Animal Rights page 9

246 posts

Flag Post

According to the Bible, God gave us dominion over animals so we can do whatever we want to animals

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by mafefesRevenge:

According to the Bible, God gave us dominion over animals so we can do whatever we want to animals

You made it sounds so kinky…
anyways… One can only have as much rights as one is bestowed. One can only be free if one does not hold on to the burden of rights.

 
Flag Post

Ever notice how pithy remarks never seem to mean much of anything?

 
Flag Post

Perhaps to the uninitiated….

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Ever notice how pithy remarks never seem to mean much of anything?

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ya mean ones such as that?

OH!…PITHY,,,
I thought ya said: Pissy,,,
Never mind

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by mafefesRevenge:

According to the Bible, God gave us dominion over animals so we can do whatever we want to animals

Ok, Mr. Bible; Most of us who have serious discussions hate the argument of “the bible says so, so it must be true”. You pretty much said that. USE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT NEXT TIME!!

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hangman95:
Originally posted by mafefesRevenge:

According to the Bible, God gave us dominion over animals so we can do whatever we want to animals

Ok, Mr. Bible; Most of us who have serious discussions hate the argument of “the bible says so, so it must be true”. You pretty much said that. USE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT NEXT TIME!!

He’s a troll, he’s just trying to get you angry at him.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by hangman95:
Originally posted by mafefesRevenge:

According to the Bible, God gave us dominion over animals so we can do whatever we want to animals

Ok, Mr. Bible; Most of us who have serious discussions hate the argument of “the bible says so, so it must be true”. You pretty much said that. USE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT NEXT TIME!!

He’s a troll, he’s just trying to get you angry at him.

good point. Me and my religious (yes religious) yet intelligent mind will ignore him.

 
Flag Post

I think there is nothing wrong with eating animals, but to torture them is just wrong. I think animals like elephants and all the other animals like in zoos in circuses should be thrown into the wild because that is where they belong. I think we should use animals only for food and nothing else.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by musared:

I think animals like elephants and all the other animals like in zoos in circuses should be thrown into the wild because that is where they belong.

And where they will die a horrible death.
Animals that grew up in captivity cannot simply be put into the wild again. They don’t know how to hunt, they are not accustomed to the environment. They wouldn’t stand a chance. And zoos are important in keeping endangered species alive.

 
Flag Post

Man’s primal instinct is survival, and what he fears will be what he kills or tortures. I don’t believe people have the right to kill or torture animals, but they are necessary to our survival. We have been given animals and plants for diversity in our planet, we are omnivores because of this and if one animal goes extinct, we will likely find something else to eat for our own survival.

I believe animals should not be seen as beasts and creatures but more as a being that was placed on our Earth for a reason, I do not see domesticated animals as pets, but more as companions that we choose to care for and walk alongside. People do not have the right to torture or abuse animals, because if you think of it, if it were a human, people would go into a frenzy. People see animals as beings lesser than them because of their difference, they feel threatened and therefore will kill for their own needs.

No matter who you try to convince to change their ways, I’m sorry to say that it’s not likely to happen. People will continue locking animals in cages, killing them for a nice fur carpet, and eating without giving a second thought to the life they took away for their own needs.

I do not disagree with hunting for food, it is in our nature, so long as the person doing so appreciates the sacrifice made in order for them to live another day and have their needs met. I see it as a beautiful thing, the animals giving their lives for ours, and it leads me to believe they are of a higher mental state than even us.

Just because people may not see who they are inside, does not mean there’s nothing.

 
Flag Post

Avellah-
“I see it as a beautiful thing, the animals giving their lives for ours, and it leads me to believe they are of a higher mental state than even us.”

Wipes away tear

No.

This is what goes on in an animal’s brain:

Wolf: HUUNGGGRYYYY! swarms moose, cripples it, and rips it’s intestines out of it’s butt and eats it; leaves bloody carcass in the dirt HAPPY NOW
Vulture: HUUUUUUNGRYYY! picks meat off of bloody carcass lying in the dirt HAPPY NOW

“higher mental state”? lololololol

Animals have simple emotions such as anger, sadness, happiness, depression, desperation, etc., but they do NOT have anything close to the “mental state” of humans.

 
Flag Post

Well, it does depend on the species, and within the species on the individual, but PatriotSaint’s right in that the human brain’s higher mental states are more fully developed than any other creature we know of. As the cortex decreases in both size and complexity (notably decreases in the critical surface area), so the higher mental functions diminish – they all reside there after all.

Creativity, imagination, abstract thought of all kinds, diminishes as the circuitry responsible for it simplifies or is simply not present in the first place.

You can romanticise it all you wish, but you do have to face the hard, perhaps uncomfortable truth that we can determine the extent of a given individual’s mental faculties, regardless of species, by analysing the structure of their brain and tracking the activiy patterns. No species we are aware of, compares to our own.

 
Flag Post

I dont see how “should we torture animals” is determined by “how smart are animals compared to humans”

I mean, all animals are dumb but we shouldnt torture them.

Discuss

 
Flag Post

This is a web that has very good information about animal rights:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/

 
Flag Post

Another intressting question is that if a human is by brain damage or otherwise loses what we think of as human is it okay to treat him like an animal(and what is it that makes humans better there are some highly advanced things but there are humans who are alive but have these processes damaged (say I find someone with an IQ of 20 is it OK to kill him?)).

 
Flag Post

I believe animals should not be seen as beasts and creatures but more as a being that was placed on our Earth for a reason, I do not see domesticated animals as pets, but more as companions that we choose to care for and walk alongside.


So, animals have a function relative to humans? They were ‘placed’ on Earth for our benefit, so to speak. By whom? And, if I’m reading this correctly, eating them is ok, (but hunting and killing apparently mean different things for you) so long as we appreciate their sacrifice.

How strangely religious. I say that because your other posts are pretty lukewarm about the idea of a ‘God’. Guess your feelings about religion kind of flip flop depending on how useful it is to whatever cause you’re backing.

People do not have the right to torture or abuse animals, because if you think of it, if it were a human, people would go into a frenzy.

Uh, no. People get much more upset about baby seal clubbings in Labrador than they do about hundreds of pakistanis getting blown up by drone attacks. Furry little animals are cute, brown people aren’t. Which do we have more in common with? Right, there goes that whole ‘we hate difference’ argument.

Although, personally I’ve never been more prouder to be Canadian than when our past GG ate a fresh seal heart to promote the hunt.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Furry little animals are cute, brown people aren’t. Which do we have more in common with?

…furry little animals? I’m just guessing.

Ok, I jest, but seriously, I look at all the constant bombings and pointless overreactions of some of the people in that region and just scratch my head. I hope I don’t have much in common with them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

Another intressting question is that if a human is by brain damage or otherwise loses what we think of as human is it okay to treat him like an animal(and what is it that makes humans better there are some highly advanced things but there are humans who are alive but have these processes damaged (say I find someone with an IQ of 20 is it OK to kill him?)).

Well, humans are animals, no getting away from that. We treat one another as intelligent animals, so yes, as the IQ drops, our treatment of the individual alters. They become more simple-minded and the way we express things towards them changes in turn.

It isn’t as simple as just IQ though; its all the higher brain functions that we need to account for. If the damage to their brain wipes out their capability for abstract thought, then we must treat them as an individual who only exists in the here and now with the basest of thoughts – for that is what they have become.

We have laws preventing you from killing that person with such severe brain damage, thijser. Those laws see such a person as human. I would argue however that it might well be a mercy killing at that point. Especially if they are aware of how much they have lost.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
<

It isn’t as simple as just IQ though; its all the higher brain functions that we need to account for.

Just to add to this. As a social worker i have several cases i work on, where adults have a legal guardian even though they have relatively high IQ´s, being much smarter than average Joe. But because of various problems such as depressions, addictions and compulsive behavior they have had their rights limited(for their own protection).

 
Flag Post

There’s also the risk of Khan-style Super-Kids taking over the planet if we let them have too many rights.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thijser:

Another intressting question is that if a human is by brain damage or otherwise loses what we think of as human is it okay to treat him like an animal(and what is it that makes humans better there are some highly advanced things but there are humans who are alive but have these processes damaged (say I find someone with an IQ of 20 is it OK to kill him?)).

Well, humans are animals, no getting away from that. We treat one another as intelligent animals, so yes, as the IQ drops, our treatment of the individual alters. They become more simple-minded and the way we express things towards them changes in turn.

It isn’t as simple as just IQ though; its all the higher brain functions that we need to account for. If the damage to their brain wipes out their capability for abstract thought, then we must treat them as an individual who only exists in the here and now with the basest of thoughts – for that is what they have become.

We have laws preventing you from killing that person with such severe brain damage, thijser. Those laws see such a person as human. I would argue however that it might well be a mercy killing at that point. Especially if they are aware of how much they have lost.

I know it’s not about IQ but someone who has an IQ of just 20 is unlikely to be capable of much abstract thought (but there are other ways to reach this).
And if an animal is capable of abstract thought (and just what is abstract thought according to you?) should we extend protection to it (So how are we on octopuses, elephants, chimpanzees and crows? ).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:
And if an animal is capable of abstract thought (and just what is abstract thought according to you?) should we extend protection to it (So how are we on octopuses, elephants, chimpanzees and crows? ).

Abstract thought is the ability to think in the abstract. To think of things that aren’t there in the room with you according to your senses, and picture how they would fit together. Or it can be thought on things which have no shape, no texture, scent, or weight. Things you will never see, hear, or feel.

Mathematics or poetic licences of language fall into the latter category. You will never come across the object ‘math’, or the object ‘poetry’ but these abstract concepts can be assembled in a mind that is capable of abstract thought into something useful to apply to the situation you face now, or even more incredibly to a situation you can see yourself facing in the future.

If we determine an animal is capable of such then yes, its capability should be measured, and appropriate rights (and responsibilities) assigned to it, in line with its cognitive capability.

 
Flag Post

I will try to put it simply.

Killing animals for food is fine. That is part of nature. Humans are predators, we kill other animals so that we can eat them. It is part of the cycle of nature.
However, treating an animal inhumanely, forcing it into painfull conditions, or killing it for no reason just because you want to are all unethical practices. In the wild, animals don’t kill each other for no reason. When an animal in the wild kills another animal, there is always a clear reason why. It is either defending itself, defending its kin, or hunting for food. There are no other reasons to kill besides those.