Animal Rights

[OverMind]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

When I said Veal, I was thinking, "Well, if veal is baby cows, and the mother would produce milk for the baby cow, then veal would give a reason why to take their milk away from their dead babies..."

The Vegan would argue that it's not ethical to kill the baby cow in the first place. Taking the milk, then, just adds insult to injury.

[ShiningRadiance]

They aren't the animals. Therefore, they can't understand how animals react to death. If they're under the effect of a drug of some sort when it happens, then they can't react to it. In which case, what's the best way to die? Painlessly or through a long life filled with disease?

The majority of people would choose to die painlessly, I think. The only two reasons humans fear death is because of the emotional and physical pain attached and due to not knowing what death will be like. In a world in which death will happen inevitably, then obviously, we should try to mitigate the physical and emotional pain attached. The best way to do that? Death while sleeping.

In terms of age, is it right to die at a young age? Or should we all live to be older? Logically, if the population is too great, they should die at a young age. If the population is too small, they should live long. If the population is average, both are fine, but should be balanced.

Too many animals will destroy the food web. Too little, same. The important thing to do, above all else, is to prevent animal starvation. In which case, there should be balance. Some should die young and some should die old.

Now, artificially bloating and decreasing specific animal populations? This is byproduct of human overpopulation. I believe if we had an appropriate number of people, then manipulation in this way wouldn't be necessary. Ergo, if vegans want to stop animal cruelty permanently, they should get all humans to stop having sex by having mandatory 'fixing' of humans at birth in order to decrease the population to 1% of what it currently is over the course of a few generations.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Your theory does make sense but stopping the hman population for a while would allow the animal population to replenish but wed have to do the same thing were doing with them now anayway. Wed have to limit their population so they dont overpopulate.

MUST DISRUPT PEACE
QUIETNESS MEANS THE FORUM IS EPICALLY DEAD O.O

[ShiningRadiance]

I didn't say to STOP the human population. Just slow it down. Make it so the death rate is larger than the birth rate for a while. Do so in even %'s worldwide. Animals are already our bitches, so we can control them without much of a problem.

[Elky]

Originally Posted by Cocyta

How is it inherently misanthropic?

I mean, I know some people care more about animals than they do about people, but that doesn't mean that all people who care about animals hate people.

In fact, humans are a species of animals.

equating humans and other animals is indeed misathropic. we're on top the food chain, we can tell right from wrong, and we're the only species that have the mental capacity to actually have rights. to equate animals with humans means you must have a very low opinion of mankind, thus misanthropic. why is it ok for a bear to eat fish/kill other animals but humans can't kill/eat the bear?

[ShiningRadiance]

It's perfectly fine to do so. However, humans are part of the food chain. If you were to hunt a type of animal to extinction, then it would wreck the food chain. As I said, control is the most important thing.

[AllisonWalker]

Originally Posted by MrsSallyBakura

You raise a good point, killshot.

I don't see horseback riding as cruel because the rider still cares for the horse that s/he rides, feeds the horse, gives it a good stable to live in, etc. A relationship is usually built between horse and rider. It's not the same as a human relationship, obviously, but it's something.

If you ride a horse like a sack of potatoes or use harsh equipment, it is abusive. Do you know how many people think it's alright to ride a two year old colt? Or that riding a horse in a Tom-Thumb is a-okay? Hell, who cares if I ride a horse in a spade bit without proper training, as long as I love him, nothing matters!



Not being a bitch, just saying!

[Bluetune]

Well Animal rights has done a lot of good, but it's also caused some bad too...

I think if you understand what a "right" vs a "privilege" is you'll find that the term "animal rights" is loaded anyways. A right is a power based on what you are born with what you own and what you inherit. In other words i have the right to personal space because I claim the rights to the space around my body. Having a right to something also means that you are responsible for using that right peaceably and you are responsible for protecting it. However since we are "giving animals rights" humans have to "protect them" because animals can't protect the rights they are given.

If your "giving" a right to someone or something it's no longer a right it's considered a privilege. A privilege is power given to someone or something by a person or government. In other words since animals are "given" privileges by humans they can also be "taken away" at any time.

The very idea of giving something their rights also creates the idea that you can "take away" or "sell" rights. Rights that can be sold, in legal terms, is an "inalienable right". An "unalienable right", as it's written in the United states constitution, can't be bought, gifted, taken away, or sold. An unalienable right is a right you are born with or that is inherited from a parent or grandparent.

because we have create the idea that "rights have to be given by authority figures" we have created the idea that government must solve all our rights problems. When in reality any rights written down on paper are only reflecting a claim to a god given right in real life. The giving of rights when they are really privileges is an error that many who do not read the constitution have made. Partly because of this important misunderstanding we have allowed government to create so many laws that the United states code cannot be read in it's entirety by anyone. Many chapters in the united states code actually contradict each other in this sense and there are also many laws that are considered unconstitutional as well.

Because PETA thinks it is giving animals rights at some point it decided that it could take them away too. In North Carolina there was a case where a woman was euthanizing animals in her PETA van after she had promised to find them a new home. She dumped many of the bodies in a dumpster because she said "she couldn't stand the smell"

A whole website and campaign has been made about this scandal that still continues today, called Petakillsanimals.com

Virtually 75% of the animals PETA euthanized at their base in Virginia last year could have found homes in their home state.