What's Your View on Animal Rights?

[Nimcha]

I think animal rights are taken care of well enough in the civilised world by now.

A two week old human foetus has more rights than an adult chimpanzee... Think about that for a while...

That's what I meant by "well enough".

 

[Del-Toro]

Ha hahahahaha... oh wait, that's right, it's a real movement that people have dedicated their lives to. Let me laugh harder.

The animal rights movement's dependance on emotional appeals makes me hate them with a raging passion. While that's not unique to the animal rights movement they did release literature helpfully informing children that their parents are blood crazed murderers and that meat farms are on the same moral plane as the holocaust. Plus there's all the arson, as well as the splashing of blood or red dye or whatever the fuck it was on people wearing what looked like fur (even faux-fur) coats. Fuck them and the horse they "rescued" on the way in.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I think animal rights are taken care of well enough in the civilised world by now.

A two week old human foetus has more rights than an adult chimpanzee... Think about that for a while...

That's what I meant by "well enough".

So a being that can think, learn, feel emotion, express individuality and possibly comprehend basic language should have less rights than a group of cells with about as much cognitive ability as a pebble?

 

[i love headcrabs]

I hate peta with a passion and I eat meat. I do believe pets should be taken care of my the right people.I wouldn't even have my older brother today if weren't for man who created insulin and injected it into a diabetic dog so animal testing saved his life.I put humans first so peta can go die

 

[Vrach]

Bottom line for me is that humans come first. Don't fuck with my food sources or tell me to eat soy just because the animals aren't treated well. We're at the top of the food chain, so we'll do whatever we want.

Now, being abusive to your pet or doing stuff like dog fighting...well, then I support animal rights. There's no reason for that stuff. If you hate animals that much, you can always avoid them.

^Pretty much this. Unnecessary cruelty is bad, everything else, yeah, I'll accept we're cruel because we eat animals when I can walk in front of a lion, bear or any other predator in it's natural habitat and not get eaten.

 

[nukethetuna]

I find it hard to care when there are still human rights violations all around the world.

Treating animals like crap just for the lulz isn't okay, but humans have kind of taken the top spot in the world. I don't think we have any reason to look out for them when nature clearly gave us the means to dominate them. "Rights" are a human construct to begin with, the fact that we've given them to animals at all is kind of a dubious thing in my mind.

Animals have been killing other animals for their own survival/prosperity for quite a while. The fact that some people believe we have a moral responsibility as protectors to them is just as egotistical as thinking we have a right to use animals for our own ends as the superior species.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

I think that animals deserve rights, just not the same level of rights as humans. Animals simply don't have the same level of intelligence and moral consideration that human beings do, you can't give them the right to handle things that they aren't capable of. When animals develop the same level of sentience as human beings then they will have earned the right to have the same kind of rights as us.

Bottom line: Humans deserve our consideration first, animals come second.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Bottom line for me is that humans come first. Don't fuck with my food sources or tell me to eat soy just because the animals aren't treated well. We're at the top of the food chain, so we'll do whatever we want.

Now, being abusive to your pet or doing stuff like dog fighting...well, then I support animal rights. There's no reason for that stuff. If you hate animals that much, you can always avoid them.

This. I eat meat, have sheepskin rugs and wear leather.

Why? Because meat is tasty and skin is comfy.

But I do not in any way advocate needless cruelty (dogfighting, cockfighting, bullfighting) and feel that animals should be treated well wherever possible while alive.

After it's dead? It's meat, get over it. It's stopped being an animal.

I think animal rights are taken care of well enough in the civilised world by now.

A two week old human foetus has more rights than an adult chimpanzee... Think about that for a while...

That's what I meant by "well enough".

Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The western world over-consumes meat to a ridiculous degree. Meat doesn't have to be half of the human diet. It doesn't have to be any of the human diet. I don't understand how most people would be horrified at the mistreatment of a dog, yet are comfortable with the mistreatment and slaughter of animals of similar intelligence.

I'm so tired of these arguments. Usually I finish by saying that just because you are concerned about animal rights doesn't mean that human rights are somehow given a back seat. It's possible to care about more than one thing at any given time. I'm capable of being a vegetarian and also going to refugee rallies. But every time I'm forced to listen to people's idiotic, selfish rationalisations for why it's perfectly fine to slaughter things, I'm less inclined to care. If you don't think life has value then who am I to argue.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Killing animals for food, wild or farmed = ok, so long as the farming techniques are not unnecessarily cruel. I personally stay away from veal, lamb, and chicken/chicken products from battery farms.

Using animal fur/skins for clothing = ok so long as a) it's not an endangered species, and b) so long as they are also used for something other than just fashion. I have no problem with leather/fur from an animal that was killed for food being used for fashion, because otherwise it's just going to waste, but I do object to animals being killed specifically for fashion purposes and nothing more.

Testing products on animals = ok so long as a) The tests are absolutely necessary, and b) the product in question is also necessary. You have a drug that can cure cancer and you want it to go through animal testing first, be my guest, but I hate the idea of stuff like shampoo, which when we get right down to it is purely cosmetic, being deliberately rubbed in a captive animals eyes to see how much it irritates.

Abuse/neglect of pets in any shape or form = not ok, ever.

Killing/abusing animals for nothing more than sport = not ok, ever.

Killing an animal in the name of self preservation/to save another human being = definitely ok.

 

[lockeslylcrit]

My view is that animals have the right to be tasty.

 

[Emperor Nat]

The western world over-consumes meat to a ridiculous degree. Meat doesn't have to be half of the human diet. It doesn't have to be any of the human diet. I don't understand how most people would be horrified at the mistreatment of a dog, yet are comfortable with the mistreatment and slaughter of animals of similar intelligence.

I'm so tired of these arguments. Usually I finish by saying that just because you are concerned about animal rights doesn't mean that human rights are somehow given a back seat. It's possible to care about more than one thing at any given time. I'm capable of being a vegetarian and also going to refugee rallies. But every time I'm forced to listen to people's idiotic, selfish rationalisations for why it's perfectly fine to slaughter things, I'm less inclined to care. If you don't think life has value then who am I to argue.

It's less that we think animal life has no value (at least in my case - hell, I loved my pet hampster dearly until it died) and more that animal life is secondary.

Do I think cows should be treated cruelly? No, not in the slightest.
Would I eat cow? Yes. It's dead, it no longer cares.
Do I think dogs should be treated cruelly? No, not in the slightest.
Would I eat dog? Yes. I'd be reluctant because dogs aren't particularly clean, but meat is meat.

As for meat being part of the human diet? It actually -is- necissary. Protein is essential for growth and body repair and whilst we now have the -option- to change our diets it doesn't necissarily mean we should. We are omnivores, our bodies are biologically set up for the consumption of meat.

TL;DR version - Screw it, it's an animal.

Off-Topic: Funnily enough, my mother used to be a vegitarian. Once she got pregnant with me, she began craving meat. I think I pre-natally converted my mother back to being a meat-eater.

 

[majes6661]

We can all say that we're the top of the food chain but as soon as you're alone with a hungry tiger and you don't have a gun, you're back to the bottom. Animals that are bred specifically for food is one thing, killing an animal for any other reason, especially sport, is inhumane. We're the only creature on earth that kills other animals just because we can and for no other reason. We really need to examine ourselves as a people. But PETA goes to ridiculous extremes.

 

[orangeban]

I don't actually see farming as animal cruelty. My view is that as long as the animal's life on the farm nice (think free range chicken, not battery farms) then there's no issue with eating the animal, since they don't really care about dying and even less about being eaten. Same goes for clothes like leather, as long as the animal has a nice life, what does it matter?

If the whole world went veggie, what would happen to the farm animals? They'd die, farmers wouldn't keep them and they can't survive in the wild. Give them a nice life then eat them, it's for the best.

However, because of this I do not support hunting. Those wild animals can life without humans, and generally they need to survive, either to have children, or look after their children. So hunting wild animals for food and clothing isn't cool, and doing it for fun is barbaric I say. If you can't get your giggles without murdering animals, then there is something wrong with you.

Animal testing is more tricky. Very grey, I understand the arguments of both sides on it, but I figure the best solution is to experiment for medical purposes (or other things that are designed to save lives) and not for things like cosmetics.

And obviouslly abusing pets is horrific.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Being superior to animals means we should be responsible when exploiting them. It doesn't give us the right to be cruel to them.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Human life > Animal life, in all circumstances in my opinion, regardless of maturity or born. I would eat a chimp if it came to it, but I would never eat a human (or abort a foetus). Yes I'm pro-life, no this is not the time or place to discuss it.

So long as you are acutely aware of why this is your opinion I'm not going to be able to pursuade you.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

I think its pretty much fair game to do whatever.
I don't have anything against bull fighting, etc.

I reckon people are far to politcally correct and protective of all the cute little animals and don't realise they are meat, leather, bone. Materials.

it depends on intelligence. If its nearly as smart as a human, it should be treated better.

 

[nukethetuna]

Evolution decrees that all people and animals have the same rights based on simple logic.

Evolution does not bestow any rights. Existing does not bestow any rights. The very notion of rights was created by the human mind.

The logic being that a person has the same rights that their parents did, and conversely, that the person's parents thus have the same rights as they do.

So you grandparents had the same rights as you and your parents. Who had the same rights as your great-grandparents, and so on down the line until we get back into the single-celled organisms. Unless you can point at a specific generation and say "There. That is a person. He has human rights, but his parents were animals and didn't," then it follows that we all have the same rights.

And when you realize that then you realize the problem isn't whether animals have rights, but whether people do.

People had rights the moment they came up with the concept. They weren't then applied retroactively. Fact is, the "humans" before rights were conceived didn't have any. Rights of individual freedom and of life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever are human social constructs. There is a given point when they were put into motion. As soon as we came up with the very idea of rights is when they existed. Once we hit the top of the food chain, it was our DECISION to apply our VERY HUMAN construct to animals.
An animal can't even begin to comprehend the notion of social rights and entitlements.

 

[orangeban]

Evolution decrees that all people and animals have the same rights based on simple logic.

The logic being that a person has the same rights that their parents did, and conversely, that the person's parents thus have the same rights as they do.

So you grandparents had the same rights as you and your parents. Who had the same rights as your great-grandparents, and so on down the line until we get back into the single-celled organisms. Unless you can point at a specific generation and say "There. That is a person. He has human rights, but his parents were animals and didn't," then it follows that we all have the same rights.

And when you realize that then you realize the question isn't whether animals have rights, but whether people do.

Uh, no. That sounds sensible but it isn't true. Here how you really should think about it. Human rights extend to all members of this species. The way you decide if something is the same species is if you can breed with it and create non-sterile children.

So here's the thing, at some point my ancestors(obviouslly I can't point to a specific generation) would not be able to breed with me and create non-sterile youths. At that point we no longer have humans.