Forums → WEPR → Should Animals Have Rights? Why?
| 309 | 59468 |
- 309 Replies
People who have cited "animals wouldn't understand" arguments:
Go read.
Go read.
Go read.
Have I made myself clear? I'll simply refer back to that page and the next one every time I see this argument crop up.
This topic doesn't appear to be about what animals actually want; it's about what people want for the animals.
This is correct insofar as we discuss "rights" as a formal construct. But a more comprehensive appreciation of the process also includes consideration of the former.
So until humans can accurately speak for what is on the animals' minds, there is no reason to continue this argument.
This is incorrect: part of the underlying discussion centers on discerning what it is that animals would want. Some claim that this can't be done but I beg to differ: we can make compelling arguments based on the commonalities to the paramaters of our living.
Which brings me to the question some people imply: why bother talking about animal rights if we all just live and die etc. etc.?
The answer is in fact because those feelings are relevant to us. Not all of us, as some people in this thread demonstrate, but some of us, and so this argument remains relevant so long as there is this difference. I myself relate very strongly to the feelings of other animals, therefore I will strenuously argue for their kind/humane treatment, and if you should disagree, then you'll have to either deal with my arguments or revise your own.
You can also opt to obliviously ignore them but that's not a good look. Can't really stop you from doing that, though.
Strop before i was talking about vegans... not vegetarians. I know what the difference is, and i know the concepts. vegetarians dont eat meat, and vegans dont eat anything to do with any animal milk, eggs, meat, etc... I know vegetarians find other sources, but vegans? Thats going to far.
Anyways I understand that people think that giving animals rights is a OUTSTANDING idea. I mean sure i understand the no abuse, right to food... etc. But also we have to fight for food as well. Which is what animals go through too. To be honest I think that most "ets" are btr off than we are. Think of it. They sit there all day around the house just chillaxin. Then we gotta take time out of our day to give them a walk. Again "them". We buy them food, while again they sit there. We buy "them" water, for them to drink. We buy "them" toys, and dog houses, and give our own house for them to live. I think that already we have given them enough rights, as well as much of our own time, and money.
Not to mention i think that zoos have saved many animals. Just read the life of pi. The first part (although horribly boring) talks about how he beleives animals are safer in zoos, get food in zoos, and have all their essentials met in zoos. Its a bit biased in a way... but it helps. People constantly say how cruel it is to keep them in a jail in a zoo. Well... lets just say that if we let them out now they wouldn't be able to survive in the wilderness. They would find it horribly tough as they don't know how to kill, and there used to everything given to them.
Animals already have enough rights in my mind... I truely don't know what else we should give them.
To be honest I think that most "ets" are btr off than we are. Think of it. They sit there all day around the house just chillaxin. Then we gotta take time out of our day to give them a walk. Again "them". We buy them food, while again they sit there. We buy "them" water, for them to drink. We buy "them" toys, and dog houses, and give our own house for them to live. I think that already we have given them enough rights, as well as much of our own time, and money.
Well, many abused pets do not have it that way...
Also, not only pets but also creatures like cows and chickens need these things, and many of them do not get "a walk", but have to be in the same place all life.
Work dogs work for the food, you know...
Anyway, in rights: Eat, move freely, live without fear.
People constantly say how cruel it is to keep them in a jail in a zoo
Funny thing: people used to think that tigers in small cages were happier than those who could live in bigger, more natural places, in the zoo, because the tigers in the small cages always moved, wandering around in the small space...
Strop before i was talking about vegans... not vegetarians.
I can't exactly comment on any necessary dietary deficiencies of vegans as opposed to vegetarians except to say that naturally it would be even more difficult in general to maintain a complete diet but I will note that failure to make a distinction between the two is becoming more relevant, mainly because an increasing number of people profess to be vegan.
Also "able to have" sufficient nutrition and actually getting it are two different things. Iron-deficiency anaemia is very common in two population groups: teenaged females and vegetarians.
But also we have to fight for food as well. Which is what animals go through too.
Yeah, I dealt with this on the next page. "Animals have rights" does not necessarily mean "Animals have the same rights as humans" because by that point I'd entirely agree with you: that'd be meaningless.
I acknowledge ecological competition and despite the way that we have modulated it to such an extent, naturally it still exists. The latter does imply that we are responsible for managing it properly by this stage, hence I'd say the point of discussing animal rights would be to take into account newer evidence and refine our strategies accordingly.
To be honest I think that most "ets" are btr off than we are.
This is in many ways at the forefront of such debates. In order to determine rights, how do we define "value of life"? To what extent must they share parity with human rights? It is suggested that battery hens, for example, have a similar quality of life to free-range farm hens because while they can't move around and may be prone to illnesses, the free-range ones are frequently frightened by possible predators- a side-effect of living in an open environment.
And of course different animals have different preferences. And different interactions with humans. Some could be said to be in a "contractual agreement"- you give me service, I'll give you food kind of thing, and in that context rights could be compared to the kind of parameters of contractual agreements for human employment.
...it's a big world of discussion, and I can't possibly hope to cover all of it in a single post. The most general I can get is that on the other side, abuse would be the most relevant reason for enforcing rights as law.
Btw, it costs more resources to survive on mostly meat than mostly grains and veggies...
True. But it is also more energetically efficient for the human body to convert animal tissue than plant tissue. So more of the energy can directly be passed on to us. So you get more from meat.
As far as should animal have rights? Well, I think to a certain extent, yes. I do believe that animals should have a right to move around, have access to food, etc. And I love animals, I do. I don't think any animal should ever have to suffer at the hand of a human. But, I also believe that we should put human rights ahead of animals.
I apologize for bringing politics into this, but I find it amazing that in California, we passed a proposition on animal rights, but not on human rights. It seems wrong to me that people think that animal rights should be addressed before the rights of homosexuals. THAT bothers me.
I know vegetarians find other sources, but vegans? Thats going to far.
They're about as well off as lactose intolerant people and we have just recently developed a tolerance to milk(5000 or so years ago) so I guess they could supplement their diet although it would probably be a bit harder to eat at restaurants as you would have to ask if the food has eggs, meat, milk, cheese... well you get my drift >.<
They're about as well off as lactose intolerant people
Oh wait vegetarian lactose intolerant people. And since vegetarians and lactose intolerants find alternative food source I'm sure they could.
Oh wait vegetarian lactose intolerant people. And since vegetarians and lactose intolerants find alternative food source I'm sure they could.
As long as they can obtain the right amount of nutrients and eat balanced meals, they can get the same nutrient uptake as vegetarians or lactose intolerants. Granted, this definitely isn't an evolutionary advantage... we were made to eat meat pretty well, and we assimilate more of the energy into our bodies eating meat rather than with plant matter. But it is still possible to be perfectly healthy and not eat meat, or animal products. Just takes some extra effort.
Also "able to have" sufficient nutrition and actually getting it are two different things. Iron-deficiency anaemia is very common in two population groups: teenaged females and vegetarians.Troubling to fit both of those, huh? Dang, I should totally find some edibles with a decent amount of iron in them... >_>
True. But it is also more energetically efficient for the human body to convert animal tissue than plant tissue. So more of the energy can directly be passed on to us. So you get more from meat.How about bread and pasta and other processed things that does not contain meat but aren't pure plants either?
Funny thing: people used to think that tigers in small cages were happier than those who could live in bigger, more natural places, in the zoo, because the tigers in the small cages always moved, wandering around in the small space...Just shows that humans are continuing to learn how animals function. That's a good thing, right?
No it's not.Would you please back up your statement with an argument? I am not even completely sure what it is you are disagreeing with.
Troubling to fit both of those, huh? Dang, I should totally find some edibles with a decent amount of iron in them... >_>
Yep. It is really important for females, particularly if you don't eat meat. I eat meat, and I have still been turned away for donating blood occasionally because of low iron. And I like to think I have a pretty healthy diet.
How about bread and pasta and other processed things that does not contain meat but aren't pure plants either?
That is an interesting question, and I am not entirely sure. I would assume that it would be considered as more foreign to your body than animal flesh. But then again... I don't really know. And as far as what type of energy it is would be interesting to know. Sure meat may give you more energy, but is it higher in unhealthy fats? Might it end up being more unhealthy in the end?
explain rights.. we humans have the bill of rights, to secure our freedom. but i see thats not the kind of rights you are talking about. so what are they? what do you have in mind considering rights for animals?
and carlie iron deficiency is something that occurs in women with thyroid problems. eating meat wouldnt cause low iron.
Cenere, what did you mean when you said frightened meat doesn't taste as good as happy meat (pg17). That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I hope you were just trying to be funny.
You must be logged in to post a reply!