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.
I agree that the question of how we treat animals needs to be raised and addressed. But I do think PETA hinders more than helps the animal rights cause. They alienate their organization rather than building bridges.
And who else speaks out? No one.
I think they make great points.
Why are we holding sentient beings and asking them to perform?
Why do we think we own them?
If we all followed this thinking, pets would be illegal.
Sentient is debatable. Are they self aware? Not like humans as best we can tell.
Here, let me capture and keep you in an area where your mobility is limited and I force you to perform.
A whale should be free to roam the earth as it was intended.
I don't own animals because it is not my place to own another being.
Whales and dolphins are self-aware.
What makes you "better" than them when you hold them captive.
I'd believe the animal is a better creature.
Here, let me capture and keep you in an area where your mobility is limited and I force you to perform.
A whale should be free to roam the earth as it was intended.
It's a little different from a dog, doncha think.
I don't own animals because it is not my place to own another being.
Whales and dolphins are self-aware.
What makes you "better" than them when you hold them captive.
I'd believe the animal is a better creature.
I'm a human being, not an animal.
Why is it different for a dog? Because we teach them that its ok to stay at a house? Because we give them treats not to run away?
Most dogs want to follow their natural instinct like most other animals, to run free and die a short life after making as many babies as is possible.
What proof do you have that whales and dolphins (actually orcas are a member of the dolphin family, they aren't whales at all), are self aware?
There is none, no more then any other animal.
I think Sea World should be commended for their efforts in conservation and teaching people about these animals. The "performance" isn't something that they wouldn't do naturally. Anyone who knows biology or animal behavior knows that all of the "act" is just something that they would do naturally in the wild. I see dolphins jump and hunt all the time. I have also seen dolphin shows at the Brookefield zoo in Chicago, no different.
If you don't want to own an animal, fine, no problem. But preventing others from doing so would be over the bounds in a free society.
Well, using that logic children and the mentally challenged should not be afforded rights either.
You help me to make my point. Those groups you cite have reduced rights. Children can't vote and in most states the mentally retarded can't own guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
And who else speaks out? No one.
I think they make great points.
Why are we holding sentient beings and asking them to perform?
Why do we think we own them?
Why am I not surprised.
sen·tient /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's a pretty low bar for giving something rights under the US Constitution. Rats are pretty smart as animals go. I'd ask if you are OK with them being covered under teh US Constitution, as teh PETA freaks are, but I think I already know the answer. How about trees? There is evidence that they can perceive things too. Trees will bend and grow toward sunlight. That is proof of sensation. If you give rights to all animals and plants that doesn't leave a whole lot left to eat now does it?
If the term "original intent' still has any meaning at all then it should be clear to all non-morons (i.e. non-PETA people) that the 13th ammendment was referring to HUMANS. These radical animal rights nuts think that the life of a rat is the same value as the life of a human. The only thing crazier than them bringing this case is the fact that the judge didn't throw it out without hesitation. Oh, did I mention that htis was happening in California? Probably didn't have to.
You help me to make my point. Those groups you cite have reduced rights. Children can't vote and in most states the mentally retarded can't own guns.
Why am I not surprised.
sen·tient /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's a pretty low bar for giving something rights under the US Constitution. Rats are pretty smart as animals go. I'd ask if you are OK with them being covered under teh US Constitution, as teh PETA freaks are, but I think I already know the answer. How about trees? There is evidence that they can perceive things too. Trees will bend and grow toward sunlight. That is proof of sensation. If you give rights to all animals and plants that doesn't leave a whole lot left to eat now does it?
Splitting hairs much?
Funny how you are so ignorant to the fact that even particular species of plants and trees are protected in designated areas.
Off topic and BTW, I haven't noticed you responding to posts that have called you out.
I'm very much aware of the fact that we have laws protecting endnagered species. If someone finds an endangered slug on your property good luck getting a building permit.
As to responding to posts, I thought I was. I'll go back and look the thread over again. I've been posting a lot today but maybe I missed a few.
The other side of the coin, according to you, if it is not intelligent, it is okay to abuse, neglect or treat inhumanely. Where is the intelligence in that???
I neither abuse nor neglect animals. As far as "inhumanely" goes, you might want to look at the root word of that. They are not human so I don't treat them the same as other humans. I do, however, treat them better than they treat each other.
If the term "original intent' still has any meaning at all then it should be clear to all non-morons (i.e. non-PETA people) that the 13th ammendment was referring to HUMANS. These radical animal rights nuts think that the life of a rat is the same value as the life of a human. The only thing crazier than them bringing this case is the fact that the judge didn't throw it out without hesitation. Oh, did I mention that htis was happening in California? Probably didn't have to.
OMG, are we going to have a whale history month as well?
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.
