Originally Posted by X Factor
Yes
No
Other
Yeah, that's inconsistent. If animals should have no rights and, then how can you say there should be laws protecting them? What's that based on? Can you be cruel to a table or a toaster? Does a car have an "right" to no be treated cruelly? No and you're saying animals are no different.
Whatever. I don't think my dogs are dumb at all. I don't think my friend's two year old is dumb or that 5 and 6 year old are dumb and even if I did, that would not make me think it's ok to treat them badly (or whatever it is you're using this determination that they're dumb to justify that you won't tell me.).
Nothing inconsistent about it. Humans have rights. We understand and defend those rights. You do not need to have a "right" to be protected by the law. Illegal immigrants do not have certain "rights" under our laws, and yet they are still protected by laws. Convicted felons lose certain rights and yet are still protected under the law.
A right is always the law. The law is not always a right.
What part of this...Whatever. I don't think my dogs are dumb at all. I don't think my friend's two year old is dumb or that 5 and 6 year old are dumb and even if I did, that would not make me think it's ok to treat them badly (or whatever it is you're using this determination that they're dumb to justify that you won't tell me.
Animals don't have rights, they're animals. They should be protected from cruelty, and it should be enforced that all animals are to be kept in a way that ensures they are not subject to preventable pain, stress, injury or disease. - Spud
needs to be explained to you?
Last edited by Black Dog; 04-20-15 at 09:57 AM.
I wouldn't go nearly that far, but I would agree that animals should be protected from unnecessary suffering or needless cruelty.... with the exception that animal needs always yield to human needs.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Precisely. It's not so much a matter of rights as it is a matter of should's.
“In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."
Yes to the OP, unquestioningly.
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
I may be wrong on this one, but I seriously doubt that we'll be giving any animals the right to vote anytime soon.
You are aware that your dogs and your friend's kids are different species, right?Yeah, that's inconsistent. If animals should have no rights and, then how can you say there should be laws protecting them? What's that based on? Can you be cruel to a table or a toaster? Does a car have an "right" to no be treated cruelly? No and you're saying animals are no different.
Whatever. I don't think my dogs are dumb at all. I don't think my friend's two year old is dumb or that 5 and 6 year old are dumb and even if I did, that would not make me think it's ok to treat them badly (or whatever it is you're using this determination that they're dumb to justify that you won't tell me.
Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn
There is extreme species bigotries in the standards of what constitutes abuse.
For example, now someone shooting a dog or a cat is considered animal abuse and possibly even a felony. But you can shoot all the squirrels, nearly any species of bird, raccoons, etc. you want to. Livestock animals - chickens, pigs and cows - are slaughtered in massive numbers. But horse meat? That's not allowed.
It would seem the question in terms of law should be to prohibit cruelty for the sake of the joys of cruelty or cruelty that is the result of neglect.
The world is becoming so crowded, that many people are more concerned about animals than they are about humans.
Indeed, but the argument was not that animals should have rights because they're not human (and only humans should have them) but that animals are dumb. I'm just thinking that basing rights on whether something (or someone) is "dumb" is odd.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote