Animal rights

[Hax]

Animals should have rights. It is not unnatural for humans to eat (cooked) meat, and thus I can respect it if people should desire to eat meat. I draw the line at cruelty. Cruelty for your own personal pleasure (bullfighting) is sickening to me. Imagine if we were put in an arena and forced to fight eachother to the death.

Live and let live.

[Fragony]

Think about it, animal rights, how would they make claim. We don't need animal rights we need human decency.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Eh, I think ritually slaughtering a bull for entertainment is cruel whether the people are watching it to see a bull get killed or whether they are watching to see if the matador gets killed.
Repeatedly stabbing an animal with spears until it's too weak to stand and then killing it with a sword isn't my idea of a good time.

Eh, it's fun to watch for reasons that aren't tied up with cruelty. Just like those videos of bears fighting on the discovery channel. And if your against animals dying for our viewing pleasure then you should be a vegetarian--there's no significant difference between tasting pleasure and viewing pleasure.

I'm all for animal rights(or rules, or laws, or magic fairies, or whatever).

We eat animals for food, yes. But what did your mom tell you when you threw peas across the table as a kid? Don't play with your food!

If animals have rights then it is wrong to kill them for food and wrong to test vaccines and medicine on them.

Animals should have rights. It is not unnatural for humans to eat (cooked) meat, and thus I can respect it if people should desire to eat meat. I draw the line at cruelty. Cruelty for your own personal pleasure (bullfighting) is sickening to me. Imagine if we were put in an arena and forced to fight eachother to the death.

Live and let live.

Imagine if we were cast out in to the wild and forced to survive with no shelter or clothes. Imagine if we were raised in farms and slaughtered for food. Animals aren't human. Would you arrest a lion for murdering a giraffe?


People mistakingly assume that animals feel as we do, because we naturally try to assign human feelings and motives to everything we see. Today we laugh at Xerxes for having the sea whipped and poked with hot irons because he blamed it for trashing his bridge, but we still make the same mistake with animals. "life is precious" assumes that an animals life is the same as a human life, and saying that animals are "innocent" assumes a capacity that they don't have.

People assume that since they find bullfighting repulsive, that anyone who enjoys watching it must be "sick". No different from people finding homosexuality repulsive and thinking that gay people are sick.

[FactionHeir]

I'm surprised no one brought up PETA yet

[drone]

People don't watch bullfights to see the bull get cut to pieces, they watch bullfights because there is a chance (albeit small) that the matador will have a very bad day.

Fragony is on the right track. Animals are there for our use, but that is no excuse for making their existence, and their deaths, cruel and painfully long. We also need to think long-term about their survival and proper role in the food chain.

[Fragony]

People mistakingly assume that animals feel as we do

Well I don't know if they do, but there is NEVER an excuse for cruelty.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People mistakingly assume that animals feel as we do

Well I don't know if they do, but there is NEVER an excuse for cruelty.

Saying something is cruel involves assumptions. To keep a person confined to the house at all times would be cruel, but that's what you do to your cat to treat it well.

It is certainly possible to be cruel to animals, but you can't go by knee jerk reactions like animal rights people tend to.

[Viking]

Saying something is cruel involves assumptions.

As does the opposite, naturally.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As does the opposite, naturally.

That's kind of a false equivalence isn't it? Assuming that animals react the same as humans is different from assuming they don't.

[Xiahou]

That's kind of a false equivalence isn't it? Assuming that animals react the same as humans is different from assuming they don't.

Another false equivalence would be equating slowly killing an animal for amusement to slaughtering one for sustenance.

I don't think I'm climbing too far out on a limb to assume that a bull doesn't enjoy being stabbed repeatedly. Does it feel fear or terror in the exact same way humans do? Probably not. But we still look down on people who have dogs fight to the death for entertainment.

[Viking]

That's kind of a false equivalence isn't it? Assuming that animals react the same as humans is different from assuming they don't.

The opposite of assuming something is cruel, is assuming it is not cruel. Humans cannot magically enter the equation.

If A is an assumption, then NOT A is also an assumption. If A is true, NOT A is false, and we no longer have assumptions about A, but assumptions regarding the validity of the established "truth" of A. I believe..

Assumptions begin where proof ends, no?

[HoreTore]

If animals have rights then it is wrong to kill them for food

Of course not, they are food. Who said they should be given a right to protect them from being killed and eaten? Not me, I said they should be protected from being some sadistic nuts plaything. Which is something quite different.

and wrong to test vaccines and medicine on them.

If it's some unnecessary thing, sure, I'd put that in the "sadistic nuts plaything"-bin. But if it's something vaguely useful, then sure. They are, afterall, our underlings, and again, who said they should be given a right against being used in medical experiments?

To keep a person confined to the house at all times would be cruel, but that's what you do to your cat to treat it well.

WHAT?!?!??!?!

[Hax]

I must admit I spoke too soon;

In my opinion, animals (as HoreTore stated) animals should be protected against human cruelty. Rights is a bit of a vague term in this case. As far as we know (thanks for all the fish) animals lack the consciousness that humans have. The situation is even more difficult because we don't know any species who have the same consciousness (or close to) that humans have.

If it's some unnecessary thing, sure, I'd put that in the "sadistic nuts plaything"-bin. But if it's something vaguely useful, then sure. They are, afterall, our underlings, and again, who said they should be given a right against being used in medical experiments?

I prefer this being tested on humans. If we wish to mess around with natural selection, I'd say that we are responsible. Animals should not be made to suffer because of benefits to humans.*

Generally, I do not see animals as underlings, but just as different beings on this planet. In many aspects, I think their lives to be better of that of humans because they lack conscience. They work in perfect harmony with nature. Stephen Fry once said:

"If you look outside, the only ugly things you will see are manmade. Everything in nature, be it a desert, swamp, lake, plain is beautiful in its own right."

The same goes for animals, in my opinion. Not so much that they have extraordinary beauty (a rabbit with Shopes Papiloma can be quite revolting, but in the sense that they live in harmony with nature, which humans have trouble with at points. I'm not saying we are incapable of doing so, but in animals it is innate, for humans it has to be learned.

This might be my Buddhist philosophy coming up though.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course not, they are food. Who said they should be given a right to protect them from being killed and eaten?

Vegans.

If it's some unnecessary thing, sure, I'd put that in the "sadistic nuts plaything"-bin. But if it's something vaguely useful, then sure. They are, afterall, our underlings, and again, who said they should be given a right against being used in medical experiments?

Vaccines will have to be tested on living subjects at some point, it should always be animals first.

WHAT?!?!??!?!

Outside cats get all kinds of diseases. Our vet was fairly adamant that cats should be kept indoors and I tend to trust him because cats getting diseases would be good business for him...

Generally, I do not see animals as underlings, but just as different beings on this planet. In many aspects, I think their lives to be better of that of humans because they lack conscience. They work in perfect harmony with nature. Stephen Fry once said:

"If you look outside, the only ugly things you will see are manmade. Everything in nature, be it a desert, swamp, lake, plain is beautiful in its own right."

Ugly is a human concept though...and swamps are pretty ugly imo.

A lion doesn't inflict multiple small wounds with the intention of causing harm but not death, a lion is simply trying kill its prey to be eaten.

In a bullfight, they make the wounds to the neck not to cause harm, but to weaken the bull so that they can kill it safely. Lions probably do something similar to giraffes, and wolves certainly do to elk and such. House cats on the other hand, are well know for playing with their food, it's where we get the saying "a game of cat and mouse".

[PowerWizard]

Animals should have rights.

Going by that vague statement, I demand the voting rights of the crocodiles.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm for eating meat and I don't mind circuses keeping animals. I'm undecided on bull fighting.

But I don't think animals should have cosmetics tested on them. It's torture and without any benefit to science. Even when you kill an animal to eat it, you don't let it suffer in agony for days on end.

EDIT:

A lion doesn't inflict multiple small wounds with the intention of causing harm but not death, a lion is simply trying kill its prey to be eaten.

I've seen my dog play with mice he's caught in a field. He'll bite it, then drop it, again and again, until the mouse is dead and stops squeaking. As Sasaki has ably pointed out, animals are not people - they don't think or feel as we do.

CR

[Samurai Waki]

no, animals don't have rights. However, they should be respected, to maintain conservation for our own well being.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I've seen my dog play with mice he's caught in a field. He'll bite it, then drop it, again and again, until the mouse is dead and stops squeaking. As Sasaki has ably pointed out, animals are not people - they don't think or feel as we do.

CR

The irony... After Holocaust, Holodomor, Armenian Genocide, Tutsi Genocide, Great Purges, Mongol's extermination of Chinese peasantry (tens of millions dead), and Mao's antics, just to name a few you still say animals do not feel as us? Well, heck, you are right. They are above such things. If they knew about the we do, I am sure they would utter the same as you declared on their nature.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I've seen my dog play with mice he's caught in a field. He'll bite it, then drop it, again and again, until the mouse is dead and stops squeaking. As Sasaki has ably pointed out, animals are not people - they don't think or feel as we do.

CR

Exactly. It's a fairly standard way for animals to hunt. Great Whites will bite once and the circle until their prey has bled and weakened (assuming it's big enough they can't swallow it) rather than risk injury.

The reason they stab the bull prior to the kill is to weaken it with some blood loss and to weaken the neck muscles so it keeps its head lower, allowing it to be killed in a single stroke of the sword.

It just seems like people trying to rationalize a personal distaste. Killing animals? That's fine, just don't hurt them. Animals dying horrible deaths in the wild? That's fine, it's natural.

In reality, the entire animal rights movement is self serving--it's about what we feel about animals rather than what they feel. Which is fine up to a point. It's natural to think of animals in human terms:



This cat is not "concerned" even though it looks like it.

[Xiahou]

So Sasaki, what level of animal cruelty, if any do you have a problem with? We're apparently justified in doing anything, since it happens in the wilds anyhow. What was wrong with what Michael Vick did? Nothing right? In the wild, dogs regularly fight and kill each other- so there's nothing wrong with doing it for sport, clearly.

I'd post some bullfighting videos, but I'm not sure they're backroom appropriate. But certainly, there's nothing wrong with spearing a bull until it's too weak to run when the matador shoves a sword through its neck. And it's perfectly alright to watch it stagger around, coughing up buckets of blood until it finally falls over with its legs kicking as the matador runs in to cut its ears off for safe-keeping. I mean, wolves would brutally kill them in the wild, so it's fine.

I've seen similarly horrible videos of slaughter houses that PETA loons put up, but again, the purpose is the difference. In slaughter houses, it's over quickly and the the killed animals serve an important purpose as food for us.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I am certain lowering ourselves to animal levels, and justifying our cruelty by the cruelty of animals toward each other is the best way just like US justifying torture by the murders of the "terrorists".

Not that I am against torture or against cruelty towards animals, it is simply that I felt it fitting to point our errors and flaws in reasoning.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So Sasaki, what level of animal cruelty, if any do you have a problem with? We're apparently justified in doing anything, since it happens in the wilds anyhow. What was wrong with what Michael Vick did? Nothing right? In the wild, dogs regularly fight and kill each other- so there's nothing wrong with doing it for sport, clearly.

I'd post some bullfighting videos, but I'm not sure they're backroom appropriate. But certainly, there's nothing wrong with spearing a bull until it's too weak to run when the matador shoves a sword through its neck. And it's perfectly alright to watch it stagger around, coughing up buckets of blood until it finally falls over with its legs kicking as the matador runs in to cut its ears off for safe-keeping. I mean, wolves would brutally kill them in the wild, so it's fine.

I've seen bullfighting videos...

What level of animal cruelty is ok? I'm not sure. That's the real question here, and a more complicated one--that's what I've been driving at this whole time.

We agree that it isn't the suffering of the animal that's wrong, correct? Otherwise it would be immoral not to stop animals from killing each other in the wild. And the discovery channel would have to be shut down, what with all the videos of animals killing each other they show.

It's only when a person becomes involved that we have a problem. And there is certainly merit to this. Our empathy for animals stems from the same part of our brain as our empathy for people. So someone who tortures kittens and puppies for fun probably has serious problems. But someone who keeps a house cat that tortures and kills mice and birds--we're fine with that because we know the person is still a good person.

Now, personally I have empathy for animals--don't like seeing them get hurt etc. But bulls express nothing remotely human to me. Same as spiders, fish, rats etc. You feel differently, you're more sensitive to it's suffering evidently. So who is right? Vegetarians want to step it up a notch from your position, vegans another notch, and those buddhists who won't step on ants take it to the extreme.

I say, call it what it is, a personal distaste, not a moral wrong--unless you can show that the person is messed up in the head (which was the basis of the charge against Vick...).

I've seen similarly horrible videos of slaughter houses that PETA loons put up, but again, the purpose is the difference. In slaughter houses, it's over quickly and the the killed animals serve an important purpose as food for us.

1) They eat the bull after the fight
2) We don't need to eat meat
3) We would have more food if we didn't raise cows (they take a lot of feeding).

So, your justification for slaughter houses over bullfighting boils down to: in bullfighting, the animal is in a certain amount of pain before it dies. They use cattle prods to keep the bulls in line before slaughtering them, and I feel safe in saying that the conditions inside the slaughterhouse are much worse than where the bull's are bred for the fight.

Like I said, I feel like people invent these reasons based an instinctive distaste. The real reason eating meat is ok is because to suggest that going to the store and picking up a plastic bag of beef jerky means you lack empathy is laughable.

[Beskar]

Aliens called, they want to farm humans as their food source.

[Papewaio]

Now, personally I have empathy for animals--don't like seeing them get hurt etc. But bulls express nothing remotely human to me.

As a farm kid for beef cattle, all one needs to do is look into their eyes to know that they are on par with a dog... not a particular smart one... they would be the Paris Hiltons of the dog world... but they do have some inkling of intelligence.

1) They eat the bull after the fight
2) We don't need to eat meat
3) We would have more food if we didn't raise cows (they take a lot of feeding).

So, your justification for slaughter houses over bullfighting boils down to: in bullfighting, the animal is in a certain amount of pain before it dies. They use cattle prods to keep the bulls in line before slaughtering them, and I feel safe in saying that the conditions inside the slaughterhouse are much worse than where the bull's are bred for the fight.

Stressed animals meat is tougher and they are harder to handle. Smart cattle yards will avoid stressing their product as it costs them.

Also most beef cattle I have seen on farms in NZ and Aus are bigger and healthier then those I have seen in the running for the bulls and bull fighting. Angus and Maine Anjou are far larger animals. Essentially either the bull fighters are all 7' tall or the bulls are tiny and underfed compared with meat live stock.

Just did my research.

A Spanish Fighting Bull weighs from 500 to 700kg.

A Maine-Anjoy cow weighs from 680 to 860kg, whilst the bulls weigh a 1000kg to 1400kg.

Essentially the matadors are fighting the cattle equivalent of Shetland ponies.