Animal Rights

[ZombiiMommii]

Do you eat meat? Hamburgers, bacon, fried chicken? Do you ever think of those animals and think of them as equal? Are you willing to eat a human being? Where do you draw the line at equal rights for animals?

 

I am against unnecessary cruelty, but if you are going to test medication on death row inmates, they you are going to run out of people to test things on very quickly. I'm all for medical testing on animals, as long as it's not going to be in a cruel way.

[Baixinha]

I am okay with hunting.

Just a lot of people don't hunt and use teh meat anymore.

I know lots of people that just shoot the poor animal and leave it there. :(

I believe the First Nations got it right by using the animal. It is respectful to the animal.

Yes I think we should only kill animals if we are going to use every part of it and not just kill it for the sake of killing something

 

I am against ALL forms of animal cruelty. Hunting, animal testing and wearing fur products. Did you ever think of wear it comes from? Animals suffer and die horrible, painful deaths every day for things that are often just wasted! Animal lives are just as important as human lives and it hurts to see how often we neglect that! please, treat animals the way you would treat people. Thank you.

 

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please don't double post. If you would like to add something, use the 'Edit' button.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[The Terminator]

I am fully against Animal testing whether it be for medical, cosmetic or anything of the sort.

 

Why should they suffer to benefit us?

 

it sounds harsh and I have had someone die of cancer but i believe if someone gets sick then it's the "way" of life on a different note. and if we can't test and find cures without hurting others in the process we should leave life to the way it is.

[Unstream]

Strays are taken in as a matter of fact for different kinds of tests.

 

Most of the dogs sent into outerspace were strays.

 

And here we have heard a lot about it in doing our research for our campaign. It is easy to test animals for disease.

 

The cat can't really tell right from wrong. We, as humans can. So what's our excuse?

 

And criminals do deserve to be subjected to be tested.

 

They deserve much worse than that.

 

What about a serial killer who took children, did unspeakable things to them and then murdered them.

 

Don't you think the parents go through more torture than medication testing could ever do to that criminal?

 

Criminals like that deserve nothing.

 

If someone robbed a bank but didn't hurt anyone, I'd feel differently about that type of criminal and be satisfied with them getting jail time.

 

My dogs are my life. We had a house fire yesterday and one of my dogs was trapped inside and I still ran back in to get her.

 

I value an animals life more than most people. So much so I didn't stop to think.

 

I don't value criminal lives. That is why I don't care what they endure.

I'm gonna call bullcrap on that statement. Only Russians sent dogs into outer space, and there's no evidence of them being strays.

At least that's with some cursory research. Find me an article to back up your claim.

Plus, it's important to note the dogs suffered no adverse effects.

 

Yes, but to have to test, treat, and cure a pet costs a lot more than simply getting one already bred. Most animal testing facilities don't use strays.

 

Anyway, who are you to say what criminals do or don't deserve? Who are you to decide that their fundamental rights are allowed to be alienated?

 

Plus, you'd be comparing apples to oranges with the parents and criminals. Which is worse? Emotional of physical pain?

 

And quite frankly, there aren't enough of those criminals to be using solely them for testing.

 

But the bank robber would've also ruined the livelihoods of hundreds of Americans. The thing is, they did hurt someone.

 

And from your stance, then you should completely understand why there's animal cruelty in the world, because you emulate the same feature. You don't care about criminals, so you don't care what they endure. Many people don't care about animals, so they don't care what the animals endure. That attitude is the root of animal cruelty.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

 

Anyway, who are you to say what criminals do or don't deserve? Who are you to decide that their fundamental rights are allowed to be alienated?

 

The criminals in question decided it for us--when they destroyed others' fundamental rights. If you murder someone, you are taking away a fundamental right. If you rape someone, you are taking away a fundamental right. If you torture someone, you are taking away a fundamental right. And if you take away others' fundamental rights, then you have no right to fundamental rights. Who are you to decide that animals' fundamental rights are allowed to be alienated?

 

Yes, we'll run out of criminals if this is what we do. At least it would cut down on innocent deaths and torture, though. It would be a Pareto improvement.

[Unstream]

But if you take away the criminals' fundamental rights, then shouldn't yours be taken away too?

 

But we have believed those things to be the fundamental rights of humans, not animals, so no rights are being violated.

And by we, I mean the founding fathers, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the proponents of their work.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

But if you take away the criminals' fundamental rights, then shouldn't yours be taken away too?

 

But we have believed those things to be the fundamental rights of humans, not animals, so no rights are being violated.

And by we, I mean the founding fathers, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the proponents of their work.

 

Like I said, when you commit a crime of a horrific nature, you have given up your fundamental rights. If you take away fundamental rights from others, you have given up your right. If you commit an inhuman act, you should no longer be considered a human. Therefore, if the government does something that "goes against the fundamental rights of humans" to a criminal, they are not to blame--the criminal gave up their rights by performing the act.

 

Isn't one of the fundamental rights listed in the Declaration of Independence "liberty"? So why do we imprison criminals? Doesn't that go against their rights?

 

It is not written in the Declaration of Independence that humans have rights that animals don't have. I believe that animals' rights ARE being violated, and so do many others. Who decides who has rights?

[April]

Even if it was just Russians who sent the animals into space, who cares? We're not just talking about one Country.

 

And I was in grade 9 when we learned about animals going into space,

 

We got shown videos, and such and lots of animals that went into space DID die.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika

 

Laika died within hours. It also states that she was a stray there too.

 

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0211/articles/021103a.htm

 

Since I know Wiki isn't considered reliable, there's another article.

So do not make statements saying that it's bull when you clearly have not looked into it. I found these articles within seconds.

 

 

And as for Criminals?

 

What about a serial killer that tortured and raped his victims? What if some of them were children? Do you honestly believe these scum of our earth deserve more rights than Dogs or Cats that have done nothing to us? Or countless other animals?

 

I believe that Karina is right. Once someone murders another person in cold blood, (I don't mean 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder.) But 1st degree. Then they give up their human rights. I do see a major difference though in a child killing a parent that abused them than someone that murders for fun and circumstances would have to be taken into account.

[Unstream]

Like I said, when you commit a crime of a horrific nature, you have given up your fundamental rights. If you take away fundamental rights from others, you have given up your right. If you commit an inhuman act, you should no longer be considered a human. Therefore, if the government does something that "goes against the fundamental rights of humans" to a criminal, they are not to blame--the criminal gave up their rights by performing the act.

 

Isn't one of the fundamental rights listed in the Declaration of Independence "liberty"? So why do we imprison criminals? Doesn't that go against their rights?

 

It is not written in the Declaration of Independence that humans have rights that animals don't have. I believe that animals' rights ARE being violated, and so do many others. Who decides who has rights?

It's interesting how you say "If you commit an inhuman act", and then talk about being considered a human. As if being a human determines whether or not you receive these rights. Hmmm...

 

In civics we always called it "liberty via social contract", based off of Hobbes or Locke. I forget. It's been a year.

 

And actually, it states just men:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Even if it was just Russians who sent the animals into space, who cares? We're not just talking about one Country.

 

And I was in grade 9 when we learned about animals going into space,

 

We got shown videos, and such and lots of animals that went into space DID die.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika

 

Laika died within hours. It also states that she was a stray there too.

 

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0211/articles/021103a.htm

 

Since I know Wiki isn't considered reliable, there's another article.

So do not make statements saying that it's bull when you clearly have not looked into it. I found these articles within seconds.

 

 

And as for Criminals?

 

What about a serial killer that tortured and raped his victims? What if some of them were children? Do you honestly believe these scum of our earth deserve more rights than Dogs or Cats that have done nothing to us? Or countless other animals?

 

I believe that Karina is right. Once someone murders another person in cold blood, (I don't mean 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder.) But 1st degree. Then they give up their human rights. I do see a major difference though in a child killing a parent that abused them than someone that murders for fun and circumstances would have to be taken into account.

Well, like I said, it was cursory. And the source I found said she lasted for a few days, suffering no ill effects while she was alive.

 

Yeah, what if? What if that killer ate eyeballs for breakfast? Do you know how infrequently these serial killers show up? Fact of the matter is, what do we do when we run out? (Assuming what you're saying is applied).

 

And I find it funny how you also refer to them as "human rights".

 

And dogs and cats have done plenty to us. We spend tons of resources pampering them, depriving developing countries of those resources. (Yes, I feel the same way about Americans, but that's off-topic). And I know you're only so defensive about cats and dogs. I'm sure if we were talking about testing mice, you wouldn't care so much. And the thing is, most animal testing is on rats and mice.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

We are referring them to human rights because we are trying to speak in your language so you will understand. IF there are rights that are considered "human rights" then you are no longer entitled to the human rights if you do something inhuman. I was disproving your statement that criminals are considered human and therefore entitled to rights. This is how the proof goes:

1) Suppose that humans are entitled to certain rights that animals are not allowed. (I personally do not suppose this at all; I am merely taking you at your word.)

2) Hardcore criminals do inhuman acts that rob others of these rights.

3) By doing inhuman acts, they cannot be considered human anymore.

4) Therefore, criminals like these are no longer entitled to human rights.

 

And like I said, the Declaration of Independence doesn't say ANYTHING about animals. There's a difference between "They only said men" and "They said only men." They only MENTIONED men. You are saying that the fact that they only mentioned men means they were saying that animals can't have any rights whatsoever. That doesn't mean that at all. The Declaration of Independence also does not say anything about outruling animal rights.

 

Anyway, I really don't know how the Declaration of Independence even came into this in the first place. Animal rights are an issue all over the planet. Let's take this based on universal ethical philosophy, not just a few people from one country.

[April]

It's interesting how you say "If you commit an inhuman act", and then talk about being considered a human. As if being a human determines whether or not you receive these rights. Hmmm...

 

In civics we always called it "liberty via social contract", based off of Hobbes or Locke. I forget. It's been a year.

 

And actually, it states just men:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

 

Well, like I said, it was cursory. And the source I found said she lasted for a few days, suffering no ill effects while she was alive.

 

Yeah, what if? What if that killer ate eyeballs for breakfast? Do you know how infrequently these serial killers show up? Fact of the matter is, what do we do when we run out? (Assuming what you're saying is applied).

 

And I find it funny how you also refer to them as "human rights".

 

And dogs and cats have done plenty to us. We spend tons of resources pampering them, depriving developing countries of those resources. (Yes, I feel the same way about Americans, but that's off-topic). And I know you're only so defensive about cats and dogs. I'm sure if we were talking about testing mice, you wouldn't care so much. And the thing is, most animal testing is on rats and mice.

 

I have admitted and stated many times in this board that I value dogs and cats more than rats and mice. And pigs. That doesn't mean all animals should have the same rights though. I can't help how I feel about it.

 

And you know what? We may spend money on our pets, but lots of people waste that money on drugs. Or what about the millionaires that just spend it on themselves? I know some donate, but I am speaking about those that don't. That's the same idea.

 

And about, Laika, she did die. She is famous.

 

And guess what, in Canada, do you know how much money we put out to protect these murderers in prison? We don't have the death penalty.

 

My thoughts aren't working. I'll probably come make this make more sense and fix it when I haven't just woke up. I want to go eat my Caesar salad.

[Baixinha]

And I know you're only so defensive about cats and dogs. I'm sure if we were talking about testing mice, you wouldn't care so much. And the thing is, most animal testing is on rats and mice.

 

 

You terrible person! Mice and rats deserve EVERY right you would give a human. You are mean and overly biased towards humans. I love mice and rats! Their lives are worth more than yours will ever be. Also, get the heck off this forum if you don't even play Neopets. JERK! (stalks off)

 

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not be rude to other members. The debate forum is to debate ideas and opinions, not to attack the person behind those ideas and opinions.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[April]

 

No matter whether you think animal testing is right or wrong, this video is touching and I thought something that should be shared. :)

 

 

 

 

This is the first rescue and shows more of them having their first steps outside. The poor dogs were so scared and it also shows some insight from a source that was where the animals were tested on.

[Nataluna]

i believe in animal testing only when it is necessary. I love my cat, fish, and also owned mice at one stage. animals are a precious part of the ecosystem, but i do support research in a number of drug areas,

 

i know a fair bit about medical testing and the approval and testing of pharmaceuticals, hence why i am going to qrite specifically regarding this issue, if you require references and sources for this material, PM me. I also know a bit about the approval process please understand that all these sorts of projects undergo vigorous vetting and approval processes and usually (since i am not familiar with EVERY country's policy, but in the majority of the developed world) you require approval from an ethics committee too, ethics approval is required whenever you are doing research involving humans (even brief survey questionaries) or any sort of animal testing. and its VERY hard to get. a company may have approval say in the USA, but unless it meets the requirements of the country it submits data to, it will be rejected. so it is not worth it to a company to send 10 million on 1st stage testing, when it cannot be marketed worldwide.

 

regarding the use of animals in pharmaceutical testing, it has been proven by multitudes of studies and examples that animal testing is of limited application, please see the thalidomide case, hamsters do not have the same metabolic profile as humans. that being said, yes it is still used because in order to recieve human testing approval, you are required to submit to the FDA or in Australia, the TGA information about your drugs pharmacokinetics i.e. the relative toxicity, LD (lethal dose, which is of limited application), renal/hepatic clearance, time to max dose, half life and therapeutic dose BEFORE you can proceed to stage II testing, which is testing in a limited cohort of humans, your drug. animal testing is limited in that application, but it is still of benefit in limited cases, i.e. novel drugs. the cohorts of animals are usually quite small e.g. 20 or so. yes it is usually mice, hamsters or pigs, it is exceptionally difficult to get primate approval. regarding pigs they are very similar in organ weight, size, diet and metabolism with humans.

 

the use of novel pharmaceuticals should be tested in animals, why? because if it is a novel drug, there is nothing similar (class wise) known, so there is no data you can extrapolate on. if you tested it in a human and it caused a lethal reaction or irreversible organ damage, that is highly unethical and the way the world works is if you kill a human, that IS murder. the information regarding derivatives of known drugs, e.g. an acetate residue instead of a carbonate residue with better pharmacokinetic properties, can and often are be extrapolated and are used for the approval process (usually because it is cheaper, not because drug companies probably care..).

 

so yes i do believe animal testing is sometimes necessary, but i believe testing should be done with appropriate guidelines such as ethics, oversight by a governing authority, and should be recognised as having only limited application in the development and approval of pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic compounds.

[sakura_blossom221]

I personally am all for animal rights and I hate the idea of using animals in testing for makeup and stuff like that. Medical testing is necessary however and the animals have all the pain meds they need that they aren't hurt unnecessarily in the process. I eat meat and would truly never be able to give it up, but I can understand where vegetarians and vegans are coming from. Vegans are a bit too extreme though in my opinion. Also, I can't stand PETA, they honestly give animal rights a bad name. Has anyone seen their video game that they made in response to the picture of Mario wearing a tanooki suit? It's disgusting and even more offensive than it was possible to perceive the original picture of Mario (which I personally don't find offensive).

[lilshadowdweller]

People need to start understanding the difference between animal rights, and animal welfare. Most people here are probably animal welfare advocates.

 

When people bring up this question;

 

Are we any different from animals?

 

The obvious answer? Yes. We are hugely different from our fellow animals.

 

Many animals are not capable of empathy. Quite a few (but not all) do not mourn the loss of a loved one. Animals haven't cured illnesses. They do not care about their dental hygiene. Animals haven't made it to the Moon and none of them can cook. :P No animal has developed a known language like us.

 

Human beings are capable of amazing things! Yes, we've started wars, yes, we've still have starving people in our world. But we're changing and growing, and for the better! We're learning how to accept differences, and how to treat our fellow man correctly! We're still developing!

 

And because of our humanity, we CARE about animals! We care about other species when we actually have no obligation to! Too many Animal Right's activities disregard how wonderful it is to be human and how we change the world! :laughingsmiley:

 

Many AR people seek to separate humans and animals. They DO NOT want us to have "pets" who they refer to as "companion animals". The Humane Society Of The United States seeks to rid of pets. They consider them "slaves" and speak about how "unnatural" it is to have pets. They envision a world where animals are only gazed at from afar by us.

 

But realistically, the animal world IS NOT this peaceful loving place. My cat, for instance, enjoys a life a climate control, love and constant food. She has toys and gets whatever she wants essentially. She is NOT my slave, I'm more of a slave to her. She gets her teeth brushed. She gets her shots to prevent painful diseases. I doubt she would prefer an outdoor life.

 

Animals who are with humans do enjoy life. Perhaps more so. There are no fear of predators with us. There is no change of climate. Everything is provided.

 

Yes, people abuse animals frequently - and those people need to be punished accordingly.

 

I would like to believe all animals are treated decently. This isn't always true. But most people who you know personally probably love their animals.

 

I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. But I understand why people would become it and I respect their choices. My diet suites me. I'm healthy. It doesn't suite everyone however. If you can survive being a vegan/vegetarian, good. Just please, respect my dietary choices.

 

I would like to be ethical. I would like to think most of my food isn't factory farmed. I don't have the means to figure out exactly where my meat comes from. But if you still want to eat meat but dislike the idea that it was potentially abused, head to a local farm and buy there. It may be more expensive, but you'll feel good knowing where your food came from and knowing that your chicken/cow ect was treated properly.

 

Would I like to be eaten myself?

 

Of course not. No animal would. That's why people are vegetarian. But compared to some of the other means animals kill and eat each other (snakes suffocate their prey!) I think humans manage a better slaughter method. Again, the industry needs to be changed, and only we can fight for it!

 

And April, with all due respect, I MUST point out your flaw here:

 

The cat can't really tell right from wrong. We, as humans can. So what's our excuse?

 

April, hadn't you said earlier than humans are no different from animals? If that's the case, you consider us animals, and if you consider us animals, then we don't need an excuse. Do you understand the flaw with your statement? You can't point at humans and say; "We're no different or no better!" Then point out and say; "We're different! We can see right from wrong!"

 

The only reason we can is because we're human. Do you understand why, in a sense, we are different? Do you not love our ability to reason "right" from "wrong"? But do you not comprehend that in nature, there is no "right", and there is no "wrong"?

 

Either we are animals or we're not April.

[April]

You're taking my statement too literally.

 

By my statements, Humans are not different than animals,

 

I mean they all kill and lots of similarities. By saying that, I am saying humans suffer from the illusion that they are better than animals. When I say humans are no different than animals, I mean they aren't better like we think we are. If that makes sense. Sorry, I sometimes confuse the English language. I assumed it'd be understood what I said.

 

Animals are all different from each other. Dogs and cats are different. Humans and dogs are different. By saying Humans are no different from animals, I am not saying every aspect is the same.

 

I think humans are a disgustnig race and are the reason our planet is so messed up.

 

We are animals, but we're not the same as all animals. I don't really see how you can say just because I said humans are animals means that I am not allowed to point out differences.

 

Snakes and cats are animals, would you like me to sit here and point out how they're different, yet b oth animals?

[lilshadowdweller]

You're taking my statement too literally.

 

 

Perhaps. But it's all urked me when people use this example then brought up the clear differences between humanity and animals.

 

I mean they all kill and lots of similarities. By saying that, I am saying humans suffer from the illusion that they are better than animals.

 

But how are we not better? With all the things we've done to change the world, why can't we claim we are better? In sense, all animals, including humans, are programmed to support their OWN kind. The survival of their species is the most important thing. I value my own species more than any other, this is nothing to be ashamed of. All animals tend to do this. But my humanity allows me to feel for other animals - how is that not better? The only reason you care right now is because of your humanity. You would feel nothing else. We've come to a point now where we can cure illnesses. We can save animals and ourselves. You look so distraught on humanity, but I stand on the opposite end willing to defend my own species and acknowledging that we're not all evil. And animals by far are not perfect.

 

When I say humans are no different than animals, I mean they aren't better like we think we are. If that makes sense. Sorry, I sometimes confuse the English language. I assumed it'd be understood what I said.

 

Yes, it does make sense. Well, the sentence makes sense but your thought process does not to me

 

I think humans are a disgustnig race and are the reason our planet is so messed up.

 

That is such a horrible statement. Animals kill for pleasure. Animals kill to take other animals terrorities. And also, why are you, as a human doing nothing about it except criticize our species? Why not get out there and help change the world? There are many stories out there which lend faith in humanity, I advise you to look into them.

 

We are animals, but we're not the same as all animals. I don't really see how you can say just because I said humans are animals means that I am not allowed to point out differences.

 

Snakes and cats are animals, would you like me to sit here and point out how they're different, yet both animals?

 

I can, because you wanted to point out we are no better. But in nature, there is no 'better' or 'worse'. All species want to survive. There is nothing wrong with this. You put responsibilities on your humans, yet fail to apply them to animals. You make excuses for animals, but not for humans, who clearly can see their errors and who can empathize. My point is, yes, we are animals, and yes, as we are the only species capable of understanding "better" or "worse" we are "better" in that stance.

[Baixinha]

Perhaps. But it's all urked me when people use this example then brought up the clear differences between humanity and animals.

 

 

 

But how are we not better? With all the things we've done to change the world, why can't we claim we are better? In sense, all animals, including humans, are programmed to support their OWN kind. The survival of their species is the most important thing. I value my own species more than any other, this is nothing to be ashamed of. All animals tend to do this. But my humanity allows me to feel for other animals - how is that not better? The only reason you care right now is because of your humanity. You would feel nothing else. We've come to a point now where we can cure illnesses. We can save animals and ourselves. You look so distraught on humanity, but I stand on the opposite end willing to defend my own species and acknowledging that we're not all evil. And animals by far are not perfect.

 

 

 

Yes, it does make sense. Well, the sentence makes sense but your thought process does not to me

 

 

 

That is such a horrible statement. Animals kill for pleasure. Animals kill to take other animals terrorities. And also, why are you, as a human doing nothing about it except criticize our species? Why not get out there and help change the world? There are many stories out there which lend faith in humanity, I advise you to look into them.

 

 

 

I can, because you wanted to point out we are no better. But in nature, there is no 'better' or 'worse'. All species want to survive. There is nothing wrong with this. You put responsibilities on your humans, yet fail to apply them to animals. You make excuses for animals, but not for humans, who clearly can see their errors and who can empathize. My point is, yes, we are animals, and yes, as we are the only species capable of understanding "better" or "worse" we are "better" in that stance.

That Isn't true. Animals can empathize, with each other and with other humans. And with other animals, too! There are loads of adorable stories out there on the internet. Why not search a few? And also, people kill for pleasure too. People kill other people, people kill animals, for fashion. (think leather, fur etc.) I'm not saying animals are perfect, because nothing is, I'm just saying that we are no better. Have you ever seen a lion kill a goat and wear his skin? Have you ever noticed horses "breeding" rats in revolting ways and murdering the "mistakes"? think about that.

[lilshadowdweller]

That Isn't true. Animals can empathize, with each other and with other humans. And with other animals, too! There are loads of adorable stories out there on the internet. Why not search a few? And also, people kill for pleasure too. People kill other people, people kill animals, for fashion. (think leather, fur etc.) I'm not saying animals are perfect, because nothing is, I'm just saying that we are no better. Have you ever seen a lion kill a goat and wear his skin? Have you ever noticed horses "breeding" rats in revolting ways and murdering the "mistakes"? think about that.

 

No, but how many people do you personal know who wear animal skin?

 

And has it ever occurred to you that in very cold climates, different from your own, wearing animal skin may be a realistic and needed option? Because we wore animal skin, our ancestors survived.

 

And I've seen hamsters kill their babies. I've watched cats fight and harm. I've seen chickens claw their young.

 

I understand you don't think animals are 'perfect', but you have this conclusion in your head that they are pure when in fact, they are not.

 

You point at a few bad people and blame the majority. It's pointless.

 

Animals deserve respect, yes. They deserve to live in comfort. But to give them rights - a human application - is foolish! How would we have pets if we gave them "rights"? If they owned themselves, then no one else would be allowed to own them. If we let them freely walk around, things would get dangerous.

 

If you wanted to move into a new house in a new area, you wouldn't be able to because guess what? That area probably is home to animals.

 

It's just iffy to think about giving them "rights".

[Baixinha]

No, but how many people do you personal know who wear animal skin?

 

And has it ever occurred to you that in very cold climates, different from your own, wearing animal skin may be a realistic and needed option? Because we wore animal skin, our ancestors survived.

 

And I've seen hamsters kill their babies. I've watched cats fight and harm. I've seen chickens claw their young.

 

I understand you don't think animals are 'perfect', but you have this conclusion in your head that they are pure when in fact, they are not.

 

You point at a few bad people and blame the majority. It's pointless.

 

Animals deserve respect, yes. They deserve to live in comfort. But to give them rights - a human application - is foolish! How would we have pets if we gave them "rights"? If they owned themselves, then no one else would be allowed to own them. If we let them freely walk around, things would get dangerous.

 

If you wanted to move into a new house in a new area, you wouldn't be able to because guess what? That area probably is home to animals.

 

It's just iffy to think about giving them "rights".

Anyone who wears fur or leather is wearing animal skin. And in a way, they are pure. They just don't have "laws" or "humanity" in an animal community. They just need to live. I've never in my life seen an animal kill for a reason other than to eat it, or as an act of kindness. Cats bring in dead birds because they love you and they are trying to bring you food. It isn't for pleasure. Also, animal rights aren't the same as human rights. I'm not saying that animals should get jobs. they need different things. like space to live. As much as people need space too, people are slowly taking up so much space that animals like jaguars have nowhere to go and they die. We don't need to "control" them, we need to leave them alone! Animals have their own set of rights. They don't need everything we need, and they need some things we don't. Animals are separate, but equal.

[lilshadowdweller]

Anyone who wears fur or leather is wearing animal skin.

 

So...I just gave you a few reasons why some do. :guiltysmiley: Good reasons too.

 

 

And in a way, they are pure. They just don't have "laws" or "humanity" in an animal community.

 

By that logic, if we didn't have any laws, we'd be pure too? Because you know, part of your moral stance is because of our established laws.

 

They just need to live. I've never in my life seen an animal kill for a reason other than to eat it, or as an act of kindness.

 

"acts of kindless" - here is your flaw. You are ascribing human emotions to animals. What you "perceive" as an act of kindness may not actually be so.

 

Cats bring in dead birds because they love you and they are trying to bring you food.

 

Actually, there are a few reasons cats bring you dead animals. Most of the time, the message is that they think you, a fellow cat, fail at hunting, so they're trying to teach you. This is a family act. But you're ascribing yourself to animals again.

 

It isn't for pleasure.

 

Actually, that's debated. Cats do seem to torture and play with their prey. Why they do this is unknown. Some people believe it's simply that they get themselves worked up, but ultimately, the pleasure part HAS NOT be confirmed.

 

 

Also, animal rights aren't the same as human rights. I'm not saying that animals should get jobs. they need different things. like space to live. As much as people need space too, people are slowly taking up so much space that animals like jaguars have nowhere to go and they die.

 

Rich people, not the majority, are purchasing land ruthlessly. That is why it's up to people like us to KNOW where our food comes from. These people do not respresent humanity as a whole.

 

We don't need to "control" them, we need to leave them alone! Animals have their own set of rights. They don't need everything we need, and they need some things we don't. Animals are separate, but equal.

 

And leave them alone how? What makes you think I want to 'control' them? If one animal existence is harming anothers, do you not believe we should step in? It's happened before you know. All animals including ourselves have a natural curiousity to other animals. I'd rather be allowed an animal companion which would live a good life with me. Just because you ascribe human emotions to animals doesn't mean your perception is accurate, just as much as I can't say my cat 'likes' or 'dislike' things. We'll never know.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I'm going to address only two of the recent things brought up:

 

You mentioned the reasons why people wear animal skin. Okay, fair enough. But we have increased technology to the point where there is no reason to wear fur. Honestly, fur isn't as warm as a good thermal jacket. Saying that we have a reason to wear animal skin, therefore we should do it...it's the same thing as saying, "My wife cheated on me, so I had a reason to kill her, so I did." No. You have alternatives.

 

Also, you have no way of knowing if "many animals can't empathize", because there haven't been studies on all animals. The only study conducted regarding empathy demonstrated that rats DO empathize.

[-Ryan]

Ehhhh too many words and big paragraphs. ;-;

NOT GONNA READ ANY OF IT! :D

 

All living things should be considered equal, and humans have no right to consider themselves more important that than anything else thats living here as well.

Just my two cents. -scurries off-

 

 

[lilshadowdweller]

I'm going to address only two of the recent things brought up:

 

You mentioned the reasons why people wear animal skin. Okay, fair enough. But we have increased technology to the point where there is no reason to wear fur. Honestly, fur isn't as warm as a good thermal jacket. Saying that we have a reason to wear animal skin, therefore we should do it...it's the same thing as saying, "My wife cheated on me, so I had a reason to kill her, so I did." No. You have alternatives.

 

Listen, I would never wear fur personal. But there are poorer colder areas in the world which cannot afford/get the alternative you're voicing. I'm not pro-fur I am merely trying to get all of you to understand that outside of your countries, people need and do different things for different reasons. Just because humans have used fur in the past does not mean we are bad.

 

Another thing I wanted to bring up: Are you aware of how much pollution those alternatives cause? You need to consider everything.

 

Again, I'm not condoning wearing animal fur. I have never worn animal fur. I know of no one who does.

 

 

 

Also, you have no way of knowing if "many animals can't empathize", because there haven't been studies on all animals. The only study conducted regarding empathy demonstrated that rats DO empathize.

 

Firstly, yes, there have been those studies. And yes, everyone has seen this report on this news. Now, are you forgetting that rats are known to kill their newborns? I'm not saying that it cannot empathize. But I also want all of you to know that just because your perceive the world has certain way doesn't mean animals do.

 

Now I understand most of you are not getting my points. Instead of focusing on my deal with why it's a bad idea to give animals "rights", you're merely poking at other issues. I have already told you that I do not condone using of animals. I've already stated that animals deserve to live in comfort.

 

You need to understand they difference between RIGHTS and WELFARE.

 

This is taken from PETA on the differences, and trust me, most of you like myself are actually for WELFARE, NOT RIGHTS.

 

PETA'S STANCE ON WHAT ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE.

 

 

Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice.

 

Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict. Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as "humane" guidelines are followed.

 

Look at those two definitions (ignore the biased remark from PETA when it comes to how animal Welfare works)

 

Do you guys eat animals? Well, according to Animal Rights - you are infringing on their RIGHTS. Do you guys ever watch television which features an animal? Like dogs? Cats? Most certainly you have. Well, again, according to PETA, that is against an animals rights. And do you guys believe experimentation is wrong? Well, like myself, you probably wish their was a better alternative, but until there is, you probably agree that animal experimentation is the better type of experimentation.

 

I'll sum it up for you:

 

Believing in Animal Rights Means That You:

 

-Believe animals are slaves to humans and that no one should be allowed to keep ANY sort of pet, including cats or dogs

 

-Believe animals cannot be used for food, which means NO EGGS, BUTTER, YOGURT, CHEESE OR MILK, OR ANY OTHER FOOD WHICH MAY HAVE ANY ANIMAL BY-PRODUCT

 

-Believe that no animals should be used for entertainment in any sort of manner, ie; NO ZOOS, NO SEA WORLD, NO MOVIES WHICH FEATURE ANIMALS AS IT MAY BE STRESSFUL AND THE ANIMAL MAY NOT WANT IT

 

-Believe that all animals should be allowed to be free in the wild and not touched, yelled at, poked at, petted, ect by humans unless hurt in which case, proper authorities should be called

 

If You Believe In Animal Welfare You Believe:

 

-Animals can be used as a source food, BUT ALL OF THE ANIMALS USED AS SUCH SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE, NOT HARMED OR ABUSED AND HAPPY.

 

-Animals can be featured in television, zoos, ect, AS LONG AS THEY ARE TREATED PROPERLY AND RESPECTFULLY

 

-Animals can be pets, AS LONG AS THE OWNER TREATS THE PET PROPERLY, KINDLY AND PROVIDES ALL THE ANIMAL NEEDS

 

If you guys do not believe me about what it means to believe animals have rights, I'll provide other sources:

 

This source is taken from AnimalWelfarecouncil.com.

 

ANIMAL WELFARE

 

Animal Welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association, is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia.

 

Animal welfare proponents seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.

Animal welfare proponents believe that humans can interact with animals in entertainment, industry, sport and recreation, and industry, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care and management for all animals involved.

Animal welfare proponents support self-regulation of animal sports, including rodeo, polo, three-day eventing, FFA competitions, horse racing, field trials and endurance riding.

Animal welfare groups utilize scientific evidence to base animal care and handling guidelines.

 

 

 

ANIMAL RIGHTS

 

Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.

 

Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation.

Animal rights proponents believe that violence, misinformation and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals.

Arson, vandalism and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the animal rights cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities to further their cause.

 

 

 

 

Again, animalwelfare like PETA IS a biased website, but I'm sure you can all determine where you stand.