How is it that animals do not have rights just because they cannot exercise those rights? I'm just not following the logic, i.e., how you get from A to B. Are you also saying the fetuses, babies and small children do not have rights because they cannot exercise their rights? PS - I eat meat and am not a certified animal lover.
Ayuh,... I firmly believe all creatures on our planet have rights,... All creatures have the natural right to eat those below it in the food chain.... Because it's naturally, Nature...
Who determines the food chain? And rape is also natural. Is it ok if someone rapes you or your loved ones? Or just random people? It's natural, therefore, morally correct, right?
Ayuh,.... as I already stated, Nature.... Rape is not the topic of this discussion, now is it,..?? Whether it's Natural is another debate, Entirely... Where 'bouts does this supposedly go on, in nature, naturally,..??
If you cannot comprehend the concept much less exercise a right, how can you have a right? Your well being (best interest) becomes the responsibility of a steward.
Well that's Florida..... Its such a transient ppulation that they see to have little regard for foster children or abandoned pets... but they can sure rant and rave about religion.
So, did you ask nature where we're at on the food chain? Or if we're allowed to eat our own? And why does it make it right if it's found in nature? It's called an analogy. Hear of them? Your argument is that it's natural, and therefore, acceptable. Rape is natural, so by your argument, it must also be acceptable. Uh, in humans? First, you argue based on nature, which would mean we're a part of nature, and then, you ignore the fact that we're part of nature when it comes to rape. And dolphins will rape each other. http://scienceray.com/biology/marine-biology/not-so-cute-dolphin-gang-rape/ Elephants raping Rhinos http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/m...d=1&ei=5070&en=ccc63627f454863c&ex=1167282000 I've read about monkeys, beatles, spiders, etc also doing it. And if you're so concerned with nature in terms of morality, please tell me what's natural about the animals that have been bred into freakishly unnatural creatures that can't survive on their own, or even walk. Creatures who are pumped full of unnatural things, fed unnatural diets, kept in an unnatural environment, and once killed, preserved with unnatural ingredients?
Nature has a way of re-inforcing itself. For most of evolution, it took a lot of courage to kill a wild animal. Eating meat re-inforces that courage. The fact that we can now buy meat and not risk our lives to get it doesn't change the courage-creating instinct embedded in our DNA. This vegan and animal rights fad is a scheme by the ruling class to turn us all into cowards. It is the only way they can continue to safely dominate and demoralize us. It was a necessary part of the caste system in India, which never would have been allowed if it had been imposed on manly beefeaters.
I agree with you on most of your post Prometheus, with the exception of the part about no longer having to risk our lives. For most of society, that is true. Those of us who work with livestock do risk our lives on occasion. There are ranchers who risk their lives to make sure their livestock is safe. I personally have almost been killed twice by cattle while trying to load them on a truck. A 700 lb calf that has just come off grass can be a very dangerous animal when in the confines of a cattle pot. And not because of my actions, but simply because it is unfamiliar to them. I have been chased out of a trailer and down a loading chute by a 2000 lb bull, only saving myself by using the chute sides like a set of parallel bars and lifting myself out of his path. And at 50, I'm getting a little old for stunts like that. I have been knocked down by 400 lb sows, stepped on by calves and slammed into the side of the trailer wall by fat cattle when they pushed the gate I was behind into me. And even after you get them loaded, the risks do not end. Livestock moves around. A cattle pot is extremely top heavy. turns and curves have to be taken very carefully, otherwise you will roll the unit. You have to learn how to use centrifugal force to your advantage. he best method is to slow down before a curve, then take it low, accelerate thru the curve and let the truck "washout' to the outside. Racers call it apexing.
Why did you suggest that other animals have no rights? Why is it that you can just make bold claims about the rights of other animals, but expect some sort of explanation when someone says it about humans?
nature determines the food chain, if you can eat it, instead of it eating you... the place has already been assigned. And if you want perspective on this... Us, like most other animals, do not tend to eat their own. However, if push came to shove, cannibalism isn't beyond an animal. And if it was just you and me ... and we were starving... You had better not be the one that falls asleep first... just saying. Rape is wrong because of the huge violation in liberty that one person places upon another. to liken this to animal rights would say that having a pet is akin to rape because of the huge limiting mitigation you put on the liberty of the animal. The concept of liberty, while it's application can be seen as having an effect on members of the animal community, is uniquely human. And our value of it is uniquely human. On the issue of cruel and unusual treatment, I believe that nobody should be allowed to make another creature suffer. But I find that even those who are huge advocates for animals aren't always scanning the ground to make sure they don't step on an Ant.
The lion does not care about your rights. To suggest that we need to care for another species in the way that we care for our own is absurd. You can argue all day about how we are no more than animals, and i'll agree with you. But that doesn't translate to them being one of us. If it tastes good, i'll eat it. But I don't go killing people for food, because we're both human. There is a line there between being cruel to animals and assuming they have human rights.
Why didn't you answer my question? I will answer your question because I am able to act in good faith. I reject anthropomorphism, and that is what you are engaging in.
I'm not sure how this is an argument against cannibalism when you just admitted it isn't beyond us. But your argument for eating other species is that it's natural. It's also natural to rape, so is nature really an argument for eating other species? What? Many pets WANT to be pets. Dogs and humans developed a bound thousands of years ago. Many animals are cared for because they can't survive on their own very well. I'm not sure how forcing sex on someone relates to caring for an animal. According to who? You? You're just making things up. Obviously, other animals understand liberty and value it, because we can measure their behavior and stress hormones when they are held captive, so you're wrong. I'd say some animals understand and value liberty more than infants and the mentally handicapped, so I guess we can cage and eat them, right? And this isn't just about liberty - it's about other forms of cruelty. This is a red herring. the validity of this statement is irrelevant to whether or not people should eat animals. And ants don't have the same consciousness as animals, but I still don't go around stepping on ants on purpose. Also, I could say that murder is ok because people who are against it don't usually abstain from using fossil fuels which contribute to tens of thousands of human deaths every year. And you contradicted yourself. You've been arguing for factory farming and eating animals, which involves cruelty, but then, you turn around and say you don't believe anyone should be allowed to make people suffer. This whole thing is a really weak and inconsistent argument. And really, why is nature even an argument? There's nothing natural about factory farms; there's nothing natural about people living in buildings manufactured out of synthetic materials. Almost nothing in your life is natural. Do you really care. No, and why should you? And others do not care about your rights. Why should they? Why should they care that you're human? Cannibals don't.
Why didn't you answer mine? You're not giving any reason why you have rights and other animals don't, so why should give any reason why you don't have rights? How do you not get this? You make bold claims and don't justify them, and then are confused when someone else response by making bold claims and then doesn't justify them. You didn't answer my question. Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human characteristics to animals. I have done no such thing. Emotions are not unique to humans. Pain is not unique to humans.
Depends on the society. If a society determines that a horse has a right to vote, register him. There is nothing creator-endowed or unalienable about it.
Like all things, there are exceptions to everything. For instance, it is not right to kill another human being, yet there are exceptions. After much study Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion that all life is sacred, yet he even recognized that you have to take life under certain circumstances. To defend your own life, your family, and to eat. The taking of life should be carefully evaluated but it sometimes is necessary to kill. The idea that you can live without eating meat is relatively recent and only because we can provide enough variety of foods to deliver complete proteins. Only the developed nations are really capable of that. Eating grain is also a relatively recent development in human diet and since we are not really designed to eat grains we have developed a whole range of illnesses that are caused by foods that are not natural for us to eat. Refrigeration is even newer and because of it we consume a lot of other products we are not built to eat like milk which causes a whole other set of digestive problems for many people. In effect, if you eat normally, that is eating natural foods and meat, you are eating what you were designed to eat and are doing nothing wrong. God gave us nature so there can be no wrong in it. Some ancient cultures would give thanks to their god/gods for the "gift" of food from animals. That just recognizes the life that was taken to sustain another so it is important to recognize and respect the gift of food at every meal, something that most religions teach and stems from our ancient origins.
You can't prove god, so that argument is out. None of us in this forum are writing from third world nations, so that excuse is out, not that it even makes sense, since animal products are more expensive than most food. Unless we're talking about tribes that hunt animals, buying animal products or producing them is rather expensive and/or labor intensive. Do you know how much more resources are used for farming animals? You say there are exceptions for everything, but you seem to be making that argument based on seemingly desperate scenarios (which don't all accurately call for animal product options). Since you live in a first world nation and can easily access information and food products that are not animal-based, then what is the argument? btw, here's an interesting article, where scientists say the world may need to switch to a vegetarian diet with increasing food demands. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism
