Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by TheDivineWing22, Oct 26, 2011.
Peta wants to expand the 13th amendment to protect animals. Link
While a bit facepalm worthy, I believe there will come a time when we will need to define "person' as something not exclusively human. If whales evolved to be sentient (or if we found that they already are) I would support this full-heartedly.
Peta needs new management. The idiots in charge are hindering their cause rather than helping it. Suing SeaWorld for slavery doesn't help raise awareness for animal rights. It just makes you look like a retard...
reminds me of when apes were granted basic human rights in spain, funny how all these 'rich/developed' nations treat animals better that the humans of other nations though...or at least agonise about the rights of animals when humans that dont speak the same language or live under a different colourd bit of cloth called a flag are not a problem
heres a link to the the ape rights
Spanish parliament approves 'human rights' for apes | Law | guardian.co.uk
I don't agree with fair coats but if I saw a PETA representative throwing red paint to ruin the coat I'll gladly hold him so the guy/woman wearing the coat can beat him/her up! Gladly!!
I like animals, but I don't see how they can have equal rights as humans. If I am correct, animals (not including humans) lack moral reasoning, which to me means that they cannot be treated the same as human beings. Not that this is a valid reason to restrict animals equal rights as humans, but I think they taste really good and I would like to continue eating them.
I see a big hole in this... If animals are to be considered people, then if an animal would do as animals do and kill another animal (person), then it would constitute as murder.... That would completely wreck the system, because that would make us need animal prisons, to a great cost of tax payers money, not to mention that if PETA is suing Sea World for for keeping animals locked up, then what would they think about an animal prison? How do we know if a lion is criminally insane?
An animal would never be able to speak for itself in court, which if they were not allowed to do so, would violate their human rights. The american system is of course based around a jury of the accused's fellow men, but in these trials we could not have humans judging animals... We would need animals to sit in the jury for animals, but how could they ever be able to discuss or cast a vote without eating each other, and we would have another trial on our hands
Even better in states like Texas, where the animal would get the chair... And how is that different from killing an animal for food?
Sometimes I think the world would be a much better place if people just thought things through.. But then if that was the case, PETA wouldn't have any members left
Infants and sociopaths also lack moral reasoning, but I don't see us nomming on them.
*discreetly closes oven door*
But they are the same species, and we are not per definition a cannibalistic species..
I certainly agree animals should have more rights in society, especially highly intelligent animals such as apes, dolphins, whales etc. Apes in particular should be treated as people where possible. They have the intelligence of a retarded child according to tests, and should have the same rights.
However, putting laws into place would have to be done properly. As mentioned there would be a few implications in doing it that would need to be addressed. I do think we need to start viewing animals on a more equal level though. They can feel pain and many have the capacity for emotion. This doesn't mean we can't still 'use' them, we just have to be more thoughtful about how we do.
Oooh, does that mean I'd have the same rights as animals, too? I can't tell you how often I've made myself miserable trying to find a clean public bathroom when I'm far from home and have a huge burrito in my gut. It'd be such a relief to be able to just pop a squat and drop a deuce on a patch of grass or whatever. Also, who needs a cheap motel room for that late-night drunken tryst? Just bend 'er over right there in the bar. Dogs don't get arrested for having sex in public, and neither should I!
/ˈsɛnʃənt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
characterized by sensation and consciousness.
a person or thing that is sentient.
Archaic. the conscious mind.
I'd say whales are sentient just as I would say dogs and other animals are.
This debate always kills me because people always try to proclaim people having moral standards absent of animals. That's already been proven to be 100% bullshit. Dolphins have saved people in the ocean from sharks and drowning several times. No, that doesn't indicate direct thought and decision making with some likelihood of moral, of course not. Apes have at times rebelled against cruel leaders beating them so harshly they never recover to regain their status among the group - this has even been done by a group of female chimps after the leader attacked a favored member of the group.
But nah, animals are just stupid because they don't speak english and make iPhones. No, instead we're far superior because humans are the only species on the planet to mass murder millions of people and create atomic weapons of mass destruction. We're awesome! We also destroy entire animal habits and rainforests for paper to wipe our asses.
Carl Sagan once said, "It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Makes me sick when people just throw out any respect for animals based on a perceived human superiority. I'll say one thing, WE are going to ruin this entire world, the animals won't.
Meh, humans are just smart enough to fuck everything up and not smart enough to fix it.
Animals aren't even that smart. But I think the entire intelligence arguments is fucking stupid anyways. That animals is smart...so what?
I'm a human, other things aren't. Things that aren't human shouldn't have human rights. They should potentially have a whole other set of rights but with rights come responsibilities etc, etc, etc and we run into all kinds of problems. Animals shouldn't be beaten or tortured or whatnot. I think that the law views them as property instead of a living thing is pretty fucked up, but other than that the laws in place are pretty good. They just actually need to be enforced and have harsher punishments.
When animals progress beyond their current level (which is at best that of a retarded child), then I'll stop considering myself superior to them. I am superior because the level of intelligence I possess is exponentially higher then that of the smartest animal. I hate the "we're not superior because war, slavery, whatever" argument as well. Do you really thing hyper-intelligent dolphins would do any better? Humans have made many bad choices, but they have also created amazing works of art, discovered science, and advanced as a race beyond any other on this planet so far.
That's a poor argument, and it won't amount to much when we've exhausted all natural resources and become over populated. That's the likely way of things. Then our technology and pretty buildings will account for fuck all because we'll be at each other's throats for a bottle of water.
Does treating animals as humans mean they have the same responsibilities? If not, that's not right.
If I am forced to wear pants when I go to 7-11, then a dog shouldn't be allowed to have the family jewels dangling down in public view.
"Oh, wait, animals are different in *that*!"
Then, acknowledge that animals are different. Don't try to have them more equal than humans.
I don't think it's a case of giving animals the same rights and privileges as people, that would be silly. Animals are obviously very different and we can't apply human rules to them. We can however, make our society fairer and more balanced, showing animals respect. Particularly in the case of intelligent animals such as apes, which understand pain, loss and loneliness, we need to rethink how we view and treat these animals. In my opinion killing an ape should be a crime comparable to murder or manslaughter. As studies have proved they're capable of learning our language (though unable to speak it), learning sign language and have shown a variety of emotions. They're too similar to us to ignore, and if we can accept another animal other than us can exhibit those qualities, then that shows we need to redefine how we view our 'superiority' over nature.
Yes, yes it will. We are resourceful enough that, given a crisis situation short of total annihilation, we can find a way to work around the crisis and survive as a race. We could isolate those affected by a pandemic and try and cure them, devise a new way to extract water, mass produce synthetic meat, etc. Now consider a chimp. The chimps may shun the infected, they may have an idea that something is wrong, but they aren't able to consciously process an event of that magnitude. The chimp would have no chance trying to extract potable water from a polluted sea. If their food source dried up, they would have the idea "no food, need food", and maybe try eating new things, but would a chimp be able to think of chaining carbon and proteins?
In short, our capacity for logical reasoning, combined with our technological aptitude, proves that we are superior to chimps as we have a significantly stronger ability to survive.
More to the point, I agree that animals should be protected against abuse and maltreatment, and befitting their enhanced intelligence animals such as chimps should not be held captive unless under extremely favorable conditions (i.e. huge habitat, think nature park instead of zoo), and even then only held captive for breeding purposes; but suing Seaworld to emancipate the dolphins is retarded. In theory (if the dolphins received the care and habitat they should), the dolphins would live a better life then they would in the wild. No fear of predators, no need to frantically hunt for food, all they would need to do is basically live there and perform tricks. If they aren't receiving adequate care, then that becomes an animal abuse issue, not an animal rights issue.
PETA will continue to do these outrageous things because we see it and acknowledge what they are doing. It is the same with many other organizations.
Now as far as the animal rights goes, I agree that they should be given better...help. I won't call it rights. It is help. Animals don't understand the idea of them having rights. My dog doesn't understand that he has the right to eat or drink water. He does understand that he needs my HELP to get water and eat food. So I think we should provide them with better help. Strictly enforces laws with hefty punishment should cut down animal cruelty over time. Who is going to change how they treat animals when all they get is a fine and probation at the most? Not a whole lot of people. But if you throw in a minimum jail sentence of, say....3 years, well that is a little more incentive to feed your cat/dog/iguana/liger/unicorn/whateverthefuckitis.
And as far as animals understanding emotional or moral situations I agree to an extent. I visited a Wolf sanctuary years ago for my birthday and while there, one of the researchers told us something interesting. She said that a while back one of the Wolves they had had for years had to be put down but its partner was still living. After a day or so the surviving Wolf stopped eating, stopped being active, stopped everything. The remaining Wolf did not return to normal until a new partner was introduced and a little time passed. So in that instance I agree. ANY animal will act that way. As for the moral side of things, that is a little iffy for me because not all animals will show signs of that which tells me it can't be a broad rule put in place because not every animal can adhere to it. That's just my two cents.
I'm not sure where I stand on this. The same applies with the whole artificial intelligence debate, although I'd venture to say the question of animal rights is quite a bit more practical to think to about.
I feel that laws against animal cruelty should be passed in some cases, and more strictly enforced in others, but I'm not sure what 'rights' we could really give them. A right is only a right because one perceives it as such; if the concept is never learned or thought about, it reverts to meaninglessness. I think we'd have to wait for some more science magic to be done before we can understand just to what extent animals can think and feel.
I'm certainly not going to say that humans have more value than animals, which I think is being lost by those who advocate that intelligence equals superiority. Just because we value intelligence more than anything else doesn't make it inherently better, in fact the argument could be made that a cheetah is better than a human because its ancestors didn't need to be resourceful as fuck to survive. Life in general should be valued fairly equally, and should be treated with at least some dignity.