|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:45 am
Ants also don't have civilizations and streets. Why are you arguing against what I realized last night was a faulty analogy?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:45 am
Kiyrugoji kuronecko33 Animals should get rights. I mean would you want to get beaten to death so there wouldnt be any holes in your skin and then be made into a coat? No animals dont want to either but they can't speak for themselves so we have to. Rights? As in, the right to be treated kindly? Come on, think logically here - do you think ANY logical, non homicidal human would poke holes in an animal just for the hell of it? There's always a reason for what's done. It's not just "senseless murder." And if those aren't rights, I don't know what is. I think that unless it's economical, rights of animals are not considered. People (in America) don't eat cats or dogs because they're cute. They're considered better than cows, pigs, and chickens. So it isn't economical to produce them. Taking care of animals before slaughter costs more money than pumping them full of drugs and putting them in horrendous conditions, so that's what happens. If anyone did what we do to pigs to a dog, they'd go to jail. How is that logical?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:47 am
Kiyrugoji Ants also don't have civilizations and streets. Why are you arguing against what I realized last night was a faulty analogy? So our technology affords us more rights? Does that mean that the indigenous peoples aren't as good as us? And, ants have very complex social and physical structures that could not exist without extensive communication. It looks like a civilization to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:12 am
Koravin boogiemonster Koravin boogiemonster Koravin Grott I think we can all agree that PETA is ******** insane. I guess I'm not bringing much new to this debate, but I'll throw in my two cents. Animals should receive sympathy, not worship. From a personal standpoint, I refuse to cut meat out of my diet. I have Coeliac Sprue. In a nutshell, I have severe allergic reactions to Gluten, which is found in Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, and some others. That means, no Pizza Hut, no Captain Crunch, no Krispy Cream. Gonna tell me I can't have bacon? ******** you. Eh, that's just me. Wow, that sucks. I don't think we should stop eating animals, I just think we should treat them humanely, and slaughter them humanely. Most of them are, a lot of pictures organizations like Peta show are pictures of animals getting life saving operations altered to look like they're being tortured, most people that depend on livestock as a living are going to treat the animal humanely, they typically don't want their livelyhood to go downhill because of bad treatment that makes them die before they're ready to be killed and processed. Actually, most livestock are raised in abominable conditions. Factory farms are the majority. And factory farms aren't actually that bad unless they're pumping them full of hormones, and I disagree those animals are treated better than people in third world countries. Factory farms cram animals into little spaces, pump them full of hormones, and mutilate them. They have to cut off pig's tails to prevent other pigs from ripping them off in the blind rage cause by close spaces. Veal calves are kept in cages that they can't stand up in so that their muscles remain tender, and severely deprive them of iron. Chickens are kept in sloped mesh cages so their eggs roll down and away, throwing off their need to sit on them. And most aren't as bad as that, and the chickens don't experience any real hamr, niether do the pigs, I don't agree with veal, that's just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:15 am
Koravin Kiyrugoji Ants also don't have civilizations and streets. Why are you arguing against what I realized last night was a faulty analogy? So our technology affords us more rights? Does that mean that the indigenous peoples aren't as good as us? And, ants have very complex social and physical structures that could not exist without extensive communication. It looks like a civilization to me. Ants function as one, they have one motive, that is the betterment of their queen, they do not care if they rip you to shreds, even if animals had rights they would get in trouble because they couldn't pay taxes, couldn't pay for food, walk around nude, attack when provoked, make all that legal for humans, yeah, we'll talk about giving them rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:48 am
Rilian s_coeus We are different than animals, and thus get different rights. Humans are animals. Does a fish get different rights from an ant? No, they both get none. There only rights are based off of what we give them - since power is the only measure of how rights can be evaluated. Fish might give us the right to breathe, but it isn't theres to give. Why? Because I could beat up a fish in a boxing match. You can say that the logic doesn't work because humans are animals, but if we didn't have the system we had now, all sorts of crazy stuff would be going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:44 pm
What part of the food chain, food pyramid, and the great circle of life don't you guys understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:58 pm
Koravin So our technology affords us more rights? Does that mean that the indigenous peoples aren't as good as us? And, ants have very complex social and physical structures that could not exist without extensive communication. It looks like a civilization to me. Yep. Sorry to say it, but it's a power thing. If said ants could take us out, then we'd be the ones without right. But that doesn't matter, since it seems that ants aren't that bright anyway. And they DO treat their prey pretty badly, what with the devouring, simply because they need it. But I forget - why does proving that ants aren't as good as us have to do with animal rights on a large scale again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:22 pm
Kiyrugoji Koravin So our technology affords us more rights? Does that mean that the indigenous peoples aren't as good as us? And, ants have very complex social and physical structures that could not exist without extensive communication. It looks like a civilization to me. Yep. Sorry to say it, but it's a power thing. If said ants could take us out, then we'd be the ones without right. But that doesn't matter, since it seems that ants aren't that bright anyway. And they DO treat their prey pretty badly, what with the devouring, simply because they need it. But I forget - why does proving that ants aren't as good as us have to do with animal rights on a large scale again? Because animal rights activist thinks all animals, including ants, should have equal rights. Sounds pretty stupid does it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:30 pm
Hikarulol Kiyrugoji Koravin So our technology affords us more rights? Does that mean that the indigenous peoples aren't as good as us? And, ants have very complex social and physical structures that could not exist without extensive communication. It looks like a civilization to me. Yep. Sorry to say it, but it's a power thing. If said ants could take us out, then we'd be the ones without right. But that doesn't matter, since it seems that ants aren't that bright anyway. And they DO treat their prey pretty badly, what with the devouring, simply because they need it. But I forget - why does proving that ants aren't as good as us have to do with animal rights on a large scale again? Because animal rights activist thinks all animals, including ants, should have equal rights. Sounds pretty stupid does it. Yeah. If they'd just stick to the "don't torture animals" thing, they'd have less people being turned off by their Jane Goodall crazy-ness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:27 pm
s_coeus Rilian s_coeus We are different than animals, and thus get different rights. Humans are animals. Does a fish get different rights from an ant? No, they both get none. There only rights are based off of what we give them - since power is the only measure of how rights can be evaluated. Fish might give us the right to breathe, but it isn't theres to give. Why? Because I could beat up a fish in a boxing match. You can say that the logic doesn't work because humans are animals, but if we didn't have the system we had now, all sorts of crazy stuff would be going on. Might makes right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:29 pm
Kiyrugoji Rilian Humans are animals. Does a fish get different rights from an ant? Can said ant overcome the basic desires for food and sex long enough to walk down the street without ******** every other lady* ant and stealing food from every other ant? *This may not apply if ant is homosexual. See, I'm SENSETIVE. URG. Is that a prerequisite for getting rights? If so, why? And who has the power to delegate rights, anyway? And what if the ant is female? You're not so sensitive after all. Also, ants don't steal from each other. They work in communities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:55 am
This thread seem more about ants, then animal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:01 pm
kuronecko33 Animals should get rights. I mean would you want to get beaten to death so there wouldnt be any holes in your skin and then be made into a coat? No animals dont want to either but they can't speak for themselves so we have to. Your not talking about Rights, your talking about welfare. I think animal welfare is a wonderful thing, but I'm afraid it's people like you, who mistake these two completely different theories that enable animal rights extremists to get their bullshit bills passed into law.
Compassionate people are fooled easily by the sensationalist images put out by animal right's groups. They see a sad-eyed puppy dog and don't stop to think. They act on their emotions and that's what causes the idea of animal rights to grow. Welfare is the equivilant to compassion. We should love and care for our animals, but they shouldn't have our rights. <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:04 am
Rilian s_coeus Rilian s_coeus We are different than animals, and thus get different rights. Humans are animals. Does a fish get different rights from an ant? No, they both get none. There only rights are based off of what we give them - since power is the only measure of how rights can be evaluated. Fish might give us the right to breathe, but it isn't theres to give. Why? Because I could beat up a fish in a boxing match. You can say that the logic doesn't work because humans are animals, but if we didn't have the system we had now, all sorts of crazy stuff would be going on. Might makes right? In this situation between species lines, yes. There is no other alternative that I can think of that is as feasible/fair/good etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
