• 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
spud_meister said:
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.

Animals don't have rights, they're animals.
Click to expand...
 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.
Click to expand...



I may be wrong on this one, but I seriously doubt that we'll be giving any animals the right to vote anytime soon. :roll:
 
X Factor said:
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. :lol:).
Click to expand...

You are aware that your dogs and your friend's kids are different species, right?
 
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.
 
SMTA said:
You are aware that your dogs and your friend's kids are different species, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

spud_meister said:
Because there is, or was, the potential to understand rights. Animals are dumb, there's no point giving them rights.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dovkan said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are humans that don't get all of that, why would we pretend animals should?
 
Dovkan said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9l94b3x9U
Click to expand...

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.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
X Factor said:
So what actions/behaviors towards animals are acceptable based on your determination that animals are "dumb"? What does that justify?
Click to expand...

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?
 
spud_meister said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Animals don't have rights.bt hey should be protected from cruelty though.

spud_meister said:
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Who is this "other" the OP refers to, and why should anyone care about his opinions?
 
spud_meister said:
I have two lizards, a snake, 5 frogs, a scorpion, a bunch of fish and a turtle. They're dumb. I tried explaining the concept of rights to one of my my girlfriends beagles. It went and sniffed the butt of her other beagle. I tried to get one of the stray cats I've befriended to read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, it meowed at me. Sure, some animals can display complex emotions, but none are up to understanding the concept of rights.
Click to expand...



OK that was funny, but I didn't say that they could read and write! I simply said that they were not as dumb as you think. I didn't even imply that they could understand "your" concept of rights, but they do understand and expect what they feel are rights and I didn't really consider such creatures as snakes, frogs and snails, but more about bears, wolves, dolphins, whales and yes even domestic animals
 
Juanita said:
OK that was funny, but I didn't say that they could read and write! I simply said that they were not as dumb as you think. I didn't even imply that they could understand "your" concept of rights, but they do understand and expect what they feel are rights and I didn't really consider such creatures as snakes, frogs and snails, but more about bears, wolves, dolphins, whales and yes even domestic animals
Click to expand...

So why do you believe my snake is less deserving of rights than my girlfriends beagle?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even until the 19th century blacks who belong to the same species as the other humans were treated as properties and they were homo sapiens ,not homo asparagus .maybe it is because we are animals too .
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
Even until the 19th century blacks who belong to the same species as the other humans were treated as properties and they were homo sapiens ,not homo asparagus .maybe it is because we are animals too .
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.
 
Cruelty and torture and stuff to animals should be illegal...
 
Medusa said:
Even until the 19th century blacks who belong to the same species as the other humans were treated as properties and they were homo sapiens ,not homo asparagus .maybe it is because we are animals too .
Click to expand...

Were there blacks that did not belong to the same speices as other humans? This is news to me...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Were there blacks that did not belong to the same speices as other humans? This is news to me...
Click to expand...

no of course however they were treated like animals. werent they ? what is wrong with my statement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom