or cancer. Last I checked, I don't think they were sentient. ;)

Can we make a priviso about cute animals?


Even though I desperately want to eat pandas?

No no! Harp Seal pup kabobs!

Today I was on an IM page and there was this PETA-nut ranting about how "fur is evil" and that "animals are humanity's equal" and a whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe). He then went on a rant about how evil we were for not instantly converting to what I call "PETAism" and acted like a jackass until I left in disgust. So here is my view on "Animal Rights".

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

As regards jellyfish not using the internet and so forth, Douglas Adams once wrote: "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."

Silly, I know, but he's got something of a serious point hidden in there. Who are we to set the standards for intelligence? We can measure a given animal's ability to communicate with us, but we can hardly measure its ability to think. It's simply not something we are able to know at the present time. Part of being a rational human being is recognizing that there's an awful lot you just don't know.

It's also rather ridiculous to state that humans are objectively better than other animals simply because we are human. One could just as easily state that deer are better than other animals because they are deer. After all, it's undeniably true that "only deer have become everything that deer have become." See how that doesn't really prove much?

Now, for the record, I think the louder PETA members are generally total nutcases who enjoy making noise more than accomplishing anything. But that doesn't mean that supporting animal rights is itself crazy or pointless.

You missed the no land mass part of the example.

Never mind the fact that few people know how to make a boat that can handle the ocean.

The point everybody is missing is the fact when you define the chart of course you are going to be superior.

Even with our problem solving capabilities, we haven't found a way to deal with the common cold, aids, or cancer. Last I checked, I don't think they were sentient. ;)

You missed the no saltwater part of the example. And apparently the whole point of my post.
Cold, aids, cancer?
Chemotherapy, condoms, and a shot of whiskey aren’t ways of dealing with them? (in reverse order, just so you know)
Man's superiority comes from two things: His mind and his hands. Man has made and improved tools since the dawn of time. How? First, he figured out how his wooden club could be better (Mind). He then fashioned a better tool (Hands). The fact that man has opposable thumbs and the use of those hands makes him superior. No other creature has this unique appendage, not even the various forms of apes. Sure, there are other creatures who use tools of sorts, mainly an ape sticking a twig into an anthill to pick up ants as food to a sea otter putting a flat rock on it's stomach while it floats belly-up and smashes crustacean’s shells and picks out the meat. But, man has the plow, the tractor, and the little metal pliers that come with your meal at Red Lobster.

Those who accept that they are not superior are, indeed, superior to those who think they are the best.

As for the jellyfish example: No, sea creatures cannot survive on land. However, humans can't survive submerged underwater. No, subs don't count as they are, in a way, allowing you to stay dry. I'm talking about being in the water underwater. How will we survive that? Why haven't we solved the problem?

As long as we keep worrying about mundane things like bigger tvs and quantum physics, we are truly stupid.

Those who accept that they are not superior are, indeed, superior to those who think they are the best.

As for the jellyfish example: No, sea creatures cannot survive on land. However, humans can't survive submerged underwater. No, subs don't count as they are, in a way, allowing you to stay dry. I'm talking about being in the water underwater. How will we survive that? Why haven't we solved the problem?

As long as we keep worrying about mundane things like bigger tvs and quantum physics, we are truly stupid.

Subs are the solution to the problem. Or are you looking for something along the lines of Aquaman, where a human can stay submerged without aid from any device other than his own natural abilities? No, we can't. But we can still go into the water and visit the deep. Do the various fish of the sea visit the Andes? Do they build vehicles that allow them to traverse land? I think you're completely missing out on WHY and HOW Man is superior, looking in the opposite direction of where the answer lies.

You missed the no saltwater part of the example. And apparently the whole point of my post.
Cold, aids, cancer?
Chemotherapy, condoms, and a shot of whiskey aren’t ways of dealing with them? (in reverse order, just so you know)
Man's superiority comes from two things: His mind and his hands. Man has made and improved tools since the dawn of time. How? First, he figured out how his wooden club could be better (Mind). He then fashioned a better tool (Hands). The fact that man has opposable thumbs and the use of those hands makes him superior. No other creature has this unique appendage, not even the various forms of apes. Sure, there are other creatures who use tools of sorts, mainly an ape sticking a twig into an anthill to pick up ants as food to a sea otter putting a flat rock on it's stomach while it floats belly-up and smashes crustacean’s shells and picks out the meat. But, man has the plow, the tractor, and the little metal pliers that come with your meal at Red Lobster.

Actually, it might just be because apes couldn't give a damn. They learned to thrive on what they had instead of being forced to continuously innovate because of not having enough time to master what they had. Seriously, who cares about what happens in China? What happens to a species is much more important because the extinction of a key species(or the survival of our own) could cripple an ecosystem. Cripple enough of those and you have an environmental catastrophe on your hands.

Or maybe they just suscribe to the slippery slope theory which is basically an effect becoming a cause whose effect also becomes a cause...etc. After all, man's compulsive inventiveness gave him the ability to strip entire lands of their resources until man had nothing left there. Without cars and domestic horses, man was stronger. He could survive in middle of nowhere because that was where he lived. Now, leave a man out in the wild and he'll more than likely die. Superior my ass.

It's easy enough to wax poetic about the human species being sentient and clever and powerful.

Until you work Retail. :p

And let's face it, we're dangerous, to ourselves and to our habitat. Sure we've got the plough... with which we've desertified vast stretches of the Middle East. Hooray for shitting in our own living space!

When it comes to survival, perhaps the only measure by which species can be compared viz a viz 'success,' ants and cockroaches are more successful.

And for a successful species we do seem awfully self-destructive. We're stupid, really. You don't see animals committing suicide too much. But it's a national sport in some places of the world. War, nuclear weapons, overeating, psychological disorders, Scientology...

You missed the no saltwater part of the example. And apparently the whole point of my post.
Cold, aids, cancer?
Chemotherapy, condoms, and a shot of whiskey aren’t ways of dealing with them? (in reverse order, just so you know)

Actually no.

Chemo is basically scorced earth on the body. It doesn't always cure.

Condoms do break.

Whiskey only makes you feel better. ;)


Man's superiority comes from two things: His mind and his hands. Man has made and improved tools since the dawn of time. How? First, he figured out how his wooden club could be better (Mind). He then fashioned a better tool (Hands). The fact that man has opposable thumbs and the use of those hands makes him superior. No other creature has this unique appendage, not even the various forms of apes.

You also assume apes care about such things. Man adapts. So do the apes as we keep taking away the land.

As to uniqueness?

Cells divide. CAn you?


Sure, there are other creatures who use tools of sorts, mainly an ape sticking a twig into an anthill to pick up ants as food to a sea otter putting a flat rock on it's stomach while it floats belly-up and smashes crustacean’s shells and picks out the meat. But, man has the plow, the tractor, and the little metal pliers that come with your meal at Red Lobster.

Actually chimps are very good puzzle solvers. One of the things you give them in study groups are puzzle boxes with treats in them. They always open them.

Man needed the tractor and plow. The chimp does not.

Did you know Chimps know more about plant medince then we do? There are growing efforts to follow them around and see what they do when they are sick. For example, there was a case where one had bad diarea. The observer noticed the chimp went looking for a certain tree. He ate a bunch of leaves and got better. They looked into it and found the leaves do have some stomach easing abilities.

As to pliers? The chimp doesn't need them. He has the power to break them himself.

You don't see animals committing suicide too much. But it's a national sport in some places of the world. War, nuclear weapons, overeating, psychological disorders, Scientology...

Do you mean by starvation? Suicide or depression?

Chimps have fought a war. (Goodall reported this)

Overall you are correct. To add with a quote from Ripley.

"You don't see them screwing each other over for a percentage"

Do you mean by starvation? Suicide or depression?


Suicide/depression. But as a species the rest works too.


Chimps have fought a war. (Goodall reported this)

Chimps are also the one species most similar to humans. And really, chimp warfare is piddly-shit compared to what we do. When we wage war, we put radiation and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

To add to your Ripley quote,

"When was the last time you heard about a chicken came home and beat the shit out of his hen?"

George Carlin FTW

Actually, it might just be because apes couldn't give a damn. They learned to thrive on what they had instead of being forced to continuously innovate because of not having enough time to master what they had. Seriously, who cares about what happens in China? What happens to a species is much more important because the extinction of a key species(or the survival of our own) could cripple an ecosystem. Cripple enough of those and you have an environmental catastrophe on your hands.

Or maybe they just suscribe to the slippery slope theory which is basically an effect becoming a cause whose effect also becomes a cause...etc. After all, man's compulsive inventiveness gave him the ability to strip entire lands of their resources until man had nothing left there. Without cars and domestic horses, man was stronger. He could survive in middle of nowhere because that was where he lived. Now, leave a man out in the wild and he'll more than likely die. Superior my ass.


Ah, I see now. You're thinking of superior in a naturalistic/"Survival of the Fittest" way. I see where your heading. In the sense whether or not modern man could survive in 'the wild', I'd say yes. I personally know of man survival techniques, due to expert training, but sadly a vast majority of humans do not. Though, there are many in developed nations who are capable of figuring it out and passing what they learn on to others. Thus the buildup of knowledge.
But, when early man (for example) tired of watching his children die of starvation in the winter developed skills, methods, and tools to store enough food for the winter to sustain himself, his family, their domesticated animals, and still have surplus food. Thus he staved them all from parishing in the winter, not nessessarily through any feat of physical strength, but through foresight, planning, tools, etc.
I'd like to call this the "Survival of the Smartest" theory. I'm sure someone else has already claimed this or whatever.

The rest of that was totally left field, and I'm now beginning to question my opposite in this discussion. But I'll address it anyway.
Apes also do not possess the brain capacity or the opposible thumb. Take your 'stronger' man. Now take away his hands and give him hands that are akin to the apes'. His chances of survival just dropped significantly. Why? One, he is not an ape. Two, the loss of the human hands prevents his use of tools. Even the earliest man had fashioned tools that were more advanced than the ape's simple twig.

I don't even know how China came into this.

I'm not talking about wholesale wiping out of other species. I think that everyone contributes in an intricate way to the natrual cycle. I just think that Humans are far FAR more advanced than animals.

I know plenty of men with cars and horses who are strong. I spent a week training to be thus strong (and knowledgable) in the forest of Washington State. Man did not live in the middle of nowhere. He lived near a source of fresh water, as water is the foremost nesessary element for survival. He lived near a plentiful source of food (crops and/or game, wild and/or domesticated). In desolate places, he developed tools and methods to survive in such climates. For example, the Arab's robes and headdressings are not merely cerimonial. They found that the layered clothing kept them cool and safe from being burnt (yes, colored people burn too) in the burning sun of the desert. They could not survive in their region without the use of their brain power and hands in fashioning their tools (IE the clothing).

I could go on further, but I hardly think it's worth the energy I just put forth.

Now you're all getting political. I was trying to stay in the realms of proven science. So much for that. I guess that's what I get for being on a political site.

Ah, I see now. You're thinking of superior in a naturalistic/"Survival of the Fittest" way. I see where your heading. In the sense whether or not modern man could survive in 'the wild', I'd say yes. I personally know of man survival techniques, due to expert training, but sadly a vast majority of humans do not. Though, there are many in developed nations who are capable of figuring it out and passing what they learn on to others. Thus the buildup of knowledge.


Problem ace: Apes pass on knowledge too.


*SNIP*
The rest of that was totally left field, and I'm now beginning to question my opposite in this discussion. But I'll address it anyway.
Apes also do not possess the brain capacity or the opposible thumb. Take your 'stronger' man. Now take away his hands and give him hands that are akin to the apes'. His chances of survival just dropped significantly. Why? One, he is not an ape. Two, the loss of the human hands prevents his use of tools. Even the earliest man had fashioned tools that were more advanced than the ape's simple twig.


Talk about left field.


I know plenty of men with cars and horses who are strong. I spent a week training to be thus strong (and knowledgable) in the forest of Washington State. Man did not live in the middle of nowhere. He lived near a source of fresh water, as water is the foremost nesessary element for survival. He lived near a plentiful source of food (crops and/or game, wild and/or domesticated). In desolate places, he developed tools and methods to survive in such climates. For example, the Arab's robes and headdressings are not merely cerimonial. They found that the layered clothing kept them cool and safe from being burnt (yes, colored people burn too) in the burning sun of the desert. They could not survive in their region without the use of their brain power and hands in fashioning their tools (IE the clothing).

I could go on further, but I hardly think it's worth the energy I just put forth.

It's simple to bow out when you have blinders on.

Again apples and oranges comparisons.

Here's a little story that can tell us what is happening here:

There are these slaves. Behind them, is a wall. On top of this wall, there are people dancing and a fire. The slaves are chained to the wall, so they cannot see the fire nor the people. They only see the dancers' shadows in front of them.

One day, one of the slaves is freed and is taken to the outside world. At first, he can't see because he isn't used to the bright sunlight. However, he eventually is able to adjust and sees a beautiful world in front of him. There is a deep grassy valley with a river running through it. The sky is a nice blue. the air is clean. the man is happy.

The man feels that it is his duty to inform his fellow slaves of the outside world. When he tries to tell them about the outside and that the shadows are really from people they can't see, they don't believe him. some even threaten to kill him. No matter how hard he tries, the rest stay ignorant.
--------------------------------

The symbolism is there. I'd try to explain, but my brain is tired.

And, yes, all primates, rather man or chimp, have opposable thumbs. Duurrrrrrrrr. How else can a chimp use a stick to get termites? Magical voodoo dolls of wooden termites?

I'm not even going to bother with this, except one point:

the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe).

Thank you for displaying the depths of your ignorance. My sister is a vegan, and she's anything but anorexic (in fact, she's very slightly overwheight). She's not religious in the slightest; in fact she's an atheist.

Anyone with even an average level of intelligence would know that, but not you. I'm just wondering whether it's because you're genuinely stupid, or whether you just don't want to face truths which you find inconveniant (or too complex for you to handle).

Man can build a tool (IE ship) to survive in a location he normally could not.

Put the jellyfish in the middle of Iowa. No saltwater for miles. Who is going to survive: the jelly fish or the human?

If the jellyfish could build him(it?)self a device in which it could survive in adverse circumstances, then it has achieved the same level of superiority that we have.

Your example is so fundamentally flawed I have to wonder whether you knew it and posted it anyway.

Let's set that straight, shall we? Dump a jellyfish in a desert, with no saltwater for miles: it dies. Agreed. Dump a human in the middle of the ocean, with no land for miles: chances are he'll die too.

Now, humans do build boats to go on the water, but (obviously!) they build those boats before going out into the middle of the water. (I feel as if I'm explaining basic logic to a four year-old here, but you seem to have missed it...). The jellyfish, likewise, is not going to try and wander into a desert where it cannot survive. It can't build a device to survive there, but it doesn't bloody well need to! Would you try to build a device to survive in the heart of an erupting volcano just to prove your "superiority"? Would you even be able to?

(Not to mention the fact you're judging non-human animals on the basis of human criteria, which is circular logic at its finest. But I wouldn't want to thrust too much reasoning upon you in one go...)

When do you consider their suffering necessary?

When it meets a human need as opposed to a human want.

What if they lack the ability to suffer? I'm referring to animals that lack a central nervous system.

Good point. What animals that lack a central nervous system do humans utilize on a large scale?

Suffering isn't an issue for something that won't remember the suffering 24 hours later. In fact, I think you are confusing feeling pain with suffering. Animals feel pain when they are hurt because it triggers the defenses against something that can hurt them. However, they do not go through the sentient process of horror as they feel the pain, because the pain isn't something they understand.

We don't hurt people because of their emotional response, not because of their physical response. We don't harm other people because we know we don't like (another skill animals can't really use) feeling pain, and assume they don't either.
--- ---

You are assuming allot.


I've got no problem with vegans or vegitarians, as long as they keep it to themselves and let other people make their own damn choice. The moment they make it an issue in public, I reach for my beef jerkey and put on my fur coat.

I've got no problem with them either. What I do have a problem with is people that love meat, but could never look what they eat in the eye before they kill it.

Here's a little story that can tell us what is happening here:

There are these slaves. Behind them, is a wall. On top of this wall, there are people dancing and a fire. The slaves are chained to the wall, so they cannot see the fire nor the people. They only see the dancers' shadows in front of them.

One day, one of the slaves is freed and is taken to the outside world. At first, he can't see because he isn't used to the bright sunlight. However, he eventually is able to adjust and sees a beautiful world in front of him. There is a deep grassy valley with a river running through it. The sky is a nice blue. the air is clean. the man is happy.

The man feels that it is his duty to inform his fellow slaves of the outside world. When he tries to tell them about the outside and that the shadows are really from people they can't see, they don't believe him. some even threaten to kill him. No matter how hard he tries, the rest stay ignorant.

Plato's cave spinoff? ;)

I find PETA to be annoying in the extreme. And while I do agree that animals don't have rights as such, I do believe that they must have protections. As far as is known, animals don't understand the concept of "rights" and the responsibilities they entail; and you cannot have "rights" unless you understand and accept those responsibililties (this is also why children don't have "rights"). Part of the responsibilities inherent in those rights is the responsibility of protecting those who are unable to comprehend this. Hence, we protect children and animals.

Children do have rights, human rights apply to them. Moreover the right of the child (http://www.unicef.org/crc/)is generally acknowledged by most countries in the world; the US is one of the few States that is yet to ratify (http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/11.htm)the agreement.

Children do not have all rights adults have in societies. Nevertheless they are protected from harm. Some rights as protections for animals would definately be supportive of our humanity.

Plato's cave spinoff? ;)

That's it. I knew it was someone from around his time. Yeah, the moral of the story is:
Even if you "see the light", it doesn't mean that others want to. They just want to keep their own little world view where they are basically gods and everything is meant to serve them.

And, yes, all primates, rather man or chimp, have opposable thumbs. Duurrrrrrrrr. How else can a chimp use a stick to get termites? Magical voodoo dolls of wooden termites?

Small correction: No primate save man has a fully opposable thumb, one which can oppose all four of the same hand's fingers. Chimps come close.

All that separates us from the other animals is that we were lucky enough to get big brains and opposable thumbs. With regard to our physical form we are an absolute shambles in every other respect. Luckily our brain/thumb combination has given us dominion over the world. I eat animals. If I happened to eat an animal with warm fur I would probably wear it to, if I needed to. But I wouldn't be cruel to an animal, hurt it for no reason, or for any reason other than because I need to eat it, or need its fur to keep me warm. Its just common decency.

If a man and a dog were drowning, and I could only save one, I would save the man. But if they had gotten in that predicament because the man was trying to drown the dog, I would save the dog instead, and then let the man drown whether I could save him or not.

I have no problem with killing animals but I'm against making them suffer, so I'm considering going vegetarian.

All that separates us from the other animals is that we were lucky enough to get big brains and opposable thumbs. With regard to our physical form we are an absolute shambles in every other respect. Luckily our brain/thumb combination has given us dominion over the world. I eat animals. If I happened to eat an animal with warm fur I would probably wear it to, if I needed to. But I wouldn't be cruel to an animal, hurt it for no reason, or for any reason other than because I need to eat it, or need its fur to keep me warm. Its just common decency.

If a man and a dog were drowning, and I could only save one, I would save the man. But if they had gotten in that predicament because the man was trying to drown the dog, I would save the dog instead, and then let the man drown whether I could save him or not.

Exactly. I think that, in regard to animals and what we do with them, "need" is the best way of determining it. True, we don't really "need" to eat meat to survive, but it's part of a healthy diet, and not everyone in the world can afford, either because of geographically or economic difficulties, a vegan diet. So most of us eat meat. So what? However, i'd like to know that animals that i...eat, were well treated. (don't give me the "costly" B.S, only prostitutes want fast and easy profit).

Killing them for fun, frankly, i think it's a no go, in any circumstance. Damn, read a book or something, play video games, GET A GIRLFRIEND, make some sports. THAT is fun. Shooting/stoning/"whatevering" helpless animals is not (becoming of a man, yeah. You know what is? Wrestle a lion, that'd be cool.)

Fur? Why? Wool, cotton? Rings a bell? What are you, a Paris Hilton wannabe? Please, she ain't worth s**t unless she's naked, so quit trying. But seriously, if it is a byproduct of the "killing for food", then why not?

BUT killing them for the fur alone? Nah, no way.

Non-sentient animals are not deserving of rights. Humans are animals, but are sentient, and therefore deserve certain rights. All other animals are to be treated as expendible assets, not "beings".

I love the catch22 of the whole AR arguement. AR's claim humans to be animals, which is true. However, as animals we must consume other animals and plants to get the nutrients we need. The only way we can give animals rights is to place ourselves above them as most do.

I can go on and on here, but I don't have time so look at this site's forums. All AR arguements have been shot down here. (www.peta-sucks.com)


Note: Ask Peta why I can't eat a steak but they can kill 1000's of animals out of the back of a van. ;)

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

No rights whatsoever, huh?

So it should be perfectly legal for me to torture a dog - set it on fire, whatever - just because I want to?

Call it rabid moderatism if you will, but the people who think we should be able to torture animals for fun scare me just as much as the people who think we should stop all medical testing.

No rights whatsoever, huh?

So it should be perfectly legal for me to torture a dog - set it on fire, whatever - just because I want to?

Call it rabid moderatism if you will, but the people who think we should be able to torture animals for fun scare me just as much as the people who think we should stop all medical testing.

The dog doesn't have a right not to be set on fire. The person setting the fire has a moral obligation not to. There's a difference.

The dog doesn't have a right not to be set on fire. The person setting the fire has a moral obligation not to. There's a difference.

Why is there a moral obligation if the dog is just an object, with no rights of its own? Is it equally immoral for me to set a piece of paper on fire?

Meanwhile, if it is purely a moral thing, what business does the government have in legislating against it? I think it is immoral for people to do all sorts of things, but I wouldn't dream of legislating against it simply on that basis.

Why is there a moral obligation if the dog is just an object, with no rights of its own? Is it equally immoral for me to set a piece of paper on fire?

Meanwhile, if it is purely a moral thing, what business does the government have in legislating against it? I think it is immoral for people to do all sorts of things, but I wouldn't dream of legislating against it simply on that basis.

The dog isn't an object, it's a living breathing thing with senses, which can respond to pain. It is morally wrong to torture an animal, but it is not so because the animal has rights - it's wrong because its unproductive, destructive and cruel. I would not consider it wrong if you ate the dog.

Law is based upon the will of the people. Most people consider unwarranted cruelty to animals wrong, therefore, it's illegal.

Non-sentient animals are not deserving of rights. Humans are animals, but are sentient, and therefore deserve certain rights. All other animals are to be treated as expendible assets, not "beings".

So Apes, Dolphins and whales have rights since they are sentient?

So Apes, Dolphins and whales have rights since they are sentient?

Well, I actually meant sapient. But yes, if those animals are sapient, then they deserve rights. However, you'd have to prove it.

As for the comment The Black Forrest made about Jellyfish not needing the Internet, I believe he/she missed the point. Humans developed the Internet, and animals didn't. That's only one example. There's plenty more, and some in the link at the end of this post.


Actually you missed the point. The Internet is a human criteria. If you simply judge other animals with human criteria of course humans are superior.

The dog isn't an object, it's a living breathing thing with senses, which can respond to pain.

....which doesn't keep it from being an object.

Unless the state of being "a living breathing thing with senses, which can respond to pain," confers some sort of rights upon something, there is absolutely no reason that it should be illegal for me to do as I please with it.

It is morally wrong to torture an animal, but it is not so because the animal has rights - it's wrong because its unproductive, destructive and cruel.

And that is an opinion. It is unproductive and destructive for me to rip up a piece of paper, but you aren't labeling that as immoral or illegal. All sorts of things are cruel - and not everyone finds them to be immoral - and most of them aren't illegal.

Law is based upon the will of the people. Most people consider unwarranted cruelty to animals wrong, therefore, it's illegal.

Law is not entirely based in the will of the people. Most people (at one time) thought that interracial marriage was wrong, but the government was not able to keep it illegal. Most people think that adultery is wrong, but the government does not make it illegal. What sets this apart?

Meanwhile, I have a question for the sentience/sapience/intelligence people:

Quite a few animals (especially types of mammals) can be as intellgent and aware of themselves (or more so) as a 3-year old child. Two animals that come to mind are dogs and pigs.

Dolphins and some apes probably go beyond this. At least one primate species has been shown to have a "language" with syntax. Dolphins have individual names and a "language" of sorts that they use.

When it comes right down to it, the more we study biology, the more we realize that that which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is a matter of degree, at best.

Here are some of my points:
1. Anyone who tortures animals just for fun or to find out what it's like is dangerous. Seriously, that's how alot of serial killers got their start. If you see someone torturing a kitten for fun, call the police. It's been proven to be a slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before that person eventually graduates to strangling hookers.

2. Hunting for fun is NOT healthy. Seriously, hunting was only supposed to fulfill a need for warmth(fur, before synthetic fibers, plant fibers, and wool were used), food(meet is yummy and is healthy enough to be a food group with servings other than "sparingly"), and/or protection(better an angry bear than me). It's not a healthy recreational activity. Also, how does shooting an herbivore from a considerable distance with the deadliest handheld instraments known to man make one a man? You'd think they'd prove their machoness by wrestling a bear or something. Nnooooo. Psuedo-men have to blast Bambi to kingdom come from a safe location.

3. We needed our brains to survive. Without them, we'd die. Ironically, with global warming and wars everywhere, our intelligence may end up killing us. I wonder how long it will be before we're all nuclear vapor.

4. When YOU create the scenerios, of course YOU will come out on top. Try not being so biased. If you can't, try to not hide it. Instead of coming up with an incredibly unfair test(hell, I'm sure you could find some aboriginals somewhere who wouldn't know how to use the internet either. Are they somehow inferior to us superior internetters?)

5. Ignorance is bliss and some people here just want to stay happy. I'll stop trying to shatter your world view. I know how hard it is to change the way you think. I've done such a feat myself. I know it takes someone like superman to accept that your world view might be wrong. I know trying to see where the other guy is coming from is hard. I still did it. So quit trying to hide your tears of fustration, whiners.

I find it most hypocritical that the people who support killing unborn babies are for the most part the same people who will throw themselves infront of a bulldozer to save a nest of owl eggs.

And this sums up my idea of animal rights: I fully support the right of animals to be eaten. I don't remember who said it.

I personally believe that any creature that can feel pain should not have pain needlessly thrust upon him. I am a vegan and an activist, and I am very happy with my life and my actions. I would never pressure or coerce someone into changing their diet because that is their choice and their life. I merely provide information in hopes of provoking thought, and I believe that is more effective that going all "holier-than-thou" on a person who chooses to consume meat and animals products.

I support PETA to a point and I participate in various missions started by PETA. I do not support PETA financially because they have funded ALF and arsonists in the past. Violence is never the right way to get what you want.

And now something from left field!

I find it most hypocritical that the people who support killing unborn babies are for the most part the same people who will throw themselves infront of a bulldozer to save a nest of owl eggs.

And this sums up my idea of animal rights: I fully support the right of animals to be eaten. I don't remember who said it.

I personally believe that any creature that can feel pain should not have pain needlessly thrust upon him. I am a vegan and an activist, and I am very happy with my life and my actions. I would never pressure or coerce someone into changing their diet because that is their choice and their life. I merely provide information in hopes of provoking thought, and I believe that is more effective that going all "holier-than-thou" on a person who chooses to consume meat and animals products.

I support PETA to a point and I participate in various missions started by PETA. I do not support PETA financially because they have funded ALF and arsonists in the past. Violence is never the right way to get what you want.


But here is the problem, human beings are built to be OMNIVORES, not pure carnivores or herbivores. It is UNATURAL to eat only plants and exclude all meat products (and the reverse is also true). The things that PETA promotes dietary wise is not natural and their "Vegan Kits" that they hand out to people to make them vegans in a day have been proven to be dangerous for your health.

But here is the problem, human beings are built to be OMNIVORES, not pure carnivores or herbivores. It is UNATURAL to eat only plants and exclude all meat products (and the reverse is also true). The things that PETA promotes dietary wise is not natural and their "Vegan Kits" that they hand out to people to make them vegans in a day have been proven to be dangerous for your health.

What do you mean unnatural?

There is nothing that says we have to eat meat.

We are not like Panda Bears which need Bamboo.

All the Omnivore means is that we can take advantage of more things.

But here is the problem, human beings are built to be OMNIVORES, not pure carnivores or herbivores. It is UNATURAL to eat only plants and exclude all meat products (and the reverse is also true). The things that PETA promotes dietary wise is not natural and their "Vegan Kits" that they hand out to people to make them vegans in a day have been proven to be dangerous for your health.

Humans have a lot in common with herbivores, really. Like herbivores, we have well-developed facial muscles, flattened teeth (our canine teeth are pathetic when compared to that of a carnivore or omnivore), we require extensive chewing and digestion, and more.

A balanced vegan diet is perfectly healthy. I'll agree that overnight transition probably isn't best though. I gave up meat and animal products out of the blue and felt very weak and ill for a week. Since then, however, I've felt better than ever.

When it meets a human need as opposed to a human want.

So, today, "never, at least in the developed world"?

Humans have a lot in common with herbivores, really.

Yes, that is to be expected of an omnivore. Of course, we don't have the same ability to break down plant material as a pure herbivore.

A balanced vegan diet is perfectly healthy. I'll agree that overnight transition probably isn't best though. I gave up meat and animal products out of the blue and felt very weak and ill for a week. Since then, however, I've felt better than ever.

I'd say it really depends on the person. Some people do really well with a vegan diet - others don't. It is pretty clear, however, that a healthy vegan diet would not be possible at all in most places if it weren't for the existence of supplements and the availability of foods from all over the world.

Today I was on an IM page and there was this PETA-nut ranting about how "fur is evil" and that "animals are humanity's equal" and a whole spew about the "joys of veganism" (which from what I've read is like living the life of an anorexic Buddhist monk without the orange robe). He then went on a rant about how evil we were for not instantly converting to what I call "PETAism" and acted like a jackass until I left in disgust. So here is my view on "Animal Rights".

Animals don't deserve any rights whatsoever, they are ANIMALS not people, animals cannot speak with language, almost all (except a few species of Dolphins, Whales, and Apes) lack intelligence, and also lack self-consciousness. These three things are the basics of being a sentient entity capable of UNDERSTANDING the concept of rights in the first place.

Now other than dolphins, whales, and apes (which just BARELY cross the line into sentience) no other species besides humans exist on this earth that even cross the line into sentience. And only human's have become everything that we have become (i.e., I don't see Jellyfish using the internet) and since it is much healthier to be our natural omnivore (both meat and plant eating) selves rather than cut out half of what we require to survive, PETA's cult-like beliefs fall apart under the hot sun of truth and reason.

Or to put in short, "PETA and other Animal Rights groups are illogical cults that should be laughed at and ignored rather than lauded and treated like something holy and good."

They have language. Most bigger animals are self-aware. Even mice are at least somewhat self-aware. You sir are an idiot! Although I won't go and support PETA, I hate them, but I hate people like you too. Our fellow animals deserve the same rights, but we can still eat them and furs are ok if the animal is a deer or something and it is done painlessly...not clubbing to death or skinning alive. Use sedatives or slit the throat or such.

although animals should have some rights, i'm not supporting those morons at peta. those guys practiccally think animals should have more rights than ppl.

I find it most hypocritical that the people who support killing unborn babies are for the most part the same people who will throw themselves infront of a bulldozer to save a nest of owl eggs.


Maybe because they realise that, at this point, we need more owls more than we need more humans?

Maybe because they realise that, at this point, we need more owls more than we need more humans?

Or, possibly, because the owl eggs aren't inside a human being that doesn't want them there?

Maybe because they realise that, at this point, we need more owls more than we need more humans?

If worth were based on numbers, they shouldn't care about the deaths of rabbits and white-tailed deer. Yet the vast majority do.

Or, possibly, because the owl eggs aren't inside a human being that doesn't want them there?

If worth were based on wantedness, than an unwanted toddler should be allowed to be killed as well.

This is turning into an abortion debate (at least on my end), but that's not my intention. I just want to show that you need to be consistent. If animals are of the same worth as humans (which truth they are not), then they must either stop killing babies or start allowing eggs to be crushed.

If animals are of the same worth as humans (which truth they are not), then they must either stop killing babies or start allowing eggs to be crushed.

Why does one follow from the other?

Are animal rights activists protesting against the abortion of non-human fetuses?

My Favorite Vegetarian Recipe


First, catch one vegetarian.
Gut, drain and skin in a standard manner for large game.
Remove head, hands and feet, reserve with skin on for final presentation.
Given the lean quality of most vegetarian flesh, stewing is an excellent cooking method. Poaching or braising will also work well. Roasting, frying, or broiling will require basting, tenderizing or added fat for best results.

Veggie Stew
Ingredients (quantities are flexible, use your judgement):
one vegetarian
water
red wine
rosemary
thyme
a few juniper berries (optional)
black pepper
pearl barley (optional)
carrots
parsnips
mushrooms (wild preferable)
celery
green beans
Worchestershire sauce
bay leaves
bouquet garnish
Cube meat into one inch square, leaving excess in larger chunks for freezing.
Marinate in herbs (recommend rosemary,thyme, pepper, and perhaps juniper berries) and good red wine for several hours, to help tenderize.
Set water to boil in an appropriately sized cauldron or pot. You may need an extra large burner or open fire if you're making a very large quantity.
Add several bones to the water and boil briskly.
Brown meat lightly in small batches in a large skillet with butter and chopped onion. Brown lightly and drain when finished on a paper towel.
Remove bones from water and add barley, if desired.
Add carrots, parsnips, and meat.
Add bay leaves, bouquet garnish, and a few generous splashes of Worchestershire sauce and more red wine.
Add celery, mushrooms (wild recommended), chopped onions and firm fresh green beans.
When done, serve hot with crusty bread. Can be presented in large tureen with seasonal greens or flowers intermingled with head, hands and feet arrayed around the serving bowl.
Especially festive for a holiday meal!

If worth were based on wantedness, than an unwanted toddler should be allowed to be killed as well.

Good thing that's a strawman then, huh. We aren't discussing worth. We are discussing location and the state of something.

Owls (some species anyways) are endangered. That gives the eggs worth. Are they worth the life of a human being? Of course not, I would save a human being before I would save the eggs, if that were the choice, but they do have worth.

However, if the eggs were inside my body, drawing nourishment from my bloodstream, decreasing the effectiveness of my immune system, causing irreparable changes, etc., no one else would have anything to say about what I did with them. If I didn't want them there, I would remove them, and it would be nobody's business but mine.

This is turning into an abortion debate (at least on my end), but that's not my intention. I just want to show that you need to be consistent. If animals are of the same worth as humans (which truth they are not), then they must either stop killing babies or start allowing eggs to be crushed.

And I'm showing that there is nothing inconsistent here. The idea behind abortion is not that the embryo/fetus (not baby) has no worth. Many who are pro-choice place quite a bit of value upon that potential (and many would not have abortions themselves). The point is that the embryo/fetus is inside the body of a human being - using that body. The only person who can determine whether or not this is permissible is the person whose body is being used.

Trust me when I say that it helps society more to painlessly euthenize an unwanted and abused baby than to let it suffer from the pain that has permanently infected its subconcious and contribute nothing because it lacks the necesary emotional stuff it would have had if it weren't abused.

Then, there are the people who will say that all life should be preserved, no matter how much it suffers.

Since I believe that death is the end of a part of a journey instead of the end of the journey itself, euthenasia is okay if it contributes more good to the individual than a life of suffering.

Plus, we have way too many people on earht today slowly leeching away at its vital resources until we are forced to go back to caveman days when the internet did not exist and true happiness was closer. Trust me when I say that true happiness cannot be gained without something being lost.

Let the Chinese foxies die a painless death instead of being skinned alive in the name of fashion. How can we call ourselves superior when we don't act it?

However, if the eggs were inside my body, drawing nourishment from my bloodstream, decreasing the effectiveness of my immune system, causing irreparable changes, etc., no one else would have anything to say about what I did with them. If I didn't want them there, I would remove them, and it would be nobody's business but mine.

Except for the father of the child.

My girlfriend does not have the right to deny me my child.

I am completely Pro-choice, but In every case, I would choose life.


abortion should be dually consentual: if both parents say yes, then it goes.

if one says yes and the other says no, the one who said yes would basically give up the child, visitation rights, etcetera, and would not be required to pay alimony or child support. (ie: if they decide to not have the child, they would simply live the rest of their life as if the child had been aborted. The parent who wanted to keep the child, however, will do so)

They chose to end the pregnancy, and the choice of the mate (financial burdens, emotional burdens, parental burdens of any kind) should not be forced upon them.

as for married couples: well, if you can't agree on something as important as having a child, I have serious doubts as to the happiness of the marrige.

[edit] I clicked the little green 'new post' arrow, and it brought me to the post I responded to, but I wrote this before I realized it wasn't an abortion topic (the title skipped my mind as I read the post)

sorry

Except for the father of the child.

Wrong. The father gets to make the decision as soon as the father is pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can decide what medical measures to take in response to that pregnancy.

My girlfriend does not have the right to deny me my child.

No, but she does have the right to deny you the use of her body in creating a child for you. You cannot enslave a woman just because you ejaculated into her.

[edit] I clicked the little green 'new post' arrow, and it brought me to the post I responded to, but I wrote this before I realized it wasn't an abortion topic (the title skipped my mind as I read the post)


You're right, end tangent.

But you do need to rethink your suggestion that you are "pro-choice", but you should get decision-making ability over a woman's body just because you happened to have sex with her.

Wrong. The father gets to make the decision as soon as the father is pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can decide what medical measures to take in response to that pregnancy.



No, but she does have the right to deny you the use of her body in creating a child for you. You cannot enslave a woman just because you ejaculated into her.



You're right, end tangent.

But you do need to rethink your suggestion that you are "pro-choice", but you should get decision-making ability over a woman's body just because you happened to have sex with her.

But the woman agreed to be humped. Sure, it might not seem fair. Is it fair if someone who saves lives is killed by a drunk driver? Life's not fair. Get used to it.

But the woman agreed to be humped.

And? Does sex suddenly entitle someone else to make your medical decisions now?

Sure, it might not seem fair. Is it fair if someone who saves lives is killed by a drunk driver? Life's not fair. Get used to it.

This sounds like something that should be said to the man who thinks he can take over a woman's body because he wants a child, doncha think?

Since this seems to be turning into two seperate questions (peta ( no they can't have caps)/animal rights, and abortion) I will give both of My opinions ( yea I know what they are worth just like everyone elses)


peta- people for the ethical treatment of animals - oh if only they were. they kill more animals (dogs&cats) on purpose and lab animals by thier stupidity ( releasing salt water fish into fresh water, releasing cage born and raised animals to the wild when they cannot survive)

PETA - People eating tasty animals - Rock on Ted


Animal rights - Yea the have a right to live, at least until supper time. But I will try to kill them as quickly as possible

Abotion - I am male I can not have a baby, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION

If worth were based on numbers, they shouldn't care about the deaths of rabbits and white-tailed deer. Yet the vast majority do.


Do they? I find them both quite tasty ...

Why does one follow from the other?

Are animal rights activists protesting against the abortion of non-human fetuses?

For the most part, no. Which in my opinion is a problem: get some consistency.

For the most part, no. Which in my opinion is a problem: get some consistency.

Why is it inconsistent?

For the most part, no. Which in my opinion is a problem: get some consistency.


:D That's funny!

Turn that finger around boyo.

We are talking about Animal rights and you bring up Abortion.

What's next? Creationism?

I find it most hypocritical that the people who support killing unborn babies are for the most part the same people who will throw themselves infront of a bulldozer to save a nest of owl eggs.

To be fair, unborn babies taste a whole lot better than owl eggs.

Or I have heard. *shifty eyes*

:D That's funny!

Turn that finger around boyo.

We are talking about Animal rights and you bring up Abortion.

What's next? Creationism?

Yes, actually, if the conversation would continue, but this isn't the thread for it.

Why is it inconsistent?

Because they are saying that animals are the same as humans (or at least have the same worth) and they will fight to save the unborn animal, but will not fight to save the unborn baby. That is inconsistent.

Yes, actually, if the conversation would continue, but this isn't the thread for it.
Would you like me to start a thread for you to move onto?

I'd even include a poll!

Which would you kill first:
A nest full of owl eggs
Rabbits
White-tailed deer
A human fetus
Other/Myrth

Would you like me to start a thread for you to move onto?

I'd even include a poll!

Which would you kill first:
A nest full of owl eggs
Rabbits
White-tailed deer
A human fetus
Other/Myrth

I would be happy to. Though, I don't think that this poll would get an accurate view of what the animal rights activists think. And I would have to be a little late in responding. Class begins in 45 min and I have to eat first.

Because they are saying that animals are the same as humans (or at least have the same worth) and they will fight to save the unborn animal, but will not fight to save the unborn baby. That is inconsistent.
I think some people are saying that the embryo of an endangered species is worth saving, while the body of a human woman is her own fucking business (pun ever-so-much intended).

Nobody proposes that we go around shooting fetuses for sport. (If only...) What people do propose is that human females are actual sentient creatures as opposed to inanimate nests, and that human females should be granted the same right to control their own reproductive organs as is extended to male human beings. If owl's nests were demonstrated to be sentient human beings, I would fully and completely support their right to kick out any endangered bird eggs that happened to be laid in them.

Because they are saying that animals are the same as humans (or at least have the same worth) and they will fight to save the unborn animal, but will not fight to save the unborn baby. That is inconsistent.

In addition to what was posted above (and regardless of my own views on the issue), I believe that the problem with other animals' unborn children is that we aren't allowing the animal to choose whether or not to bear their own children. It's kind of like... if someone else was forcefully removing one's spouse's (or one's own) eggs, I suspect not many people would think that was okay. If a chicken decided to destroy its own egg, my suspicion is that animal rights people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it (an yes, I count myself as part of that lot).

In addition to what was posted above (and regardless of my own views on the issue), I believe that the problem with other animals' unborn children is that we aren't allowing the animal to choose whether or not to bear their own children. It's kind of like... if someone else was forcefully removing one's spouse's (or one's own) eggs, I suspect not many people would think that was okay. If a chicken decided to destroy its own egg, my suspicion is that animal rights people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it (an yes, I count myself as part of that lot).
An excellent point.

Female kangaroos have the ability to stop a pregnancy at will. Birds sometimes throw eggs out of their own nests, and weak fledglings are often tossed out by their stronger brothers and sisters. Lions frequently engage in infanticide. Even chimpanzees kill their young from time to time.

Most people who support animal rights don't think we should be trying to prevent these activities.

Because they are saying that animals are the same as humans (or at least have the same worth) and they will fight to save the unborn animal, but will not fight to save the unborn baby. That is inconsistent.

Oh, I see - you were referencing the eggs.

The difference is that we don't lose much by saving an egg; it's not much of a sacrifice. Going through pregnancy, and then using the resources necessary to support a child, requires far more.

If an animal, at any point in time, tells in a clear message me they want rights, then by God I will do everything I can to grant them their rights.

Until then, I think I'll enjoy my tastey burger.

If an animal, at any point in time, tells in a clear message me they want rights, then by God I will do everything I can to grant them their rights.

Until then, I think I'll enjoy my tastey burger.

Are you sure it isn't just that you can't understand the request?

Are you sure it isn't just that you can't understand the request?

If it really wanted it's rights, it would make itself understandable.

I really need to learn not to get drawn into these kinds of discussions. Most people (myself included) are pretty set in our ways, so... doesn't do a whole lot of good.

I like PETA (People for Eating Tasty Animals) and everything they stand for.:D

Vegan is an old indian word for bad hunter. Or is it vegetarian?

I like PETA (People for Eating Tasty Animals) and everything they stand for.:D

Vegan is an old indian word for bad hunter. Or is it vegetarian?

LMAO. I like that. Very nice :D

I'm surprised that this thread has lasted as long as it has. Anyway:
1. the language thing. Since the human language alone has over a thousand unique variations right now, not counting dialeques nor dead languages, it's safe to assume that if you apply the "I don't think animals should have rights because I can't understand them" thing to animals, you might as well apply it to people also since most people wouldn't be able to tell you, whether they speak Mandarin Chinese or some Hindu(shouldn't it be Indain? I mean, it's only fair that Native Americans give up their Indian status to those who are actually from India) language.

2. The "fangs=evil" thing needs to go. Bats are benifitial to the environment, at least native species are. Wolves were never really a problem until people began overhunting and hunting for pure pleasure. Since when does short term pleasure from blood sport trump thinking about what removing a native species would do?

3. Since we are probably the worst species to be short sighted in thinking and planning. Seriously, a species with guns, electricity, and a way to literally reach the other side of the earth in a day is going to do more damage than a species that rarely steps off its territory. Don't think we're shortsighted? Then you've never seen the Las Vegas highways. As soon as they are finished, they are already clogged with traffic jams only surpassed by a few places, like LA and New York City. Seriously, I don't think we can really handle having firearms until we learn to actually plan ahead much. I doubt WWI and WWII would have been as bad if it weren't for firearms...or planes.

4. The "every person is worth the same as every other person" thing is null and void in places with severe overpopulation. Once you start running out of food and people everywhere are starving, then the lazy, weak, and mentally challenged aren't as valuable as the hardworking, strong, and smart. The only real win-win solution would be to introduce guns and lots of them. I'm sure you guys would feel the same way if food bacame rare due to overpopulation. But since most of you don't have to worry about starving, you'll keep your "everyone is teh equallz" stance.

5. It's pretty easy to call yourself superior when you make up the requirements. You might as well say "we are the only sentient ones because sentience, to me at least, means homo sapien" instead of making up long excuses. You're biased. Admit it. It's a basic human thing. We're all biased. Personally, I'm biased against bias. It had it too long. While I'm at it, lets violently stop violence. I mean, if you kill everyone and everything, there would be no death because no one would be left to die. Am I right?

So could you point us to an animal rights organization that you would consider to be reputable?

NSPCA (i think)

What about animals like the Bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo)?

What about animals like the Bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo)?
Any species which has figured out how to solve all conflict with orgasms is clearly more evolved than our own.

:)

Any species which has figured out how to solve all conflict with orgasms is clearly more evolved than our own.

:)

What about those that can sexually please you for life just by looking at you? No more hookers and porn for you becuase you wouldn't need it.

God, damn it, wonder species. Exist already. :mad: