View Poll Results: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 38.98%
  • No

    27 45.76%
  • Other

    9 15.25%
Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 267

Thread: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

  1. #181
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    51,605

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Dovkan View Post
    This issue is very important to me, and I would like to hear others opinions. I think this is a very important issue that doesn't get the attention that it deserves.
    Animals are property and should legally be treated as such. However, we can have various protections for animals as it relates to cruelty and abuse. However, it the pursuit of reasonable protections for animals, we should never lose sight of the fact that fundamentally they are property.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #182
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    31,586

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    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.
    That was not the argument at all. In fact no one made that argument. You really need to READ What PEOPLE ARE SAYING, before you make such asinine claims.

    This is what was said in reference to animals "exercising" rights, and that humans children, disabled etc have at least the potential to understand rights...

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Because there is, or was, the potential to understand rights. Animals are dumb, there's no point giving them rights.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 04-20-15 at 01:14 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I am 67 years old. I was raised to mean what you say and say what you mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #183
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    51,605

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Dovkan View Post
    The right to be free from needless pain, cruelty, access to food, water, the ability to raise a family, adequate living space.. (Referring to animals in the hands of humans) Oh lord, are we really going to turn this into a fire ants vs cows thread? Please don't.
    There are humans that don't get all of that, why would we pretend animals should?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #184
    Don't give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,407

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are humans that don't get all of that, why would we pretend animals should?
    He shoots.....he scores!
    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

  5. #185
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Dovkan View Post
    Yeah that's pretty much exactly what I grew up with and that guy is right, the farmers get screwed pretty bad. But let me go point by point about this video:

    -One they do not house 30,000 chickens in a 1 acre farm, there are 24,000 to start with.

    -Two just as a organically raised chicken with chicks, all of these things will happen with their hatchlings as well. How do I know that? Because we raised baby chicks and chickens for eggs on the side for our own benefit. The chickens you get in the store typically do not and will not produce eggs because they are about 6 weeks old when killed

    -The point about they are not allowed fresh air is bull****. Most chicken houses have at least 12 6ft fans on one side to ventilate, and about 30 more within the house, and curtains along side the houses can be lowered and raised to let in plenty of fresh air. There are also misters installed in the houses to mist the chickens to help them cool off. It would be impossible to raise chickens if you couldn't do this, especially because most of America's chickens come from the south. In fact you can see the guys curtains on the side of the house! Now why would they say they can't have natural sunlight, yet there would be an acre worth of curtains on the side? Lol

    -The part about them lying around in their feces is true, but that is after they destroy a decent amount of shaving. Another part of why this has to be for such a massive farm is fire ants. Fire ants just do not like chicken **** one bit. It's a natural deterrent. Even in old fashion chicken coops they use it to keep them away. If you don't do this, then a lot of these chickens would get eaten alive. Not to mention, it is still a struggle to continuously do your best to keep out chicken hawks, fire ants, wild cats (feral cats), owls, dogs, all kinds of things that want to eat them.

    Lastly, I know it isn't the ideal solution, but this is the reality of the matter. People love chicken. I love chicken. I've been around chickens all my life. I loved all of them when I was a kid. A lot of the ones you see with broken legs I would take care of and my grandfather would give to other farmers that had ways to deal with them otherwise, all of those lame chickens got killed. That's another thing, I've killed literally thousands of lame chickens in my life, (or picked up the dead ones) put them in a bucket, and dumped them in a hole.

    I took the bad with the good though and I loved chicken farming when I was a kid. But yeah if I were you I would concentrate on the concerns of the farmers first over the chickens if you want real change.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  6. #186
    Sage

    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,981
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    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.
    dog or a cat = family pet, or working animal (hunting dog, barn yard cat killing rodents)
    squirrels, raccoons = destructive pests
    nearly any species of bird = food
    Livestock animals - chickens, pigs and cows = food
    horse = working animal, now family pet

    What's so hard to understand about that?
    It's a global Jihad, stupid. Allowing that poison into the country is only going to increase the damage it inflicts on others.
    Trump: "When You Open Your Heart To Patriotism, There Is No Room For Prejudice"
    Trump to NYT: “Try reporting accurately & fairly!”

  7. #187
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!
    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    33,223
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    So what actions/behaviors towards animals are acceptable based on your determination that animals are "dumb"? What does that justify?
    It justifies animals not having rights. As I said in my first post in this thread, animals should be protected from cruelty, I later elaborated that this means humans have no right to be cruel to animals. But by granting them rights, you're saying it's legally wrong to, say, take a shovel to a snake that's threatening a child, or to put down an animal that's terminally sick or injured.

    What rights do you think animals should have?
    Not My President

    I'm Australian

  8. #188
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:50 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    41,819

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    It justifies animals not having rights. As I said in my first post in this thread, animals should be protected from cruelty, I later elaborated that this means humans have no right to be cruel to animals. But by granting them rights, you're saying it's legally wrong to, say, take a shovel to a snake that's threatening a child, or to put down an animal that's terminally sick or injured.

    What rights do you think animals should have?
    Really, Spud? You don't think you could take a shovel to a person if they were threatening a child? "Rights" don't have to be all or nothing or the exact same for everyone much less everything. Children have some rights but not others (can't vote, can't serve in public office, etc.). At it's most basic, I think animals should have the right to be acknowledged as living and protected by more than just property laws.

    If animals are, to you, too "dumb" to be afforded any rights, you cannot then turn around and say that we don't have the right to abuse them. For you to argue that animals should have no rights, that would include that they have no right to be protected from cruelty. What could possibly be your justification for supporting animal protection laws if animals have no right to be treated any certain way?

  9. #189
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!
    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    33,223
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Really, Spud? You don't think you could take a shovel to a person if they were threatening a child? "Rights" don't have to be all or nothing or the exact same for everyone much less everything. Children have some rights but not others (can't vote, can't serve in public office, etc.). At it's most basic, I think animals should have the right to be acknowledged as living and protected by more than just property laws.
    A person knows threatening a child is wrong, and thus deserves to be punished. A snake is just defending itself. How can you justify violating its rights when it's acting only on instinct?
    If animals are, to you, too "dumb" to be afforded any rights, you cannot then turn around and say that we don't have the right to abuse them. For you to argue that animals should have no rights, that would include that they have no right to be protected from cruelty. What could possibly be your justification for supporting animal protection laws if animals have no right to be treated any certain way?
    I don't think they have a right to be protected, I think they should be protected because I think animal cruelty is wrong. My opinion on this is just as arbitrary as someone who thinks they should have no protection and someone who thinks they should be given the same status as people.
    Not My President

    I'm Australian

  10. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 06:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

    Quote Originally Posted by Dovkan View Post
    This issue is very important to me, and I would like to hear others opinions. I think this is a very important issue that doesn't get the attention that it deserves.
    Animals don't have rights.bt hey should be protected from cruelty though.

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.
    Indeed. Who is this "other" the OP refers to, and why should anyone care about his opinions?

Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •