<p>^ Then you get into the problem of what a "good reason" is. I'm sure I could find people who think that personal gratification is a perfectly fine justification for torturing animals.</p>
<p>Can a little kid be arrested for burning ants to death with a magnifying glass?</p>
<p>just because you buy a dog doesn't mean you own it. It's a living thing. The person who sold it to you doesn't really own it either. You just bought the right to keep him and play with him.</p>
<p>Geeknerd, I agree with you in that government should not legislate morality concerning victimless crimes upon its citizens. However, torturing animals is most definitely not a victimless crime. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, but there is a difference between wanton torture and humane killing. There is definitely an irrational set-up in our culture that it's OK to provide a cow with a quick death (actually, the slaughtering is most often not quick or humane, but many prefer to ignore it) and eat it for dinner, but it's not OK to provide a dog or cat with a humane death and eat it. A lot of people can't get past the cuteness factor to assess the issue rationally. With animals that arguably don't possess a basic degree of self-consciousness and sense of themselves having a distinct past and future, there's no reason that killing them as quickly and as painlessly as possible should be a moral issue.</p>
<p>However, there is evidence to support granting basic rights (right to life and protection of individual liberty) to nonhuman animals like great apes and cetaceans. Great apes and cetaceans possess an appreciable level of intelligence. They live in groups and and seem to mourn the loss of a member. Great apes, in particular, seem to possess a degree of rationality and self-consciousness and to have an awareness of themselves as a distinct entity with a past and future. We haven't been able to perform similar studies on cetaceans because of difficulties inherent in such studies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can a little kid be arrested for burning ants to death with a magnifying glass?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drawing the line between animals who warrant protection and animals who don't is inevitably arbitrary. Currently we have the line drawn separating humans from nonhuman animals. There is good evidence coming from across the animal kingdom that this line should be redrawn. As a species that prides itself upon its civility and ability to empathize, we should err on the side of overprotection.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we can do those things to animals, we should be able to do them to other humans. I hold animal rights higher than human rights.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What the hell? Would you rather test vaccines on lab rats or your own children?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Plants provide both human and animal life, and are even more helpless. Do they deserve respect and four-star hotels?</p>
<p>The</a> Silent Scream of the Asparagus</p>
<p>I think they do with the Swiss :D</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>In this case, not interfering on behalf of the animal is condoning the practice, in my opinion. You are viewing these animals as unfeeling objects, but in reality they are victims of a crime when abused. I understand the intellectual reasoning behind your argument, but you appear to lack the ability to see the situation beyond that intellectualization of it - which is maybe what separates us from animals. So maybe you shouldn't have rights, either?</p>
<p>I'm assuming the OP is not serious.</p>
<p>If I microwave a cat, though it's not exactly homicide, it is destroying another living thing with feelings. I don't think that should be legal. In fact, that crime should carry a pretty heavy sentence.</p>
<p>^If I step on an ant, it's destroying another living thing with feelings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand the intellectual reasoning behind your argument, but you appear to lack the ability to see the situation beyond that intellectualization of it - which is maybe what separates us from animals. So maybe you shouldn't have rights, either?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe it's the ability to intellectualize and think rationally that separates humans from animals. What is there "beyond" intellectualization?</p>
<p>GeekNerd, your logic just bounces off half these idiots. Don't bother wasting your time.</p>
<p>what are you talking about geeknerd. animals are living beings with feelings. plants are living too but they don't have hearts or brains like animals. i'm guessing this post was a joke to garner attention and it probably is, but if you're serious, then you are in need of help. plus don't you believe in karma. if you do such acts your karma meter will destroy you back. animals have rights because they are helpless and the ONUS IS ON US TO PROTECT THEM. the same can be said of future aliens if they view us inferior. they have an onus to protect us if we become their subjects 50,000 years from now.</p>
<p>baller4lyfe,
obviously you couldnt follow geeknerd's attempt to reason. and dont insects have brains? are you vegan, cause based on your reasoning you should be. i mean cows and chicken and pigs have feelings. whens the last time you had meat? fish?</p>
<p>mathmajor, i knew without a doubt that you or someone else was going to bring up insects or ants. the first part you're right. i thought he was serious but now i see it was devil's advocate.</p>
<p>i had meat and fish throughout my life, so? now you're saying how dare you eat that you are torturing the animal. it's dead. it was killed for us to survive on. the question is though does that cow have rights so why was it killed? these are two different subjects. if we as a species couldn't ever eat meat or chicken or fish we would probably die out. so its necessary for us. however, i am talking about individual responsibility, and what you mention above is taking my issue out of context and broadening it to the point of expanded argumentation to establish something beyond the norm. i meant INDIVIDUALLY killing something a mammal or what have you for the benefit of your own ill-gotten gains. so don't say that i am guilty for eating dead meat (firstly, i never killed it) as it's my fault because it is not.<br>
second, i meant this in the context of pets. dogs, cats, the usual common animals. cows, lions, chicken, and so on are not really pets but animals. this is a COLLECTIVE responsibility of society and not individualistic. </p>
<p>insects have brains. they have instinct. that's it. they can't feel anything or have hidden feelings like our dogs and cats do. and this is what i'm talking about.</p>
<p>cows chicken and pigs are killed for us to survive on. was that my fault or yours? no, it is society's for the way it has ingrained it on us since the beginning of time. however, at BEST we have evolved from that and can now adopt dogs cats at least to show that we at least have sympathy for animals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
plus don't you believe in karma. if you do such acts your karma meter will destroy you back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe in karma. So what?</p>
<p>
[quote]
so don't say that i am guilty for eating dead meat (firstly, i never killed it) as it's my fault because it is not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the worst argument ever. "I don't kill animals, I just support an industry that makes a profit solely from their slaughter." Is Hitler innocent because he didn't personally drive Jews into the gas chambers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
i meant INDIVIDUALLY killing something a mammal or what have you for the benefit of your own ill-gotten gains.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are you saying that slaughtering a whole herd of cows is okay, but killing just one would be wrong? Or are you saying that it's okay for corporations to live off the slaughter of animals, but it's wrong for an individual to kill one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
second, i meant this in the context of pets. dogs, cats, the usual common animals. cows, lions, chicken, and so on are not really pets but animals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's the distinction between pets and animals? Only the whim of society. In Korea, dogs are not pets but food - it's just a cultural difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
insects have brains. they have instinct. that's it. they can't feel anything or have hidden feelings like our dogs and cats do. and this is what i'm talking about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you know that? Don't say that you "know" your dog loves you and wants to please you, maybe if you observed an ant as closely as you do your dog, you would observe similar behaviors. And how do you know the "hidden feelings" of cats and dogs are anything more than instinct or selectively-bred characteristics?</p>
<p>There's a difference between slaughtering cows for food and slaughtering a dog for twisted pleasure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a difference between slaughtering cows for food and slaughtering a dog for twisted pleasure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For once in my life, I agree with pugfug.</p>
<p>^Oh yeah? Consumption of the flesh could be considered a "twisted pleasure" - one that's been made socially acceptable through centuries of practice. Don't tell me it's necessary for survival, I've lived sixteen years without red meat. And if you don't torture it first, does it really make a difference to the animal? It doesn't know if its remains will be used for food or not.</p>
<p>seriously, it is not up to you to decide what is pleasure or not. stellanova has it right. are you more right than your neighbor? who says so? who knows what is right or what is wrong. society has its own perceived notion for what it BELIEVES is right or wrong. but is society right on its beliefs? vegans believe that consumption of flesh is "twisted" and "unnecessary", and as much as i love red meat, it is not necessary for survival. vegans live. so do vegetarians.</p>
<p>and playing devil's advocate... these cows, pigs, and chickens ARE tortured... why are you not out to get them ballerr?</p>
<p>There are two sides to the story. Showing ups and downs for those who eat meat vs those who don't.</p>
<p>Only humans who agree with me should have rights.</p>
<p>^^^
This view is not as uncommon as you'd think.</p>
<p>Stella, you know what i mean by individual act, and when you question me saying killing a herd of cows is okay as opposed to one you are skirting the issue. the point is, if you didn't intentionally or you yourself kill an animal then you are not held liable for its death. duh.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know that? Don't say that you "know" your dog loves you and wants to please you, maybe if you observed an ant as closely as you do your dog, you would observe similar behaviors. And how do you know the "hidden feelings" of cats and dogs are anything more than instinct or selectively-bred characteristics?
[/quote]
LoL! what are you talking about?! I did NOT just read that. more than instinct? firstly, i don't have a dog, so don't assume. second, even on cnn they had an animal special night that showed dogs crying and scratching the doors when they inadvertently partook in an experiment that tested to see how they would react when their masters were gone for 1+ days via videocam. this is the stupidest comment ever because its not that hard to understand that this is not mere 'instinct' but rather purpsoeful and thought-out action through the dog that processes this information in its mind and reacts to it. my uncles dog does things JUST like any human, an american eskimo, a very smart breed (laughs; smiles; frowns; forces you to pet it because after i stopped petting it extended its arm out and kept scratching my arm until i continued!). this is not instinct, but RESPONSE! INSTINCT is if a duck is walking and is unknowingly "boo!'ed" at when coming out of his pond to relax as it flies away!)</p>
<p>hitler...did he individually kill anyone? no, his disciples did, like charles manson. yet hitler is viewed more evil than those unknown people who actually did the killing, right? so WE humans are more evil for eating the dead meat than the slaughterer, right?</p>