U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2008, 02:45 AM
 
706 posts, read 947,876 times
Reputation: 297
Default Rational Basis for Human Rights vs Irrational Basis for Animal Rights

This was started on another thread but quickly outgrew it:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mental_complex View Post
Microchipping your pet is morally wrong! Do you want someone mircochipping you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
Your basis for morality is irrational. I wouldn't want anyone making me their pet, period, but that doesn't mean keeping pets should be outlawed.

I don't know if your pet would microchip you if it could, but it clearly can't. (Though I'm sure it would eat you if you were dead and it was hungry enough, and if you were small enough it would certainly hunt and kill you for food or even sport.) The only entities capable of "microchipping" are humans, and within the context of human relations different rules will apply because humans have natural rights that animals don't have.

Those rights have a rational foundation in economic necessity, not subjective pity nor anything else. Human beings are entities that can be reasoned with, understand the consequences of their actions, own property, recognize the property rights of others, trade, and make rational decisions. If you treat a human being like a farm animal then one is worth less than a small pig (and someone else could make you their pig next time), but as a self-interested economic actor he can produce a great deal more value and trade with you for mutual benefit. A human society that fails to recognize the basic rights of other human beings will never evolve out of violent barbarism: low population density, high death rates, definitely no agriculture, etc. The stronger a society protects the rights of its human members, the more competitive it becomes, and as the result of this evolutionary advantage recognition of those natural human rights became integral to our species. Foolishly assigning rights to animals that cannot be rational economic actors, on the other hand, is a competitive disadvantage, and humanity would not have done as well as it did over the past several million years if it couldn't hunt, domesticate, use animal power, and so on.

Therefore, if someone tries to harm you, including inserting something in your body against your will, then you have a right to defend yourself, and most people would help you because they wouldn't want to be violated this way either.

Your animals, on the other hand, are your property - you can do with them as you see fit.

Unfortunately the government demagogues do interfere sometimes: they subsidize animal torture when it is popular (i.e. Roman Colosseum) or throw people in jail over it when it isn't (i.e. Michael Vick). That's bad, but there's a limit to how far this stupidity can go, because even a modern industrialized society would have a lot of problems if it tried treating animals as sovereign individuals - and I'm not just talking about lack of pets, sacred cows roaming the streets, and the health disadvantages of pure veganism, etc. See, pretty much all of modern medical research is based on animal testing: without it the human life expectancy growth would drop down quite a bit. So if you have any desire to live to be 200, you better start by peeling off that "animal rights" bumper sticker!

You can be as compassionate with your animals as you wish, but other people will choose not to be compassionate, and using government force against them is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie View Post
Moderator cut: edit where Moderator cut: edit did this come from....take your jibberish over to the debates area if you wanna discuss this out. I will gladly meet you there.

This is a forum for ppl who actually care about animals and unlike you actually realize WE are animals too...Moderator cut: edit You come to a pet forum to say that Micheal Vick being imprisoned is wrong.....lmao. Moderator cut: edit

OK, so here we are.

Last edited by leorah; 12-28-2008 at 09:13 PM.. Reason: rude and inappropriate language
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2008, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Iowa
331 posts, read 831,823 times
Reputation: 221


i guess whoever is against the microchipping thing must not care about their pets that much. I love my furkids, and if for some godforsaken reason they were lost, would want them back. mine are all microchipped, and have a phone # we can be contacted at on a tag on their collar if for any reason they slip out the door unknown to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 09:23 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
6,960 posts, read 4,962,053 times
Reputation: 4522
OOHH my! LMAO. As a dog owner and a livestock kind of guy I find this topic to be soooo amusing. The folks who take the animal rights debate into this realm have obviously never actually spent much time with animals. I'm fortunate enough to live in a very rural area and if my dogs wander off my neighbors will usually bring them back or call me and tell me they are out. Same with my horses, cattle , hogs etc. If I were a city kinda guy I would want the option of GPSing my critter. Makes sense to me. And it goes beyond that. Pet theft is a huge problem and the chips make it tough for two legged varmints to make off with expensive and dear pets with impunity. I see no problem here. Ya know the "animal rights" debate has slipped into the realm of absurdity. Back in the 90's , when CA outlawed mountain lion hunting, it didn't take long for the cats to start looking at people as food instead of with trepidation. The result was predictable. Remember the gal that was killed in Auburn? Hmm she left behind a husband and THREE children. A grand total of five grand was raised to help them. The lion cubs that dined on the lady, captured after the offending cat was dealt with, well, $25,000 was poured on them by "animal rights" groups. Absolutley astounding!. I fail to see the rationale. Imbedding a mirochip in a pet to aid in locating that pet in the event of theft or loss doesn't seem so "cruel" to me. I REALLY just don't get the PETA types thought process. Ah well...takes all kinds I guess
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 7,011,976 times
Reputation: 4026
I don't see the issue of microchipping a pet, if they run away or get lost without that chip they will end up in the pound...and with all the pets out there it is a good possibility it will be destroyed. I would rather have the chip in there so they can find me and I can take my pet home so it can continue to live.

It's completely insane to wish death upon your wandering critter because you think a quick, painless injection of a rice sized microchip is against it's rights. Hell, I would do it to myself in case I was ever admitted to the hospital and I was unconscious (assuming no one else could read it).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 10:54 AM
Status: "Still holding on to flip flop weather!" (set 19 hours ago)
 
Location: The beautiful Rogue Valley
4,133 posts, read 7,959,547 times
Reputation: 3292
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I don't see the issue of microchipping a pet, if they run away or get lost without that chip they will end up in the pound...and with all the pets out there it is a good possibility it will be destroyed. I would rather have the chip in there so they can find me and I can take my pet home so it can continue to live.
Up in the Dogs subforum, under Pets, the OP of the anti-microchip post seemed to think it was some sort of Evil Government Plan(tm) to slip the idea of chipping pets in as an introductory stab and chipping and bar-coding humans, too. The general response he got was to suggest he take off the tin foil hat.

I have heard an anecdotal tale or two or subcutaneous chips actually "moving" and causing some sort of harm, but I've never seen what I'd consider a factual story. And, of course, chipping a pet is no guarantee the pet will be returned to you - but it's at least a start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 7,011,976 times
Reputation: 4026
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
Up in the Dogs subforum, under Pets, the OP of the anti-microchip post seemed to think it was some sort of Evil Government Plan(tm) to slip the idea of chipping pets in as an introductory stab and chipping and bar-coding humans, too. The general response he got was to suggest he take off the tin foil hat.
That's a new one I've seen, I love it, I'm putting that with my list of others I never think that would work anyways, if most people are like me...they are boring and looking for something interesting to do. Watching people be boring is even worse then being so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
I have heard an anecdotal tale or two or subcutaneous chips actually "moving" and causing some sort of harm, but I've never seen what I'd consider a factual story. And, of course, chipping a pet is no guarantee the pet will be returned to you - but it's at least a start.
I have one in mine, and it's moved a little bit under the skin...no real discomfort I can see (he's a big one though). They check it every time we go to the vet, and give us a series of questions about the name and address associated with the chip. It's a better chance I think then nothing I think Ours was a runaway who was about to be put down because they couldn't find his owner and was having problems being adopted!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:59 AM
 
706 posts, read 947,876 times
Reputation: 297
Great, I spin off a new thread, but people are still talking about the specifics of microchipping. This thread is about rights, animal vs human, and where those rights come from. Please (re)read the part of the first post where I'm quoting myself and comment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
Up in the Dogs subforum, under Pets, the OP of the anti-microchip post seemed to think it was some sort of Evil Government Plan(tm) to slip the idea of chipping pets in as an introductory stab and chipping and bar-coding humans, too. The general response he got was to suggest he take off the tin foil hat.
I must be wearing a tin foil hat too then, because I'm terrified of the dangers an all-seeing all-tracking government will pose, but that's a problem of government, not technology. Any technology can be used for good or for evil, and micro-chipping offers some rational benefits for those who choose to use it. If/when the government starts forcing it, as it does with everything else, then it becomes a problem. Anti-government resistance: good. Luddites: bad. (But that's a discussion for another thread.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 7,011,976 times
Reputation: 4026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
Great, I spin off a new thread, but people are still talking about the specifics of microchipping. This thread is about rights, animal vs human, and where those rights come from. Please (re)read the part of the first post where I'm quoting myself and comment.
Honestly because I don't disagree. Besides safety from the suffering of animals, the basic rights afforded to humans don't really apply to animals (as much as I love my own). Past that it determines degree that acceptable.

Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only human beings have duties and that "[the] corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights."[10] An argument running parallel to this is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as they do not suffer unnecessarily, a view known as the animal welfare position.[11] ---- Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a good bit in the way of the Animal Welfare position above, and I "own" my pet (which is wrong in Boulder, and parts of CA). Animals have given great service to humanity and I think they diverse an honor for the sacrifice, biological sciences would not be possible without it. However animal experimentation has saved millions, probably many who would try and protest against it (from and interesting personal story).

I am happy to protect against undue suffering, but animals go for their basic needs...there are no monuments, no governments, no marching done by animals...they have no idea what it is, and cannot. I also think making humans suffer because people want to free animals is completely insane, if one wants to give animals the same rights of people then they should respect the very rights they wish to give them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 2,857,617 times
Reputation: 1359
Animal and human rights come from nature. We, by our cunning intellect, are at the top of the food chain. Our choice to be merciful on animals lower on the chain is based on their usefullness to us, our current moral standard that we should minimize unnecessary violence, and our many motivations to maintain a diverse ecosystem.

No offense, but I think the rest is just commentary.

Last edited by Eastern Roamer; 12-26-2008 at 02:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 2,857,617 times
Reputation: 1359
Here's something that has come up - should the suffering of humans make animal charities 2nd priority?

My wife was president of her school's Animal Legal Defense Fund and had a fund-raising booth at a school event to raise money to help Moon Bears. (MoonBears.org - A global coalition campaigning to save Korea's Moon Bears.)

A professor (of all people) made a comment to the effect of "why raise money to help animals when there are so many humans in need."

I agree that humans are generally more important than animals; I would save a child from a burning building before thinking about the puppy. But should we not bother working to stop animal abuse until all the suffering of mankind has been cured?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top