"Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: theyâre only animals." â Theodor W. Adorno
I haven't really waded into the discussion on animal rights, but from what I believe so far, yes blah blah, animals have to have their modicum of rights as well. But what really grinds my gears are animal activists who go on and on about pictures of safari hunting, etc. There's a certain extent that I would care about animals and cruelty (experimentation, pet abuse, etc), but until we stop eating battery farmed animals, I don't think much moral high ground can be taken.
Most have a good life now, being on farms and free roaming.
I don't believe that this is true. It is my understanding (not based on much research or experience) that the overwhelming majority of chicken found in American stores lives in pretty S#*@% conditions. Anyone have further info on that?
It is my understanding (not based on much research or experience) that the overwhelming majority of chicken found in American stores lives in pretty S#*@% conditions. Anyone have further info on that?
There always has to be a balance of human benefit and animal benefit. Testing drugs on animals is justified, because it protects many more humans.
You're right. Lab rats taught us many things about medicine and drug impacts. Although if it does not help humanity in any significant way, I do not see why we should test products on animals. I wouldn't mind dozen of lab rats to die if it advances our knowledge to find a cure to cancer or Alzheimer, but I would be upset if only one lab rat died to test generic cosmetic products.
As to animal rights in general; I believe that mass slaughter of farm animals is perfectly okay, but, I do believe it should be done with the least amount of suffering and give the animal a comfortable life before its death. Not only is it empathy to the animal, but it also reduces the risk of causing the animal to be sick and stressed, making better and healthier meat.
[quote]Animal rights, (spits) who would give a non-sentient being the right with the level of sentient beings?
Are you saying animals are non-sentient?[/quote] He means sapient. Sentience is the ability to perceive and feel; sapience is what sets us apart from animals. As I recall, it's the ability to act as an individual rather than a member of the herd or something. Bleh, I don't care. I think animals are inferior to us and that we should prioritise fixing our own problems anyway because that's just natural. The real question is where to draw the line. I don't think we should prioritise ironing out the bugs in the new iOS update over repairing typhoon damage (random comparison), but where do we stop fixing our problems and start helping with others'?
If android #04 said "sentient", it most likely meant "sentient". Whether it understands the term completely is another matter.
Sentience is the ability to perceive and feel; sapience is what sets us apart from animals. As I recall, it's the ability to act as an individual rather than a member of the herd or something.
You recall incorrectly. Sapience is just wisdom or "cleverness", which is not exactly characteristic of humanity as a whole. Most non-humans herds are formed in order to decrease the individual's susceptibility to predation. Human herds are formed primarily out of dependence upon social interaction.
I think animals are inferior to us and that we should prioritise fixing our own problems anyway because that's just natural.
Why do you think that? In what way is it natural to do so and how does this make for a good reason to do so?
I don't believe animals are humans because we are created, not evolved.
I don't believe animals have rights, or at least the same rights humans have. If we were all placed in the wild, an animal would have no problem killing a human as a source of food. I think that goes both ways.
This part makes a lot of sense. Giving all animals the right to life would make every carnivore alive a serial killer.
Well, this a reason to be reckon with. That's why we shouldn't make animal rights with the same level as humans.
It's your word against mine. Because I do have sentience, my word is more valuable than an android's, so as far as I'm concerned, you are an android who has simply been programmed incorrectly.
Can't you be a realist for once? C'mon, this is life! Solipsist. Well can you make a gun appear on your palm?
You've missed the point entirely. Why should I be the realist? If, as you claim, you are not an android, surely you can be just as much a realist as I can. Surely, then, you can use reason to identify the error in your assumption.
