What's Your View on Animal Rights?

[Zeriah]

I eat meat and support animal testing for necessary medical research. However there's a lot of fucked up stuff that would make you sick to your stomach that goes on in some countries in the process of doing these things. Real unnecessary cruelty happens in so many slaughterhouses in third world countries - real fucked up shit. Recently an undercover Australian reporter got some first hand footage of what happened to the Cattle we sent to Indonesia. She went to several slaughterhouses and the results were shocking to say the least, basically all of Australia was in an uproar and this is just one country.

I'm also pretty against Lamb and Veal, I feel that stuff is pretty morally wrong.

 

[vivster]

it's only animal cruelty if the animal is cute
never seen anyone weeping about a house fly that lost a leg
they are animals who don't know what right or wrong is so they also don't know if they are treated wrong
they just live

peta should just stop and let nature reign
i mean how pretentious can you be to assume that you could be any help to the mighty all powerful mother nature

 

[HentMas]

Animals should have the right to vote and the right to a fair trial.

huh... considering the people that end up in trial sometimes, i have to say, they do!

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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.

The difference here is that, despite what organisations like PETA say, the vast majority of farms do not mistreat their animals, and in the few cases where they do (suck as battery hens and veal) most of us are rightfully disgusted by it. For example, a pig or a cow living on a farm gets fed regularly and well, they always have a safe place to sleep, most of them get the chance to breed, and the farmers do their best to protect them from predators and diseases, so on average they actually get to live much longer lives than they would in the wild; and when their number eventually does come up, they are killed in a way that keeps their suffering to a minimum. That is a million miles away from 'mistreatment'.

 

[Bark00000]

My philosophy when it comes to animals is very very simple.
Don't be an a**hole.

find the line between necessity and abuse and simply do not cross it.

animal rights groups in general do not annoy me, however they often look at the "necessary evils" of our world and focus on them.

ie the cattle industry.
there are 36 million canadians, almost 400 million americans, and over 100 million mexicans.
all of them need to eat, and only a small percentage of them follow diets that do not include meat.
therefore a few cows are gonna have to die... sorry.
they talk about the brutality of the killing.
show of hands, who has seen how they do it? either they use a piston to puncture the skull and brain, or they cut the throat (in less developed areas)
now another show of hands. who has seen what a predator would do to a cow in nature with teeth and claws?
how would YOU want to go...

on that note, there are many issues i strongly agree with the animal rights groups on.
shark finning, destruction of habitat for corporate profit, abuse of domestic animals, the circus' treatment of their captive animals, etc.

 

[Daverson]

Animals steal from people when they don't need to, they damage property for no reason and some even kill people for simply being there.

And groups like PETA want us to just let them do this?

Now, you could just say "we'll just leave them alone", but here's the thing, a lot of animals are quite smart. For example, in some areas of the US, bears have learned it's easier to take food from people than it is to hunt for it themselves, which has caused some to sort scavenging in small towns. When you don't stop an animal from doing something, that's effectively equivalent to telling them it's perfectly ok.

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want bears wandering the streets at night, loitering around pubs and lambasting our womenfolk!

 

[bakan]

Lately I've been doing a paper for Civics on why I dislike PETA and many other AR organizations.

I think that their ideas are stupid and naive at best, and that they spend too much time focusing on animals suffering, rather than the benefits that other animals may get from it.

For instance, medical research done on animals, or hunting and farming animals for food (although there are certainly some instances of animal farming that are just plain messed up, like Veal).

I love animals, but I don't ignore that meat is half of the human diet, and that a lot of medical science we have today wouldn't be available without testing on other animals. Granted, if you are a supporter of animal rights, and your ideas and opinions actually make sense and can hold up in a debate about it, then I'd be more likely to agree.

I'm no activist for animal rights but judging from your attitude about medical research, which doesn't have to be cruel and painful for the involved animals, you probably also have no problem with cosmetic tests and scalping animals while they are alive for their furs because it benefits us.

I certainly have a problem with this and even animal farms and butchering should have some standards and don't have to torture animals just because they will benefit us and we don't have to care as they will be dead anyway.
They are still feeling creatures and we should handle them like this.

edit:

Animals steal from people when they don't need to, they damage property for no reason and some even kill people for simply being there.

[snip]

You know, the same argument is used by the japanese fishing industry when they slaughter thousands of dolphins because the dolphins eat their fish.
Afterwards the meat is sold to schools and the children get sick because the dolphin's meat is contaminated with all the stuff we pump into the sea.

 

[Jandau]

My stance here is that while I'm fine with eating animals and using them for clothing, I'd say they deserve at least some comfort during their short and to be killed off painlessly and quickly. So I'm all for eating chickens and eggs, but not for sticking 5 hens into a cage the size of a shoebox.

Unfortunately, the one thing humanity can't abide is moderation. We either have the complete lack of regard for animals and their pain or we have extreme hypersensitivity to every slight potential hurt that might be inflicted upon an animal. Can't a middle ground be found where we use animals for food and materials, but treat them with some respect and gratitude?

 

[Sparrow]

Making animals suffer so humans can progress is without a doubt the thing that angers me most in life. Eating animals is actually all right with me, as long as the animals are killed in humane (oh, what a pun) ways and their suffering is minimal. Testing lipstick on animals and rubbing conditioner in their eyes to see if it stings? That shit is just wrong. Like, off the charts wrong.

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

I think this kind of sums up my feelings pretty well, too.

it's only animal cruelty if the animal is cute
never seen anyone weeping about a house fly that lost a leg

Animals and insects are not the same thing. Whilst I kind agree with your point that people generally don't give a shit if ugly animals suffer, there are no rights in place to protect insects. Well, maybe some rare ones.

For example, in some areas of the US, bears have learned it's easier to take food from people than it is to hunt for it themselves, which has caused some to sort scavenging in small towns. When you don't stop an animal from doing something, that's effectively equivalent to telling them it's perfectly ok.

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want bears wandering the streets at night, loitering around pubs and lambasting our womenfolk!

Oh, man, this post reminds me of that game you can play where you replace the subject someone is talking about with a race of people so they sound extremely racist. The last sentence is the cherry on top.

Lately I've been doing a paper for Civics on why I dislike PETA and many other AR organizations.

By the way, considering the topic, it's hilarious that you not only have a lamb multiplying as your avatar but your username is also "Eggsnham".

 

[MysticToast]

I think this
1ets arent like property that you can abuse.
2: I SUpport testing for medicine but not cosmetice
3: Eat little meat, You dont have to scarf down meat all the time, Veggie burgers can be good too.
4Kinda religious here) God made all creatures and loves them, We have no right to think we are superior to them.

I'm also religious, but I'm here to burst your bubble. God actually said in the bible "Go, kill, and eat" to Peter (I think, one of those guys).

 

[bkrockwell]

I won't say too much about this, 'cause it's a rarity that an animal rights discussion actually goes well on the internet, but to answer the question:

I'm an abolitionist vegan, which I think is the only consistent and morally defensible position one can have on animal rights (a perspective most people here will disagree with, I'm sure). The main concept of abolitionist veganism is that any sentient animal, human or non-human, has the right to live without being anyone's property or resource. I don't advocate animal welfarism or vegetarianism because they're morally schizophrenic.

When most people say "animal rights", they really mean "animal welfare". They care enough to make incredibly small improvements to the animal's welfare (eg. has to be killed in a certain way) but that don't improve its rights at all. Supporting animal welfare reforms that supposedly make animal exploitation more "compassionate" or "humane" falsely suggest that there is a coherent moral distinction between 'organic' meat and non-organic meat or between fur and wool or between steak and foie gras. Unfortunately, there's loads more money and industry support for the welfare movement, because the industry has learned that consumers will support their product even more if they think it is "humane", so misguided groups like PETA continue to sell animals short in massive deals with slaughterhouse companies and fast food chains - making incredibly minor increases in animal welfare while moving animal rights back.

That sums my view up, I guess.

Happy to answer any questions from anyone genuinely interested or curious but I'm not up for a flame war, been there many times.

 

[shadowskater]

It's funny that this topic was just brought up because last night I stumbled across two separate critiques of PETA and animal rights activism. Both were quite good..

The first was Penn and Teller's Bull***: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-dCx4

And this one compares Pokemon's Team Plasma to PETA, the ALF, and the ARM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxNcQLXuFJI&feature=channel_video_title

I think that there are laws in place protecting the rights of animals, but it's the enforcement of those laws that are lacking. It's a difficult area to police. Periodic surprise inspections of labs and farms is one method currently in place, but that can only do so much. Even if enforcement was a higher priority, though, I predict these groups would still fight.

I do think that legal methods can get the job done and the problem is that there's a lot of illegal methods and hypocrisy in the animal rights movement. Though PETA says they're non-violent, they pay for the legal defense of those that are accused of fire bombing labs (ALF/ARM members). And even if they are nonviolent, a lot of their marketing is propaganda aimed at kids (the second video mentions their comic books "Your Mommy Kills Animals"). And with the ALF attacking humans, aren't we animals too? There's just a lot of sketchy methods and inconsistencies I don't like about it. And I don't think illegal methods or brainwashing propaganda are the right ways to pursue what is, in truth, a very noble cause.

 

[kickyourass]

In my opinion the rights of humans should always, ALWAYS come before the rights of animals, I love my dog but if somewhere in the world he legally he has more rights then I do, something has gone wrong. On top of that until we discover that animals are capable of sentient thought, I see no reason to not use them as a source of food.

That being said, if a person goes out of their way to couse suffering to an animal (Dog fighting for example), not matter who they are, they are scum, no exceptions. Shit like dog fighting is one of the top reasons I think we should bring back public flogging.

 

[Wolfwind]

I'm a carnivore, and I honestly would have trouble never eating meat again, so animals for food isn't something I really have a problem with. To be honest, whenever I've seen a movie where humans get eaten by aliens or hear a story where a person is eaten by a shark or a bear or some shit, I kinda just think "Well, food chain." We do it to other animals, so to be outraged or horrified if another animal does it to one of us is hypocritical. As long as it's done in a fashion that doesn't promote unnecessary cruelness or suffering, I don't condemn the consumption of other animals.

But if we're going to use them, we should at least be responsible about it. I don't mind leather, because we eat the cow anyways. Clubbing baby seals over the head for their skin, cutting the fins off sharks and throwing the rest back, cutting the tusks off elephants, etc. I don't condone shit like that. Hands off the endangered species too, we don't need anything from them that badly that we can't get from somewhere else. We may be the top of the food chain, but that comes with responsibility. Otherwise, we're no better than a virus that's wreaking havoc on it's environment.

Science is a gray area. Well, medical science. I don't condone use of animals for cosmetic science, but while I don't like the idea of animals being used for medical science, I can't deny the benefits of all the knowledge gained, knowledge that's been used to save other animals as well as humans. Besides, the knowledge gained in medical science hasn't been all from animals. If you look back on medicine way back at the turn of the century, they had all sorts of arcane ideas that were used on humans, and we learned from those too.

As for pets, treat them right. Neglect, abuse, using them for fighting.... that's just sadistic and irresponsible. I see pets in a similar light to kids. If you can't take care of one, or if you're going to get one for the wrong reasons, then don't even bother.

 

[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.

Your argument means that people who are born sterile have no rights.
And while at some point your ancestors may not have been able to breed with you, they were able to breed with a subsequent ancestor who had the same rights as you and who you were able to breed with. At that point, did that ancestors parents not have the same rights as that ancestor?

1st point: Okay, I should of been clearer, I'm talking about when two beings, who are totally capable of breeding with creatures of the same species and creating none sterile (but otherwise totally normal) offspring, breed together and cannot create a non-sterile offspring.
2nd point: Here's the thing, we are humans, if they can't breed with us they aren't humans. It doesn't matter if our ancestors are some kind of theoretical "almost-human" bridge between species, what we are now is what we must measure humanity by.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I think that animals shouldn't be harmed any more than they should be, they should be put down quickly and humanely, and treated well before such a time that they need to be put down.

But I also love meat, I couldn't live without it, and I also think that animal testing is perfectly ok, sure if something bad happened to the animal that would be sad but I'd rather it happen to an animal than a human, unless that human was Hitler or something.

Basically, it's ok to use animals to the benefit of humans but be nice to the animals at least.