Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, piccard I think it is, explains how society works in the future in the movie where the borg go back in time to try and prevent humans from reaching warp speed and catching the attention of the vulcans. Sounds very communist to me.

It is and it isn't.

It's explained time and time again that there's no money, for instance, but there are also hints that a lot of things fell out of favor because they were replaced by better alternatives. Alcohol was replaced with synthahol (sp), but it doesn't appear to be outlawed, since real alcohol is kept by some of the crew openly. It's just seen as old-fashioned and pointless.

The communism angle is strong, yeah, but it's theoretical... it's touchy-feely and everything works properly. Things just seemed to fall into place after a time when things had been exceptionally bad.

It's sci-fi Star Trek is pretty naive in a lot of ways.

 

[Danke]

I think we could learn a lot with how Capt. James T. Kirk treated Tribbles.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Music will bring us all together...

 

[M House]

Um if you get in trouble for abusing an animal, why would I be sympathetic? There's little point in arguing that in nature animals aren't nice to each other. I assume as a human being you are holding yourself to some higher status anyway, if you say they have no rights. Animal protection laws are pretty limited anyway and don't have massive enforcement. I see no reason the state can't pass laws against you performing a variety of cruel acts to them either. Until they start legislating what dog food is acceptable to give your pet, I do not see this as a threat to your liberty.

 

[Krugerrand]

Um if you get in trouble for abusing an animal, why would I be sympathetic? There's little point in arguing that in nature animals aren't nice to each other. I assume as a human being you are holding yourself to some higher status anyway, if you say they have no rights. Animal protection laws are pretty limited anyway and don't have massive enforcement. I see no reason the state can't pass laws against you performing a variety of cruel acts to them either. Until they start legislating what dog food is acceptable to give your pet, I do not see this as a threat to your liberty.

I know more than one person that says it's cruel and abusive to but a bridle and bit on a horse. Outlawing that would hit a lot of people's way of life and is not legislating your dog's food.

 

[M House]

I know more than one person that says it's cruel and abusive to but a bridle and bit on a horse. Outlawing that would hit a lot of people's way of life and is not legislating your dog's food.

Something like that's probably not gonna fly. ALOT of people like riding horses. Then again we do have ALOT of stupid laws so its not impossible. Is there a good real life example of an animal rights type law you wanna bring up?

 

[M House]

There's the Animal Welfare Act which I'd have to disagree with since I don't see this as a Federal government power remotely. Though, I don't believe it was a terrible thing to do.

 

[andrewh817]

I think it's really too soon in modern society to bring up complaints about the abuse of other animals, when our own species is by far the most oppressed. Maybe this discussion should continue once humans by and large have attained freedom themselves.

If apes were intelligent enough to be able to live amongst humans and join in the debate on how they wanted society to interact, they would have to be on the same level as us in ability to enforce society's rules. Otherwise, they are subject to the whim of humans and their idea of how society should act.

Okay so what about children, then? They can't really join a debate on how they want society to be, so is it just to subject them to the whims of their elders?

 

[Krugerrand]

Something like that's probably not gonna fly. ALOT of people like riding horses. Then again we do have ALOT of stupid laws so its not impossible. Is there a good real life example of an animal rights type law you wanna bring up?

Nope. I was more interested in talking about the principle - not the legal application.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

nor should it be forced upon me to treat animals in a particular fashion or not be allowed to own particular animals because "you're taking them from their natural environment". Well, if people want to use that silly argument, then we'd never have domestic dogs, cats, horses, cows, chickens, etc.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Okay so what about children, then? They can't really join a debate on how they want society to be, so is it just to subject them to the whims of their elders?

no, because they haven't matured or developed enough within their natural lifespan to make those kind of decisions yet, but they will be (absent brain damage, ultra-low IQ, retardation, down's syndrome, etc) able to one day--the same cannot be said for the great apes.

and I do think that there is a case for paternalism, up to a particular age (what age that is is still open to debate, I think).

 

[LibForestPaul]

when an ape can carry a gun, that is when i'll think about it

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

when an ape can carry a gun, that is when i'll think about it

qft! I agree

 

[awake]

Why you're at it, issue property rights, the environmentalists will love it. They can finally deny man of all his property rights and instead issue them to the beasts of the earth.

I can see it now, "the rich polluting humans must pay the poor animals who are forced to live in poverty all due to our wasteful and selfish ways. Hurry, we must at once confiscate the wealth of men and transfer it to the animals!" Are they not the worlds poorest and underprivileged?

 

[MN Patriot]

“In my view, natural law and natural rights are human inventions (not discoveries) intended to further the interests of the inventors” L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights.

 

[andrewh817]

no, because they haven't matured or developed enough within their natural lifespan to make those kind of decisions yet, but they will be (absent brain damage, ultra-low IQ, retardation, down's syndrome, etc) able to one day--the same cannot be said for the great apes.

and I do think that there is a case for paternalism, up to a particular age (what age that is is still open to debate, I think).

If your answer is no, because they haven't matured or developed the brain power, then age has nothing to do with it.

My proposition is this, if you have an infant who is about to touch a hot stove or running into a busy street, by all means grab them. After that, gauge whether or not the child will understand the principle of heat = hurt, and speed x weight = force generated, and once they've demonstrated an understanding of those principles, don't initiate force on them any longer. Of course there are plenty of other important principles for safety, but I feel that's a good methodology for deciding when to stop initiating force.

 

[erowe1]

What does intelligence have to do with anything?

 

[charrob]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all of God's creatures.

 

[Anti Federalist]

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all of God's creatures.

Many here say there is no such thing as "god".

Those who think otherwise point to God's word where dominion and use of all resources is given exclusively to man.

 

[charrob]

Many here say there is no such thing as "god".

Those who think otherwise point to God's word where dominion and use of all resources is given exclusively to man.

ok... i'll re-word:

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all creatures.

it's just my opinion...