• 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
chromium said:
That is what i'm saying yes, would've thought the other paragraphs made that clear.
Click to expand...

That animals are inferior to human beings? Because that would be my argument.

Plenty of humans fit this description as well, putting their *special* thinking skills to work with frequent brain farts on twitter. A lot of males in particular still take pride in showing no emotion, and may as well have none
Click to expand...

Unless you're talking about mental disorders I don't know what you're talking about.
Men who say they don't have emotions, amazingly, have emotions.

Either they're smart enough to *not* **** up the planet, or a species smarter than humans would've figured out a way to control climate change before it became a crisis.

Few humans understand these things either. You are attributing to the whole species a few accomplishments by truly exceptional humans. How many in your graduating class understood relativity, or how to build a space ship? Even then, our space ships have blown up right after taking off, and relativity is still under revision. For every leap, there's a stumble
Click to expand...

We're really dodging the point here - that a certain evolution level must be attained before a species should be granted rights that are directly relating to these cognitive abilities, cognitive abilities that animals just don't have.

Computers are already besting the human chess champion, winning jeapordy, driving cars for us. Some of the leaders in this field predict they'll become self aware by 2040
Click to expand...

It happens to be my field and I do wonder who these "leaders" are.

A little bit on programs/machines: programs are written by human beings. They are written to function in a certain way as their developer(s) chooses to. These writings are called "scripts". You can write a script as long as you want to, but it will always be limited by the laws of math. This is our current technology. This current technology allows us to write a program that is so good at chess that it beats the world's champion. Why? Because the script covers every possible move. The biggest and perhaps only advantage a program has over a human being is the calculation speed, as such it's obvious why it would beat the human world champion at chess when it has a storage of information regarding every possible move in chess and how it will end and has the ability to scan all these options and pick the best one in a matter of mere nanoseconds.

However a true AI is a program that programs itself, it's impractical and is not within our technological reach. It's basically science fiction and I don't see a reason to believe it will ever cease being so. If you'll write a script with 1 billion programmers for ten years perhaps you'd reach something that is resembling an AI, but it will not be a true AI since it will still be limited by its script code.
 
chromium said:
Until it tries to bite my ankle with deadly venom, sure. Then i'll plead self defense when i stomp on it
Click to expand...

But when I voice a similar opinion about dogs, I get told off, despite far more people being killed by dogs than by snakes in my country.
 
X Factor said:
Probably more. Having encountered a couple rattle snakes where I live, I tend to give snakes a lot of room.
Click to expand...
So if you saw an injured snake, you would try to help it in the same way you would a dog?
Speaking of respect, how can you claim respect for any creature you view as being so stupid as to believe they have zero right to not be abused, hurt, tortured, etc.? (If you haven't claimed that you have respect for animals, just let me know that because that would make sense).
Click to expand...

I respect them because I recognise them for what they are. They're animals, they don't need rights because they can't understand the concept (they're deserving of protection though because I like them). I'll add though, certain social animals do recognise rights, the alpha wolf has a right to eat first from a kill, the alpha baboon has a right to **** all the females, but somehow I don't think that's the sort of rights you think they should have.

If you were to write a bill of rights for the entire animal kingdom, what would it say?
 
spud_meister said:
But when I voice a similar opinion about dogs, I get told off, despite far more people being killed by dogs than by snakes in my country.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't make clear you're talking about aggressive dogs as opposed to little pet dogs? Compare a doberman (police dog) to a chuwawa and there's a vast diff in potential risk to humans. Also consider whether the dog is trained by its owner or we're talking about a complete stranger coming up to it. Nonetheless, to me the key is if it's acting aggressively and an actual threat, same as any other creature.
 
Apocalypse said:
We're really dodging the point here - that a certain evolution level must be attained before a species should be granted rights that are directly relating to these cognitive abilities, cognitive abilities that animals just don't have.
Click to expand...

What does cognitive ability, as you put it, have to do with basic rights such as not being property, being allowed to live and not be dealt with cruelly?

Because you know damn well that humans with very low cognitive or social intelligence (newborns, mentally retarded, down syndrome, aspberger's) are guaranteed these rights, simply by way of being OUR species in the 21st century. Such people used to be butchered or left to die on a hill. Was that wrong? Today we condemn it. Where does "cognitive ability" = not property fit into

einstein:table as IQ57:dog?

I have a much more simplified and imo consistent standard of property and respect: Is it a living creature or not?
 
chromium said:
Maybe you don't make clear you're talking about aggressive dogs as opposed to little pet dogs? Compare a doberman (police dog) to a chuwawa and there's a vast diff in potential risk to humans. Also consider whether the dog is trained by its owner or we're talking about a complete stranger coming up to it. Nonetheless, to me the key is if it's acting aggressively and an actual threat, same as any other creature.
Click to expand...

People are far more likely to kill a non-aggressive and non-venomous snake than they are to kill a dangerous and aggressive dog, because people don't like little snakies. People think dogs are more deserving of rights than snakes, because dogs are smarter and show emotion. But I get disagreed with when I think dogs and snakes are both equally deserving of rights, and neither deserve them because they're not as smart as humans.
 
spud_meister said:
People are far more likely to kill a non-aggressive and non-venomous snake than they are to kill a dangerous and aggressive dog, because people don't like little snakies. People think dogs are more deserving of rights than snakes, because dogs are smarter and show emotion. But I get disagreed with when I think dogs and snakes are both equally deserving of rights, and neither deserve them because they're not as smart as humans.
Click to expand...

That is quite possible but for some, it might be lack of familiarity and thus inability to discern which snakes are deadly and which are not. I can tell a small dog is not, but a small snake? I honestly wouldn't know
 
spud_meister said:
So if you saw an injured snake, you would try to help it in the same way you would a dog?
Click to expand...

I moved a small snake out of my driveway so I wouldn't run it over, does that count? When I get baby lizards in my house, I catch them and take them outside. In fact, there was one on my ceiling in my bathroom over the shower/tub so I put towels in the tub in case it fell. Sure enough, next morning took the towels out of the tub and there was the little lizard unharmed. Then I thought, you're too fvcking stupid to live and I flushed it down the toilet. J/k, I took it outside.


I respect them because I recognise them for what they are. They're animals, they don't need rights because they can't understand the concept (they're deserving of protection though because I like them). I'll add though, certain social animals do recognise rights, the alpha wolf has a right to eat first from a kill, the alpha baboon has a right to **** all the females, but somehow I don't think that's the sort of rights you think they should have.

If you were to write a bill of rights for the entire animal kingdom, what would it say?
Click to expand...

Your constant references to animals being rock stupid with zero rights to be treated or regarded a certain way do not indicate respect. If you had a dog, I think you'd be nice enough to it but I doubt you could view this lowly and stupid creature as part of the family, (which is totally fine, like I say not everyone sees animals as I do). The thing is, dogs are more astute then you'd ever give them credit for and they're social creatures. They pick up on things, though I'm sure you don't believe that. I think you're right to stick with reptiles.
 
spud_meister said:
People are far more likely to kill a non-aggressive and non-venomous snake than they are to kill a dangerous and aggressive dog, because people don't like little snakies. People think dogs are more deserving of rights than snakes, because dogs are smarter and show emotion. But I get disagreed with when I think dogs and snakes are both equally deserving of rights, and neither deserve them because they're not as smart as humans.
Click to expand...

What a bizarre thing to base the notion of who/what is "deserving" of rights.
 
X Factor said:
Your constant references to animals being rock stupid with zero rights to be treated or regarded a certain way do not indicate respect. If you had a dog, I think you'd be nice enough to it but I doubt you could view this lowly and stupid creature as part of the family, (which is totally fine, like I say not everyone sees animals as I do). The thing is, dogs are more astute then you'd ever give them credit for and they're social creatures. They pick up on things, though I'm sure you don't believe that. I think you're right to stick with reptiles.
Click to expand...

You've lost the point I was making somewhere in your emotional hyperbole. Animals don't deserve rights because they cannot understand the concept. I've gotta go to work, I'll expand my post later.
 
Yes I do.
We don't kill children in orphanages.
Animals are just as important.
 
spud_meister said:
I'm an animal lover too, but I can only afford to keep reptiles at the moment, I refuse to get an animal that I may not be able to adequately care for, soon as I can afford to I will be getting dogs and cats and horses and God knows what else. But, back to the thread, we're both arguing creatures deserve rights based on intelligence, I just set the bar higher than you. :lol:
Click to expand...



I thought I was the one who set the higher bar. You were the one talking about frogs.:lol:
 
spud_meister said:
You've lost the point I was making somewhere in your emotional hyperbole. Animals don't deserve rights because they cannot understand the concept. I've gotta go to work, I'll expand my post later.
Click to expand...

Then human newborns or mental retards don't deserve rights either, i take it?

In a way, declaration of rights such as the constitution are in place to protect the vulnerable among us, whether they appreciate or conceptualize those rights or not. I don't see why that shouldn't extend to non human life
 
chromium said:
What does cognitive ability, as you put it, have to do with basic rights such as not being property, being allowed to live and not be dealt with cruelly?

Because you know damn well that humans with very low cognitive or social intelligence (newborns, mentally retarded, down syndrome, aspberger's) are guaranteed these rights, simply by way of being OUR species in the 21st century. Such people used to be butchered or left to die on a hill. Was that wrong? Today we condemn it. Where does "cognitive ability" = not property fit into

einstein:table as IQ57:dog?

I have a much more simplified and imo consistent standard of property and respect: Is it a living creature or not?
Click to expand...

"Not suffering from cruelty" is not a right, it is a protection by the law and it will stay that way.
Even flowers are protected by the law in some cases.

When you're saying "grant them rights" you're really saying "let my dog vote for a US president", "let my dog go to school like other humans do" and "let my dog have a fair trial". It's ridiculously absurd. Dogs aren't persons. The people you've referred to who suffer mental disorders are still people, even if their IQ is lower they're still more intelligent and more emotional than dogs are. As to newborns, they grow up to become people - so there's your difference.
 
Juanita said:
I thought I was the one who set the higher bar. You were the one talking about frogs.:lol:
Click to expand...

I was, but my argument is that no animals deserve rights. That all is equal between frogs and dogs in the rights deserving department.
 
Dovkan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

We have no way of knowing that human suffering is type-identical to animal suffering since the very experience of 'suffering' is experientially contingent. And we only know what it is like to suffer as humans, not as other animals.

And it is not a universal moral principle to eschew all suffering at all times for all groups.

I think animal rights activists should just be honest and admit their desire for animal protection is emotional, or arises out of empathy; this is a perfectly fine view (emotivism).
 
chromium said:
Then human newborns or mental retards don't deserve rights either, i take it?
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out to me earlier in the thread, the exceptions don't disprove the rule. They deserve rights because they are human.

In a way, declaration of rights such as the constitution are in place to protect the vulnerable among us, whether they appreciate or conceptualize those rights or not. I don't see why that shouldn't extend to non human life
Click to expand...

Because right serve no purpose to animals. Because whether we legislate protection or rights, it's still subject to the whim of the lawmakers at the time, and animals can't tell the difference. Because it then becomes a question of do bacteria deserve the same right as trees? Do trees deserve the same rights as insects? Do insects deserve the same rights as vertebrates? Do fish deserve the same rights as birds? Do birds deserve the same rights as mammals? Do wild mice deserve the same rights as domesticated dogs?

Where, exactly, do you put your arbitrary line for rights, and why does it go there?
 
SMTA said:
So, you must also be against voting rights for our animal friends.
Click to expand...

I think the dogcatchers union would be against that.
 
I think people/society has taken the humane treatment of animals to an unreasonable level. It's one thing to aspire to see that animals are not treated cruelly or killed in cruel ways, but to attempt to confer rights upon them like humans makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
Apocalypse said:
"Not suffering from cruelty" is not a right, it is a protection by the law and it will stay that way.
Even flowers are protected by the law in some cases.

When you're saying "grant them rights" you're really saying "let my dog vote for a US president", "let my dog go to school like other humans do" and "let my dog have a fair trial". It's ridiculously absurd. Dogs aren't persons. The people you've referred to who suffer mental disorders are still people, even if their IQ is lower they're still more intelligent and more emotional than dogs are. As to newborns, they grow up to become people - so there's your difference.
Click to expand...

This really is a strawman argument. Even among humans, rights aren't exactly the same. Adults have more rights than children, citizens have more rights than non citizens, convicted felons have fewer rights than others. Nobody is arguing that animal rights be exactly the same as human rights.

Oh, and newborns aren't "people" until they grow up?
 
X Factor said:
This really is a strawman argument. Even among humans, rights aren't exactly the same. Adults have more rights than children, citizens have more rights than non citizens, convicted felons have fewer rights than others. Nobody is arguing that animal rights be exactly the same as human rights.

Oh, and newborns aren't "people" until they grow up?
Click to expand...

I've meant adult persons.

And what rights do you believe your dog should have, if we consider that the law already protects animals from cruelty?
The right to remain silent? The freedom of speech? Give me a break.
 
Apocalypse said:
"Not suffering from cruelty" is not a right, it is a protection by the law and it will stay that way.
Even flowers are protected by the law in some cases.

When you're saying "grant them rights" you're really saying "let my dog vote for a US president", "let my dog go to school like other humans do" and "let my dog have a fair trial". It's ridiculously absurd. Dogs aren't persons. The people you've referred to who suffer mental disorders are still people, even if their IQ is lower they're still more intelligent and more emotional than dogs are. As to newborns, they grow up to become people - so there's your difference.
Click to expand...

Everyone who's been to a public school has seen some kid who just sits there and drools and has no idea where the **** they are. That wasn't what i was saying at all anyway. Dogs have no use for human education, just as humans have no use for training to catch frisbees
 
Apocalypse said:
I've meant adult persons.

And what rights do you believe your dog should have, if we consider that the law already protects animals from cruelty?
The right to remain silent? The freedom of speech? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Please, you and others started with "they are only property, they don't have more rights than a table," and we are countering that no, they should have rights that tables do not. Nowhere did you or we mention freedom of speech and this other crap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom