<p>I stand against most animal rights. If I buy a dog, it's my property and I should be able to use its screams and whimpers as samples for an electronic instrument (ie I should be able to beat it and record the variations of sounds). Not wanting to waste money, it could then be used in a compost heap, as a decoration, or we could gradually replace its unnecessary parts with duds until we have a living core with which to attach our own appendages and play games. Animal rights tend to impede such imaginative uses of living things.</p>
<p>Also, it would pragmatic for a given community to offer protections to special animals that generate revenue or serve the populace, but I still think that if I raise an animal without outside help I should be able to do with it that which I want to do.</p>
<p>Of course, in polite society we tend to extend our goodwill for the owner unto his or her property. I'm not contesting this.</p>
<p>Remark: I've posted this on other forums/fora before. It breaks the "party lines", and it would be nice to see that here. Let us please keep this thread independent.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what you're saying but i've eaten a dog before.... It's tasty!!!! And good for you from what I hear. I think all animals less than humans should be fair game for food. I do, however, disagree with torturing animals just because it's rather unnecessary and doesn't really serve a purpose. If you're going to kill the animal eat it, make clothing, or test vaccines or antibiotics on it or something. Don't just let it die in vain</p>
<p>The way I see it, if something like in the movie Hostel is actually happening to you, well you have got to be dumb and well probably deserve it. Even though i find it horrifying. I mean come on. Humans have a lot more control over their destiny's than other animals. Go watch some peta videos of animals getting skinned alive. If you think that is ok or funny, I don't even know what to say. </p>
<p>Leave the poor dogs and other animals alone. Go get a bear or tiger, cougar and try your ways with it.</p>
<p>I tend to think the folks at peta are a tad crazy but they have good points. What is the point of treating a animal badly. Its like in slaughter houses, those animals are providing the majority of humans life. The least you can do to them is show them the respect they deserve. Instead we give them horrible living conditions and abuse them. </p>
<p>The reason I buy organic + free range products when possible. The extra price is worth it to me. I also love farmers markets and things of that nature, when you actually know the butcher or farmer is doing a good job because its their livelihood.</p>
[quote]
I do, however, disagree with torturing animals just because it's rather unnecessary and doesn't really serve a purpose. If you're going to kill the animal eat it, make clothing, or test vaccines or antibiotics on it or something.
[/quote]
I'm in concord. However, I would add that while I think it is usually egregiously unjustified to torture animals, I also think the principle of being reasonable with the animals does not deserve to be enshrined in the law.
Asking for the liberty to decide who has sex with your nonhuman animal is not the same as wanting someone to have sex with it.</p>
<p>From #13
[quote]
That's pure sadism, and not a very good characteristic in anyone.
[/quote]
Is everyone really so sidetracked by the examples in my first post? Thanks for your opinion; actually I agree with your whole post sans "pure". Again, the law does not require us to be good people, although I myself don't like meanieness. I don't think the whole world should be legally held to being as good a person as me. I suppose my example was a little dramatic.</p>
<p>From #4
[quote]
I hold animal rights higher than human rights.
[/quote]
1- Which rights would you like animals to have?
2- (If you differentiate by species) How do you determine which animals get which rights?</p>
<p>From #7
[quote]
Is the OP saying what I think he's saying?
[/quote]
Well I'd like to discuss the actual rights and exceptions as opposed to just slapping an absolute on it all. However, some ideas can be nearly unequivocally gleaned from Post #1.</p>
<p>From #11
[quote]
Leave the poor dogs and other animals alone. Go get a bear or tiger, cougar and try your ways with it.
[/quote]
Merely that I suppose something doesn't mean I like it. "Your ways" is ad hominem and incorrect in a strawman sense. No offense taken; none implied (I assume goodwill).</p>
<p>Perhaps you've misunderstood my original post. I have bolded some of the text in
Post #1
[quote]
I stand against most animal rights. ** If I buy ** a dog, ** it's my property ** and ** I should be able to ** use its screams and whimpers as samples for an electronic instrument (ie I should be able to beat it and record the variations of sounds). ** Not wanting to waste ** money, it could then be used in a compost heap, as a decoration, or we could gradually replace its unnecessary parts with duds until we have a living core with which to attach our own appendages and play games. ** Animal rights tend to impede such imaginative uses of living things. **</p>
<p>** Also, it would pragmatic for a given community to offer protections to special animals that generate revenue or serve the populace, but I still think that if I raise an animal without outside help I should be able to do with it that which I want to do. **
**
Of course, in polite society we tend to extend our goodwill for the owner unto his or her property. I'm not contesting this.
**
Remark: I've posted this on other forums/fora before. It breaks the "party lines", and it would be nice to see that here. Let us please keep this thread independent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm saying these things should be within the rights of the owner. That does not mean I condone them. The Law of a State is not the morality of its citizens, and such a denigration of owners' rights (just in case, in fact, you completely understood my post and then proceeded with namecalling and/or hyperbolic characterization) is akin to having the owner of a plant unauthorized to cut down or mutilate said plant.</p>
<p>"I'm in concord. However, I would add that while I think it is usually egregiously unjustified to torture animals, I also think the principle of being reasonable with the animals does not deserve to be enshrined in the law.
Asking for the liberty to decide who has sex with your nonhuman animal is not the same as wanting someone to have sex with it."</p>
<p>Ooohhh ok now I understand what you're talking about geeknerd. In terms of the purpose of the law I actually agree with you too. Using your rather unique example, if someone derives pleasure from having sex with an animal let em be. As long as that guy's not hurting other people and that animal is his own pet. If you think about it it's really no different from people who enjoy watching porn. Our government allows adults to do that. I do hate how some people think "morality" should be part of the law. Morality is a rather subjective thing on most issues and does not belong in law-which should be objective.</p>
<p>"Leave the poor dogs and other animals alone. Go get a bear or tiger, cougar and try your ways with it."</p>
<p>This poses another question. I've had this argument with many people on banning the consumption of dog meat in Korea. What gives a dog or a cat more rights than say a cow or chicken? Why do we have no problems slaughtering cows and chickens yet dogs get this "privelage" of not being eaten? Seems rather hypocritical to me.</p>
<p>extremely hypocritical... there is actually no reason why a cat or dog or hamster should have more rights than those of a bear or a moose or a deer? and dont say a bear, a moose, or a deer have better ways of defending themselves cause thats bull. in the end if a human wanted to kill a deer it can.</p>
"Leave the poor dogs and other animals alone. Go get a bear or tiger, cougar and try your ways with it."</p>
<p>This poses another question. I've had this argument with many people on banning the consumption of dog meat in Korea. What gives a dog or a cat more rights than say a cow or chicken? Why do we have no problems slaughtering cows and chickens yet dogs get this "privelage" of not being eaten? Seems rather hypocritical to me.
dungja is offline<br>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Im talking about abuse and torture for no good reason. Making music or art is not a good reason.</p>