R.P. on animal cruelty?

[nosebruise]

If I were to put a universal definition on the word 'cruelty' I would be contradicting my own arguments. What constitutes 'cruelty' is in the eye of the beholder. I have my own opinions, but there are an infinite number of situations that can be analyzed.

this is part of the problem though. we need a universal definition for a law to be effectively created to combat it.

I understand your point about the administrative practicality of statutory implementation. I sympathize with that point.

great. i'm glad.

It's just my opinion. As I have stated above, cruelty is subjective. Personally, depending on the species of fish you are referring to, I am not convinced that fish are at a level where they agonize. Although my opinion is open to change. I don't eat fish for other reasons.

you dont eat fish. i do. most people do.
whether fishing constitutes as animal cruelty affects that.

This is a common argument. It breaks down when you consider that humans have applied morality to themselves. When you cannot afford something at the shop you don't shoot the shopkeeper and take the item, while dismissing it as "being part of the natural order". If humans can apply morality to themselves then the must apply it to those beings who humans have forced into human society. We domesticated animals, so we are responsible for them. If we go and interact with nature, then we can't leave our morality behind, whether or not you think morality exists in the natural order that is not human effected.

This is the point, exactly. Human morality is self implicated. It has nothing to do with the animal kingdom. Human societies have laws in place to govern humans. Animals are NOT a part of our society. They are NOT members of society. They have been brought in or "forced" as you so eloquently put as PROPERTY. This stemmed from needing them for FOOD as livestock, followed by labor and companionship. They are still property, we are responsible for them as PROPERTY, not beings granted rights who need to be protected by rights whether its from humans or each other.
Our morality is based first on dealing with each other, and very very much secondarily other forms of life. Most people will tell you that domesticated pets should be cared for, but that doesnt mean we need to legislate it because some people are fucked up. It causes many, many, many more problems than it ever solves.

I addressed this previously. I sympathize with the point you make and am glad you, at least, have a sense that animals are worth considering.

I think animals are great. I also have no problem with people killing animals for food, nor pest control. When Gophers are fucking with your crops you have every right to protect them by stopping the pests.

Killing is not the issue. Cruelty is the issue. As a veterinary student I have euthanased healthy animals (although thankfully stray animals are rapidally reducing occurrences in Australia). It is preferable than putting them back on the street and dying a slow painful death after being hit by a car.

Again this comes down to the question of what constitutes as cruelty. If we are going to make an issue out of it, we need a clear line drawn definition of what constitutes as cruelty so that we can enforce it.

Also considering your POV. Why is it that killing a dog "humanely" through euthanasia, is any better than fishing or hunting for food??
Maybe that dog would rather live and run around as a scrappy stray than be euthanized? Most Poor people and homeless people would rather live poorly and homelessly than being "humanely" euthanized for their benefit? Why do you think a dog would think anything different. I'm pretty sure if that dog knew what you were doing it would stuggle tooth and nail to live.



I'm glad you see my points. and like i said i understand where you're coming from and sympathize with you as well, people killing or injuring or neglecting their pets is a horrible thing.

do i think "animal rights" legislation is a solution to that problem? absolutely not. in fact it will just create many, many more problems than it would ever hope to solve.

you think abortion is an issue right now? just wait till we have to start dealing with what animal rights should mean.

 

[Joe3113]

this is part of the problem though. we need a universal definition for a law to be effectively created to combat it.

Incorrect. There are an infinite number of situations that can occur. The law rarely addresses every possible scenario. That is why courts exist. They interpret the law and try to make decisions based on the spirit in which the law was made (at least the non-corrupt ones do )

you dont eat fish. i do. most people do.
whether fishing constitutes as animal cruelty affects that.

No animal rights folks I know want to make fishing illegal. That would be ridiculous.

This is the point, exactly. Human morality is self implicated. It has nothing to do with the animal kingdom. Human societies have laws in place to govern humans. Animals are NOT a part of our society. They are NOT members of society. They have been brought in or "forced" as you so eloquently put as PROPERTY. This stemmed from needing them for FOOD as livestock, followed by labor and companionship. They are still property, we are responsible for them as PROPERTY, not beings granted rights who need to be protected by rights whether its from humans or each other.
Our morality is based first on dealing with each other, and very very much secondarily other forms of life. Most people will tell you that domesticated pets should be cared for, but that doesnt mean we need to legislate it because some people are fucked up. It causes many, many, many more problems than it ever solves.

I have dealt with these superficial and dismissive arguments you make in previous posts.

You have an ignorant, dogmatic, 100% subjective opinion on the matter.

I think animals are great. I also have no problem with people killing animals for food, nor pest control. When Gophers are fucking with your crops you have every right to protect them by stopping the pests.

Why must you simplify everything? I just made it clear that killing is not the issue. If the gophers can be killed painlessly, then I understand.

Again this comes down to the question of what constitutes as cruelty. If we are going to make an issue out of it, we need a clear line drawn definition of what constitutes as cruelty so that we can enforce it.

As I have said, I understand the practical difficulties in statutory implementation and I would not recommend pursuance of such things when we cannot even secure human rights in this manner.

Also considering your POV. Why is it that killing a dog "humanely" through euthanasia, is any better than fishing or hunting for food??
Maybe that dog would rather live and run around as a scrappy stray than be euthanized? Most Poor people and homeless people would rather live poorly and homelessly than being "humanely" euthanized for their benefit? Why do you think a dog would think anything different. I'm pretty sure if that dog knew what you were doing it would stuggle tooth and nail to live.

You seemed to have missed the point here. It would be irresponsible and cruel to both the animal and other people, to release an animal into an urban or suburban area. The animal is at risk of a painful death and drivers are at risk from the road hazard that the animal constitutes. Your argument also fails in the case of a rural areas. Domesticated dogs have lost the evolutionary traits that allowed them to survive in the wild. Humans have bred them in this way, and so are responsible for them.

The other point to make is that animal welfare/rights people work very hard to make sure animals do not become stray in the first place. Nobody likes euthanasing a stray dog, but what we dislike even more is a dog that suffers a slow and painful death.

I'm glad you see my points. and like i said i understand where you're coming from and sympathize with you as well, people killing or injuring or neglecting their pets is a horrible thing.

do i think "animal rights" legislation is a solution to that problem? absolutely not. in fact it will just create many, many more problems than it would ever hope to solve.

you think abortion is an issue right now? just wait till we have to start dealing with what animal rights should mean.

As I stated previously, I think we need to clarify and secure human rights under the law, before we can have a meaningful discussion regarding the practicality of animal rights. If animal rights can be respected without the need for explicit statutory declarations, such as those for humans (from which a lot of subjectivity arises anyhow), then I'll be happy.

 

[UnReconstructed]

No law has ever stopped anyone from doing anything.

 

[TaxProtester]

"but it does have his voting record on several federal bills concerning animals."

that had enough implication that the article mentioned something of worth.

didnt tell us anything. didnt need to be posted. and on top of which this entire topic is completely irrelevant, just like ron's views on animal rights or animal cruelty are irrelevant to his presidency.

LOL, you don't think his voting record is of any use? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It has become obvious to me that all you want to do is argue. I refuse to participate in such a discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[jeffersonT]

I'm very tired of debating this. I could continue, but I feel we'd just proceed in an endless re-hashing of arguments...so I thought I'd just put an end to it.

 

[topaz420]

I'm very tired of debating this. I could continue, but I feel we'd just proceed in an endless re-hashing of arguments...so I thought I'd just put an end to it.

Hmmm. Maybe there is a God.

 

[nosebruise]

Incorrect. There are an infinite number of situations that can occur. The law rarely addresses every possible scenario. That is why courts exist. They interpret the law and try to make decisions based on the spirit in which the law was made (at least the non-corrupt ones do )

yes, but we still need a universal definition of cruelty even if it is a somewhat ambiguous one. you can't just say "cruelty" with the word being completely and utterly undefined whatsoever, otherwise someone could find fishing or slaughtering cows for beef, or chickens cruelty.

those would be extreme cases, but yes, but thats my point. something THAT ambitious is going to cause a lot of problems. there needs to be SOME lines drawn somewhere, even if they are blurry ambiguous ones.

No animal rights folks I know want to make fishing illegal. That would be ridiculous.

i've seen equally ridiculous notions out of PETA plenty of times.

I have dealt with these superficial and dismissive arguments you make in previous posts.

You have an ignorant, dogmatic, 100% subjective opinion on the matter.

hahahahah duh. ALL opinions are subjective. the ones that arent are called FACTS. hahahaha.

and whatever, i can come up with reasons why i think your "100% subjective" opinion is equally as ignorant and dogmatic from my point of view. null.

Why must you simplify everything? I just made it clear that killing is not the issue. If the gophers can be killed painlessly, then I understand.

and what if they can't? what if it's too costly?
you want to catch every gopher and euthanize it?
what they don't get the gopher smack in the head every time when shooting it and it isn't as quick as you like?

You seemed to have missed the point here. It would be irresponsible and cruel to both the animal and other people, to release an animal into an urban or suburban area. The animal is at risk of a painful death and drivers are at risk from the road hazard that the animal constitutes. Your argument also fails in the case of a rural areas. Domesticated dogs have lost the evolutionary traits that allowed them to survive in the wild. Humans have bred them in this way, and so are responsible for them.

The other point to make is that animal welfare/rights people work very hard to make sure animals do not become stray in the first place. Nobody likes euthanasing a stray dog, but what we dislike even more is a dog that suffers a slow and painful death.

homeless people are at risk of painful death from starvation or hypothermia.
people abuse them more often than animals, and they can be more dangerous than a dog in the street.

i dont hear you crying over them?
should we euthanize them to put them out of their misery and keep them from being a danger to themselves and society?
why not, is that cruel or something?

As I stated previously, I think we need to clarify and secure human rights under the law, before we can have a meaningful discussion regarding the practicality of animal rights. If animal rights can be respected without the need for explicit statutory declarations, such as those for humans (from which a lot of subjectivity arises anyhow), then I'll be happy.

animal rights will NEVER be as respected as those for humans. i'm sorry but you are living a pipe dream.

not until they are genetically engineered or evolve to communicate and reason on a human level of intelligence at least. hahahahhahaha.



animals are animals, man. period, they aren't people. they aren't at our level, and they wont be until they evolve over a very long period of time, or we make them that way, which will be quite a while until we are able to do so as well. (if it even becomes ethically moral to try. that's a whole new rights discussion, and oh god would that complicate things even more.)
they don't have rights like people. i know they are life. but even in a world of morals things arent perfect and will never be so Utopian that we can ust protect all life and everything will be daffodils and suffering will cease. it's not the way the world works, it's not the way the world has been set up to work.

 

[nosebruise]

LOL, you don't think his voting record is of any use? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It has become obvious to me that all you want to do is argue. I refuse to participate in such a discussion. Have a nice day.

LOLOLOL.

no i dont think his voting record "was of any use" which is why i pointed it out. you were the one that insinuated it by posting that comment, smartass.

but i'm glad you're not gonna reply anymore cause at least i wont have to respond to dumb, confused crap like this.

 

[Joe3113]

yes, but we still need a universal definition of cruelty even if it is a somewhat ambiguous one. you can't just say "cruelty" with the word being completely and utterly undefined whatsoever, otherwise someone could find fishing or slaughtering cows for beef, or chickens cruelty.

I haven't exactly thought about what the exact contents of a statutory declaration of animal rights would be. As I have states previously, on more than one occasion, I understand the impracticalities of such a declaration. It would have to cover each species individually because, again, as I have stated previously, there is a continuous scale of emotive ability. Such a thing is many years away from even being considered. Right now, I'm interested in securing human rights. Because, denied our own rights, it is impossible for us to further the cause of those of another species. That is why I'm supporting Ron Paul. If people are to accept animal rights, it must be done of their own free will.

The other point to note, is that laws against animal cruelty do exist in the United States and in my country, Australia. Instances of cruelty are rapidly decreasing in prevalence in Australia. People are becoming more caring of animal welfare and animal rights. My own cause is not to achieve a statutory declaration of animal rights to which people are bound, but rather to win over hearts and minds with logical arguments. I'll say this once again, I understand the impracticalities of putting animal rights into law, and that is not my aim. My aim is a widespread acceptance of animal rights and the eradication of cruelty as a result.

i've seen equally ridiculous notions out of PETA plenty of times.

PETA is not representative of me, nor the majority of animal welfare/rights advocates.

ALL opinions are subjective. the ones that aren't are called FACTS.

Opinions differ in their subjectivity. Note I said your opinion was 100% subjective. For example:

Opinion 1: God looks down upon the earth and controls earthly events
Evidence for Opinion 1: None

Opinion 2: Horse x is better than Horse y, and will win the race tomorrow
Evidence for Opinion 2: Previous performances, veterinary status, blood biochemical profile, musculature, packed cell volume, bicarbonate status etc...

Note that although Opinion 2 now has objective input, a level of subjectivity is still exists because the aforementioned parameters are by no means exact sciences, nor do they constitute the entire set of influencing factors.

and what if they can't? what if it's too costly?
you want to catch every gopher and euthanize it?
what they don't get the gopher smack in the head every time when shooting it and it isn't as quick as you like?

If it can not be done painlessly then there is an animal welfare issue. I would have to analyze the situation further. I would hope that farmers have enough respect for animal welfare so as to terminate the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible. In the case of gophers, If they went into shock with the first bullet and the gunmen was swift in following up, perhaps it would be justified.

homeless people are at risk of painful death from starvation or hypothermia.
people abuse them more often than animals, and they can be more dangerous than a dog in the street.

i dont hear you crying over them?
should we euthanize them to put them out of their misery and keep them from being a danger to themselves and society?
why not, is that cruel or something?

1. Homeless people don't run in front of cars.
2. The majority of cities have services for the homeless.
3. If I did not care about human welfare, I would not be supporting Ron Paul.
4. People passionate about animal rights/welfare are the most caring people you'll will ever meet.

animal rights will NEVER be as respected as those for humans. i'm sorry but you are living a pipe dream.

not until they are genetically engineered or evolve to communicate and reason on a human level of intelligence at least. hahahahhahaha.

Did you go to public school in the United States? I knew there was a concerted effort to dumb-down the population, however I was not aware of the extent of the problem until now.

I am not suggesting animal rights be equal to those of humans. I am suggesting that rights apply on a continuous scale of emotive ability. If you had read my previous posts you would know this.

animals are animals, man. period, they aren't people.

Don't bother answering my previous question with regard to you public school attendance. The above comment is confirmation.

 

[Sauron]

Cats, dogs, and horses have been the most valuable animals for mankind to own as civilized societies. They are useful for hunting, vermin control, and transportation. Nobody has the right to violate somebody else's property, and that includes animals.

However, if it's your property, you're free to do with it what you want. There's no need to legislate against animal testing, it's very useful for scientists.

I've been a raw vegan for over 6 years solely because it's a good natural way to eat. I know that people who say they are against animal cruelty are really just interested in having power over other people and controlling what they do with their property. They're control freaks, plain and simple.

 

[nosebruise]

PETA is not representative of me, nor the majority of animal welfare/rights advocates.

i never said they were. reread why i responded to that. that response had nothing to do with you personally.

Opinions differ in their subjectivity. Note I said your opinion was 100% subjective. For example:

Opinion 1: God looks down upon the earth and controls earthly events
Evidence for Opinion 1: None

Opinion 2: Horse x is better than Horse y, and will win the race tomorrow
Evidence for Opinion 2: Previous performances, veterinary status, blood biochemical profile, musculature, packed cell volume, bicarbonate status etc...

Note that although Opinion 2 now has objective input, a level of subjectivity is still exists because the aforementioned parameters are by no means exact sciences, nor do they constitute the entire set of influencing factors.

yeah ok i missed the "100%" reading that the first time around.

regardless, i'd beg to differ, and say that my opinion is much more objective than yours is. your opinion is coming from the view of a vet, and a vegan lifestyle and ideology.
on the other hand, i am taking in to account socioeconomic factors, and facts of nature.

you're opinion is completely based on "dogmatic" views on human morality. that, like your example.

i AM taking into account the fact that animals sense pain. i know this. its just my opinion that we dont have to protect them through legislature. having more laws is NOT a good thing. we socially should strive to keep laws to what is essential. i dont think giving rights to animals is essential by any means, and just complicates things, and is a wedge to let things get out of hand.

and that was my whole point. in my view, it's your opinion which is "dogmatic, 100% subjective, superficial and dismissive."

If it can not be done painlessly then there is an animal welfare issue. I would have to analyze the situation further. I would hope that farmers have enough respect for animal welfare so as to terminate the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible. In the case of gophers, If they went into shock with the first bullet and the gunmen was swift in following up, perhaps it would be justified.

oh lord. fuck that. a farmer killing gophers who are eating his crops is simply PROTECTING HIS FUCKING LIVELYHOOD. sure the poor gophers dont know any better but who cares. it's no ones fault. it's fucking nature.

the expenses for killing a gopher population control problem by "humane" means (whatever that even means) could end up being vastly expensive.

how would you feel if he just got another animal to kill the gophers. what if he got a bunch of dogs out to maul the shit out of any gophers they find instead of shooting himself? is that somehow more ok? simply because another animal is doing it to another animal?

i'd like to see how you'd charge someone for not killing an animal instantly after shooting it once and not managing to deal an instant death blow... because you know if the farmer immediately followed up with another bullet to put it out, it would suddenly no longer be animal cruelty and he shouldn't be charged for that.

1. Homeless people don't run in front of cars.
2. The majority of cities have services for the homeless.
3. If I did not care about human welfare, I would not be supporting Ron Paul.
4. People passionate about animal rights/welfare are the most caring people you'll will ever meet.

1. missed my point again. homeless people don't run in front of cars (most of the time) but they can be dangerous. (ps: not every stray dog runs in front of cars either)
2. the majority of cities have pounds. what's your point?
3. great.
4. caring is subjective as well. sure they care... about animals. i do too, i just dont go overboard. i realize they are not people and that they have a place in nature and in human society.

regardless. you are MISSING MY ENTIRE POINT. you're getting on me for being "subjective." i'm trying to show you you're viewpoint is entirely subjective as well. you think it's more humane to kill a dog rather than let it run around, even if it isn't going to be properly cared for.

maybe it isn't. maybe the dog would rather live day to day eating out of garbage cans than be MURDERED by your happy little death syringe. who are you to kill that dog and call it any less cruel?

you're not even protecting your livelyhood. or getting meat from it. you're doing it out of your own opinion that it's better than what the dog would have otherwise.

and you want to tell other people what should be considered moral and control it through law?

Did you go to public school in the United States? I knew there was a concerted effort to dumb-down the population, however I was not aware of the extent of the problem until now.

I am not suggesting animal rights be equal to those of humans. I am suggesting that rights apply on a continuous scale of emotive ability. If you had read my previous posts you would know this.

funny little jab there. i've been to both public and private schools. you're right about the public school being a joke though. good thing i didnt rely on it for my education.

blah blah blah. and we see that cows can be just as emotional as dogs. great now i get to eat vegan food. great idea, thanks.

and yep. animals are animals. i still stand by that. there is no reason for us to give them "rights."

we should respect them for what they are, yes. they are living, breathing creatures.

they are also livestock, food, beasts of burden, parasites, hunters, pets, pests, and everything in between.



i actually find it quite funny how you claim to be objective, yet every time i answer something you dont seem to see the scope i'm talking about and deal with some little context, or take some general response i'm saying as if it applied to you personally. try to think more take a look at my argument more objectively... you might get more of the points i'm trying to make ;P

my original questions still stand...
what constitutes animal cruelty? where does it begin?
what "rights" are animals supposed to have? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Joe3113]

WARNING TO THOSE READING THIS POST: I make a few jokes about public school in the United States. They are just that, jokes. Please don't take offense. Despite this I do believe there is an intentional effort to dumb-down the American public, and it has largely worked. Part of my purpose is to help reverse that trend. Thanks

regardless, i'd beg to differ, and say that my opinion is much more objective than yours is. your opinion is coming from the view of a vet, and a vegan lifestyle and ideology.
on the other hand, i am taking in to account socioeconomic factors, and facts of nature.

As I stated below (I answered in reverse order), I pity those wretched souls who see the world in categorizations and collectivism. I have given you the logic behind animal rights/welfare.

i AM taking into account the fact that animals sense pain.

The pain stimulus is not the issue in and of itself. The production of emotion from pain is (although I guess some people include the emotional aspect within the definition of pain).

i know this. its just my opinion that we dont have to protect them through legislature.

Too late. Laws have been around for many years.

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cruelty/cruelty.htm

I understand that a statutory declaration of animal rights would be practically difficult, which is why I hope that people will accept and respect animal rights without the need for such things.

oh lord. fuck that.

Your eloquence truly inspiring.

how would you feel if he just got another animal to kill the gophers. what if he got a bunch of dogs out to maul the shit out of any gophers they find instead of shooting himself? is that somehow more ok? simply because another animal is doing it to another animal?

I assume you are referring to domesticated dogs. Domesticated animals are a creation of humans. The situation you are referring to is not happening in the bounds of nature (at least that which is not influenced by humans), therefore it would be the responsibility of humans and would constitute cruelty.

A comparable example I'll give you is an event known as 'Bear Baiting'. It is considered a form of entertainment for some very ill-minded individuals. A bear is chained to the ground and two dogs are released that are trained to attack it. People gamble on which animal will 'win'. This constitutes animal cruelty, despite the fact that it is the animals that are the direct cause. It is not a natural situation, but rather a situation created through human intervention.

i'd like to see how you'd charge someone for not killing an animal instantly after shooting it once and not managing to deal an instant death blow... because you know if the farmer immediately followed up with another bullet to put it out, it would suddenly no longer be animal cruelty and he shouldn't be charged for that.

Puzzling grammar. Charges would not be appropriate in the first instance of the situation you are describing.

1. missed my point again. homeless people don't run in front of cars (most of the time) but they can be dangerous. (ps: not every stray dog runs in front of cars either)
2. the majority of cities have pounds. what's your point?
3. great.
4. caring is subjective as well. sure they care... about animals. i do too, i just dont go overboard. i realize they are not people and that they have a place in nature and in human society.

That public school really did a number on you.

The function of an animal shelter (or 'pound' as you call them in the United States) is to find the unwanted or stray animal a new home, and in very rare cases, when a home can't be found, to humanely euthanize the animal. The alternative would be to put it back out on the street. This option is inhumane for both human and animal, as I described previously.

Concerning your charge of subjectivity on my part, try reading the objective, logical arguments I provide for animal rights, in previous posts.

...you're not even protecting your livelyhood.

Another US, nWo, dumb-down by design, public school zinger there.

blah blah blah. and we see that cows can be just as emotional as dogs. great now i get to eat vegan food. great idea, thanks.

Now you are just lying. My observations are that cows are at a much different level of emotive ability than dogs.

and yep. animals are animals. i still stand by that. there is no reason for us to give them "rights."

Another demonstration of that US public school wit. I have presented the logic behind animal rights numerous times in this thread.

we should respect them for what they are, yes. they are living, breathing creatures.

Once again, a display of a mind that functions in an oversimplified capacity. A tree is living and breathing and yet I don't apply rights to it.

Before you shoot back and say a tree doesn't breathe, Google 'photosynthesis'.

they are also livestock, food, beasts of burden, parasites, hunters, pets, pests, and everything in between.

I pity those who live in a simplified world of perceived categorizations. Each species has a unique evolutionary history and is interesting in its own right. Animals don't exist only in the capacity by which small minded Homo sapiens, such as yourself, perceive them.

i actually find it quite funny how you claim to be objective, yet every time i answer something you dont seem to see the scope i'm talking about and deal with some little context, or take some general response i'm saying as if it applied to you personally. try to think more take a look at my argument more objectively... you might get more of the points i'm trying to make ;P

I guess grammar is a tough concept to grasp when you have been to public school in United States.

my original questions still stand...
what constitutes animal cruelty? where does it begin?

I've already answered this.

what "rights" are animals supposed to have? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In very general terms all domesticated animals should have the following...

http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm

Domesticated animals are our responsibility. We bred them in a fashion that makes them unable to compete in the wild. Therefore we are fully responsible for them. Wild animals are a different occurrence. Cruelty only becomes an issue with human interference, such as hunting.

 

[nosebruise]

...

 

[nosebruise]

...

 

[Joe3113]

Animal Rights Logic​

1. Genetic changes and natural selection have resulted in different 'species'
2. Humans are one of those species.

Given you accept the above you cannot make artificial distinctions between species beyond those that are objectively observed. Each species has some unique characteristics but each has a common ancestry and so has many more similar characteristics. As you can see from the image below, in the early stages of ontogeny, different species look very similar. This is a remnant of their common ancestry. Note, in particular, that the human embryo (the far right) has a tail.

Now consider that a human has the 'right' not to be tortured by another human.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick clarification: A human does not have the 'right' not to be tortured by an animal.
If a guy goes surfing and gets eaten by a shark (dying a slow painful death) the shark is not at fault.
If a guy gets killed by a bull in the 'Running of the Bulls' in Spain, it is no fault of the animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The reason that the human has that 'right' is because torture produces agony, which is a negative emotive response (I submit that it is for this reason in combination with the species in and of itself). Given a dog can also experience agony, what exactly prevents the 'right' (of not being tortured by a human) from being applied to the dog? The answer is nothing.

Some will argue that the 'right' is not derived from the ability to experience agony (in combination with species). I will debunk those arguments here:

Why the 'right' is not present due to the 'morality'.
1. Because even humans void of morality retain their rights. (Mentally retarded, sociopaths etc..)
2. Because lack of morality does not preclude the ability to experience agony.

Why the 'right' is not present because it was put there by god.
Maybe it was put there by god, however, given the human was granted that 'right' by god, why can I not then claim that the dog was also granted that 'right' by god. There is certainly no evidence the 'right' was, in fact, given to the human and not to the dog.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: With respect, if you choose to throw the Bible, Koran, Torah or whatever at me, then all logic gets thrown out the window.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having established the above as a universal philosophy, let me expand and consider domesticated animals:

The case of domesticated animals is a specific case within the universal philosophy. Domesticated animals differ from others in that they only exist as a result of human activity. They have lost all ability to compete in the wild because they have been selectively bred for particular characteristics, while neglecting others that were essential for their survival in the wild.

I submit that, because of this, humans are responsible for their welfare in all situations, including their interactions with other domesticated animals and wild animals.

This is in contrast to a wild animal, where the rights only apply in their interaction with humans, as I have established previously. Although it could also be argued, that, in some cases, we are wholly responsible for wild animals also. For example, when humans have interfered with their habitat. That argument is beyond the scope of what I am presenting, so I will not continue any further.

 

[nosebruise]

again. you're entire argument is simply based on the fact that animals feel pain, like people can and that we're part of the animal kingdom.

so fucking what? "other" animals don't give each other rights. animals CANT give each other rights. animals dont use deductive reasoning, complex mathematics, critical thinking, language, what "other" animal can describe physics to each other?

HUMANS are very, very different from animals.

animals have their own little rudimentary societies where things like rights DO NOT APPLY. why should we apply ours to them? why give a shark rights when SHARKS ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE HUMANS RIGHTS. a bear will fucking MAUL you if it so chooses, and it will get away with it.

what about MY rights to "not experience agony" when i get bit by a fucking snake?
what about MY RIGHTS to not get fucking mosquito bites all over when i go out in the summer?
that shit IS TORTURE.

are you serious about all this?

OUR RULES DO NOT APPLY
TO THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

humans give rights to each other. we can COMPREHEND rights, we can govern each other according to rights, we can make decisions based on the facts that we have given each other rights. animals can NOT COMPREHEND WHAT THE HELL RIGHTS ARE.

humans have rights because they can reason. because they can understand things like morality. sociopaths can still understand morality, but they ignore it. retardation is a genetic ANOMALY. i find it hilarious that you're trying to compare a retard to an animal as if that actually had any sort of merit.

you can't seriously be telling me animals should have rights because a HUMAN with downs syndrome has rights.

you're entire. fucking. argument is based on the fact that animals feel pain.
no one cares. pain is a part of nature. animals inflict pain on each other. our rights are given WITHIN our species for a reason, to govern how we act with each other because we can acknowledge rights and reason accordingly. other animal species aren't even remotely as complex as we are logically. they dont care about inflicting pain on others or on us. (and so long as i dont consider it abuse in my own personal idea of what abuse is, which is obviously not even close to yours as i consider things like hunting or protecting property fine... i could care less whether an animal was hurt by a human hunting or by another animal hunting.)

 

[AmyPA]

Holy cow, this thread makes my head hurt.

 

[Joe3113]

again. you're entire argument is simply based on the fact that animals feel pain, like people can.

My example was a dog and I provided evidence that suggests there is no reason to artificially separate the pain humans feel, and the pain dogs (or other animals) feel, other than those separations that can be made based on objective observation.

are you serious about all this?

Yes.

OUR RULES DO NOT APPLY
TO THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

BREAKING NEWS: HUMANS ARE PART OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM!!!!! WOW!!!

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

humans give rights to each other.

Is that you Mr Rockefeller? Dr Kissinger? One of the Rothschild family?

Can I get an autograph in any case?

you're entire. fucking. argument is based on the fact that animals feel pain. no one cares.

No one cares? hmmm....Then why am I getting all these PM messages saying you are ignorant and I am right.


------------------------------------------

All your other points I have already addressed in my 'Animal Rights Logic' post.

 

[nosebruise]

My example was a dog and I provided evidence that suggests there is no reason to artificially separate the pain humans feel, and the pain dogs (or other animals) feel, other than those separations that can be made based on objective observation.

any my example was that it doesnt matter. sure animals feel pain, they inflict pain on each other constantly. it doesnt matter to me if a deer is killed by a human or another animal. and like i said, i think it's more honorable for a human to kill his food himself than to eat a processed hormone laden cow which was grown to be slaughtered.

Yes.

good for you. good luck with that.

BREAKING NEWS: HUMANS ARE PART OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM!!!!! WOW!!!

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

breaking news... yet again, that had nothing to do with my point.
just because we are part of the animal kindom, exactly HOW does that mean the rules we give other HUMANS other applies to the animal kingdom?
how does that make OUR RULES to EACH OTHER apply to the animal kindom AT ALL?

reread what i said:

"OUR RULES DO NOT APPLY
TO THE ANIMAL KINGDOM."

we are part of the animal kindom but we give HUMANS, HUMAN LAWS. being part of the animal kingdom has nothing to do with HOW WE GOVERN EACH OTHER.
bears can not be held liable for breaking into a car and stealing a-pic-a-nic baskets.
squirrels can not be held liable for peeing in public.
sharks can not be held liable for drug trafficking.

but we are all part of the animal kingdom.

again, what is your point? you completely missed mine, yet again.

Is that you Mr Rockefeller? Dr Kissinger? One of the Rothschild family?

Can I get an autograph in any case?

uh huh. well... so you're implying that the founding fathers didnt establish rights for it's citizens when they founded the country...

it was rockefeller... or rothschild.

right. another lame, off topic attack which has nothing to do with anything.

No one cares? hmmm....Then why am I getting all these PM messages saying you are ignorant and I am right.

hahahahahhaha. so WHAT? what kind of people do you think are going to even CLICK on this thread, generally?
most people think animal cruelty is bad. i think animal cruelty is bad. my definition of cruelty is obviously not what yours is, and you're idea of "animal rights" is way off base from what most people think is required.

congradulations. you must be so proud about getting these mystery PMs.
too bad those people PMing you arent signing laws.

All your other points I have already addressed in my 'Animal Rights Logic' post.

You certainly come across as an uneducated and dogmatic. I advise you to do your research (perhaps learn how to read and spell) before challenging someone in the field of philosophy. Have a nice day.

and again, like i said your points have come across to me as uneducated and dogmatic. i'm talking to you about socioeconomic factors, human interaction with each other, and how animals act in nature, and you're sitting here talking to me about how animals can hurt. yes. i know.

you're the one who began trying to attack me with extra-informative "dogmatic opinion" "public school" and "rothschild" blabber, and the fact that i'm casually typing and am not correcting my grammar as if i were writing a formal essay when i'm having some ridiculous debate on an internet forum that has nothing to do with anything. i really dont care about my grammar right now. i'm typing as i think. for someone so hung up on grammar i've got to say, yours is rather casual as well... not as much as mine is now, for sure, but its no thesis paper.

besides, i've stuck to my argument. the only thing you can come up with is "we're part of the animal kingdom" and "animals have feelings too" and then some weird completely off-topic attacks.

great. i agree with you there.
and, like i said, you can quit it with the education attacks. you obviously know nothing about me at all. dont pretend to. you already tried to call me out on some weird "public school education" which was completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue, and funny enough didnt even apply to me as much as you'd hoped.

you are simply in a corner and have nothing else to say other than the "animals have feelings too" argument, and need some way to try to discredit me. you obviously don't know me at all, or anything about my education or my general field of knowledge.

and i haven't attacked you on anything besides you're "dogmatic vegan" views, which i only did to prove a point after you called me out on being "dogmatic and subjective" (i honestly don't care about vegans either way) AND after the whole "public school" thing, (which i think is funny that you brought up twice even after i had said i have also attended private schooling.) i've not gone on to attack you, i havent called you some sort of extremist global animal rights conspiracist. i simply stuck to my argument, which is more than i could say for you.

you dont know me. don't pretend you do.
i obviously know a lot more about you and why you think the way you do about the subject... being a vegan and a veterinarian. that is going to make you're viewpoint very subjective, sir.

 

[nosebruise]

//edit: double post.