Animal rights thread

Apologies if there already is a thread on this, but I'd like to open a discussion about it.

Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have? I have long pondered this question.


From the mighty whale to the lowliest ant, the senseless destruction of a living thing for absolutely no purpose offends me. Predatory whaling, industrial farms where chickens are crammed into tiny cages, the slaughter of cattle in "kosher" fashion, hunting for sport instead of for survival, or even just some sicko who gets a kick out of abusing his dog, whipping his cat at a wall, abandoning his pets or confining them and starving them to death, and even those freaks who get their jollies from pulling living flies apart one wing at a time... it's all very disgusting to me.

However, I'm not about to advocate throwing people in prison for stepping on an anthill. In spite of ample evidence to the contrary, I am not insane.

I see the militant side of things; such as the ALF, or legislation which could penalize pest-removal services or ban them altogether, resorting to violence or fear-tactics to get others to respect the rights of animals; to be horrendous and despicable. I don't really see myself as an environmental wacko or a militant fighting for animals, but at the same time I don't think that we should do nothing on these issues. I wouldn't advocate making the state care for and feed perpetually animals that are caught by animal control services, or force anyone to help a starving animal, etc, anything of the sort, but I have to believe one can be a lover of animals and still be allowed to eat meat, one can defend animal rights and not be an eco-terrorist, one can look down upon and penalize those who neglect or intentionally mistreat higher order animals.

But it's rather vague. Mistreating a pet or abusing livestock may have legal ramifications, but I would admit sending someone to court over accidentally stepping on a frog is over the line. But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?

I am curious to hear people's views on the matter. Clearly this is not a liberal/conservative issue, a secular/religious issue, or a left/right issue. I know we have human beings to worry about, and more pressing and urgent matters of state. But to be an ethical, moral, civilized society I feel this sort of topic needs to be addressed. Feel free to chime in with your views; I only ask that they be respectful and not spam or one-liners such as "animals sux, burgers rool".

Have at it!

I am all in favor of animal rights but less in favor of animal rights 'activists'. For example testing on lab-animals should be done only for medical reasons, cosmetic industry is a big no. When an animal is butchered it should be painless and with as little stress as possible. It is perfectly possible to locally sedate when castrating young boars. If you can ease things do so.

Oh my, I do believe Hell has frozen over, yesterday Frags agreed with me, and now I agree with him :jawdrop:

Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.

EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such :clown:

I am a Greenpeace and a PETA supporter. I always thought animal rights are important as human rights.

Quote:

---

But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?

---

The line is between logical and illogical/ridiculous. The example of someone accidentally stepping over his frog and sending him to jail, that's just dumb. All animals deserve rights, no discrimination should be made whatsoever. Endangered species should receive extra attention, as their numbers are dwindling, and we don't want to have even more wonderful animals on the brink of extinction because some retards (in my opinion, poachers - jail 30 years, no bail, stay in there - rhymes too, maybe I should do a rap song about it) want them for their fur or meat. For example, whaling is wrong, all types of whaling, including in small numbers. We need whales, and we can easily replace whale meat.

How should we protect it? By promulgating stronger laws against poachers, banning hunting (ok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations...I can agree with that) and all animals that will be killed for food, skin and anything else, if they have to be killed, they need to be killed in a civilised and painless way. Slaughterhouses where these rules are not expected - 20 years for the director, 10 years for each guy who worked in the slaughterhouse.

People still do not realise we need animals to survive. We need them like oxygen.

Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me? Miss Palin I think you do not realise what's going to happen if wolves are killed. I simply cannot believe America was about to elect such a leader.

I knew there was stuff we agree on. :laugh2:

It's nice to step outside traditional politics for a while and bask in the glorious moment that is realizing (or remembering) that your occasional political adversaries are human too.

I saw the method of killing used by one kosher slaughterhouse, regarding cattle. Not to pick on the "kosher" people in particular, but this practice should really be re-evaluated and abandoned. I saw a video of the cow being put in a machine, turned upside down, and had it's throat cut open with a large knife and it's esophagus and so forth being pulled out through the gaping hole in it's neck, not wide enough to cause a quick death, but long enough to be painful and traumatic. See spoiler below.

Then the machine was turned back around, and the bleeding, confused animal was allowed to trot around, slipping in an ever-growing pool of it's own blood, ramming into walls, until it finally, several minutes later, passed out from the blood loss. Nothing was done to reduce the pain, and the animal literally suffered for minutes on end for no reason. One poor cow was still alive past the ten minute mark, just bleeding and trying to moo. Is it really necessary? Everyone knows by now my disagreement with outdated religious traditions, and I'd really rather not be called an anti-semite (If it's any consolation, I have reservations about every major religion).

I also find it unnecessarily cruel what factory farmers do to male chicks. Male chicks are worthless to the egg industry, so every year, millions of them are tossed into trash bags to suffocate or are thrown into high-speed grinders called macerators while they are still alive. That's rather harsh. Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off, without any painkillers, as well as other male animals. Guys, seriously, would you do that to your worst enemy? I wouldn't. So why abuse animals in this fashion?

And so on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The kosher cow video. Just click on the video part on the left hand side. Some of you have seen this before. Warning: Explicit uncensored video of an actual "kosher" cow slaughter.

So we've discussed the factory farming stuff. What limits should there be regarding animal testing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair

Quote:

---

Harlow's first experiments into the effects of loneliness involved isolating a monkey in a cage surrounded by steel walls with a small one-way mirror, so the experimenters could look in, but the monkey couldn't look out. The only connection the monkey had with the world was when the experimenters' hands changed his bedding or delivered fresh water and food. Baby monkeys were placed in these boxes soon after birth; four were left for 30 days, four for six months, and four for a year.

After 30 days, the "total isolates," as they were called, were found to be "enormously disturbed." After being isolated for a year, they barely moved, didn't explore or play, and were incapable of having sexual relations. When put with other monkeys for a daily play session, they were badly bullied. Two of them refused to eat and starved themselves to death.[4]

In order to find out how the isolates would parent, Harlow devised what he called a "rape rack," to which the female isolates were tied in the position taken by a normal female monkey in order to be impregnated. Artificial insemination had not been developed at that time. He found that, just as they were incapable of having sexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. "Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were," he wrote. [5] Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head. Most of them simply ignored their offspring.

---

A particularly telling passage from the article. What did we gain from this study?

I learned that human beings are perhaps the most creative of all the species when it comes to inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering onto other sentient beings. But other than that, I would suggest such experiments are complete failures and yield no real scientific value. Thankfully this last example was an experiment from the 1970's, not from my lifetime.

Where do we draw the line? I am not suggesting we don't experiment and develop cures and new medical procedures, but there really should be an elected official, one of us, in charge of monitoring this treatment to ensure it meets the criteria of being necessary and as humane as possible to the subjects.

Example: Any animal which must be destroyed (due to disease, injury, or other damage) must be euthanized quickly and relatively painlessly.

Example: Any test on an animal which will result in possible permanent injury, horrible suffering, trauma, or death, must have a vital purpose which saves human lives. This is not supposed to be about inflicting pain for the amusement of some demented scientist.

You know, guidelines of that nature. I assume we have some laws in place, I'd be interested to know what they are, when they apply, when they don't apply, and how they are enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh my, I do believe Hell has frozen over, yesterday Frags agreed with me, and now I agree with him :jawdrop:

Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.

EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such :clown:

---

The cruelest part is the transportation, it should all be done in one place, can't get around the bio-industry but it can be made more pleasant. Here we are working on a concept the pig-skyscraper, a great amount of pigs can be held there in good conditions, from raising till slaughtering in the same place. Sounds sick but it's way above the current situation.

I approve of the idea of vertical farming. If space is a problem, do what other smart sectors of our economy have done, which is go vertical.

With more space for the animals, perhaps the conditions don't have to be so cruel.

Quote:

---

I am a Greenpeace and a PETA supporter. I always thought animal rights are important as human rights.

---

Well straight away we see a problem with the animal rights thing

Quote:

---

All animals deserve rights, no discrimination should be made whatsoever.

---

Then....

Quote:

---

ok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations

---

but thats discrimination against the poor fluffy bunnies
yet....

Quote:

---

Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me?

---

Ah the poor fluffy wolves , they are fluffier than bunnies so are special .
So if wolves are special does that mean I shouldn't shoot a fox ? what about mink ? should I poison rats ? should I squash a midge ?
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

The cruelest part is the transportation

---

Tell that to Noah , greenpeace were very angry about the way he was cramming animals into his boat , they were going to protest but like all the other humans they didn't have boats to launch their protest from:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off

---

Actually you cut very carefully and then pull , if you don't you can damage your merchandise .
Other livestock is a lot easier and can be done in many different ways , but pigs is different .
So Pizza what are your views on docking and de-horning ?
What about tagging ? thats really cruel , you put holes in the poor animals ears:yes:

Im for saving all the cute ones. :clown:

Animals have the right to remain tasty...

I find myself agreeing with some of the views here and disagreeing with some, shocker eh?

Tribesman doesn't think that animal rights should equal human rights, I disagree but have enough common sense to realise that it's never going to happen. My view is that if they aren't the same doesn't that mean that the only rights are the ones you take? Which makes a mockery of human rights as a whole, which I find a laughable concept anyway so who knows.

I don't believe that animals should be used for testing anything, partly because it is legalised torture and partly because there are enough people who are willing to be tested on if they are paid and if not there are always paedo's.

Should we eat animals? Of course we should, they taste great and that is how we are designed, if we decide eating animals is cruel would we then have to forcibly convert lions to eating grass? Therefore is whaling cruel? Not in the generic sense, poeple have been hunting and eating whales since they figured out how to do so, what is cruel, and stupid, is hunting them to near extinction or not using all of the useable parts.

And what about pets? I think to be able to keep any pets should require a licence the difficulty in obtaining a licence should be proportional to the difficulty in keeping the pets properly. I also think all hunting should be strictly controlled and not allowed if someone justs wants to have a stuffed head on their wall.


In the end animals are an extremely valuble commodity and should be treated as such but it all comes down to might makes right.

Surprising as it may be, I agree wholeheartedly that animals have rights that need to be respected.

I am not a vegetarian (although I did think about it), however animals should never, never be treated in a cruel manner when they are being prepared for the slaughterhouse. I had previously been of the "if we eat them then why does it matter" school of thought, however having seen the way these animals are treated I realise how horrific it can be. Every chicken or whatever animal should have plenty of space to walk around so its limbs are not deformed, and should get to see outside of a factory, and run around like animals should. To cause them a life of misery and pain just so we (presuming most here are in the developed world) can grow obese is shameful. :shame:

Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.

Using animals for testing in laboritories is the most horrific of them all. I don't think I need to go into that to explain why. :no:

Endangered species are the matter I'm not so much on the side of the activists with. If there was one panda left in the world, I would rather it died than two common brown bears. Disproportionate attention shouldn't be given to endangered species - are their lives really more important than another creatures?

I agree entirely with Frag's take on the issue. I have only one thing to add.

https://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3972/petats7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well straight away we see a problem with the animal rights thing

Then....

but thats discrimination against the poor fluffy bunnies
yet....
Ah the poor fluffy wolves , they are fluffier than bunnies so are special .
So if wolves are special does that mean I shouldn't shoot a fox ? what about mink ? should I poison rats ? should I squash a midge ?
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox:dizzy2:


Tell that to Noah , greenpeace were very angry about the way he was cramming animals into his boat , they were going to protest but like all the other humans they didn't have boats to launch their protest from:2thumbsup:


Actually you cut very carefully and then pull , if you don't you can damage your merchandise .
Other livestock is a lot easier and can be done in many different ways , but pigs is different .
So Pizza what are your views on docking and de-horning ?
What about tagging ? thats really cruel , you put holes in the poor animals ears:yes:

---

wow. tribesman and i actually agree on something! ...kinda....

IMO, protect animals, but not when doing so gets in the way of important things.... like banning the navy from using sonar in practices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

Animals have the right to remain tasty...

---

:laugh4:
That reminds me of a bumper sticker:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img227.imageshack.us/img227/...00aa280ev1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox:dizzy2:

---

Gotta agree there. :yes:
In fact, I don't know that I'd be prepared to say that animals have any rights at all (other than the right to being tasty:wink: ). However, that doesn't mean it's ok for wanton brutal treatment of animals. We can and should be humane towards animals when possible- it's one of the things that separates us from them. A lion doesn't care if the zebra it's eating suffers, we do.

"Cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." -- R.G.H. Siu


I eat meat. I spend enough so that other people do most of the yucky part for me. If I had to, I would do it myself. My continued life involves the destruction of other lives -- circle of life and all that.

I don't think cruelty to animals is ever justified -- it demeans the humans involved and inflicts unnecessary harm on the animals.

Tribesman is perfectly correct on his "rights" assessment.

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

i have. a kosher one, so it wasnt that gross.....
less gross than mpost horror movies....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.

---

This I must strongly disagree with. I'm sure somebody else will debate it, but hunting is certainly not sick.

Well, I don't agree with all hunting, but I see that it is necessary for many around the world. I'd rather people eat animals instead of starving.

However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons;

1. Target practice can easily be done against stationary and moving objects that can be shot over and over without harming anything or causing suffering.

2. A good game of paintball with some friends should satisfy the need for sport, hunt, and competition, without wounding/killing the innocent.

3. If a person goes around killing animals, or wounding them, then leaving them to rot or mounting them on a wall, merely for the thrill and fun of it, doesn't that strike you as unnecessarily destructive, cruel, and inhumane? Perhaps if you've done it before, you must defend yourself and nothing I say could convince you, but objectively speaking; why cause death and suffering merely for sport or pleasure?

These reasons are incomplete, but they are a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons

---

Hunting for sport is unnecessary and waste - but he didn't talk just about hunting for sport, but also about hunting and eating the meat, which is - and should be - considered perfectly acceptable and normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Hunting for sport is unnecessary and waste - but he didn't talk just about hunting for sport, but also about hunting and eating the meat, which is - and should be - considered perfectly acceptable and normal.

---

Much agreed.

I think any introduction of "animal rights" as such would be a joke. It would be more practical to forbid mistreatment and develop standards for each sort of lifestock what is reasonable and what's necessary. It would be funny to see a prosecutor argue "you forced these animals to live in crampy quarters before you butchered them, you violated their rights!"

To be honest I think that most people like the idea of animal welfare in theory but wouldn't like paying 25-50% more for fish and meat to ensure a happy life for animals before they're dragged to the abatoir.

You have a right to be eaten.


Anything you say can be used against you in a pot or in a pan.


You have a right to barbecue sauce.


I you request barbecue sauce with will be properly grilled.


You have a right to be delicious.


And I will make you so to the best of my abilities and years of training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

---

Yes to both.

*reluctantly applies can-opener to large tin of worms*

Let me start out by saying I agree with Tribesman's assessment of animal "rights".

However, at the risk of steering this off at a tangent, hunting for "sport" should be examined more carefully. Not all creatures that are hunted are necessarily edible. In rural areas, animals may be hunted to protect far more valuable livestock. This activity has evolved in some places into a community tradition, which creates valuable bonds between people.

I hunt, shoot and fish. By hunting, I mean fox-hunting (yes, the "unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible"). This activity is a very important community action, and more to the point, the most effective method of pest control. It is also a lot of fun and great sport. Hunting like this is practical and preserves a natural balance - it is very hard to over-impact the fox population by chasing it. They banned it in the UK and now farmers there have to hire clowns with guns to wound the animal so it can bleed to death in a hole for hours whilst the urban middle-class sit smugly over their "freedom farmed" eggs at breakfast.

Shooting (mainly grouse and pheasant) has an additional benefit in the conservation of large tracts of land that would otherwise not be stewarded - or a burden on tax-payers to maintain. The result of a day's shooting can of course, be eaten.

Fishing of course, never gets a bad press.

Strangely enough, in many parts of the world, controlled hunting is the best way to conserve wild areas. The income generated gives local peoples a stake in conserving species and habitats that otherwise would be a nuisance or prospective farmland.

It has always amused me that many of those who scream cruelty at the chasing and killing of a fox (which when caught, dies immediately) happily go home to feast on their economy chicken burgers made out of long-tortured fowl.

I should point out, I meant hunting for sport, naturally native populations still rely on hunting to survive.

I would however be somewhat hesitant about someone in the developed world hunting for food, although technically it is acceptable.

I wouldn't delve into the animal rights debate though. At the end of the day no creature has inalienable rights - even human rights are made up and our ideas of them can change all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I think any introduction of "animal rights" as such would be a joke. It would be more practical to forbid mistreatment and develop standards for each sort of lifestock what is reasonable and what's necessary. It would be funny to see a prosecutor argue "you forced these animals to live in crampy quarters before you butchered them, you violated their rights!"

---

Come to think of it, I agree.

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

Ya, normal and halal, not nearly as traumatising as what atpg has seen. With an able halal butcher it's not that bad, and a regular slaughter is completily painless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Come to think of it, I agree.

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

Ya, normal and halal, not nearly as traumatising as what atpg has seen. With an able halal butcher it's not that bad, and a regular slaughter is completily painless.

---

Been working in chicken and pig slaughterhouses some years ago. Only a few weeks, just more than enough to hate factory farming. I advice anyone who denies animal suffering (many do....) to spend a few nights in such places. The smell of death and fear. I was also part of a few pig and sheep "homemade" slaughters (both Hallal -for the sheep!!- and not) and it's definitely much better if the butcher knows his job. Hallal is still disturbing since you can't hammer the beast.

OT, I almost bled myself to death with a chainsaw when I was still a lumberjack, so I can say that dying bleeding is... well... not so bad.

If you love meat (I don't), try to buy it straight from the farmer. Or have your own poultry. Or practice hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

If you love meat (I don't), try to buy it straight from the farmer. Or have your own poultry.

---

Thats impractial and pretty impossible for most people though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Thats impractial and pretty impossible for most people though.

---

It's a matter of choice. I won't eat meat if I do not know where and how the animal was bred and killed. So I seldom have meat.

And again, go work in a slaughterhouse or spend a few nights emptying factory poultry farms. It's a good lesson about life and death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

It's a matter of choice. I won't eat meat if I do not know where and how the animal was bred and killed. So I seldom have meat.

---

That is your choice :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That is your choice :bow:

---

Well, when you are broke enough to have to work in meat industry, it's not a choice...

PS: two months on a trawler got me rid of fish when I don't know who fished it. I'm almost vegetarian now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Well, when you are broke enough to have to work in meat industry, it's not a choice...

PS: two months on a trawler got me rid of fish when I don't know who fished it. I'm almost vegetarian now.

---

But that is simply not an option for most people especially those with children. The point is that we shouldn't go out of the way to harm any being but human needs outweigh those of animal ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

---

I grew up seasoning a rather large amount of animals. My father really enjoys hunting, but doesn't like to dress his kills. I also used to raise rabbits, from cradle to market. Tonight I'll be peeling 10 Lbs of shrimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

But that is simply not an option for most people especially those with children. The point is that we shouldn't go out of the way to harm any being but human needs outweigh those of animal ones.

---

Agreed, but I won't feed my children with the polluted crap coming out of factory farming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Agreed, but I won't feed my children with the polluted crap coming out of factory farming.

---

If you have the means to do that great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Apologies if there already is a thread on this, but I'd like to open a discussion about it.

Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have? I have long pondered this question.
hunting for sport instead of for survival
Have at it!

---

Define Survival. I'm a hunter, and I hunt because..... I like the food and I think it's fun. When I mean fun, I mean ,I don't go and shoot a rabbit or a deer, take a picture of it with me standing by it smiling and walking off and leaving it there. Fun to me is, you go out in the woods, and if you don't get something, fine, and if I get something..... I have someone take a picture of me standing next to it, then we gut it, and take it home to eat.





to me, Animal rights is a joke. Yeah, I hate people who abuse dogs and that for no reason (I hate cats, so I don't care about them frankly), but still..... Humans are more important here.

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If you have the means to do that great.

---

Food is the last thing I put restrictions on. I won't eat crap in order to travel, buy nice clothes or spend nights out. Just a matter of choice, again.

Sasaki, you're a great philosopher! The topic is more on animal suffering than animal killing. No one is objecting people killing animals here. The matter is how they are killed. And we're not cats, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

---

Lions Kill other animals... Tigers do.... Cheetahs do...... Snakes do... They are all animals,lizard, whatever you like to call them and they kill things for what.... Food?

Why do I hunt primarly? Food... Well.

Sure, you got a point, but doesn't change my viewpoint about cats much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have?
where is the line?

---

I'd like to state in advance that I have not a clear opinion about the subject. I hope this thread will help me make one.

I just think we should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic rights.

I will try to clarify my thoughts through other posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Food is the last thing I put restrictions on. I won't eat crap in order to travel, buy nice clothes or spend nights out. Just a matter of choice, again.
.

---

well yes but sometimes people cant afford those things to begin with

BTW, one of the largest environment concerns here is a giant dead zone, the size of New Jersey, in the Gulf Of Mexico. And the leading cause is the over production of corn in the Midwest.


Sierra Club Website, about it

Quote:

---

Where does the Dead Zone come from?
Scientific research has indicated that the excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) result from human activities in the upstream Mississippi River watershed. The principal areas contributing nutrients to the Mississippi River, and ultimately to the Gulf, are streams draining the corn belt states, particularly Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and southern Minnesota.

---

Edu websitte



article from 2004




If you really cared about animals, maybe you should consider a cessation of your over corn consumption. Or follow any of these steps:

Quote:

---

Ask your state's Governor to establish numeric nutrient standards to protect waters from pollution. You could make the following points:

* Nutrient pollution is one of the biggest water quality problems in the nation.

* The state has had many years to set numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus. Delay is only making pollution worse. The state should set these standards by no later than 2008.

* The state standards should be set low enough to protect downstream waters from excessive nutrients. States are not allowed to contribute to the degradation of downstream waters.

* It is important that the state set standards for all waterbodies to ensure that nutrient pollution is reduced across the board. (Some states are planning to set standards for some waterbodies, delaying standards for others.)

* The state should follow the EPA's technical guidance for developing standards. If not, the state must use a scientifically-defensible method. (Although states are free to use their own methods to develop standards, some states are developing their own methodologies more as a way to delay the process than to arrive at a standard which will protect water quality.)

* The state should set standards for both nitrogen and phosphorus. (Some states are planning to address only one of these nutrients.) You can find additional information on how to get involved in your state's process for setting nutrient standards here (pdf).

---

I blame everything on the midwest anyway. Bunch of whiners

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I blame everything on the midwest anyway. Bunch of whiners

---

I agree, what do people need that much corn for anyway. It's not like they know how to make super awesome rum and red pepper corn bread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

I agree, what do people need that much corn for anyway. It's not like they know how to make super awesome rum and red pepper corn bread.

---

They don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

They don't

---

They may have the corn, but they don't have the red peppers, nor the rum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

The topic is more on animal suffering than animal killing. No one is objecting people killing animals here. The matter is how they are killed. And we're not cats, by the way.

---

Weren't people objecting to hunting for sport?

Cats are known to play with their food (as in "a game of cat and mouse"). This causes unnecessary suffering. Is it immoral to let your cat outside? But if you keep him inside aren't you imprisoning him???? I find these questions to be ridiculously trivial in comparison to actual human suffering. There's a tremendous amount of animal suffering that takes place and yet people only care about the tiny sliver of suffering that humans cause. That racehorse may have been shot when it broke its ankle but what do you think it's life would have been like in the wild?

By the way here's some free range chickens ,heh:

https://img233.imageshack.us/img233/...kingshajf7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.

---

I've worked in a factory where they made sausages, steaks etc. I don't think it qualifies as a "butchery" because the pigs were butchered elsewhere and delivered to where I worked. The smell of 150 dead pigs in a cramped room is truly abominable.

EDIT: it didn't make me a vegetarian, though. Pork is just tasty :shrug:

Animals (other than humans) have no rights.

But to echo a common sentiment in the thread: if there are two ways to kill an animal before we eat it, and one method is much less painful and traumatic, then that is the method we should use.

Animals are going to be eaten but I see no reason to treat them with cruelty. People that deliberately cause pain to an animal without reason shouldn’t have an animal and should probably be given the same pain they gave the animal. I make a clear difference between a pet, livestock, a wild animal, and a pest and all have their own acceptable cruelty meter with a pest being lowest but even then there is no reason to pull the wings off a fly when you can just smash it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Been working in chicken and pig slaughterhouses some years ago. Only a few weeks, just more than enough to hate factory farming. I advice anyone who denies animal suffering (many do....) to spend a few nights in such places. The smell of death and fear. I was also part of a few pig and sheep "homemade" slaughters (both Hallal -for the sheep!!- and not) and it's definitely much better if the butcher knows his job. Hallal is still disturbing since you can't hammer the beast.

---

Never worked with pig butchers, only cattle and poultry, cattle is treated well, the animal isn't killed before it is at ease, regulations, but it's also better for the meat. There are no signs of the cow before it, poor thing has no idea what is happening, BLAM over. Everything is cleaned, next cow. Chickens get an electric shock prior to getting their head cut of, these 10 seconds hanging at their legs isn't the nicest thing to do but I really wouldn't know how to proces as many otherwise. The butchering part is really pretty merciful and only a minor aspect of the misery, we should improve living conditions.

i would like to see the violent animal rights activists hunted down using the same methods they employ by violent human rights activists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Animals (other than humans) have no rights.

But to echo a common sentiment in the thread: if there are two ways to kill an animal before we eat it, and one method is much less painful and traumatic, then that is the method we should use.

---

But doesn't that statement itself presuppose that the animal has a right to a dignified death where one is available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

---

If an animal goes around killing people, would it be ok for people to go around killing people?

Just because an animal kills other animals for survival, defense and due to instinct, we do not need to inflict needless suffering on the innocent.

I'm of the theory that people should behave in a more civilized fashion than the animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have?

---

I don't know. I try not to kill them unless I am going to eat them or they threaten me. I don't believe that people should cause animals to suffer.

We should show animals the same respect that they show one another. There doesn't tend to be killing except in defense or to feed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't know. I try not to kill them unless I am going to eat them or they threaten me. I don't believe that people should cause animals to suffer.

We should show animals the same respect that they show one another. There doesn't tend to be killing except in defense or to feed.

---

How would you respond to those that say it's ok to kill animals for no reason, because animals kill other animals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

How would you respond to those that say it's ok to kill animals for no reason, because animals kill other animals?

---

Animals rarely kill other animals for no reason.

Sasaki has argued that we can't object to senseless deaths of animals because cats hurt other animals. I think you've offered a good counter-argument.

If I may sound so snobbish, I like to think of humans as being above animals.

However, that is purely in a moral or civilized sense. Animals feel pain just as surely as we do, and to inflict pain on an animal in the name of anything other than self-defence or the need to survive is shameful.

I'd say its as valid an opinion as any, and it seems to have good, compassionate grounds.

Senseless killing, by definition, is senseless. That makes it unwarranted, unproductive, sadistic and destructive. None of these things are particularly commendable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Senseless killing, by definition, is senseless. That makes it unwarranted, unproductive, sadistic and destructive. None of these things are particularly commendable.

---

:bow:

I think it is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals. But beyond that, do animals deserve to be given other rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

I think it is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals. But beyond that, do animals deserve to be given other rights?

---

I don't believe so. I think that current animal abuse laws are sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

I think it is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals. But beyond that, do animals deserve to be given other rights?

---

Thought 'yes' before I gave it any thought but now I think 'no' Tribes and Fenring are right. Animal rights is unworkable we will have to do with a pledge for good behaviour of those making a living there, and act firmly against what everybody should be able to recognise as unacceptable.

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/t...igation?c=pfbw

So what do we do now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

So what do we do now?

---

The widely accepted alternative to turkey at Christmas is the Nut Roast. A good recipe follows.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Take one nut, ideally a PETA activist. The way to check that your nut is fresh is to look for excessive frothing.

Insert roasting spit where the sun doesn't shine. If in doubt, the nut will be talking out of it.

Roast nut over a low fire for five to eight hours. Make sure the nut watches you consuming something meaty so that it is properly tenderised.

Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The widely accepted alternative to turkey at Christmas is the Nut Roast. A good recipe follows.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Take one nut, ideally a PETA activist. The way to check that your nut is fresh is to look for excessive frothing.

Insert roasting spit where the sun doesn't shine. If in doubt, the nut will be talking out of it.

Roast nut over a low fire for five to eight hours. Make sure the nut watches you consuming something meaty so that it is properly tenderised.

Enjoy.

---

:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:


That made me jiggle like a bowl full of jello.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The widely accepted alternative to turkey at Christmas is the Nut Roast. A good recipe follows.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Take one nut, ideally a PETA activist. The way to check that your nut is fresh is to look for excessive frothing.

Insert roasting spit where the sun doesn't shine. If in doubt, the nut will be talking out of it.

Roast nut over a low fire for five to eight hours. Make sure the nut watches you consuming something meaty so that it is properly tenderised.

Enjoy.

---

Oh common, look at the video that is really unacceptable, why would you do such a thing.

Blimey Frag, I can honestly say this is the first and possibly only time I can say that what you have said in this thread is pretty much exactly my opinion. :2thumbsup::bow:

Though you may not agree with this bit..

My take on animals as a whole I get a lot of stick for, especially with my family. I love animals, my dog was as much a part of my family as my sisters, the whole family mourned the loss of her as much as my grandfather when he passed away - and her ashes are on the mantlepiece! - however though I may love animals there is one huge thing which makes them different to us. They are not humans. Simple as that and because of that they do not have rights like we do and if all the animals in the world had to be killed for a cure of cancer to be found, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. I am for the equality, rights and liberty of the human species, if animals are needed to be tested on in labs for this to happen, for cures of illness' to be found then I have zero problem with it. The only line I draw is when there is uneccesary and cruel treatment, for no purpose. As for battery farming, I have no problem with it. Call me unethical or cruel, fine. But providing cheap, needed food for the poorer in society - to me - is a clear priority over the lives of chickens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

As for battery farming, I have no problem with it. Call me unethical or cruel, fine. But providing cheap, needed food for the poorer in society - to me - is a clear priority over the lives of chickens.

---

This is true to an extent, however how necessary is it for the poor to have access to KFC Bargain Buckets? All it does it make them obese, ruin the lives of their children, and send them to an early grave. Fast food chains specifically target poorer areas, and never to any good to the poorer communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Oh common, look at the video that is really unacceptable, why would you do such a thing.

---

It is certainly unacceptable, but PETA and their like are too absolutist and thus nuts.

My beef herd is treated with the utmost care and have, one assumes, wonderful lives. They get sent to slaughter at an abbatoir with the highest standards, and I inspect it personally - and my steward makes sure that standards are kept up.

But the products of the estate retail in specialist butchers at prices most people would find extravagant.

JAG hits the nail on the head. If the majority wishes to eat meat, there has to be some level of industrialisation to production. A truly free range, full ethically raised chicken (being the meat most people eat most often) will retail for at least €20. A battery bird is likely to sell for around €3-4.

That's not to say industrial farming cannot be much improved, but short of forcing the peasantry back to a diet of potatoes and soil, it is a necessary evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Though you may not agree with this bit..

---

Nah I agree, when you really think about it animal rights is a bit silly, got ahead of myself here. It's not animals rights it's really a human obligation to do things the right way.

It is certainly unacceptable, but PETA and their like are too absolutist and thus nuts.

Absolutily yes. But just because the discussion was hijacked by extremists doesn't mean it shouldn't be held. Cruelty because of convenience is a no, people will just have to pay a little more. I always buy 'good' meat it's more expensive (and tastes better) but that is fine with me. Don't care what other people do but not going to support the bio-industry because the gut says it's wrong. But once again I am being a hypocrite because the bio-industry has made me a lot of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I would however be somewhat hesitant about someone in the developed world hunting for food, although technically it is acceptable.

---

Why? The deer you shot with a rifle had a free and full life compared to the contents of your last burger. It was also given a sporting chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Why? The deer you shot with a rifle had a free and full life compared to the contents of your last burger. It was also given a sporting chance.

---

There's no way to ensure it does not die in a particularly painful manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

There's no way to ensure it does not die in a particularly painful manner.

---

It would be killed much more painfully in the wild as a result of disease or predators. There is nothing wrong with hunting for meat - on the contrary, it is to be encouraged.