Animal rights are none of our business, we got our rights, they got theirs.
When was the last time a lion or tiger cared about human rights anyway eh?
Next up we assign rights to malaria, ebola, the flu and streptococcus....
Originally Posted by Husar:
Animal rights are none of our business, we got our rights, they got theirs.
When was the last time a lion or tiger cared about human rights anyway eh?
Next up we assign rights to malaria, ebola, the flu and streptococcus....
Yes indeed, and before you know it you have climate-laws, as if the climate will obbey t-
no I didn't
Askthepizzaguy 17:06 06-10-2009
It would be very difficult to define in terms of the law, I agree with that.
However there's a certain level of just plain illogical, irrational, destructive and pointless pain and torment that you should not inflict on a living being. To me, pulling the legs slowly off of an insect so you can torture it is sickening. Then again I have no problem with exterminating an insect infestation in my home.
Maybe Sasaki is right, that animals have no rights that can be compared to human rights. However, we must find our humanity itself and realize that what makes us so much more "enlightened" than the animals is that we have a brain that can reason and feel empathy and see the immorality of senseless, wanton destruction and cruelty.
There's no reason to slaughter a hundred pigs and just let them rot.
There's plenty of reason to slaughter a hundred pigs and feed people.
There's no reason to shoot neighborhood pets or even trap stray animals and torture them.
If your animal is very very old/frail and sick/in pain, and you are tired of watching it suffer, I don't see a problem with humanely ending their pain.
Now, how do you transform that into law? I don't know if you can. But there needs to be a discussion about it, and we need to agree on what actions, if any, should be penalized.
I think dogfighting is cruel and must be illegal.
I think cockfighting is the same way.
Bullfighting I think is cruel.
Animals raised for slaughter should be at least kept in safe, clean, suitable conditions, not stacked on top of one another sleeping in a giant pile of feces. That's just common sense stuff.
So... what makes things common sense stuff? There's some kind of logic at work, and if we can identify the precise wording of that logic, perhaps we can make law.
Granted there will always be room for interpretation of the law, but that is why cases are decided by people, not documents.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
To me, pulling the legs slowly off of an insect so you can torture it is sickening.
If they can not experience "pain", then why not? If they can experience "pain", then what?
Askthepizzaguy 18:53 06-10-2009
Originally Posted by Viking:
If they can not experience "pain", then why not? If they can experience "pain", then what?
Pain or not, it is needlessly destructive and it is cruel to the creature.
And simple observation and very basic scientific testing concludes that most creatures with a central nervous system experience pain. That is one of it's most basic functions; to keep the body intact and away from serious damage. Even the dumbest creatures experience pain that we can observe, or discomfort or irritation of some kind.
I do not see what moral value intentional cruel torment of a lesser being has. It is despicable.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Pain or not, it is needlessly destructive and it is cruel to the creature.
And simple observation and very basic scientific testing concludes that most creatures with a central nervous system experience pain. That is one of it's most basic functions; to keep the body intact and away from serious damage. Even the dumbest creatures experience pain that we can observe, or discomfort or irritation of some kind.
I do not see what moral value intentional cruel torment of a lesser being has. It is despicable.
Can a bug really feel "pain" though; just because it can react to stimulation? I do not see a direct link here.
And I would not call them "lesser"; if numbers is what matters, I think they're doing quite well. ;-)
Originally Posted by :
Can a bug really feel "pain" though; just because it can react to stimulation? I do not see a direct link here.
Can a human really feel pain? What is pain more than just a mental stimulation that says "don't do that again"?
Major Robert Dump 01:40 06-11-2009
I hunt boars with a revolver and large blade. I hunt bears with a bow. I hunt catfish with my hands. I hunt quail with a pistol that shoots buckshot. I hunt deer sometimes, but I'm not very good at it.
But I also eat them. And what I can't fit in the freezer I give away. Don't want the heads of things I've eaten looking at me in my living room. It's really got a lot less to do with sport than it has to do with filling my fat belly, time investiture and in a lot of peoples cases, spending time with the family and friends.
That being said, I really do think bullfighting is kind of sick. And I must admit, I take pleasure in seeing people get mauled at the running of the bulls. Animals are a lower species, no more sport than picking on retarded kids. And we can't eat retards.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Can a human really feel pain? What is pain more than just a mental stimulation that says "don't do that again"?
Do bugs have a psyche? I want to define pain as something uncomfortable. If you prod your hand with a finger, you'll feel it. It does not take pain to sense something. Obviously, the sensation of being damaged should be taken more seriously by the body than a mere touch, but a more vigorous reaction does not necessarily equal pain in the way a human would sense it.
Askthepizzaguy 10:29 06-11-2009
I'm pretty sure if you start chopping off the toes of a cat, it will howl in pain, not curiosity.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Do bugs have a psyche? I want to define pain as something uncomfortable. If you prod your hand with a finger, you'll feel it. It does not take pain to sense something. Obviously, the sensation of being damaged should be taken more seriously by the body than a mere touch, but a more vigorous reaction does not necessarily equal pain in the way a human would sense it.
Doesn't really matter, why would you do such a thing regardless.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
I'm pretty sure if you start chopping off the toes of a cat, it will howl in pain, not curiosity.
A cat makes no bug.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Doesn't really matter, why would you do such a thing regardless.
I'd say it is at the very core of the issue. If most anmials can feel pain like humans do, then one would expect that this would have a major impact. I feel no regret kicking the flower head of a dandelion.
Askthepizzaguy 12:26 06-11-2009
Originally Posted by Viking:
A cat makes no bug.
So then you'd agree that a cat feels pain, much like a human being does.
Where does that logic start to break down? Does a dog not feel pain? A chimpanzee? Of course they do. What about a rabbit or a guinea pig? Of course. A crocodile? Yes indeed. What allows them to feel pain? Their nervous system.
It's possible that certain animals have certain body parts which experience no pain. A sheep doesn't care if you shave off it's wool. If you trim the nails of a dog properly, it doesn't yelp in pain. So I am sure that bugs and whatnot could perhaps have antennae or legs that if you rip off, they may not feel it.
What if I conceded the entire pain question, since I am not an expert. Let's say you could do anything you want to a bug and it felt no pain. Does that make it any less cruel to attempt to torture the creature, any less cruel to destroy them senselessly? If hollywood makes a horror film where they release a bunch of tarantulas onto the ground in a room, is it ok for the actors to just stomp all over them and spread their guts across the floor? Is it ok to take one of these creatures and start plucking their legs off and leave them to starve? There are people who have a rare condition which does not allow them to sense pain. Is it ok to injure them because it doesn't cause them to suffer the pain? Pain is only one part of the cruelty. What about the unnecessary injury or death of a creature?
Maybe it goes a step too far to say ok, don't ever eat an animal and don't ever accidentally step on a bug and don't get rid of pests inside your house. That's nature. What's unnatural is the fascination with senseless cruelty and destruction.
Call me a bleeding heart, maybe I am, but imagine we didn't need trees for oxygen or resources. Shouldn't it be a crime for someone to enter a forest and just start burning down all the trees? Or cutting them all down and destroying the natural environment just for the bizarre thrill of destroying things? I get that we cut down trees for wood and paper and so forth, or to clear an area for development... but these are things which serve a purpose. Destruction of living things without any reason still seems pointless and cruel to me.
Yeah, I am aware that such ideas are easy to mock, but the ideas in my opinion show a lot more concern for society, life in general, and the environment, and the view that you can maim or destroy living things frivolously just seems to be an absolute moral negative to me. Wasteful and senseless destruction, especially when it ends a life, especially when it causes torment and pain, is wrong.
Originally Posted by :
I'd say it is at the very core of the issue. If most anmials can feel pain like humans do, then one would expect that this would have a major impact. I feel no regret kicking the flower head of a dandelion.
Nor I.... but I also don't for example take a bunch of herbicide and just sprinkle it all over the place for the fun of vandalizing property or destroying nature. There's no pain whatsoever involved, and it still seems wrong to me. It's a strange example but... most people have the good sense not to destroy things for no reason, especially living things, especially ones that feel pain. And if I cannot articulate why I think there is a universal moral and logical basis for this viewpoint, then it is because I'm not someone who grapples with moral truths for a living or even to any great extent as a hobby, but I still think there's something to it that gives it more value than reasonless killing of animals or cruel treatment thereof.
I am with ATPG, there is never an excuse for any sort of cruelty. Ask yourself this, when would you justify cruelty, at what point, and why. Why not ask why you need to justify it in the first place.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
So then you'd agree that a cat feels pain, much like a human being does.
It appears to me so; I do not claim the knowledge. For whatever I know, humans are not the "smartest" specie on Earth (we do not have the biggest brains etc.).
Originally Posted by :
Where does that logic start to break down? Does a dog not feel pain? A chimpanzee? Of course they do. What about a rabbit or a guinea pig? Of course. A crocodile? Yes indeed. What allows them to feel pain? Their nervous system.
It's possible that certain animals have certain body parts which experience no pain. A sheep doesn't care if you shave off it's wool. If you trim the nails of a dog properly, it doesn't yelp in pain. So I am sure that bugs and whatnot could perhaps have antennae or legs that if you rip off, they may not feel it.
What if I conceded the entire pain question, since I am not an expert. Let's say you could do anything you want to a bug and it felt no pain. Does that make it any less cruel to attempt to torture the creature, any less cruel to destroy them senselessly? If hollywood makes a horror film where they release a bunch of tarantulas onto the ground in a room, is it ok for the actors to just stomp all over them and spread their guts across the floor? Is it ok to take one of these creatures and start plucking their legs off and leave them to starve? There are people who have a rare condition which does not allow them to sense pain. Is it ok to injure them because it doesn't cause them to suffer the pain? Pain is only one part of the cruelty. What about the unnecessary injury or death of a creature?
Maybe it goes a step too far to say ok, don't ever eat an animal and don't ever accidentally step on a bug and don't get rid of pests inside your house. That's nature. What's unnatural is the fascination with senseless cruelty and destruction.
Call me a bleeding heart, maybe I am, but imagine we didn't need trees for oxygen or resources. Shouldn't it be a crime for someone to enter a forest and just start burning down all the trees? Or cutting them all down and destroying the natural environment just for the bizarre thrill of destroying things? I get that we cut down trees for wood and paper and so forth, or to clear an area for development... but these are things which serve a purpose. Destruction of living things without any reason still seems pointless and cruel to me.
Yeah, I am aware that such ideas are easy to mock, but the ideas in my opinion show a lot more concern for society, life in general, and the environment, and the view that you can maim or destroy living things frivolously just seems to be an absolute moral negative to me. Wasteful and senseless destruction, especially when it ends a life, especially when it causes torment and pain, is wrong.
The whole question of cruelty lies, as I view it, whether a being is conscient or not. Maybe it would suck to be a bug an get one's legs pulled of one by one, I do not know. If bugs are not aware of their own existence, and cannot feel discomfort; it is from their viewing angle impossible to experience cruelty.
Originally Posted by :
Nor I.... but I also don't for example take a bunch of herbicide and just sprinkle it all over the place for the fun of vandalizing property or destroying nature. There's no pain whatsoever involved, and it still seems wrong to me. It's a strange example but... most people have the good sense not to destroy things for no reason, especially living things, especially ones that feel pain. And if I cannot articulate why I think there is a universal moral and logical basis for this viewpoint, then it is because I'm not someone who grapples with moral truths for a living or even to any great extent as a hobby, but I still think there's something to it that gives it more value than reasonless killing of animals or cruel treatment thereof.
All fine and well, but the topic reads "Animal rights", which implies laws rather than a personal choice. Of course, at some point in history, the latter led to the former..
Originally Posted by Viking:
The whole question of cruelty lies, as I view it, whether a being is conscient or not. Maybe it would suck to be a bug an get one's legs pulled of one by one, I do not know. If bugs are not aware of their own existence, and cannot feel discomfort; it is from their viewing angle impossible to experience cruelty.
The person doing it knows why he's doing it, to do harm for no reason whatsoever. Maybe bugs feel pain, at least he can't be bothered, having too much fun tearing of legs.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
The person doing it knows why he's doing it, to do harm for no reason whatsoever. Maybe bugs feel pain, at least he can't be bothered, having too much fun tearing of legs.
Yes, probably he/she is doing it to be cruel; but what interests me is if it actually is cruel. A question of biology.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO