• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

Should animals have more rights/protection/etc

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 39.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 45.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 15.3%

  • Total voters
    59

Dovkan

Banned
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
557
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
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.
Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as the lack of suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.
 
Last edited:

I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.

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.
 
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.

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.

That's about as good as it can get in today's world, but we can't even get there.
 
Depends on what you define as animal cruelty, and animal "rights"... Many in the animal rights movement have extremely different definitions of animal cruelty and their rights.
 
I voted no as animals should not have rights. They should however as Spud pointed out be protected by law.
 
That's about as good as it can get in today's world, but we can't even get there.

Of course not, current farming practices dictate that animal welfare has to be sacrificed for profit and there's minimal push within the industry to change that. The fact that meat is over-consumed doesn't help the issue.
 
Depends on what you define as animal cruelty, and animal "rights"... Many in the animal rights movement have extremely different definitions of animal cruelty and their rights.

Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as the lack of suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.
 
Of course not, current farming practices dictate that animal welfare has to be sacrificed for profit and there's minimal push within the industry to change that. The fact that meat is over-consumed doesn't help the issue.

Current farming practices are disgusting and shameful, which is why I truly believe vegan ism is the future, but that's another thing entirely.
 
Of course not, current farming practices dictate that animal welfare has to be sacrificed for profit and there's minimal push within the industry to change that. The fact that meat is over-consumed doesn't help the issue.

What do you feel dictates over consumption of meat?
 
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.

Other.- more rights than what? Fire ants have no right to occupy my yard and a large rodent population begets rattlesnakes.
 
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.

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.

Yeah, that.
 
Other.- more rights than what? Fire ants have no right to occupy my yard and a large rodent population begets rattlesnakes.

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.
 
Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as the lack of suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.

So what does that mean? Can we not longer eat meat? No longer have any products/food/whatever it be from animals? Outlaw hunting? I ask this not as disrespect for the movement, but what exactly are their "rights"?
 
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.

This is why we can't give animals rights. Either they all get rights, or we end up with the never ending debate. Better to have specific laws protecting animals depending on the circumstance. Like the difference between a pet and a food animal etc.
 
So what does that mean? Can we not longer eat meat? No longer have any products/food/whatever it be from animals? Outlaw hunting? I ask this not as disrespect for the movement, but what exactly are their "rights"?

It varies wildly, but for the most basic: Access to food, water, adequate living space, freedom from cruelty, unneeded experimentation, pain, separation of animal families. Hunting is completely different, this is in reference to animals deliberately being kept.
 
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.

I treat dogs and cows just fine provided that they do the same for me.
 
This is why we can't give animals rights. Either they all get rights, or we end up with the never ending debate. Better to have specific laws protecting animals depending on the circumstance. Like the difference between a pet and a food animal etc.

The difference between a pet and a food animal? Most food animals today are extremely intelligent and emotional, I think it's not hard: - Animals that can feel pain, exhibit sentience, need to be protected.
 
Animals have 2 jobs. To taste good and fit right that's all.







Just kidding, what spud said.
 
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.

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.
So... you say they don't have rights, then go to say they should have the right to not be treated cruelly. Got it.
 
What do you feel dictates over consumption of meat?

It tastes good. People really only need 4 small serves of meat a week. Most people tend to have it with every evening meal though and often for lunch (myself included, animals are yummy). This isn't healthy, it leads to consuming too much fat and stuff.

In relation to the thread topic, if everyone cut down on how much meat they eat to the level that their body actually needs all the nutrients and protein and stuff, farming practices could be eased to have less animals in a given area, increasing animal welfare and reducing water use, land farmed for animal feed, and, if you really want to get hippy about it, greenhouse emissions.

The only downside to reducing meat consumption is less tasty meals.
 
So... you say they don't have rights, then go to say they should have the right to not be treated cruelly. Got it.

I didn't call this out, but good point. :confused:
 
It tastes good. People really only need 4 small serves of meat a week. Most people tend to have it with every evening meal though and often for lunch (myself included, animals are yummy). This isn't healthy, it leads to consuming too much fat and stuff.

In relation to the thread topic, if everyone cut down on how much meat they eat to the level that their body actually needs all the nutrients and protein and stuff, farming practices could be eased to have less animals in a given area, increasing animal welfare and reducing water use, land farmed for animal feed, and, if you really want to get hippy about it, greenhouse emissions.

The only downside to reducing meat consumption is less tasty meals.

Or, we could get over the ridiculous fear of consuming insects and start looking at them for tasty meals like other cultures.
 
It varies wildly, but for the most basic: Access to food, water, adequate living space, freedom from cruelty, unneeded experimentation, pain, separation of animal families. Hunting is completely different, this is in reference to animals deliberately being kept.

Would "freedom from cruelty" include not eating them? No one hunts cow...
 
The difference between a pet and a food animal? Most food animals today are extremely intelligent and emotional, I think it's not hard: - Animals that can feel pain, exhibit sentience, need to be protected.

Yes they do... makes them no less food. Sort of makes that chance to raise a family etc unrealistic.
 
Back
Top Bottom