Few If Any nonhuman animals should have rights

College Confidential Community
41

<p>mathmajor, do you have a side or are you just attempting to objectively poor out information? better to stand for something than to stand for nothing at all.</p>

<p>and yes society is right on its beliefs...because of precedent, we have survived and its how we operate in this world. ex: you can't do as you please, there are rules and regulations out there that govern right from wrong in order for us to survive. so if you violate them, then you are violating survival. i appreciate the objective information you inform us about but you are making it way too fluffy and are not basing it on a situation backed by precedent (i.e., survival in society with rules and why these rules are needed for us to survive).</p>

42

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually I don’t know what you mean. Are you trying to say that killing one individual cow is wrong, or that killing a cow yourself, as an individual, is wrong?</p>

<p>
[quote]

the point is, if you didn't intentionally or you yourself kill an animal then you are not held liable for its death. duh.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I paid someone to kill someone else, I would be (at least partially) responsible for his death, even though I didn’t pull the trigger myself.</p>

<p>
[quote]

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!).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dogs have been bred to have glossy coats and longer lifespans, so they’ve probably also been bred to be friendly and enjoy being with people. You don’t know that this is thought-out, it could be just blind response to a built-in desire for affection.</p>

<p>Worker bees will give their lives to protect the queen. Is this instinct, or a sign of love and loyalty? Who are you to say?</p>

<p>
[quote]

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!)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Response can be instinct. Ever heard of the knee-jerk response?</p>

<p>
[quote]

and yes society is right on its beliefs...because of precedent, we have survived and its how we operate in this world

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For centuries, societies operated on the system of slavery. Did “precedent” make that right?</p>

43

<p>i think the argument here needs to stay focused on torture/senseless killing vs. killing for useful purpose: eating, clothing, shelter. those are the only three things humans NEED, and therefore the only three things they should be able to kill other living beings for. this goes for plants as well.</p>

<p>killing just for the thirll of the hunt, or for music/artistic purposes -- no. even scientific experimentation is very debatable, because although we might find cures to some diseases using this method, it would be hard to argue that these cures are essential. more of us may not live to see 100, but our basic needs of food, clothing, shelter are still being met without us having cures to every known disease.</p>

<p>i fully admit that i am quicker to dismiss common insects -- ants, roaches, etc. -- than larger creatures. and i see the hypocrisy there. it is my belief -- and admittedly may be very, very wrong -- that because of their far simpler brains, insects likely do not have the capacity to understand <em>torture</em> the way more developed/advanced animals do (that is <em>not</em> to say they do not feel pain at all, but rather to say that it likely does not compute into a larger sense of abuse/mistreatment). however, i am quite assured that animals like cats and dogs do very much understand cruel treatment beyond the actual sensory experience of pain. and it is that <em>understanding</em> that aligns them far closer with humans than with insects.</p>

<p>my bottom line here is that i do not think killing for food, shelter or clothing is wrong and, although i couldn't bring myself to do it, that must fairly include animals most Westerners would not eat. however, i think killing for any reason other than the three stated above is wrong, and torture is most certainly wrong. as stella points out, we ARE responsible for another person's actions when we support those actions, and therefore we should ALL take a stand against abuse and other cruel practices in our slaughterhouses. this does not mean, however, that we have to give up eating animals.</p>

<p>as for the person that said law should be objective -- ha. as if anything in a human-constructed society can possibly be objective. law may be <em>idealized</em> as something that <em>can</em> be objective, but nothing shaped by human minds is objective. nothing -- including the sciences.</p>

44

<p>Non-humans don't have rights. Period.</p>

45

<p>baller, i stand for the fact that not one person is right and is entitled to their own opinion, which includes what one thinks is senseless or unnecessary may not be to another person.</p>

<p>life change, since when are animals the ONLY source for eating, clothing, and shelter. the last time i checked shelter was made from wood? stucco? bricks? the last time i checked clothing was made out of cloth and cotton and polyester. the time i checked vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts did not come from animals.</p>

<p>the point im trying to make is that stella may be right and baller may be right? who gets to decide who is right? who gets to decide whether cows can be tortured and cats cannot? we live in a medicristan society, not an extremistan one. thus, i understand that it cannot be all or nothing and that we must make judgements. but then again, where should the line be drawn? and simply, what makes you more right than the other?</p>

<p>i dont know if i make any sense. but oh well..</p>

46

<p>math, i did not say animals are the ONLY source of food, clothing, shelter -- merely that they are <em>a</em> source of these things -- and i believe when the point is to <em>respectfully</em> use them as a source of food/clothing/shelter -- without torture or other unnecessary cruel treatment -- it is reasonable and just to kill animals. please note that i <em>also</em> said i believe plants should not be senselessly destroyed any more than animals should.</p>

<p>my main point is that torture/senseless killing of any living thing is wrong, depsite the fact that i admit to having killed roaches and other insects for no other reason than i did not want to share my space with them. :) this is my hypocrisy, and i am acknowledging it.</p>

<p>i believe many native american populations had (and have) a grasp on how to kill animals respectfully and purposefully. our modern American society should really know more about the way the natives interacted and co-existed with this land and its creatures.</p>

47

<p>^I think mathmajor was trying to say that because there are other sources of food, shelter, and clothing, it isn't necessary to kill other animals to survive. Really, you're only killing them for the pleasure of eating steak or wearing leather. People are also a source of food, but unless you are starving, cannibalism is generally frowned upon.</p>

<p>
[quote]

no. even scientific experimentation is very debatable, because although we might find cures to some diseases using this method, it would be hard to argue that these cures are essential. more of us may not live to see 100, but our basic needs of food, clothing, shelter are still being met without us having cures to every known disease.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What do you mean, not essential? Diseases can be fatal. To a diabetic, insulin is a need as basic as food or shelter.</p>

48

<p>haha understood life, any my point is that who gets to decide what is respectful or not. what is unnecessary or not? what i wanted to eat cat or dog and "respectfully" (meaning quick) killed it for food purposes...</p>

<p>im just sayinnn</p>

49

<p>"I believe it's the ability to intellectualize and think rationally that separates humans from animals. What is there "beyond" intellectualization?"</p>

<p>The understanding that what we do affects everyone else.</p>

50

<p>^I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you have an intellectual, logical reason for your views, I will hear your argument. Otherwise, it's just an opinion, and you can't force your personal opinions on others.</p>

51

<p>No, I can't, and I wasn't trying to. I was stating my opinion. Is that a problem for you?</p>

52

<p>I know I'm not being clear. I find the idea that people don't see animals as having rights to be too far from my own schema, so I'm unable to make a clear argument against it. For me, it's like trying to argue against oxygen - it just IS.</p>

53

<p>^Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend you. I've just encountered too many people who don't realize that their opinions aren't fact (see post #39). As long as you're aware that it's just your opinion, I'm fine with that.</p>

54

<p>Those that support "animal rights", are you vegetarians or vegans?</p>

55

<p>"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>Am I the only one who finds this too much like the thinking of Europeans who participated in the slave trade? They considered the African slaves their property, they bought them so why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with them? They weren't considered humans, they were animals. Who cared what happened to those African animals? Why not torture them if it pleased their "owner"?</p>

56

<p>You're saying that since humans were once treated like animals, it follows that animals should be treated like humans.</p>

<p>Please think before posting.</p>