- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Yes to the OP, unquestioningly.
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.
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.Animals don't have rights, they're animals.
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.
You are aware that your dogs and your friend's kids are different species, right?
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.
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.
Because there is, or was, the potential to understand rights. Animals are dumb, there's no point giving them 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.
There are humans that don't get all of that, why would we pretend animals should?
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.
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?
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?
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.
I think another important issue is the rampant abuse of innocent apostrophes.
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.
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
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 .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.
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 .
Wow, just wow.
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 .
So why do you believe my snake is less deserving of rights than my girlfriends beagle?
I didn't say that your snake was less deserving, but his brain isn't very big, is it?
Were there blacks that did not belong to the same speices as other humans? This is news to me...