Animals have no rights.

[FatSlob]

Some thoughts about animal rights, written by another, on another board. I find them interesting. Don't flame me, I'm not the author, and the opinions here may or may not coincide with some of mine.

The only thing that gives animals "rights", or even gives humans any "rights" is the human mind itself. Every other creature on the planet is completely ignorant of any such concept, and if you don't believe in the bible, is it fair to presume that you subscribe to the evolution school of thought? If you do believe in evolution, then may I presume that you don't believe that we were created by God, and instead evolved from lower organisms? If this is what you believe, then at what point in our evolution did we suddenly achieve "rights" of our own and at what point did we start granting these "rights" to the other animals we share the planet with? And how do we even know that our belief in animal rights is truly correct? Certainly the animals don't seem to be aware of their rights.

Perhaps you would be comfortable with this concept: Only those creatures that have SOULS have rights. But which ones are those? Humans only? Possibly. The more highly evolved animals? Maybe. I can't even begin to guess. But I can say that if any DOG has a soul, MINE does. But where does the dividing line fall between those animals with souls and those without? Apes? Cows? Dogs? Rabbits? Chickens? Rats? Mice? I can state with certainty that ALL of those animals can feel pain and can exhibit the emotion of FEAR, and pleasure as well. But which ones have souls?

There are a lot of questions to be asked, and many of them may never be answered definitively.

[commander bunnypants]

1. all of them

who said humans were the most evolved. Look at elephants, more brain powewr.. Ants got communal living down.

Hum,ans are the only ones that kill for pleasure

DDQM

[commander bunnypants]

5. Dolphins

orcas




DDQM

[forgethell]

6. I am always interested in other cultures

Do you know where I can get some good English translations of some of the formative literary masterpieces of the pachyderm nations??

[commander bunnypants]

9. The elephant brain has more creases

where memory is stored

DDQM

They talk to each other, share upbringing, come to the aid of others

[northzax]

22. and if you get between them and food

they'll stomp your ass like there's no tommorow.

[forgethell]

23. What's the ratio of

an elephant's brain to its body mass?

More important, name two artistic masterpieces by elephants. What religions do they have, what gods do they worship? Does any single one of their languages approach the beauty and complexity of English? What do they talk about? Are they for Bush or Kerry, or don't they give a damn, knowing they will probably be extinct in a hundred years, anyway, so what does it matter to them.

On the plus side of your argument, I've never heard of an elephant war, although they can certainly tear up the environment, and they are huge polluters.

[commander bunnypants]

26. that I dont know

but it is proven that is where memory is stored and elephants by contrast have more and deeeper convoluted creases. I just make a leap of faith

DDQM

[jukes]

15. you need Xlations

therein lies the problem...

[commander bunnypants]

16. what are xlations?

DDQM

[jukes]

21. X is a universal

in slopspeak. someXs stands for christ, as in "xian", someXs "trans" as in Xmission, someXs "time" as in...

[forgethell]

2. Interesting ideas.

For my own thoughts: I do not believe in needless cruelty to any creature, except maybe houseflies. But I think that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, and whether you are an evolutionist, or a
bible-believer, the case can be made that man is morally entitled to use other creatures as food and clothing, etc.

Even without any reference to God, I do not believe that any decent human being can equate a boy to a dog to a fish to a worm like the nutjobs at PETA are fond of doing.

[Teaser]

3. A lot of unprovable assertions in your text...

The only thing that gives animals "rights", or even gives humans any "rights" is the human mind itself.

Why? This is an assertion, given without proof.

Every other creature on the planet is completely ignorant of any such concept

Really? Have you asked them? Would you know how?

[Forkboy]

4. You seem interested in this

so,instead of posting thoughts "written by another, on another board" why dont you tell us YOUR thoughts instead of hiding behind someone else's?

[FatSlob]

11. My thoughts.

The only right any animal has is to not be tortured for fun. Actually, that isn't a right of the animal. It is a duty of a person to not torture an animal for fun. This does not apply to bugs.

[phantom power]

7. We don't have the tools to answer this question

We don't yet have a well-defined, measureable science that allows us to say things like "Dogs have awareness, but slugs don't."

I suspect we may live to see the day when we can address these questions in a meaningful way. But until then we're just trading opinions with each other.

[Beware the Beast Man]

8. What a nitwit.

Note how fear is in caps.
No one really knows whether or not animals are capable of having souls. Animal rights, in my practice of the word, is to treat an animal as humanely as possible, and with respect, even if said animal is game. Undue cruelty to animals is just sick, as is unnecessary experimentation on animals. Are they are equals? Probably not.

[Jon8503]

10. Animals Absolutely Have Rights

One quote I always remember and cannot remember who said it but he said:

"you can always judge a society and its worthiness by how it treats its animals".

I believe this is true and also instead of debating which animals have rights, you just say all creatures of God have equal rights. That god may be one of your choosing.

As long as we follow the decency of treating all creatures in a good way or as we believe we should be treated, we will be doing the right thing.

[LisaLynne]

17. Gandhi said it.

One of my favorite quotes.

[northzax]

19. nice quote, and a meaningful one

but it doesn't mean that animals have rights. It means that you can judge the powerful by how they treat the weak. Humans, as a group, are infinately more powerful than any animal species (sure, a tiger could take me, hell an angry badger probably could, but not my entire city)

you can judge a businessman by how he treats the secretaries. you can judge a politician by how she treats the interns. You can judge a customer by how they treat the guy at starbucks. you can judge a society by how it applies its standards of decency to those who cannot right back, those who might not be considered to have rights. Animals always fall into that model.

[Lindacooks]

27. ABSOLUTELY!!

Not only that, 'a society is judged by how it treats animals and the weakest and smallest of its members'.

[forgethell]

28. Can we eat them,

because a society without bacon and pork chops is not worth living in.

[Bucky]

39. Yes, but they have the right to be deliciously sautéed & served w/ merlot

[forgethell]

48. Pork chops with merlot

Nope, fried, served with turnip greens, black-eyed peas, unsweetened iced tea, corn bread, butter, fresh garden tomatoes,scallions or mild onion slices, pickled peppers. Finish off with seconds, then cram the cracks with peach cobbler and vanilla ice cream. Finally settle it all down with a soothing cup of coffee.

[serryjw]

56. I wish any man would be as sensitive to my emotions as MY CAT!

Does he have a soul? As far as I am concerned he(all) are GODS children.

[MsTryska]

12. I've got nothing to say, but i can attest to the fact that

my cat certainly believe he has rights. especially the rights to the most food and the best arm of the couch.

so is this self-determination? or just territoriality?

[Bucky]

42. Is there a difference between self-determination and territoriality?

Isn't the election just a fight over which gorillas get to pass out the bananas?

[MsTryska]

64. and who they pass those banans too, i think.

but yes, you bring up a good point.

is there a difference between self-determination and territoriality?


asking that question, i think, focrces us to ponder the fact that we're still animals, no matter how evolved we get.


so then following that line, i guess animals do have rights.

but i like steak.

[FatSlob]

13. MORE FOR YOUR PLEASURE!

Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. This is necessary. This is how the world works. It applies at all levels.

I'm not even particularly religious. I'm agnostic. But if you ARE religious, well, you figured it out already.

WHO told YOU that even WE have souls? I'm not sure that even I do. I don't even know if a soul even exists, or is the figment of man's active imagination and a result of his fear of dissolution.

You SAY that animals have rights....but rights granted by WHOM and by WHAT? Somebody said so, I guess. But where did that person receive the authority to proclaim that as truth?
What is their higher authority? Names please.

If animals have INTRINSIC rights, then can you rationally explain to me how it can be that a predatory animal (such as a lion or wolf, for example) can exist? If animals have intrinsic rights, and a wolf or lion eats them, isn't the wolf violating their intrinsic rights? Or is it just doing what comes naturally and is essential for its survival?

Every living thing on this planet is a natural resource for the rest of the biosphere. Everything feeds on everything else, and of all them, only humans have come up with the very idea of "rights". No other animal is even aware of the concept, and wouldn't change its behavior if it did.

Every living thing lives in a predator/prey relationship with SOMETHING. The mightiest apex predator (example: Great White shark) will eventually die for one reason or another, and when it does, its carcass will be eaten and scavenged and is biomass will be returned to the ecology. Eventually, so will YOURS and MINE. Whether I'm eaten by a shark or I'm incinerated, my biomass will reenter the ecology eventually, even if it's as particles of soot and a lot of gasses. It will be incorporated into other life forms, eventually.

This concept of rights exists only in the minds of human beings, or else it is a directive from God. And God isn't saying that animals can't be eaten by humans.

Only some humans are saying that.

Vegetarianism isn't even what humans are designed for. I know of radical vegetarians that strictly adhere to a rigid veggie diet (no ovo or lacto, even) and they've been diagnosed with malnutrition. My doctor says that this is OFTEN the case with the most radical types of vegetarians. They eat like hogs but can't get enough nutrition from such a diet to keep themselves completely healthy.

The human body is designed to be omnivorous. It's what we've adapted to. Protein and other animal products are SUPPOSED to be in our diets for our proper health and nutrition. Eliminating them because someone told you that animals have rights is not a particularly enlightened decision.

Working from the evolutionary viewpoint, it has been suggested that a critical reason that man's ancestor achieved ascendancy over all other competitors is that we developed the ability to HUNT. You see, meat is a high energy food, far higher in usable energy content than any plants or vegetables. By adding meat to our diets, we no longer had to spend the entire day browsing and foraging for enough plant matter to eat. We ended up with a little free time on our hands for the first time in history. It was the advent of this free time that encouraged us to begin being creative and inquisitive, so it was a very significant stimulus to our evolving brains.

Note that all fossil records of primitive man, and the cave paintings and carvings he left behind, ALL include some reference to hunting. There ARE no bodies of caveman art or troves of caveman artifacts that don't include some reference to hunting or some actual hunting implements in the trove.

The first tool man ever made was made for hunting.

Perhaps that says a lot about the importance of animals in our diets.

I find it interesting and disturbing that some of you have chosen to directly attack me though I have not done the same to anyone here. Nor will I, as I have MANNERS and a clearly defined sense of right and wrong. And the person who attacks first, without provocation, is always wrong.

[LisaLynne]

20. Well ...

I don't actually believe in the whole "we were meant to eat meat biologically" argument, but I will grant you that point. Ok. I'm a vegetarian (and I've never felt better nor been healthier nor had more energy). I do not not eat meat (what a sentence!) because I think biologically I'm not supposed to. I feel that the meat industry is run in a pretty appalling way. It pollutes. It is unnecessarily cruel. There are those who would argue that it is inefficient and contributes to starvation in the world. And I choose, for myself, not to participate in funding that.

And I'm not sure where you get "life feeds on life" being a legitimate point in this discussion. People who believe in 'animal rights' generally don't think (although the opposing side likes to frame the argument in that way) that nothing has to ever die. That's not the point. I believe that nothing has to suffer needlessly and I will do what I can to prevent that. That's what I mean by 'animal rights' -- that harming another living thing for fun, pleasure, whatever. Even with animal experimentation, I think less cruel alternatives should be sought out or at least considered.

Personally, although it is hard to see it sometimes, I believe we have gotten past the point in our evolution where we can excuse our behavior as simply how we are or how we have evolved. We know right from wrong. Yes, that's in our minds, but the fact that we think in these terms, at least in my opinion, means something.

[FatSlob]

29. Not my writing, I'm reposting another's. I agree with much of it.

[gWbush is Mabus]

24. I agree with much of what you said, here's my opinion.

my opinion:

There is no God.
There are no souls.
There are no rights.
There is no morality.

There is evolution, survival of the fittest, and adaptation.
There are social constructs, morays, and imposed rules and laws.
There is a function of the human mind to feel superior to others and fear death (an adaptive trait).
The concept of morality evolved so as to allow societies to remain civil enough to continue.

on edit:
I believe that all animals are just like us - after all, we evolved from the same primordial goo. All animals can experience emotions like pain and pleasure. We are no better than other animals - we are an animal-form.

[forgethell]

31. A truly depressing philosphy.

So if Hitler had won in WW2, then his ideas would be the correct "social constructs" for our time. Survival of the fittest, is a somewhat circular argument, as the fittest are defined as those who survive.

Bush or Kerry makes no difference morally, then? As opposed to, say, Kerry being more to our taste?

Murder is just a rude gesture?

OK, if you say so,

[gWbush is Mabus]

35. Depressing for you maybe - I rejoice in the fact that i am not brainwashed

[forgethell]

40. If you say so n/t

[gWbush is Mabus]

36. bush/ kerry morality...

The concept of morality evolved so as to allow societies to remain civil enough to continue.


I believe Kerry will make the world a much more civil place to live in.

[forgethell]

43. Maybe the world

will be more civil with Kerry as President. I wouldn't argue that point. But hey, if you diss me, why shouldn't I just kill you? People would soon learn civility that way, too. Evolution, don't you know. The rude would not be the fittest.

And why is civility important to you, anyway, if morality is not.

[gWbush is Mabus]

44. no.

if everyone killed people who dissed them,
then the world would be much less civil.

[forgethell]

49. No, the evolutionarily fit

would all be civil.

[gWbush is Mabus]

52. "And why is civility important to you, anyway, if morality is not."

good question.


i think that i associate morality with religion
What is right vs. what is wrong. - i believe right and wrong are relative, not set in stone

I guess i associate civilization with science and critical analysis and rational thinking
in order to ask
What is best for humanity and how can we do it better?

[forgethell]

67. You may be right,

and, of course us morally superior types will work selflessly for the betterment of humanity. But the great unwashed masses will work primarily for their own benefit, the benefit of their families, and the benefit of those they care about. which is not "humanity" but individual people or small groups.

[gWbush is Mabus]

37. hitler ww2

"if Hitler had won in WW2, then his ideas would be the correct "social constructs" for our time."


Not the "correct" social constructs, but THE constructs of our time.

[forgethell]

45. But that would make

them correct.

[gWbush is Mabus]

47. correct is a relative judgement based on your personal beliefs

based on hitler's personal beliefs, his actions were moral.


i am not making a judgement.
i am stating a fact - that whatever is, is.

[forgethell]

51. Yes, I understand that

I'm making a judgment, myself.

So, how do you justify being a liberal or progressive? Why do you want to improve the world? Why should anybody but you care about it. Do you believe in passing laws to improve society? why should anybody do that? Yours is a philosophy for corporate CEOs. If you don't mind my saying so.

[gWbush is Mabus]

55. why do i want to improve the world?

good question.


the Freudian in me says that our brains are wired in such a way
(Darwin - which evolved over many years) to care about people so our society can function.


the moral relativist in me says b/c it is the right thing to do.


my rational thinking says that pain hurts and it would be better if everyone in the world had more pleasure and less pain.

[gWbush is Mabus]

58. let me just add that

these issues are very complex
i do not claim to have all the answers.

i believe people resort to religion, b/c it is so much easier.
it is VERY difficult to come up with Why I should want to make the world a better place?

much easier to just say god did it god made it and god wanted everything that way.

[forgethell]

66. Now apply Ockham's razor.

Which isn't of course, any proof, either

[forgethell]

65. Freud has been pretty much

discredited, although our brains may be wired that way. The moral relativist says it is the right thing to do, but cannot supply a reason. the animal in me says Kill, Kill, Kill if they harm you. who is correct.

And what do you base the word "better" on? Better for whom?

[Pithlet]

57. Hitler's actions

deprived millions of people of their basic rights as human beings. That is also what is. That is a fact. You seem to be asserting that no one can ever make a judgment, or that judgment is meaningless. That is ridiculous.

[gWbush is Mabus]

59. judgement is not meaningless, but it is relative

[Pithlet]

63. Really?

Do you honestly believe that Hitler's judgment of his actions have equal weight with those who feel his acts were heinous, because his relation to those events are different? That it is possible or even equally as easy to make an argument that Hitler's judgment of his actions were moral?

[gWbush is Mabus]

38. murder

Murder is just a rude gesture?

Huh?
Murder is to kill a person unlawfully and with malice.

[forgethell]

46. Excuse me, I

am only following your logic, according to which, there is no morality, hence no reason not to murder. Or did I miss a step there. Explain to me how murder is wrong if there is no morality. Explain to me why 'malice' is wrong. Explain to me why the law should interfere with my deciding to murder somebody. Because if can't be done from you philosophy.

[gWbush is Mabus]

61. these are all great questions

i have to go home for dinner now.
i'll bookmark the webpage.

good stimulating conversation - thank you
and no hard feelings - goodnight for now.

[Pithlet]

54. I have rights.

I have rights. Everyone does, even you, though you may assert otherwise. One does not have to believe in God or souls (I do not, myself) in order to believe that rights and morality or ethics exist. It is exactly that kind of argument that leads some to believe that might DOES make right, because morality and rights "do not exist". That is probably not the direction you would want to take such beliefs, but that is exactly what others do. Social Darwinism ring a bell? Much conservative thought is based on that rationale, even if many declare themselves as "Christians".

There are certain intrinsic rights that we all possess, even if there are others who exist who can and will prevent us from exercising them. It doesn't mean they do not and never existed. In fighting for those rights, we cannot view them as something that we only have if we can and are able to hold on to them. We have to assert that they were always ours to begin with; otherwise they are just cheap, and available to anyone for the taking or buying.

[gWbush is Mabus]

60. food for thought

have rights. Everyone does, even you, though you may assert otherwise.

what divine rights do you have? your rights come from laws that are constructed by the people in power at this present time.




One does not have to believe in God or souls (I do not, myself) in order to believe that rights and morality or ethics exist.

true, i agree. but one does not have to believe in anything - including morality.



It is exactly that kind of argument that leads some to believe that might DOES make right, because morality and rights "do not exist". That is probably not the direction you would want to take such beliefs, but that is exactly what others do. Social Darwinism ring a bell? Much conservative thought is based on that rationale, even if many declare themselves as "Christians".

you just proved my point. we have evolved as a species to believe in morality, b/c what is the alternative? a society of social darwinism which would involve greed and war death and suffering. morality is supposed to stem that. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't i guess.





There are certain intrinsic rights that we all possess, even if there are others who exist who can and will prevent us from exercising them. It doesn't mean they do not and never existed. In fighting for those rights, we cannot view them as something that we only have if we can and are able to hold on to them. We have to assert that they were always ours to begin with; otherwise they are just cheap, and available to anyone for the taking or buying.


like what intrinsic rights?

[Pithlet]

62. Of course

No one HAS to believing in anything. That's their right :) That would be one of those intrinsic ones I was talking about ;)

I do believe we have evolved as a species. I do believe in evolution. I do not believe that everything has to be attached to a particular evolutionary point, which is why some evolutionary psychology weirds me out. I think you can take it too far.

I guess my whole point is that it is irrelevant whether there really is an actual, tangible thing called rights and morals. If someone decides to strip me of my right to believe freely, does that mean I actually no longer have that right? Practically, it does not matter, if I'm prevented by force from exercising it. But I do not think that you can say that I no longer have that right. I'm just prevented from exercising it. If one could argue that I never had that right to begin with, because a majority of others thought so who were more powerful than I, then what is the point of such a concept to begin with? You can't exercise your point practically, because to do so means we no longer have rights.

You may be right in the most absolute technical sense. But, then, you have to dismiss such things as love, fear, hate, etc. because those are esoteric things that are defined the same way. You can't argue that those don't exist practically. You can say that those don't exist and are only constructs defined by evolved humans, but it's pointless.

[sysoprock]

14. It seems like the uglier the animal the less you care...

for instance, it's unthinkable to kill a puppy or a kitten, but in stores they sell rat poison that the adult rats take back to the nest and it kills the whole family.

Same thing with dolphin safe tuna, we can kill all the tuna we want, as long as no cute dolphins get hurt.

[undergroundpanther]

32. Life feeds upon life

But that doesen't make it OK
I myself think whatever caused this world to be TRHIS way,where life feeds on life ,whether creator(creator is a sick asshole than) or Evolution,(evolution is sick) or consiousness(consiousness is sick(matyeer chaos randomeness (fuckin sick.) Existance is sick,painful wrong and cruel.

I myself see no good explanation/reason for all this suffering in this existance.
I am not glad to be alive in a world of suffering where life eats life,beauty is crushed by bullies and winners take all.
I never ASKED to be born here.I dunno if anyone honestly can say they chose consiously to come here and suffer.
I feel I was trapped here.
Who in thier right mind if they have a heart,love in them,desires this life,this way in this condition??

Some say we as 'spirits' in some other realm) choose to come here to remove evil so we get incarnated to bring"light" we just forgot we are "gods" What a load of crap..Generations of goodwilled lightbringers amnesiac gods and all thier love haven't changed a damn thing beyond a superficial personality change in some living beings. Look folks we haven't ascended anywhere.Death and domination still haunts us.We can't control the stuff that matters in life,we live still in perpetual uncertainty..This reality is fucked up on a sub molecular level and no new age beliefs will fix it.

What will fix it.I don't know.I don't know who I am really,what I am,why I exist here,All I know is I WANT OUT.

Sometimes I observe so many people are in denial, all half blind,scared,taking out thier own pain by inflicting pain on others, running around frantic in these bodies.Are we a many/one consiousness trapped in pain? Or not? I dunno.It seems like,we are raised and confined in our minds and bodies,in our societies to be a certain way,to behave like consumer farm animals feeding on this planet.Raidsed and managed by beings more sociopathic than we are( archon/gods?)These unshaped,faceless whatevers that feed upon our stress and suffering..and demand our compliance to thier mind/belief games,demand our creativity,our devotion,love,these addictions and silly authoritarian social power structures that keep us fully distrated from fixing or healing the human/animal condition that is killing us in real life.This same abusive existance /condition animals suffer under as well.


All I can do is choose not to inflict MORE suffering,why? Because it's my choice there is no reason.
The things reality inflicts are abusive twords us.It has no reason for life's suffering . So I have no reason other than my choice to want a different existance other than why the fuck not?

[northzax]

18. completely correct, and completely wrong

of course animals don't have 'rights' in out structures. our structures are designed to give humans 'rights' that are not found in nature. The only creatures that have 'rights' per se are humans, and that's because we created them (there are not 'certain unalienable rights' that are part of the laws of the universe, there are ''certain unalienable rights' that we create for ourselves within our current, western, moral and legal traditions. Do we really have the right to life liberty and the pursiut of happiness? if so, why? because we say so. that's why.

no for hte wrong part. the only thing that separates us from the rest of the family mammalia is our ability to both apply and abuse these rights in a capricious manner. As such, we can choose to apply certain rights to other creatures within our system. That is the mark of our humanity.

we have the choice, and the devil is in that choice.

[jukes]

25. bottom line=

fuck w/ my cats, fuck w/me. and that will resolve that issue, in a gnat's heartbeat...

[Tafiti]

30. I cannot recommend these books emphatically enough...

The "Ishmael" trilogy - Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael
Derrick Jensen - A Language Older Than Words
Derrick Jensen - The Culture of Make Believe

Amazing pieces of work here, and, in my view, they provide the proper perspective on the natural world and our role in it. They are unabashedly opposed to civilization as we know it, and you may think that's off the deep end. But after you read their books, I promise you'll at least respect their opinions and conclusions. Whether you agree on their conclusions is a different story. These books changed my life...

[liontamer]

33. ??

evolution is not a pyramid scheme. It is a process that creates biological diversity.
Rights are not universal truths. They are quantities that are either given freely or are fought for. they do not spring out of nature. for example, women in Saudi Arabia don't have the right to vote. whether one agrees or disagrees, it can not be argued that they do have the right.

If you have a religious stake in the matter, then DU is not where you are going to find answers. If not, then humans are just another species. They are not better, they are just different.

[no name no slogan]

34. Yeah, but they sure are tasty!

:dunce:

[texas1928]

41. And they shouldn't

the smelly buggers, I mean they go outside, MY GOD WHAT ANIMALS!

[jukes]

50. texas1928

what *ARE* you on today?

[texas1928]

53. AIR

It is free and it refreshe... I love air, it is great. Come on Let's alll breath in some AIR