Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
We concluded at some earlier point that the argument is purely one of emotion. Animals cannot have rights, and do not have rights. Rights ONLY pertain to man.
Many people including myself have already refuted this ridiculous point many times. Even the government agrees and there are many laws all over the world regarding animal rights. So you are simply WRONG.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if they feel anything or engage in instinctive behaviors that imitate something we see in men. We are animals also, so we are bound to see superficial similarities in our own reactions and those observed in some of the higher mammals.
Hahaha so now you say we are animals and you just said animals don't have rights, so therefore according to you, humans do not have rights. The similarities aren't superficial. We are animals. To think we are special when it comes to emotions is ignorant. To think that we do not act based on instincts is also ignorant.
Quote:
That does not confer rights upon animals, and cannot confer rights upon animals, because animals can not have rights. They cannot formulate or observe rights, and therefore are not entitled to rights. They do not observe rights among each other, and cannot.
It is an absurd argument.
I already responded to this and proved you wrong. If you don't think animals have any rights you would have no problem with any animal abuse. Kicking dogs for fun would be fine, slowly torturing and killing animals for entertainment wouldn't bother you.
In fact, to take it a little further, a man only has rights when living with other men who agree to observe them. Rights are an agreement to curtail certain behaviors so as to promote the ability of men to live successfully in a social context.
A man living under the US Constitution is accorded certain guarantees under the Bill of Rights. For example, the right to Life. Citizens agree not to murder each other in observance of that right. Which enables all to put aside the savage primitive behavior of killing each other to acquire space and treasure, and move to a higher and more civilized plane of existence. Rights exist to enable cooperation among men, and encourages men to subvert their most animalistic range-of-the-moment desires and needs in service of a better and more pleasant level of existence.
But that Right disappears once I get in a boat and travel into to the open waters of the Atlantic. Say I am lost at sea and arrive at an island inhabited only by an assortment of animals, including several types of carnivorous cats.
There will be no rights. There will be no one to observe them or care about them. It is now back to primordial considerations and survival of the strongest and the fittest.
Rights don't exist in the animal food chain. Rights don't exist for one man and a group of animals. Rights begin with no less than 2 men. And both or all must define them and agree to be bound by their constraints.
So, of course animals cannot have rights, because they are a non-sequitir to their mode of existence. Animals exist in a food chain, and EVERYTHING eats and kills whatever it can find. Rights exist for a species that can conceptualize them, design them, and gain their acceptance in a social structure.
Animals don't have rights, cannot have rights, will not have rights, and it is absurd, irrational, and illogical to discuss rights in the context of animal existence.
Does the fact the animals cannot and do not have rights mean we should kill them arbitrarily? Of course not. It is possible to enjoy animals, or kill them for food, or even for sport. As long as a useful purpose is served, humanely destroying animals is absolutely cool and fine.
Arguments to the contrary are purely emotional and are not very useful.
Somewhere in here the health of vegan diet got lost between the "your karma ran over my dogma"
Militant attitudes will not change anyone.. only entrench them further... people who have lived one way their whole life will not all of a sudden change in a thread on CD
Again... leading by example and solid evidence is probably the best way to have others take the journey
My shift tries vegan food because I make it for them... and its free... and then they go home and tell their spouses.. who may or may not try it with them (I do send home lots of recipes)
There was a whole fire station in Texas that had very high cholesterol.. the city got behind them with trying the vegan diet to see if, as a group, they could reach a target goal of reduction. The city bought in.. the station bought in.. they reached their target goal and from it developed a cookbook. The heavy meat eaters went back to their diet.. but there was also a permanent change.. and now the station doesnt think it strange when they have vegan night.. or vegan meals
From the paper you posted. " The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just."
This when taken to it's logical conclusion implies that animals do not have rights but it also means that young children and people with mental disabilities would have no rights. I am sure that neither you nor the author of this paper believe that. The author tries to remedy this by saying:
""If having rights requires being able to make moral claims, to grasp and apply moral laws, then many humans -- the brain-damaged, the comatose, the senile -- who plainly lack those capacities must be without rights. But that is absurd. This proves [the critic concludes] that rights do not depend on the presence of moral capacities."
This objection fails; it mistakenly treats an essential feature of humanity as though it were a screen for sorting humans. The capacity for moral judgment that distinguishes humans from animals is not a test to be administered to human beings one by one. Persons who are unable, because of some disability, to perform the full moral functions natural to human beings are certainly not for that reason ejected from the moral community. The issue is one of kind. Humans are of such a kind that they may be the subject of experiments only with their voluntary consent. The choices they make freely must be respected. Animals are of such a kind that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice. What humans retain when disabled, animals have never had."
Which is complete nonsense. It is a speciesist argument (the author even admits to it). It is completely flawed. There is zero reason why this shouldn't be a test administered to human beings one by one. The only reason for it is to preserve his poor argument that he himself doesn't agree with.
I don't hate people at all. In fact most of my friends will say I am one of the most caring and compassionate people they know. I consistantly will drop everything for a friend, neighbor or stranger in need, whether they are human or not. You really don't know what you are talking about. I just don't subscribe to the insanely selfish belief that humans are special and animals don't matter. You really need psychiatric help.
Sorry, but a truly caring and compassionate person wouldn't even think of drawing a comparison between eating pigs as less acceptable than eating a small child. You just screwed your credibility in my eyes.
As much as I love animals, as a mother, I love children more. There is zero comparison.
And I think you choose to obfuscate basic logic because of your emotional hatred of men, based on past abuse that you have suffered. Taking refuge in animal welfare is such an obvious cry for help. I think you posted in one of your rants that you vastly prefer animals to humans. You don't see the profound problem with that? I don't believe you are oblivious to it, but you may be blocking it out because of a pain response.
Sorry, but a truly caring and compassionate person wouldn't even think of drawing a comparison between eating pigs as less acceptable than eating a small child. You just screwed your credibility in my eyes.
See the issue is you cannot provide a logical non-speciesist argument for why that is the case. I understand it feels wrong to you but you cannot make a logical reason explaining why.
I would say I am more compassionate than you because not only would I never intentionally harm a person, I would never intentionally harm a sentient animal. I fail to see how that makes me uncompassionate.
Quote:
As much as I love animals, as a mother, I love children more. There is zero comparison.
I love my pets more than I love most people and many people including meat eaters would agree with me.
And I think you choose to obfuscate basic logic because of your emotional hatred of men, based on past abuse that you have suffered. Taking refuge in animal welfare is such an obvious cry for help. I think you posted in one of your rants that you vastly prefer animals to humans. You don't see the profound problem with that? I don't believe you are oblivious to it, but you may be blocking it out because of a pain response.
Please post a link to where I said that.
I think you choose to obfuscate basic logic because of your agenda to claim it is ethically okay to eat meat.
I think you choose to obfuscate basic logic because of your agenda to claim it is ethically okay to eat meat.
No, I follow the laws of logic. It is logically impossible for an animal to have rights.
And most of the nonsense you are posting is based on the utter garbage that was invented by one of the most disgusting, decrepit, and vile human beings ever to pen a non-thought: Peter Singer. And passed down to other haters of man like Tom Regan I think it is?
Absolute mangled and evil retards claiming to be philosophers while throwing out Reason and wandering in a subjectivist fog of confused malice. Where hatred of Man is the Cardinal Virtue.
These are the Popes and Priests of your religion I presume? The Pontiffs of the Church of Vegans?
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
