Animal Rights - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 09-02-2005, 12:50 PM
Beginner
 
Ravenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 171
Yes, everything living on this planet is either a plant or animal. But one species of animal-the humans took over the world. They began killing other species and even worse...Humans are the most disliked creatures of all. Everything they see they hate, and some of them cant admit that they are an animal. There is much more to say about this, I feel very unhappy about this.
Ravenstar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 09-03-2005, 03:42 AM
Vegan Police Officer
 
Diana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,211
In the Matrix, Agent Smith says: "A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet".
Diana is offline  
#3 Old 09-03-2005, 11:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana View Post

In the Matrix, Agent Smith says: "A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet".





I disagree very strongly with this belief. Humans lived on this planet just fine for 100,000 years or so up to about 10,000 years ago when our cultural paradigm came along. Maybe our culture is a cancer, but not humans. Humans are just another part of nature.



Yes, some animals might have been killed off by early humans, but those people had the excuse of ignorance of what they were doing, an excuse we no longer have. Our culture very deliberately kills off other species, and has done so for hundreds or even thousands of years. But we don't have to keep doing this. Cultures can change, we can change. This board is witness to the ability of humans to change their cultural beliefs.
Ludi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 09-03-2005, 12:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

I disagree very strongly with this belief. Humans lived on this planet just fine for 100,000 years or so up to about 10,000 years ago when our cultural paradigm came along. Maybe our culture is a cancer, but not humans. Humans are just another part of nature.



Yes, some animals might have been killed off by early humans, but those people had the excuse of ignorance of what they were doing, an excuse we no longer have. Our culture very deliberately kills off other species, and has done so for hundreds or even thousands of years. But we don't have to keep doing this. Cultures can change, we can change. This board is witness to the ability of humans to change their cultural beliefs.

Agreed.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#5 Old 09-03-2005, 07:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
manics_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenstar View Post

Yes, everything living on this planet is either a plant or animal. But one species of animal-the humans took over the world. They began killing other species and even worse...Humans are the most disliked creatures of all. Everything they see they hate, and some of them cant admit that they are an animal. There is much more to say about this, I feel very unhappy about this.



I know how you feel Raven, I really dislike humanity as a species, it seems we're happy to do just about anything to our fellow animals or the planet for greed or pleasure or profit, humans are a cancer, spreading across the earth, destroying and killing everything in it's path, or so it seems.

I really do despair of the human species, and I just can't understand why only a few people can see that what we do to non-human animals is wrong and the rest just don't care, it's really depressing.

"Through the centuries, we have projected onto the wolf the qualities we most despise and fear in ourselves." ~ Barry Lopez.
manics_fan is offline  
#6 Old 09-04-2005, 05:50 PM
Beginner
 
canadianSKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 178
We have ridiculously high standards of living aswell... (the majority of) north american people need to have their eyes opened to what people in other parts of the world live like



I think travel (and education) is imperative for helping others gain an appreciation of what is really a necessity... a potential cure for the cancer?
canadianSKA is offline  
#7 Old 09-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Beginner
 
Ravenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 171
All im asking everyone to do is to stare into the eyes of an animals-a good animal-one thats in a pet tore locked behind those bars of steel begging the humans to let them out, look in there eyes, you can see everything....
Ravenstar is offline  
#8 Old 09-07-2005, 11:42 AM
Newbie
 
Dark Exodus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
I know how you feel Raven, I really dislike humanity as a species, it seems we're happy to do just about anything to our fellow animals or the planet for greed or pleasure or profit, humans are a cancer, spreading across the earth, destroying and killing everything in it's path, or so it seems.

I really do despair of the human species, and I just can't understand why only a few people can see that what we do to non-human animals is wrong and the rest just don't care, it's really depressing.



Can animals concieve of rights? Does a wolf show mercy to its prey?



It is strange how you should hate humanity, for without their would be no concept of animal rights at all, only merciless survival.



A lot of animal rights abuses aren't humanities fault, they are capitalisms.
Dark Exodus is offline  
#9 Old 09-07-2005, 12:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Exodus View Post

Does a wolf show mercy to its prey?

The way (s)he does not show mercy is of course different from the way a human doesn't show mercy, the latter being under moral evaluation and the former not.



Oh, and without humanity there wouldn't be any animal rights, but without humanity, there wouldn't be any need for animal rights either.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#10 Old 09-07-2005, 01:40 PM
Newbie
 
Dark Exodus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The way (s)he does not show mercy is of course different from the way a human doesn't show mercy, the latter being under moral evaluation and the former not.



So if the wolf is exempt from the burden of responsibility why is it gifted with rights? The two must go hand-in-hand.



Quote:
Oh, and without humanity there wouldn't be any animal rights, but without humanity, there wouldn't be any need for animal rights either.



I agree, since animal rights concern primarily the relationship of animals and humans. But without humanity an intelligent and sentient species may have evolved on Earth. Arts, music, science etc. would have never existed.
Dark Exodus is offline  
#11 Old 09-07-2005, 01:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Exodus View Post

So if the wolf is exempt from the burden of responsibility why is it gifted with rights? The two must go hand-in-hand.

Only if you unnecessarily connect animal rights with traditional legal rights, or argue from a "mutually beneficial contract" model of morality. I am more than willing to translate rights statements to some obligations statements which don't hint at any other responsibility than that of the moral agent.



Quote:
But without humanity an intelligent and sentient species may have evolved on Earth. Arts, music, science etc. would have never existed.

True, but that's a different matter. Personally, I think non-humans make music too .

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#12 Old 09-07-2005, 02:17 PM
Newbie
 
Dark Exodus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
Only if you unnecessarily connect animal rights with traditional legal rights, or argue from a "mutually beneficial contract" model of morality. I am more than willing to translate rights statements to some obligations statements which don't hint at any other responsibility than that of the moral agent.



Animals cannot concieve of rights in the first place, like I said.

More importanly rights exist within the framework of human society, which does not include animals. If animals were deserving of such rights then they would have broke free and fought for them long ago, just as certain groups in humanity have.



Quote:
True, but that's a different matter. Personally, I think non-humans make music too .



Its quite possible.
Dark Exodus is offline  
#13 Old 09-07-2005, 03:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Exodus View Post

Animals cannot concieve of rights in the first place, like I said.

Which is an even more problematic basis for denying rights than the assumed necessary connection to responsibility, since there are humans who cannot conceive of rights but nevertheless are assumed to have them.



Quote:
More importanly rights exist within the framework of human society, which does not include animals.

That would imply that since rights concepts exist only in the discourse of "rational agents", they should apply only to those partaking in that discourse.



Quote:
If animals were deserving of such rights then they would have broke free and fought for them long ago, just as certain groups in humanity have.

There are groups of humanity that haven't and cannot fight for their rights.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#14 Old 09-07-2005, 03:03 PM
Beginner
 
canadianSKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 178
in order to determine whether or not an animal (human or non) is deserving of rights you must first see what rights are used to protect... they protect interests



animals (human and non, who are sentient) have the interest to not be caused pain and to not be treated as a means to another's end... therefore, since the "animals" you're probably referring to are sentient, they ought to have rights since they (definitely) have an interest to be free of harm, whether or not they can verbalize it or rationalize their killing of prey (see the cases for moral agents and patients) is irrelevant.
canadianSKA is offline  
#15 Old 09-07-2005, 03:55 PM
Newbie
 
Dark Exodus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
in order to determine whether or not an animal (human or non) is deserving of rights you must first see what rights are used to protect... they protect interests



animals (human and non, who are sentient) have the interest to not be caused pain and to not be treated as a means to another's end... therefore, since the "animals" you're probably referring to are sentient, they ought to have rights since they (definitely) have an interest to be free of harm, whether or not they can verbalize it or rationalize their killing of prey (see the cases for moral agents and patients) is irrelevant.



But what about when those interests conflict? Like the predator and prey scenario. The prey wants so survive by running, the predator by eating, who is given the right to. The one who can run fastest?



Quote:
There are groups of humanity that haven't and cannot fight for their rights.



Who?



Quote:
Which is an even more problematic basis for denying rights than the assumed necessary connection to responsibility, since there are humans who cannot conceive of rights but nevertheless are assumed to have them.



Yet they are human, and by that definition they are operating on a higher level than animals.



Quote:
That would imply that since rights concepts exist only in the discourse of "rational agents", they should apply only to those partaking in that discourse.



Criminals are still allowed basic rights (in most places anyway) even if they have violated anothers, this is because they are human.





Quote:
That would imply that since rights concepts exist only in the discourse of "rational agents", they should apply only to those partaking in that discourse.



Criminals are still members of society, despite this



I think we are getting bogged down here, what I was originally trying to get at was that humanity is not a 'bad' species as such, they are doing what any other animal would if given sentience and power, become dominant.
Dark Exodus is offline  
#16 Old 09-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Beginner
 
canadianSKA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 178
exactly, it's not about what we are doing, it's about what we OUGHT to be doing... i can do LOTS of things that harm others, but i CHOOSE not to as it will cause them pain, something they'd rather avoid... just like animals, those avoiding the pain have interests



thus, animal rights SHOULD exist...



and as for "given sentience" animals who are currently being farmed are most definitely sentient



and what the hell does "power" have to do with anything?
canadianSKA is offline  
#17 Old 09-07-2005, 04:35 PM
Newbie
 
Dark Exodus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianSKA View Post

exactly, it's not about what we are doing, it's about what we OUGHT to be doing... i can do LOTS of things that harm others, but i CHOOSE not to as it will cause them pain, something they'd rather avoid... just like animals, those avoiding the pain have interests



thus, animal rights SHOULD exist...



and as for "given sentience" animals who are currently being farmed are most definitely sentient



and what the hell does "power" have to do with anything?



Humans alone have the power to make pretty much all other species extinct and this is due to our evolution taking an unexpected direction that led to us being the dominant species. I was asking what animals would do with that ability.
Dark Exodus is offline  
#18 Old 09-07-2005, 06:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
I don't see a problem with granting animals rights, even though animals have no responsibility or moral compass. We grant rights to babies, and they have no responsibility or moral compass. Babies are granted the right to life and decent care under our western laws. Not all human societies grant these rights to babies, but that doesn't mean our society can't grant them, just as it doesn't mean our society can't grant animals these same rights if we choose.
Ludi is offline  
#19 Old 09-07-2005, 06:58 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

I don't see a problem with granting animals rights, even though animals have no responsibility or moral compass.



What do you mean by "rights?"
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#20 Old 09-07-2005, 07:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
n. right - a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: "You have a right to say what you please."



Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
Ludi is offline  
#21 Old 09-07-2005, 07:11 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

n. right - a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: "You have a right to say what you please."



Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.



Ahh, and what (or more properly who) defines "just claim or title"?
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#22 Old 09-07-2005, 07:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkjobsluder View Post

Ahh, and what (or more properly who) defines "just claim or title"?





As far as I can tell, society does.
Ludi is offline  
#23 Old 09-07-2005, 07:15 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianSKA View Post

in order to determine whether or not an animal (human or non) is deserving of rights you must first see what rights are used to protect... they protect interests



Ahh, that's a trivial and fatuous rewording of the obvious. Of course what's not obvious in rights language is what interests are diserving of protection, and what interests are not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianSKA View Post

animals (human and non, who are sentient) have the interest to not be caused pain and to not be treated as a means to another's end...



Why? This seems to be assuming a heck of a lot.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#24 Old 09-07-2005, 07:16 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

As far as I can tell, society does.



Ah, so why should we recognize or advocate "animal rights" (which if this is the case, is an oxymoron)?
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#25 Old 09-07-2005, 07:18 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Is this thread for the debate about whether or not animals have or should be granted rights? Maybe it should be moved to the debate forum, since debating seems to be going on, and not support.
Ludi is offline  
#26 Old 09-07-2005, 07:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
I'm tired of your "ah" it's really f-ing annoying.



I don't know why *you* should advocate or recognise "animal rights" that's up to you.
Ludi is offline  
#27 Old 09-07-2005, 07:21 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

Is this thread for the debate about whether or not animals have or should be granted rights?



Perhaps. My argument to be clear is that "rights language" is at best a useful fiction for the purpose of making law and policy, and at worst obsfucates the core issues involved.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

Maybe it should be moved to the debate forum, since debating seems to be going on, and not support.



Perhaps.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#28 Old 09-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
What language would you prefer?
Ludi is offline  
#29 Old 09-07-2005, 07:24 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

I'm tired of your "ah" it's really f-ing annoying.



Sorry, I'll try to make this even less conversational.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

I don't know why *you* should advocate or recognise "animal rights" that's up to you.



Well, if it's up to me. I'd just state simply that it is wrong to cause harm to another without some pretty strong justification as to why said harm is necessary. That allows us to address the issue without getting bogged down in the manure pile of "rights."
kirkjobsluder is offline  
#30 Old 09-07-2005, 07:25 PM
Banned
 
kirkjobsluder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

What language would you prefer?



Simple. It is wrong to cause harm to another for one's personal pleasure.
kirkjobsluder is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off