Animal Rights fraggles hit a new low.

[Haller]

It shouldn't need saying, but I'll say it anyway.

Not all people who believe that animals should have rights are as bad as the ones mentioned here. I beleive that animals should have rights. But I don't see anything justifying the behaviour of those in the opening post. Nor do I think that we should stop lions etc from pursuing their natural diet ( just that they shouldn't eat it )

What rights can animals have? I really can't see.

I can see that human beings might choose to change or even limit our behaviour towards animals, but that's to do with us, not a right that can be vested in animals, since it wouldn't apply to the behaviour of any other species except humanity.

 

[Rune]

What rights can animals have? I really can't see.

What about the right to be able to lead their own lives?

I can see that human beings might choose to change or even limit our behaviour towards animals, but that's to do with us, not a right that can be vested in animals, since it wouldn't apply to the behaviour of any other species except humanity.

You mean that we can't expect animals to respect the rights of other animals? If so, that is true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

 

[WouldBe]

What rights can animals have? I really can't see.

The right to vote.

The right to drive.

 

[revol68]

What about the right to be able to lead their own lives?


You mean that we can't expect animals to respect the rights of other animals? If so, that is true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

Aren't human's animals too?

I mean why does a lion have a right to eat meat and I don't?

Any argument for humans to not eat meat etc will have to be grounded in ethics and as far as i'm aware that is pretty much a human only subject, or have they given Nim Chimsky an honourary degree in Ethics at MIT?

As it is I believe in extending protection to great apes and dolphins, but not on the tautolgy of rights, but because they are self conscious creatures, they experiance pain and suffering in a way much more meaningful than an ant or duck.

Now i'm also opposed to factory farming (for numerous reasons) and am against inflicting unnecessary suffering. But I do not think that the quick humane killing of a cow causes much suffering, afterall the cow does not die in with unfufilled dreams of buggering the Milk maid, nor are it's relatives in deep mourning.
Any debate on ethical behaviour to animals will always be anthrocentric, it is unavoidable. To talk about animal rights is nonsene and even more idiotic is the concept of "animal liberation". Liberation is an act of self emancipation, the best we can aim for is "animal welfare". because we cna not avoid interacting with animals, we can not pull out and "leave them to live their own lives" (what a ridiculous concept even in human terms), we will always impact on them, and likewise they impact on other animals.

 

[scott_forester]

'4000 people died in Iraq this week'

'Yeah, but think of the suffering of the animals out there'

LOL classic

 

[WouldBe]

IF AR types want lions be veggie how do the lions get to the supermarket?

or is the plan to give them a spade and teach them how to grow soya beans

 

[Rune]

Aren't human's animals too?

I mean why does a lion have a right to eat meat and I don't?

The main reason being that lions need to, we don't.

As it is I believe in extending protection to great apes and dolphins, but not on the tautolgy of rights, but because they are self conscious creatures, they experiance pain and suffering in a way much more meaningful than an ant or duck.

I would argue that any animals that are self-conscious should have the protection that we afford to humans. I accept that the further down the animal chain you go, the harder it is to determine self-consciousness.

Now i'm also opposed to factory farming (for numerous reasons) and am against inflicting unnecessary suffering. But I do not think that the quick humane killing of a cow causes much suffering, afterall the cow does not die in with unfufilled dreams of buggering the Milk maid, nor are it's relatives in deep mourning.

I'm not talking about the method of killing, rather the fact that the killing is done at all.

To talk about animal rights is nonsene and even more idiotic is the concept of "animal liberation".[/QUOTE=revol68]
When I was younger, the terms animal rights and animal liberation were synonymous(?sp). I certainly didn't have the idea that animals should have their own state.

because we cna not avoid interacting with animals, we can not pull out and "leave them to live their own lives" (what a ridiculous concept even in human terms), we will always impact on them, and likewise they impact on other animals.

True, we will always impact on animals' lives. Just as we impact on the lives of other humans. Why can't we aim to have the same level of impact? We allow most humans to live their own lives after all.

 

[Rune]

IF AR types want lions be veggie how do the lions get to the supermarket?

or is the plan to give them a spade and teach them how to grow soya beans

I'll assume that this is a serious question.I don't want lions to be veggie.

 

[Rune]

A vague relative of mine was one - she used to get upset watching Attenboro progs - you know the standard lion east antelope scene.

I don't see your point. So what that she's an AR "loon"? Lots of people who aren't also get upset at these sort of scenes.

 

[mutley]

It shouldn't need saying, but I'll say it anyway.

Not all people who believe that animals should have rights are as bad as the ones mentioned here. I beleive that animals should have rights. But I don't see anything justifying the behaviour of those in the opening post. Nor do I think that we should stop lions etc from pursuing their natural diet ( just that they shouldn't eat it )

The very statement 'I believe animals should have rights' shows the confusion.

Either animals have rights, in which case it doesn't matter what you believe, or animals don't have rights, in which case ditto.

What you are saying seems to be that you think that people should act as if animals have rights. The animals won't, they will still act from instinct, and eat each other. So 'animal rights' are just something that we, the humans, award to the animals once ppl like Rune have convinced enough of the rest of us. It won't make any difference to how the universe works, it's just a self-imposed restriction that affects the humans.

It's totally incoherent as an idea.

 

[mutley]

Aren't human's animals too?

I mean why does a lion have a right to eat meat and I don't?

Any argument for humans to not eat meat etc will have to be grounded in ethics and as far as i'm aware that is pretty much a human only subject, or have they given Nim Chimsky an honourary degree in Ethics at MIT?

As it is I believe in extending protection to great apes and dolphins, but not on the tautolgy of rights, but because they are self conscious creatures, they experiance pain and suffering in a way much more meaningful than an ant or duck.

Now i'm also opposed to factory farming (for numerous reasons) and am against inflicting unnecessary suffering. But I do not think that the quick humane killing of a cow causes much suffering, afterall the cow does not die in with unfufilled dreams of buggering the Milk maid, nor are it's relatives in deep mourning.
Any debate on ethical behaviour to animals will always be anthrocentric, it is unavoidable. To talk about animal rights is nonsene and even more idiotic is the concept of "animal liberation". Liberation is an act of self emancipation, the best we can aim for is "animal welfare". because we cna not avoid interacting with animals, we can not pull out and "leave them to live their own lives" (what a ridiculous concept even in human terms), we will always impact on them, and likewise they impact on other animals.

I agree with all of this, except that it's impossible for a cow to bugger a milk-maid. If a cow did have such longings it is clearly suffering from some form of gender confusion. A bull is a different matter of course..

This raises the important question - if animals have rights does that include the right to a sex-change? I'm concerned that cows may in fact be dying with unfulfilled (and unfulfillable) maid-centred sexual urges. It's not fair.

 

[Rune]

The very statement 'I believe animals should have rights' shows the confusion.

Either animals have rights, in which case it doesn't matter what you believe, or animals don't have rights, in which case ditto.

What you are saying seems to be that you think that people should act as if animals have rights. The animals won't, they will still act from instinct, and eat each other. So 'animal rights' are just something that we, the humans, award to the animals once ppl like Rune have convinced enough of the rest of us. It won't make any difference to how the universe works, it's just a self-imposed restriction that affects the humans.

It's totally incoherent as an idea.

I think you know only too well what I meant in my statement. I'll make it easier.
I believe that animals have rights.
I believe that humans should respect those rights.
I don't believe that humans do.

( And before anyone picks me up on it again, by animals I mean non-human animals. For the simplicity of arguement.)

Are rights always there, or are they awarded at some point? I don't know. There was/still is a time when women argued for equal rights. Did they have those rights that weren't recognised or did they want others to behave as if they had those rights?

 

[Rune]

I'm concerned that cows may in fact be dying with unfulfilled (and unfulfillable) maid-centred sexual urges. It's not fair.

Your concern for the mis-gendered cow is laudable. Surely modern medicine could help provide some help here. Of course the urges may be unfullfilled still. The milkmaid may not have the same sexual tastes as the cow/bull.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Test on the fuckers who do this stuff.

They probably wouldn't be as much fun to shoot as rabbits, but they'd be excellent to test on.

 

[munkeeunit]

The only action they got right of late, IMO, was the release of those boar. That it seems that wild boar now seem to have been reintroduced to our landscape is fantastic

The problem is that there is no strategy. When they released the mink, we just had thousands of mink randomly tearing there way through the countryside. When they released the deer, me and about 20 people had road kill venison for our christmas lunch.

If a strategy existed beyond just randomly releasing things without consideration for the animals or the consequences, or beyond outdoing each other in utterly crass anti-humanism, I'd give it more support.

As it stands the realease of wild boar was an exception to a generally brainless rule.

 

[Rune]

If a strategy existed beyond just randomly releasing things without consideration for the animals or the consequences, or beyond outdoing each other in utterly crass anti-humanism, I'd give it more support.

Seems you're using this as an excuse rather than a reason for not supporting the concept of animal rights. I support the belief, but can disagree about some of the tactics used to acheive that aim.

 

[munkeeunit]

Seems you're using this as an excuse rather than a reason for not supporting the concept of animal rights. I support the belief, but can disagree about some of the tactics used to acheive that aim.

No, I'm opposed to anti-humamism of the most crass variety wherever it surfaces. Animal rights does not have to mean anti-humanism.

If it does mean anti-humanism, as seems to now to be the case. I am opposed to that, and all it's potential consequences.

 

[Rune]

No, I'm opposed to anti-humamism of the most crass variety wherever it surfaces. Animal rights does not have to mean anti-humanism.

If it does mean anti-humanism, as seems to now to be the case. I am opposed to that, and all it's potential consequences.

Unfortunatly some AR people are, at least seem to be, anti-human. Such a stance is a little bizzarre, because they themselves are human which means that they are anti-themselves.Just as some feminists are or seem to be anti-men. That doesn't lessen the value of women's rights.


e2a; the bit about anti-themselves.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Unfortunatly some AR people are, at least seem to be, anti-human. Just as some feminists are or seem to be anti-men. That doesn't lessen the value of women's rights.

You're comparing women with animals?

You sick twat.

(the serious point here is that the fact that you see similarities in those two movements exposes to normal people the lunacy of you idiots).

 

[munkeeunit]

Unfortunatly some AR people are, at least seem to be, anti-human. Just as some feminists are or seem to be anti-men. That doesn't lessen the value of women's rights.

The consequence of Women's rights does not mean that humans generally would be relegated to a primtivist condition, as many animal rights activists seem to want. That does lessen the cause of animal rights.

 

[peppery]

The stupidity of the fringe is quite interesting though. The best hope of their campaign rests on winning the hearts and minds of the public, but they seem totally oblivious to this. Are they just in it for the aggro?

 

[munkeeunit]

The stupidity of the fringe is quite interesting though. The best hope of their campaign rests on winning the hearts and minds of the public, but they seem totally oblivious to this. Are they just in it for the aggro?

I can always admire an ideologue, but not ones who consider humanity to be a virus in need of an anti-human cure.

 

[Rune]

You're comparing women with animals?

You sick twat.

(the serious point here is that the fact that you see similarities in those two movements exposes to normal people the lunacy of you idiots).

Didn't take to long for the insults to start did it? Never mind.
No, I'm not comparing the two issues if you read what I wrote. What I said was that just because some ARs are anti-people doesn't lessen the arguement. Just that in any movement you'll get extremes.

 

[mauvais]

Unfortunatly some AR people are, at least seem to be, anti-human. Such a stance is a little bizzarre, because they themselves are human which means that they are anti-themselves.Just as some feminists are or seem to be anti-men. That doesn't lessen the value of women's rights.

I haven't been paying so much attention recently, but as I understand it, women are still - on the whole - not men.

 

[Rune]

The consequence of Women's rights does not mean that humans generally would be relegated to a primtivist condition,

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you expand please?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Unfortunatly some AR people are, at least seem to be, anti-human. Such a stance is a little bizzarre, because they themselves are human which means that they are anti-themselves.Just as some feminists are or seem to be anti-men. That doesn't lessen the value of women's rights.


e2a; the bit about anti-themselves.

This isn't comparing the two issues?

 

[Rune]

The stupidity of the fringe is quite interesting though. The best hope of their campaign rests on winning the hearts and minds of the public, but they seem totally oblivious to this. Are they just in it for the aggro?

In some cases there a measure of kudos to be attained. They look good in the eyes of their immiediate circle.

I can always admire an ideologue, but not ones who consider humanity to be a virus in need of an anti-human cure.

Unfortunatly these people will always be with us. There are those who think the planet would be better off without humanity because of all the destruction that humanity is doing to it.

 

[Rune]

This isn't comparing the two issues?

No, its comparing some of the people involved in the two issues.

 

[munkeeunit]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you expand please?

Those within animal rights (and environmentalism in general) who believe a solution to the planets problems is a mass die of off humanity.

We are already on the verge of a condition where if things now go wrong, billions of people will possibly die in the coming decades. The solution to me, is to find a solution to scarcity, something which in places like China, for instance, is the driving force behind their chronic abuse of animals on a massive scale (with culture compounding that).

A promoted mass die off would be a solution in the 'final solution' sense of the word.

A sentiment to be avoided, rejected, and opposed.

 

[Rune]

Those within animal rights (and environmentalism in general) who believe a solution to the planets problems is a mass die of off humanity.

We are already on the verge of a condition where if things now go wrong, billions of people will possibly die in the coming decades. The solution to me, is to find a solution to scarcity, something which in places like China, for instance, is the driving force behind their chronic abuse of animals on a massive scale (with culture compounding that).

A promoted mass die off would be a solution in the 'final solution' sense of the word.

A sentiment to be avoided, rejected, and opposed.

Gotcha. What I said here then? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4973565&postcount=57