PDA

View Full Version : Should Animal Have Rights?



Dagna
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Do you believe animals should have rights? As a liberal, I believe they should not be made suffer unnecessarily. The torture they are subjected to in some countries is disgusting. Germanics would not make an animal suffer without a good reason.

Harming an animal without a good reason was not accepted in Germanic society either, although lifestock was seen as a possession they were still living beings who deserved respect, so for instance a man who was unnecessarily cruel towards a dog risked a beating from the people who saw it, in later times such a person had to pay a fine to the owner of the animal.
Killing an animal was only allowed to obtain food, hides, or other necessary products or because it posed a danger to humans or livestock, some of the holy animals like for instance the raven (who was associated with the god Wodan) were not to be harmed at all.


http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/everydaylife.html


Animal rights

Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the interests of non-human animals—for example, avoiding suffering—should have the same consideration as the interests of human beings. Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as legal persons and members of a moral community.

Extending personhood to animals is supported by legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School.

The Seattle-based Great Ape Project is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes, which would see gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos included in a "community of equals" with human beings, extending to them the protection of three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. This is seen by an increasing number of animal rights lawyers as a first step toward granting rights to other animals.

Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily. This position is generally called the animal welfare position, and it is held by some of the oldest of the animal protection agencies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

NationalAnarchist
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 04:55 PM
I am very much for animal rights and I am vehemently against vivisection, irresponsible breeding, kosher/halal slaughter and other cruel acts against animals.

I am not a vegetarian (though I may be one day) and so I am not against the slaughter of animals for meat but their slaughter must be humane and the animal must be treated with respect right up until their death, sadly this does not always occur, even in Western nations.

Regards
NA.

IlluSionSxxx
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Maximine Julia Portas (1905 — 1982) was a French writer, of mixed English, Lombard, and Greek ethnicity, who was deeply enamoured with both Hinduism and national-socialism and who formed her political sympathies and antipathies early on. From childhood throughout her life she was a passionate advocate for animal rights and her earliest political affiliations were for Greek nationalism. Thus, during the First World War, she was outraged by the Triple Entente's invasion of neutral Greece, especially after the Allied outrage over the German invasion of neutral Belgium.

Portas studied philosophy and chemistry, earning two Masters Degrees and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Lyons. Her first two books were her doctoral dissertations: Essai-critique sur Théophile Kaïris and La simplicité mathématique. She impressed her teachers with her vibrant, penetrating mind.

In early 1928, she renounced French citizenship and acquired Greek nationality. Joining a pilgrimage to Palestine during Lent in 1929, Portas realised she was, and had always been, a National Socialist. In 1932 she travelled to India in search of a living pagan culture. Formally adhering to Hinduism, she took the name Savitri Devi ("Sun-rays Goddess" in Sanskrit). She volunteered at the Hindu Mission and wrote A Warning to the Hindus to offer support for Hindu nationalism and independence, and rally resistance to the spread of Christianity and especially Islam in India. In 1940 she married Asit Krishna Mukherji, a Bengali Brahmin with National Socialist convictions who edited the pro-German newspaper New Mercury.

After the war she travelled to Europe in late 1945 (as the wife of an Indian — she was Savitri Devi Mukherji now — she had a British passport). Her first stop was England, where she made contacts. She then visited her mother in France and then travelled on to Iceland where she witnessed the eruption of Mount Hekla. She then returned to England, then travelled to Sweden where she met with Sven Hedin.

On June 15, 1948, she took the Nord-Expreß from Denmark to Germany, where she distributed many thousands of copies of handwritten leaflets encouraging the “Men and women of Germany” to “hold fast to our glorious National Socialist faith, and resist!” She penned her experience in Gold in the Furnace (which has been reedited in honour of her 100th birthday under the title Gold in the Furnace: Experiences in Post-War Germany).

Arrested for posting bills, she was tried (in Düsseldorf on April 5, 1949), for the promotion of national-socialist ideas on German territory subject to the Allied Control Council, and sentenced to two years imprisonment. She served eight months in Werl prison, where she befriended her fellow national-socialist prisoners, (recounted in Defiance) before being released and expelled from Germany. She went to stay in Lyon, France.

The following decades, Savitri Devi Mukherji would become one of the most influential people in the post-war national-socialist movement. People such as Miguel Serrano, George Lincoln Rockwell , Revilo P. Oliver, William Pierce, David Myatt and numerous others owe much to the legacy of this proud woman.

(source : Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi))

The following text is excerpted from the opening chapter of Devi's Impeachment of Man, which is a book written in 1945-46 on the topic of animal rights and the arrogance of man. The most recent reprint can be purchased from Noontide Press (http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/). It should give more insight in the morallity of national-socialism.


Man-centered Creeds

According to the religious creeds which we have characterized as "man-centered," man, alone created "in the likeness of God," is God's most beloved child, perhaps even his only child on this earth. The heavenly Father of the Christian Gospels no doubt loves the sparrows. But he loves man infinitely more. He loves the lilies too; he has clothed them more beautifully "than Solomon in all his glory"; yet, man is the main object of his solicitude, not they. Among all the living beings that are born in the visible world man alone is supposed to be endowed with an immortal soul. He alone was created for eternity. The transient world was made for him to enjoy and exploit during his short earthly life, and creatures of several species were appointed -- both quadrupeds and birds -- as meat for him to eat.
And that is not all. A whole scheme of salvation was worked out for him by God himself, so that man might still reach everlasting bliss in spite of his sins. God raised prophets to urge rebellious humanity to repentance and to point out the way of righteousness. And according to the Christian belief, he even sent his only Son to suffer and die, so that his blood might become the ransom of all sinners who put their faith in him. All the splendor of the material world; all the grace, strength and loveliness of millions of beasts, birds, fishes, trees and creepers; the majesty of the snow-clad mountains, the beauty of the unfurling waves -- all that and much more -- is not worth, in God's eyes, the immortal soul of a human imbecile -- so they say, at least. That is why the hunting of tigers and deer, the butchering of innocent woolly lambs, so glad to live, the dissecting of pretty white guinea pigs or of intelligent dogs, are not "sins" according to the man-centered faiths -- not even if they imply the most appalling suffering. But the painless chloroforming of worthless human idiots is a "crime." How could it be otherwise? They have two legs, no tail, and an immortal soul. However degenerate they be, they are men.

I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the "Christian Federation of Students," whom I had asked, twenty-five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. "What conflict can there be between the two?" said he. "Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs." I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that. The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.

Man-centered creeds do not even enjoy that minimum of inner consistency which forces one sometimes to recognize a certain strength in a bad system of thought. Those who believe in them and who happen not to be by nature too irredeemably irrational, try to justify their point of view by saying that man, as a whole, is superior to the dumb beasts. He can speak, and they cannot. That is certain. He can speak, and subsequently he can define and deduce, and pass from one deduction to another. He can transfer to other people the conclusions of his reasoning and the results of his experience. He becomes more aware of his own thoughts by expressing them. In a word, he can do all that is only possible by means of a conventional system of symbolical sounds, which we call language and which beasts and birds do not possess. His very being is raised above the immediate needs of everyday life, and his mind rendered capable of evolution, by the use of such a system.

Anyone will agree that this is true to a great extent, though all may not necessarily see what relation there is between this human advantage of speech and the exploitation of dumb animals by man. It is more difficult to understand the privileged place which religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam give to man, when one remembers that the sacred books of those three famous creeds admit the existence of heavenly creatures far more beautiful and more intelligent than he, mainly of angels -- creatures who need not wait for the day of resurrection to acquire a "glorious" body, but who are, here and now, in their raiment of light, free from disease, decay and death. They, and not the clumsy sons of Adam, should have been the ones for whom nature and man were made, for it would seem, from whatever one can gather about them in the holy Scripture, that angels are as much above men as the most brilliant men can claim to be above animals, and even more so.

Still, apparently God loves man the best. All human sinners can expect to be saved by his grace; while those poor angels who once, at the dawn of time, rebelled against their Maker under the leadership of Lucifer, have no other alternative but to remain damned forever. No Redeemer was ever sent to pay the ransom of their sin. No hope of salvation was ever given to them. No repentance of theirs, it seems, would be of any avail. Why? Goodness knows. They are not men, not God's spoilt darlings. That is the only explanation one can give, if any can be given of old Father Jehovah's strange justice and queer tastes. They are not men. Intelligent and beautiful as they may be, and full of endless possibilities for good no less than for evil if only they were given a chance, they are apparently not worth, in God's eyes, the repentant drunkard who weeps aloud at the end of a Salvation Army meeting. God's ways cannot be discussed. But then, don't tell us that his love for man is "justified" by man's superiority, and that the right he gave the chosen species to exploit the rest of his weaker creatures is founded on a reasonable basis. It is not. For, if it were, there would have been, in Paradise, a place for the repentant fallen angels, and at least as much joy for one of them as for the souls of ten thousand drunkards from the East End of London.

The real reason for this continual stress upon the welfare of man alone, in this world and in the next, seems to lie in God's incapacity to transcend a certain puerile partiality -- we speak, of course, of the personal God of the man-centered faiths rooted in Judaism, and not of that impersonal Power behind all existence, in which we are inclined to believe. The God of the Christians, the God of Islam, and the God of most of those later Free Thinkers who are not out and out atheists, never succeeded in shaking off completely the habits he once had when he was but the patron deity of a few tribes of desert wanderers, slaves in the land of the Pharaohs. He was able to raise himself from the rank of a national god to that of a God of all humanity. But that is all. His love seems to have been spent out in its extension from the "chosen People" of Israel to the Chosen Species of mankind. He had not in him the urge to broaden his fatherly feelings still beyond those narrow limits. It never occurred to him how narrow they were in fact and how irrational, how mean, how all-too-human that childish preference for man was, in a God that is supposed to have made the Milky Way.

The bloodthirsty national gods of West-Asian Antiquity -- once his rivals; now all dead -- were more consistent in their narrowness. They limited their sphere to a town, or at the most to a country, and in cases of emergency accepted -- some say: asked for -- human victims as well as burnt offerings of animal flesh. Grim gods they were, most of them. But there was something outspoken and reassuring in their very limitations. One knew, with them, where one stood. One was not carried away in their name by prophets and saints who took one right along the path leading to universal love, only to leave one in the middle of it. The prophets of Jehovah might call them "abominations," but they were consistent. So was Jehovah, as long as he remained merely the tribal god of the Jews.

But when later Jews proclaimed him to be the God of all mankind; when he crept into Christianity as the Heavenly Father of Christ and the First Person of the Holy Trinity; and into Islam as the One God revealed to man through his last and definitive mouthpiece, the Prophet Mohammed; and finally, when he colored the ideology of the humanitarian theists -- and even atheists -- as the unavoidable remnant of a tradition hard to die, then the conception of him became more and more irrational. There was less and less any reason for his solicitude to stop at mankind. Yet it did stop there. There was, more and more, every reason for him to evolve into a truly universal God of all life. Yet he did not evolve that way. He could not drop the long-cherished propensity of picking out a fraction of his creation and blessing it with a special blessing, to the exclusion of the rest. That fraction of the great Universe had once been the Jewish people. It was now the human race -- a trifling improvement, if one ponders over it from an astronomical (that is to say, from what we can imagine to be the only truly divine) angle of vision.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts. Christ, who came "to fulfil" the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures. We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ -- we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a "truer" one ever lived -- never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favor of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God's love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man's duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets. In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer. Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him. And, as Norman Douglas has timely remarked, it remains a fact that the little progress accomplished in recent years in the countries of North western Europe and in America, as regards kindness to dumb beasts, was realized in spite of Christianity, and not because of it.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that "swine" and "fishes" and the "barren fig tree" are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be.



That people whose outlook is conditioned by biblical tradition should put a great stress upon the special place of man in the scheme of life; that they should insist on man's sufferings, and on the necessity of man's happiness, without apparently giving as much as a thought to the other living creatures, one can understand. They follow the Book to which they may or may not add some secondary scriptures based upon it. They cannot be expected to go beyond what is prescribed in it or in those later scriptures.

But there are, in the West, ever since the Middle Ages, increasing numbers of people who dare to do without the Book altogether; who openly reject all divine revelation as unprovable, and who see in their conscience the only source of their moral judgements and their only guide in moral matters. It is remarkable that these people, free from the fetters of any established faith, still retain the outlook of their fathers as regards man's relation to animals and to living nature in general. Free Thought, while rightly brushing aside all man-centered metaphysics; while replacing the man-centered conceptions of the Universe by a magnificent vision of order and beauty on a cosmic scale -- a scientific vision, more inspiring than anything that religious imagination had ever invented, and in which man is but a negligible detail -- Free Thought, we say, omitted entirely to do away with the equally outdated man-centered scale of values, inherited from those religions that sprang from Judaism. Sons of Greek rationalism, as regards their intellectual outlook, the Westerners who boast of no longer being Christians -- and the few advanced young men of Turkey and Persia, and of the rest of the Near and Middle East, who boast of no longer being orthodox Musulmans -- remain, as regards their scale of moral values, the sons of a deep-rooted religious tradition which goes back as far as some of the oldest fragments of the Jewish Scriptures: the tradition according to which man, created in God's own image, is the only living being born for eternity, and has a value altogether out of proportion with that of any other animal species.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years -- nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed -- a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man. It replaced the false ideal of "human brotherhood," by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek "thinker" and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded -- politely speaking: "transcended" -- in decadent Antiquity. And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a "crime" to mention them, let alone to uphold them -- and their whole recent setting -- in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were. He who said, "Love they neighbor as thyself" has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate and inanimate, for man's betterment. Communism, that new religion -- for it is a sort of religion -- exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity. It is the Christian doctrine of the labor of love for one's neighbors, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology. It is real Christianity, minus priesthood -- which Christ thoroughly disliked -- and minus all the beliefs of the Church concerning the human soul and all the mythology of the Bible -- which he surely valued far less than a single spontaneous movement of the heart towards suffering mankind. Christ, if he came back, would probably feel nowhere so much "at home" as in the countries which have made love for the average man as such the very soul of their political system.

And that is not all. Even Christian theology will perhaps not always remain as totally worthless to them as our Communist friends often think. It may be, one day, that they will bring themselves to use it. And, if ever they do, who will blame them but those nominal Christians who have forgotten the out and out "proletarian" character of their Master and of his first disciples? The myth of the God of mankind taking flesh in the son of the carpenter of Nazareth may well be interpreted as a symbol foreshadowing the deification of the working majority of men -- of the "masses"; of man in general -- in our times.

In other words, the rejection of the belief in the supernatural, and the advent of a scientific outlook upon the material world, has not in the least broadened the Westerners' moral outlook. And, unless they be consistent Racialists, worshippers of hierarchised Life, those who today openly proclaim that civilization can well stand without its traditional Christian (or Muslim) background, stick to a scale of values that proceeds, either from a yet narrower love than that preached in the name of Christ or of Islam, (from the love of one's mere individual self and family) or, at most, from the same love -- not from a broader one; not from a true universal love.

The generous "morality" derived from modem Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honored man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition. It is a morality centered -- like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it -- around "the dignity of all men" and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man's affiliation with the rest of living nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the "higher" purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed -- no less than that of Descartes and Malebranche and, later on, of the idealists of the French Revolution, and finally of Auguste Comte.

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things -- a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

Birka
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Does the lion have to right to kill the impala? I would say the lion has totally violated all of the impala's "rights". How dare those lions.

sophia
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Does the lion have to right to kill the impala? I would say the lion has totally violated all of the impala's "rights". How dare those lions.
Only if the imapala's rights include a "right" not to be eaten by lions.

I think that we should grant animals protection from senseless brutality (although only during such times as we have the resources to afford such a luxury). A lion killing animals for food is a quite different matter to people harming defenseless animals for laughs or mistreating or abusing domesticated animals.

Oski
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 07:35 PM
I think all farming and fishing (with the exception of whaling) is acceptable.

I also think scientists have every right to use animals in the search for new cures and operations etc.

I dont think cosmetic companies have a right to test a bunch of chemicals on animals eyes etc, thats cruelty to me. I also despise 'kosher' killing and other inhumane ways of killing livestock.

Freydis
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 08:16 PM
I think the seal hunt is not cruelty. ^^ Same with farming.

I'm against people being needlessly cruel to animals but hoping everything is going to be sunshine and roses is beyond ridiculous. Treating animals like they're on a pedestal when there are humans who are doing worse than them "rights-wise" is fallacious.

Fafner
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Does the lion have to right to kill the impala? I would say the lion has totally violated all of the impala's "rights". How dare those lions.

I do agree with Sophia in this case. You've got so separate between natural issues out of human bad treatment circunstances, where staying alive is something totally natural.

But I always say animals don't have rights, I say they have needs. Because every right brings with it an obligation and animals don't have obligations.

However, I voted "Yes, they have rights", because in certain ways I mean the same.

Boche
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Do you believe animals should have rights? As a liberal, I believe they should not be made suffer unnecessarily. The torture they are subjected to in some countries is disgusting. Germanics would not make an animal suffer without a good reason.


Well, what does this have to do with being liberal or with any politics at all?
In National Socialism in old germany, animals had more rights and respect than they have now under Social-Democrats.

I see animals as needed, and also they shouldn't be treated badly, they're also needed for human survival.
I already grew up and got taught to never do something bad to an animal.
I would only hurt an animal out of defense, which is normal.
Also i understand aggressive animal behaviour, for example if you annoy an animal, it "warns" you, and if you go on and it bites you, then it's your own fault.
Some people don't know that tough, so they would hurt the animal out of anger, which i would not do.

But i dislike those extreme crazy animal-fanatics who don't even drink milk because they say it would harm the cow.




Gruß,
Boche

Rassenpapst
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I read a book about the history of animal rights and environmental protection recently.

This is what they said:

The Third Reich was a pioneer in animal rights. Vivisections were forbidden and the laws about the protection of animal rights were the strictest in the world. However, the Nazis drew a legal line between animals and Untermenschen. The Jews and Gypsies were treated in a manner which violated the Third Reich animal rights legislation. :rolleyes:

Deary
Sunday, October 28th, 2007, 09:45 PM
I read a book about the history of animal rights and environmental protection recently.

This is what they said:

The Third Reich was a pioneer in animal rights. Vivisections were forbidden and the laws about the protection of animal rights were the strictest in the world. However, the Nazis drew a legal line between animals and Untermenschen. The Jews and Gypsies were treated in a manner which violated the Third Reich animal rights legislation. :rolleyes:

Kill six million Jews, but show sympathy for a fish. The amount of attention given to fish and fishing laws in Germany still baffles me.

Boche
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 12:23 AM
The amount of attention given to fish and fishing laws in Germany still baffles me.

Why?




Gruß,
Boche

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 12:44 AM
I don't see a need for unnecessary harm to the higher levels of animals, but I wouldn't say they have rights in the way people do, especially since they can't be expected to live by the same responsibilities humans do

SineNomine
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I think animals should not be subjected to unnecessarily cruel treatment, but I also do not believe there are animal 'rights'. Rights apply to moral agents, which must be first and foremost rational. Some animals might approach this (e.g. dolphins), but until they reach the level of sophistication possessed by even an average human, they are not rights bearers.

Freydis
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 03:44 AM
The amount of attention given to fish and fishing laws in Germany still baffles me.

It's quite reasonable, it isn't because of "cruelty", it's because if there is overfishing there will be no fish left. That is why Newfoundland suffered economically because of the loss of the cod stocks. That is why Canada has "Fisheries Canada" as a part of government.

Unless you want a world without fish? :rolleyes:

Loddfafner
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 03:56 AM
Rights only make sense in relation to a state. Rights can only be granted to those who are subject to legal codes.

NationalAnarchist
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 05:18 AM
Rights only make sense in relation to a state. Rights can only be granted to those who are subject to legal codes.
As Humans with an understanding of Nature and Ecology, we know that over fishing, irresponsible farming and other acts will in the long-term, leave us without food. We also understand that animals have feelings, they feel pain the same that we do and we know that they aren't sufficiently capable of defending themselves against us.

Those animals that live in the territory of man, within our borders should most definitely be protected under the moral code of our communities... If a group of people have sensitivity and feelings towards animals the community would have a moral (legal) code to ensure their protection and respectful treatment. If the community aren't as sensitive as others their moral code wouldn't protect animals and we'll see a society of bear baiting, kosher killing and other barbarity!

Regards
NA.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 07:40 AM
What were the fishing laws in the 3rd reich anyways? This is the 1st I've heard of them.

harl
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 07:49 AM
I'm not a PETA psycho, I'm not for "total animal liberation" as they see it, although I do believe in the humane treatment of animals as any sane human being would. I'm against unnecessary cruelty towards animals.

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 12:13 PM
Kill six million Jews, but show sympathy for a fish.

Hasn't this apparent contradiction made you wonder whether Hitler's governmental system really did kill six million Jews? Hasn't the censorship machine that tries to silence everyone who dares to claim otherwise made you wonder whether Hitler's governmental system really did kill six million Jews?

Are you that naieve not to see the sign on the wall?

Dagna
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 12:47 PM
I read a book about the history of animal rights and environmental protection recently.

This is what they said:

The Third Reich was a pioneer in animal rights. Vivisections were forbidden and the laws about the protection of animal rights were the strictest in the world. However, the Nazis drew a legal line between animals and Untermenschen. The Jews and Gypsies were treated in a manner which violated the Third Reich animal rights legislation. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but your obsession for the Third Reich is not relevant in my thread. The topic is your opinion on animal rights in our current age and communities. Please stick to that.

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 03:23 PM
I'm sorry but your obsession for the Third Reich is not relevant in my thread. The topic is your opinion on animal rights in our current age and communities. Please stick to that.

The Third Reich and national-socialist morallity in general nevertheless stand as a firm example of a positive approach towards animal rights. Besides that, the national-socialist perspective on animal rights also discredits many of the horror stories told by anti-NS propagandists. After all... are we really supposed to believe that the same people who were very strict on showing respect to all living beings were responsible for genocide?

Freydis
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 03:54 PM
I'm sorry but your obsession for the Third Reich is not relevant in my thread. The topic is your opinion on animal rights in our current age and communities. Please stick to that.

Even though it may not be pleasing to you to have Third Reich references, I don't see how it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Elgar
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 08:19 PM
I'm sorry but your obsession for the Third Reich is not relevant in my thread. The topic is your opinion on animal rights in our current age and communities. Please stick to that.

You can say what you like about Hitler...but at least he got the trains running on time.

As for animal rights - of course animals should have rights. As living, sentient creatures they should not be senselessly abused or exploited by human beings, in my opinion. I can appreciate for example free-range chicken, where the animal spends the vast majority of its life roaming free and is provided with shelter, food and vetinary care. Contrast this with Kentucky Fried Chicken, where the meat is from battery farms and the animals allegedly transported and slaughtered in a horrendous fashion:


During an undercover investigation at a KFC “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in Butterfield, Missouri—owned by George's, Inc.—it was documented that live birds were being thrown by workers and crushed by metal dumping machines. Birds were often impaled by mangled transport cages, and workers were instructed to simply yank them out when this happened; PETA's investigator saw workers doing this and found dismembered limbs left behind in cages after the birds had been removed. Birds also got stuck in the spring-loaded doors of the cages, and workers whacked them with metal poles in order to push the doors open, sometimes impaling live birds. One morning, PETA's investigator saw roughly 50 “red birds”—the ones who are scalded to death in defeathering tanks while they're still conscious.

This disgusting, barbaric treatment of animals should be made illegal. There is no need for it. Animal welfare is neglected in order to maximise profits.

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/

Incidentally, one can read more about KFC on the above link. Here's a quick 'taster':

-The more than 850 million chickens killed each year for KFC’s buckets are crammed by the tens of thousands into excrement-filled sheds that stink of ammonia fumes.
-The birds’ legs and wings often break because they’re bred to be too top-heavy and because workers carelessly shove them into transport crates and shackles.
-Chickens’ throats are slit and the animals are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water to remove their feathers, often while they are still conscious and able to feel pain.
-KFC lets frustrated factory-farm and slaughterhouse workers handle live birds, so many of the animals end up being sadistically abused. At a KFC --- “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in West Virginia, workers were documented tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, and violently stomping on them. This was discovered more than two years after KFC promised PETA that it was taking animal welfare seriously.
-KFC hides behind its Animal Welfare Advisory Council, even though five members of the council have resigned in frustration. One of them, Adele Douglass, told the Chicago Tribune that KFC “never had any meetings. They never asked any advice, and then they touted to the press that they had this animal-welfare advisory committee. I felt like I was being used.”

ladybright
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 08:36 PM
I do not think that animals have rights in the exact way that humans do but they should be legaly protected from unnessasary cruelty and abuse. I voted yes because I think that that they deserve protection under the law. As a practical consideration cruelty to animals, overfishing and battery farming are bad for society, ecosytems and consumers. Cruelty to animals as a child is one of the trifecta of warning signs for sociopathy. Juvinile Justice Bulletin (http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_9_2/contents.html) , Vachss opinion (http://vachss.com/media/righteous/ascione.html), a discussion at Science forum (http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22207), (I think that the response to bedwetting is more of a factor than the bedwetting itself. The excessive firestarting is a valid concern.)

Refernces to animal law are appropriate but lets give the jews and gypsies a rest in this thread. Thanks for staying on topic.

Elgar
Monday, October 29th, 2007, 08:46 PM
I do not think that animals have rights in the exact way that humans do but they should be legaly protected from unnessasary cruelty and abuse. I voted yes because I think that that they deserve protection under the law. As a practical consideration cruelty to animals, overfishing and battery farming are bad for society, ecosytems and consumers. Cruelty to animals as a child is one of the trifecta of warning signs for sociopathy(I think that the response to bedwetting is more of a factor than the bedwetting itself. The excessive firestarting is a valid concern. )


Interesting. If I were to wet the bed mind you, I think my response would be to change the sheets...

Psychopathy or sociopathy has a correlation with success in business, apparently:


Is Your Boss a Psychopath?

Odds are you've run across one of these characters in your career. They're glib, charming, manipulative, deceitful, ruthless -- and very, very destructive. And there may be lots of them in America's corner offices.
From: Issue 96 | July 2005 | Page 44 | By: Alan Deutschman | Illustrations by: Christian Northeast

One of the most provocative ideas about business in this decade so far surfaced in a most unlikely place. The forum wasn't the Harvard Business School or one of those $4,000-a-head conferences where Silicon Valley's venture capitalists search for the next big thing. It was a convention of Canadian cops in the far-flung province of Newfoundland. The speaker, a 71-year-old professor emeritus from the University of British Columbia, remains virtually unknown in the business realm. But he's renowned in his own field: criminal psychology. Robert Hare is the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist. The 20-item personality evaluation has exerted enormous influence in its quarter-century history. It's the standard tool for making clinical diagnoses of psychopaths -- the 1% of the general population that isn't burdened by conscience. Psychopaths have a profound lack of empathy. They use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends. They seduce victims with a hypnotic charm that masks their true nature as pathological liars, master con artists, and heartless manipulators. Easily bored, they crave constant stimulation, so they seek thrills from real-life "games" they can win -- and take pleasure from their power over other people.

article continues - http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

This is the only explanation I can think of for how businesses can be so unethical when it comes to the treatment of animals (as well as a lot more besides) such as that stated in previous post about KFC. I have often wondered how somebody can be so mercenary, and the only conclusion I can come to is they are bereft of a conscience - a morality free zone.

Oski
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 12:11 AM
I found this:

October 29, 2007


Sabotage at Residence of UCLA Vivisector
Edythe London Targeted for Addicting Animals to Nicotine, Methamphetamines


Los Angeles- Primate Vivisector Edythe London was added to the roster of animal abusers at UCLA targeted by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) for her role in torturing non-human animals to death in outdated and unnecessary experiments. In an anonymous communique received by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, the ALF claimed to target London for her sadistic procedures addicting non-human primates to methamphetamine; she has also published data on primate addiction to nicotine, and addicting baby lambs to cocaine.


The communique claims London's Beverly Hills home at 1249 Shadybrook Drive had a window broken and was flooded by a garden hose. It reads in part: "One more thing Edythe, water was our second choice, fire was our first. We compromised because we in the ALF don't risk harming animals human and non human and we don't risk starting brush fires.It would have been just as easy to burn your house down Edythe. As you slosh around your flooded house consider yourself fortunate this time. We will not stop until UCLA discontinues its primate vivisection programe." The entire communique is posted online at www.animalliberationpressoffice.org


In an article last month in San Francisco Gate, London was also noted to be conducting secret experiments at UCLA on adolescent children smoking cigarettes, funded by a $6 million dollar grant from Phillip Morris. Attempts to obtain more information by that periodical were met with documents so heavily redacted by UCLA that they were useless; London and UCLA have both refused to comment.


London, a pharmacologist, has admitted publicly that her nicotine research on animals demonstrated there was so much inter-species variation in drug receptors, that no definitive statement could be made with regards to human effects of the drug.


Press Officer Jerry Vlasak, MD states: "London's research is a colossal waste of taxpayer money, and soliciting money from industry groups to study their retail products is considered unethical by most physicians interested in research that might help their patients. Of course, not being a clinician, London appears to have no interest in helping people, but instead derives pleasure in killing animals to further her own personal goals of academic and monetary enrichment. Why the people of California allow this abuse to continue at their expense is truly a mystery to me."


In recent months, activists picketing against UCLA primate vivisection have met with unconstitutional harassment by John Adams, a captain of the UCLA campus police; a lawsuit is pending in that matter. Underground organizations such as the ALF have stepped in when legal means of redress have been squelched. John Adams and his heavy-handed police tactics appear to be fueling the fire of resistance because of his inappropriate and illegal behaviors against legal activists; historically, when activists at demonstrations are persecuted, those watching from the sidelines in frustration find themselves intervening.


For more information visit, www.animalliberationpressoffice.org


Lindy Greene, Camille Hankins, Jerry Vlasak
Press Officers
North American Animal Liberation Press Office
(818) 227-5022
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org
www.animalliberationpressoffice.org."/>

Siegfried
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 12:27 AM
I am very much for animal rights and I am vehemently against vivisection, irresponsible breeding, kosher/halal slaughter and other cruel acts against animals.

I am not a vegetarian (though I may be one day) and so I am not against the slaughter of animals for meat but their slaughter must be humane and the animal must be treated with respect right up until their death, sadly this does not always occur, even in Western nations.

Agreed. A good case can be made for animal rights, but one must not forget that in the end, animals are inferior to humans. Human rights trump animal rights, and it is therefore not intrinsically immoral for us to slaughter them for food, but needless or superstitious cruelty is an unjustified infringement on their natural rights.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Agreed. A good case can be made for animal rights, but one must not forget that in the end, animals are inferior to humans.

Animals are no more inferior to humans than dumb Germans are inferior to smart Germans or than Africans are to Europeans. Does superior capacities give an individual the right to treat another species or race like objects?

Siegfried
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Animals are no more inferior to humans than dumb Germans are inferior to smart Germans or than Africans are to Europeans.

Cosmic egalitarianism at its best. Anyone who honestly believes worms, Negroids and Nordoids occupy exactly the same rank on the cosmic hierarchy has lost all sense of value and distinction.


Does superior capacities give an individual the right to treat another species or race like objects?

No.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 01:17 AM
Cosmic egalitarianism at its best. Anyone who honestly believes worms, Negroids and Nordoids occupy exactly the same rank on the cosmic hierarchy has lost all sense of value and distinction.

I'm not saying they occupy exactly the same rank on the cosmic hierarchy, quite the oposite. I'm actually saying every individual being stands in hierarchy with every other individual as an individual and as a member of the collectives of which he is a member. If superiority or inferiority would be reason enough to treat an individual poorly, we would have to treat 90% of our own people like shit.

Dagna
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 03:41 PM
The Third Reich and national-socialist morallity in general nevertheless stand as a firm example of a positive approach towards animal rights. Besides that, the national-socialist perspective on animal rights also discredits many of the horror stories told by anti-NS propagandists. After all... are we really supposed to believe that the same people who were very strict on showing respect to all living beings were responsible for genocide?
This thread is not meant to discuss "the horror stories told by anti-NS propagandists". Yes, I believe they were responsible for genocide, they were racist haters and committed heinous crimes. There is a reason why many of them were sentenced to death and executed, you know. Your argument proves nothing, Hitler was a vegetarian and ran an anti-tobacco campaign as well, so what? It is even more disgusting that they valued the life of a fish more than millions of lives of Jews. But if you are so interested in discussing this, why don't you start your own little copy & paste National Socialist propagandist thread to prove your point instead of hijacking mine?

Even though it may not be pleasing to you to have Third Reich references, I don't see how it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
It is irrelevant because the topic is animal rights, not the goods and bads of National Socialism and certainly not the Holocaust. If those are relevant to my topic, then I might as well begin to speak about my favorite dog and cat breeds. I am sorry, but I am sick of the National Socialist propaganda Rassenpapst and IlluSionSxxx are trying to force-feed us in every single thread.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 03:53 PM
This thread is not meant to discuss "the horror stories told by anti-NS propagandists".

No. It's about animal rights and the Third Reich approach to animal rights just happens to be an example for all to follow.


Yes, I believe they were responsible for genocide, they were racist haters and committed heinous crimes.

That's just foolish. Apparently, you haven't done your research or you'd know better.


There is a reason why many of them were sentenced to death and executed, you know.

Yes, there is. Politically charged kangaroo trials orchestrated by vengeful Jews, because the Third Reich dares to expose their hatemongering filth and their destructive influence on Western society.


Your argument proves nothing, Hitler was a vegetarian and ran an anti-tobacco campaign as well, so what?

He also installed various animal rights laws that were revolutionary at the time, such as the ban on vivisection or the obligation to kill animals for meat only under strict controlled conditions that would reduce pain as much as possible (eg. a bullet through the head).


It is even more disgusting that they valued the life of a fish more than millions of lives of Jews.

They did not. They values all life. Even though they hated the Jews for what they'd done to Germany, it would have been against national-socialist morallity to actually start a genocide on them. The final solution has always been the permanent relocation of the Jews to a remote location such as Siberia, Palestine or Madagascar. There was even cooperation among zionists and national-socialists to promote Jewish migration to Palestine.


But if you are so interested in discussing this, why don't you start your own little copy & paste National Socialist propagandist thread to prove your point instead of hijacking mine?

I already started threads on this topic, both "copy & paste" threads and threads written entirely by myself.

Anyway, animal rights laws in the Third Reich are relevant first and foremost because they serve as an example.


I am sorry, but I am sick of the National Socialist propaganda Rassenpapst and IlluSionSxxx are trying to force-feed us in every single thread.

I'm not writing propaganda, just plain and simply proven facts. You're the one rehashing the Orwellian system propaganda that completely distorted everything most people think they know about national-socialism...

Freydis
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Yes, I believe they were responsible for genocide, they were racist haters and committed heinous crimes.

So did many, many, many others throughout history. ^^


There is a reason why many of them were sentenced to death and executed, you know.

Reason: They lost the war.


Hitler was a vegetarian and ran an anti-tobacco campaign as well, so what?

It was the National Socialists who first linked tobacco smoking to lung cancer. Without them, this discovery might have been ages away.


It is even more disgusting that they valued the life of a fish more than millions of lives of Jews.

Fishery laws are not so much about valuing the life of the fish but valuing a certain supply of fish for following generations to enjoy (as in eat). Jews aren't edible. ;)


But if you are so interested in discussing this, why don't you start your own little copy & paste National Socialist propagandist thread to prove your point instead of hijacking mine?

Don't be such a discussion Nazi ^^


It is irrelevant because the topic is animal rights, not the goods and bads of National Socialism and certainly not the Holocaust.

I know I have a bad memory, but who was the one making a huge deal about it?


If those are relevant to my topic, then I might as well begin to speak about my favorite dog and cat breeds. I am sorry, but I am sick of the National Socialist propaganda Rassenpapst and IlluSionSxxx are trying to force-feed us in every single thread.

Then ignore what they write. Simple as that. Making a fuss over it is not going to make it go away; it's just going to make the thread go even more off topic and into a direction I know you certainly won't like.

Personally, I love baby seals... to eat. :D

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 07:33 AM
I believe animals should be protected from human cruelty. No animal should be made to suffer.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 11:46 AM
We simply should get rid of anthropocentrism. Man is not nature's perfection, guardian or watchdog. We're just one tiny part of nature and bound by the same rules and principles. We must learn to see animals are individuals worthy of the same respect and kindness we give to other people.

Dagna
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:14 PM
I believe animals should not have the same rights as humans. An animal cannot vote nor drive a car nor form a political association. Humans have higher IQs than the IQ of a monkey. (Most). Our communities run by different rules and principles than the animals in the wild or on a farm. We do not defecate to mark our territories.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:26 PM
I totally disagree with Dagna :p and I would also like to point that "animal rights" is a human construct.
Just who gives humans the right to create animal rights?
And who determines how more or less important animals are than humans?

The IQ argument is inappropriate also, because it is a human construct too. The defecation argument is also invalid because humans may do all kinds of extensively more destructive sh*t :p to mark their territories.

Also, a wonderful study called Ethology reveals all the marvells of species-specific behavior, and it explains that while another species behavior may look ridiculous to us at first glance, it may have tremendous biopsychosocial significance for the members of the species themselves.
Survival of whole species depends on such behavior such as marking of territory.

And don't even get me started on the consequences of humans driving cars, forming political associatons and voting in the modern world! :D

What I mean to say is, that animals, forests, lakes, fish, birds, insects and every other part of the natural world has an equal right of existence as do humans.

That been said, humans killing animals for food is a natural process and does not disrupt the food circle.
Killing/abusing animals for "fun", burning forrests, polluting lakes and skies with toxic substances, however, is a crime and should be punished as austerely as any other crime against humans.

Dagna
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:47 PM
What I mean to say is, that animals, forests, lakes, fish, birds, insects and every other part of the natural world has an equal right of existence as do humans.

That been said, humans killing animals for food is a natural process and does not disrupt the food circle.
Killing/abusing animals for "fun", burning forrests, polluting lakes and skies with toxic substances, however, is a crime and should be punished as austerely as any other crime against humans.
But you see, you cannot have it both ways. If animals have an equal right to existence as humans do, then you cannot kill an animal (for food, it is still killing). You cannot kill humans for food either. If animals were subjected to the same laws as humans, killing an animal would be considered murder. By slaughtering an animal, you infringe upon its right to existence. By cutting a tree to build a house, you infringe upon its right to existence. By getting rid of the weeds in your garden, you infringe upon their right to existence. That is why I believe there should be different laws in regards to animals and plants, we need to kill them for useful reasons sometimes.

Allenson
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:51 PM
What I mean to say is, that animals, forests, lakes, fish, birds, insects and every other part of the natural world has an equal right of existence as do humans.

Exactly. And, given the fact that many of the animal species that we share this planet with are actually older species than is H. sapiens, it could be argued that they have even more right and claim to a particular habitat than do we.

But then again, I'm not convinced that there is any such thing as rights--be they animal or otherwise. ;)

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:55 PM
If animals were subjected to the same laws as humans, killing an animal would be considered murder. By slaughtering an animal, you infringe upon its right to existence. By cutting a tree to build a house, you infringe upon its right to existence. By getting rid of the weeds in your garden, you infringe upon their right to existence.

No, no, you see, I specified that killing for food is not a crime, since it is part of the natural food chain. Animals also kill animals for food.

By accepting animal rights I don't mean equating everything to a "holy cow" status, but that we should be reasonable in our exploitation of natural resources, and I posed as examples

-not killing animals for fun or for unecessary purposes
-not burning down forests for profit or cutting down more trees than needed
-not polluting the environent, not producing more liter than the ecosystem can handle,
etc.

I wouldn't arrest you for pulling the weeds from your back yard :p but I would if you were cutting down trees because they're blocking your view to your neighbour's window. I hope you see the analogy.

Anyways, in the bigger scheme it is totally irrelevant what you or I think, because nature will have it's way with us anyway, and we are already suffering the consequences of our actions. :shrug

Galloglaich
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:57 PM
My view on animals is a microcosmic sentiment of my viewpoint regarding the whole of nature. As such, they are deserving of respect and fair treatment. I like to eat animals, they taste good and provide sustinance for myself and my family (I just ate a yummy venison steak before writing this). In my role as predator, I always strive to maximize the efficiency of a quick kill on the game animal. I would never abuse or torture an animal. I would stop someone else from doing so. I don't know if I would call my view animal "rights" per se, but we co-exist and I respect them for what they are. Who knows, maybe someday an animal will eat me. I'd be OK with that.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I believe I agree with Raven, animals should not have the same rights as humans. An animal cannot vote nor drive a car nor form a political association. Humans have higher IQs than the IQ of a monkey. (Most). Our communities run by different rules and principles than the animals in the wild or on a farm. We do not defecate to mark our territories.

I have to agree with Blood Axis, here. The whole concept of "animal rights" is a social construct that's quite irrelevant and in fact already a limitation of an animal's freedom.

What really matters, is that we respect animals and treat them kindly, as we would do with our friends and neighbors. Just because we happen to have a larger brain capacity, that does not give us the right to give or take away rights from it. Just because animals aren't capable of thinking beyond the level of a 4-year-old human, that doesn't mean we are their masters and we can choose to treat them good or bad as we see fit.

Animals first of all deserve the freedom to live the lives they instinctively desire as well as the freedom to get killed in the process and to save themselves from getting killed.

Dagna
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:00 PM
No, no, you see, I specified that killing for food is not a crime, since it is part of the natural food chain. Animals also kill animals for food.

By accepting animal rights I don't mean equating everything to a "holy cow" status, but that we should be reasonable in our exploitation of natural resources, and I posed as examples

-not killing animals for fun or for unecessary purposes
-not burning down forests for profit or cutting down more trees than needed
-not polluting the environent, not producing more liter than the ecosystem can handle,
etc.

I wouldn't arrest you for pulling the weeds from your back yard :p but I would if you were cutting down trees because they're blocking your view to your neighbour's window. I hope you see the analogy.

Anyways, in the bigger scheme it is totally irrelevant what you or I think, because nature will have it's way with us anyway, and we are already suffering the consequences of our actions. :shrug
I agree with you, but then their right to existence is not equal to the human right to existence as you claimed they should be. If we apply the same rights (so, equal rights) on humans and animals and we are legally allowed to kill an animal for food (useful purpose), then we would also be legally allowed to be cannibals.

Dagna
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:05 PM
What really matters, is that we respect animals and treat them kindly, as we would do with our friends and neighbors.
I don't believe I have never said otherwise. I despise animal disrespect.

Just because we happen to have a larger brain capacity, that does not give us the right to give or take away rights from it. Just because animals aren't capable of thinking beyond the level of a 4-year-old human, that doesn't mean we are their masters and we can choose to treat them good or bad as we see fit.

Animals first of all deserve the freedom to live the lives they instinctively desire as well as the freedom to get killed in the process and to save themselves from getting killed.
If we do not establish rights, then who does? There has to be someone that passes these laws. If animal rights are constructs and we need no laws for them, then it is back to the law of the jungle where everyone uses nature as they wish. Do you think animals treat all other animals with respect, they do not torture and cruelly kill one another?

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Just because animals aren't capable of thinking beyond the level of a 4-year-old human

Ehrrr. Please define the cognitive level of a 4-year old human. Hell, why not define that of a 40-year old human?! :D Is there a standard one?

Also, again we are biased. Not only we are thinking in human terms (being human and all) but we are also thinking in, let's say, modern/industrialized/western..etc human terms.
Go to other parts of the world such as Africa, Mongolia, India, etc, and you will see entirely (and inconcievable) diverse viewpoints concerning reality, nature, animals, rights, etc.

What I mean to say is that such concepts are merely sociocultural constructs but natural processes and the natural equilibrium exists/should exist independently of human actions and discussions.

Every living creature has it's "dharma", its own purpose of existence, and by the unecessary killing of even the slightest, littlest and seemingly insignificant creature, we run the danger of disrupting the whole natural process, since survival of all beings in the animal and plant kingdom depends on the existence and plentitude of each other.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:16 PM
I agree with you, but then their right to existence is not equal to the human right to existence as you claimed they should be. If we apply the same rights (so, equal rights) on humans and animals and we are legally allowed to kill an animal for food (useful purpose), then we would also be legally allowed to be cannibals.

The way I see it, we can only kill or hurt other individual beings on the condition we need it for our own welfare or that of our immediate surroundings. As we are omnivores, killing animals for food is acceptable within that frame. Torturing animals, however, is completely unacceptable.


Do you think animals treat all other animals with respect, they do not torture and cruelly kill one another?

There are assholes in all species and all races, but generally speaking an animal does not just torture or cruelly kill for any other reason but it being the way its instinct tells to behave. And this usually has a deeper reason. For example, felines "play" with their prey to further train their skills.

My girlfriend's brother is owner of a horse farm and both my girlfriend and I have experienced inter-species compassion and playfulness among horses, dogs, goats, cats and other species.

Beornulf
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:16 PM
I think it's important to establish that humans (or anything for that matter) do not have lordship over nature. We have a role to play in nature, just as all living organisms do. I believe the consumption of meat is perfectly healthy and natural but we should not abuse our part in nature and it's cycle.

Eating meat is as natural to humans as the wolf that eats the sheep.

I do not think we are equal to animals, just as I don't think humans are equal to humans.

Apologies if this is a bit all over the place.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Ehrrr. Please define the cognitive level of a 4-year old human. Hell, why not define that of a 40-year old human?! :D Is there a standard one?

The smartest animals I've experienced thusfar seem to be somewhere around the level of young human children (up to 3 or 4 years old). They can show compassion, they can try to trick you, they show love and appreciation, they can be playful, they can understand simple commands, they have basic problem-solving skills, etc.

That's what I was (implicitly) referring to...

Northern Paladin
Thursday, January 17th, 2008, 11:15 PM
All animals should have rights, that's why PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) exists. On the other hand I own a parrot and keep him in a cage. Perhaps he should be set free, but at the same time I know if he is set free he will die because I'm the one that feeds him.

SineNomine
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 02:58 AM
That doesn't really prove that they have rights; besides, PETA is hardly nature's paragon. It's often dubbed People for the Evil Treatment of Animals.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 03:01 AM
One could also say that because Human Rights organizations exist or some philosopher says so that doesn't mean we actually have rights either.

SineNomine
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 03:13 AM
One could say so, but why ought one take them seriously? The philosopher can dismiss this view as nonsense and non-responsive to the arguments he/she puts forth (and properly so.) Even this view must be philosophically justified, or else it is mere waffle (Hobbes actually took this route, but with the intention of giving an account of how morals might arise.) I've not heard of a convincing deontological account for animal rights, and utilitarian accounts fare little better - descent into moral nihilism/subjectivism only worsens things, as then no moral constraints exist in how one may treat animals; hardly what the animal rights advocate would want.

Freydis
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 03:40 AM
FYI, Driftwood, PETA is against keeping pets of any kind.

I don't believe animals should have more rights than humans.

Sadly, this is the case.

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 03:47 AM
I don't believe animals should have more rights than humans.

Sadly, this is the case.

How do you figure that? What exactly do animals have a right to that humans don't? I can list plenty of made up "rights" that humans seem to have that animals don't, ranging anywhere from the "right to free speech" from the "right to abortion".

a.squiggles
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:05 AM
i don't believe in animal rights....but i would never senslessly hurt an animal...i think it's ridiculous to talk about animal rights when we eat them every day (or at least those of us who want a balanced diet without soy do). how can we simultaniously take away their lives and talk about them having rights? :confused:

Northern Paladin
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:14 AM
i don't believe in animal rights....but i would never senslessly hurt an animal...i think it's ridiculous to talk about animal rights when we eat them every day (or at least those of us who want a balanced diet without soy do). how can we simultaniously take away their lives and talk about them having rights? :confused:

I actually enjoy the thought that the animal I am eating, whether beef or lamb has had been put out of its misery, because farms are crowded and the animals needlessly suffer.:D

a.squiggles
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:17 AM
i guess you wouldn't want to eat free-range animals than...meh, tis all the same to me, when i eat i just chew :|....:D

Soldier of Wodann
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:19 AM
One could say so, but why ought one take them seriously? The philosopher can dismiss this view as nonsense and non-responsive to the arguments he/she puts forth (and properly so.) Even this view must be philosophically justified, or else it is mere waffle (Hobbes actually took this route, but with the intention of giving an account of how morals might arise.) I've not heard of a convincing deontological account for animal rights, and utilitarian accounts fare little better - descent into moral nihilism/subjectivism only worsens things, as then no moral constraints exist in how one may treat animals; hardly what the animal rights advocate would want.

Regardless, the arguments they put forth are not fact, but theory based on fact. No matter how highly you think of their argument, it does not make it true. And morality has nothing to do with rights, morals often conflict with obeying certain 'rights'. My argument isn't morally nihilistic as it is not concerned with morals, but these made up "rights" everyone keeps referring to, who apply to somethings in nature (ourselves) but apparently not others. We too are animals, and that is a fact.


i don't believe in animal rights....but i would never senslessly hurt an animal...i think it's ridiculous to talk about animal rights when we eat them every day (or at least those of us who want a balanced diet without soy do). how can we simultaniously take away their lives and talk about them having rights? :confused:

Us eating them doesn't indicate any sort of superiority or moral high ground, humans are eaten by animals as well. I personally think it is ridiculous to talk about the rights of people whose intelligence barely exceeds that of a more advanced animal, and in some cases is lower than animals, but of course since they are human (wupdeedoo, what an achievement) they get "rights", simply for being born.

a.squiggles
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:50 AM
Us eating them doesn't indicate any sort of superiority or moral high ground, humans are eaten by animals as well.
...i don't get your point...i never said we were on some sort of a moral high groud...what i as saying wasthat i thinks it's hypocritical to talk about their rights as you're picking out pieces of their flesh from between your teeth after having steak for dinner....


I personally think it is ridiculous to talk about the rights of people whose intelligence barely exceeds that of a more advanced animal, and in some cases is lower than animals, but of course since they are human (wupdeedoo, what an achievement) they get "rights", simply for being born.

i also think it is ridiculous to talk about human right, imo there are no collective rights...but i honestly doubt there are any humans (unless they are in some vegitative or near-vegitative state) dumber than say a sheep.

SineNomine
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 04:53 AM
Regardless, the arguments they put forth are not fact, but theory based on fact. No matter how highly you think of their argument, it does not make it true. And morality has nothing to do with rights, morals often conflict with obeying certain 'rights'. My argument isn't morally nihilistic as it is not concerned with morals, but these made up "rights" everyone keeps referring to, who apply to somethings in nature (ourselves) but apparently not others. We too are animals, and that is a fact.
Moral subjectivism, then (which still leaves you in a precarious position.) Rights are a subset of morality, as they designate which behaviour is moral or not. It is a sign of pure confusion to think they are anything else. What matters is whether the species has morally relevant characteristics. If it does not, it cannot be the subject of any moral theory, hence it cannot possess rights.

Also, denigrating something as 'theory' is puerile, at best. All facts must be interpreted by means of theory - they do not interpret themselves. The naive logical positivist view is long dead. Ethical arguments are no exception; they proceed from certain starting points (themselves 'facts'), and axiomatic-deductive reasoning is subsequently applied to yield moral truths. One may disagree with the results, but they must then refute the arguments. Ignoring them won't get one anywhere.

theTasmanian
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 06:52 AM
I believe animals have some rights to good treatment....no stupid kosha kill here thanks:mad:

i do how ever as a hunter kill and eat animal regularly.....i don't see it as cruel as they die very fast if not instantaneous ;)
its never any more than i need.

it is funny how people seem to think that we humans are not natural at killing and eating animals......we are just part of natures works.

groups like PETA need to be watch closely as they don't really care about animals as you might think!

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/223

PETA Killed 97 Percent of “Companion Animals” in 2006

Death Toll Up To 17,400; Report Describes PETA’s Deadliest Year Ever


WASHINGTON, DC— An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it’s perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.


Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 “companion animals” in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.


“Pet lovers should be outraged,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans’ support. PETA is not one of them.”


In courtroom testimony last year, a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.


In Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face criminal charges in a dog-napping case. Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.


“PETA raised over $30 million last year,” Martosko added, “and it’s using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA’s hypocrisy is simply staggering.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 115
OH yes they like animals......

Bridie
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 07:00 AM
Do you believe animals should have rights?
Yes. Every animal has the right to be shot and eaten by humans. :fpopcorn:

Northern Paladin
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 07:06 AM
Do you believe animals should have rights? As a liberal, I believe they should not be made suffer unnecessarily. The torture they are subjected to in some countries is disgusting. Germanics would not make an animal suffer without a good reason.

Harming an animal without a good reason was not accepted in Germanic society either, although lifestock was seen as a possession they were still living beings who deserved respect, so for instance a man who was unnecessarily cruel towards a dog risked a beating from the people who saw it, in later times such a person had to pay a fine to the owner of the animal.
Killing an animal was only allowed to obtain food, hides, or other necessary products or because it posed a danger to humans or livestock, some of the holy animals like for instance the raven (who was associated with the god Wodan) were not to be harmed at all.


Like I said I'm a member of PETA. People for the Ethical treatment of Animals. Are you part of PETA Dagna?

Griffon
Friday, January 18th, 2008, 08:59 AM
I don't believe in animal rights, I'm strongly opposed to it, as it's a Marxist/liberal ideal. I don't believe in excessive torture and abuse of animals neither, but it's irrevelent to any form of rights, it's a moral issue. ie. the abuse of animals is immoral but it can't violate any rights since animals cannot have rights.

The animal rights movement is as Marxist/liberal as any other egalitarian movement. Humans are viewed as evil exploiters, the oppressors, while the animals are viewed as innocent, and being oppressed by the human. The evil humans exploit their furs,milk, eggs and meat, only giving some food that can barely sustain their life in return. Thus, the animals must stand up and overthrow the evil human's rule, but they cannot comprehend the situation themselves (that they are being exploited), let alone organizing a revolution on their own, so here comes the "savior" of these poor animals, the animals rights movement.

That's also why these activists call for "animal liberation", because for a liberation there must exist the oppressed in their mind to be liberated.

Resist
Saturday, July 18th, 2009, 04:01 AM
I don't believe in animal cruelty for fun, but I am not an animal rights advocate either. Not the type that believes animals are equal to humans and should enjoy the same treatment. Where does it end? It's kind of ridiculous to think of us humans having the same status as a mollusk or insect. I kill insects in my home, and I don't feel like I should go to prison for it. ;)

ChaosLord
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 01:34 AM
I believe that animals should have rights considering it is us humans who encroach on their habitats and homes forcing the animals to behave in "irrational" ways. This holds sway over pets as well because I personally don't think that humans lives are any better than the life of an animal. We think that we are only because we say that we are.

A question regarding morals to animals and humans is; would you rather abuse a puppy or eat a cheese burger in front of a starving child?

Old Winter
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 01:47 AM
I do not know if i replied yet and i am not going to read seven pages now.

All i can say is, go Vegan :D

Blod og Jord
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 01:54 AM
I believe in the rights not to be abused and tortured for sadistic reasons. An animal should receive a humane death when it's killed, and it shouldn't be raised as an object and thrown around and shoved in just some meters space.
But I see the point of Resist, about insects. I don't like killing insects, but sometimes it's easier to use poison or substances to get rid of them than to chase them out the window. So a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Maybe animal rights for mammals, birds and reptiles but not for insects and similar.
It's important to protect not just the pets, but the wild too, because killing off a species could overthrow the natural cycle.

Ossi
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 10:25 AM
In my role as predator, I always strive to maximize the efficiency of a quick kill on the game animal. I would never abuse or torture an animal.
Not as a predator. Predators don't care about quick deaths of their prey. There are plenty of animals that kill other animals slowly, and even when they don't need the food.


Go to other parts of the world such as Africa, Mongolia, India, etc, and you will see entirely (and inconcievable) diverse viewpoints concerning reality, nature, animals, rights, etc.
LOL, animal rights don't exist among African tribes. I recommend you to VISIT Africa and come again here and say primitive tribe have RESPECT for animal rights. You'll see some of the most cruel slaughter methods and rituals of sacrificing animals. Those are romantic illusions about the non-European world. It has a reason? LOL, of course. For the mentally deranged who torture animals there is a REASON too, and ritual sacrifice to some imaginary being is as senseless.

Nachtengel
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Not as a predator. Predators don't care about quick deaths of their prey. There are plenty of animals that kill other animals slowly, and even when they don't need the food.
Are you saying animals kill for fun? I strongly doubt that. Animals kill when they don't need to eat, but it's either to defend themselves, their territory, their families, or to teach their little ones how to hunt efficiently. That's why sometimes the parents don't kill the prey immediately, but hurt it to reduce it possibility of escape and leave their offspring to finish it off. When they don't need food, many animal species prefer to just warn the intruders, and not waste their resources on killing it.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 12:25 PM
I don't believe in animal cruelty for fun, but I am not an animal rights advocate either. Not the type that believes animals are equal to humans and should enjoy the same treatment. Where does it end? It's kind of ridiculous to think of us humans having the same status as a mollusk or insect. I kill insects in my home, and I don't feel like I should go to prison for it. ;)
Hmm, I think where it ends depends on each ethnic culture. In our culture, we treat the pets best. Insects are viewed as inferior to the pets. There is a hierarchy. But I don't kill insects unless I've no other choice. I often open the window and let the bee who entered the room fly out, because I know it has a useful role to polenisation. If it's a colony of destructive insects like termites, it's a different story, because they can destroy the homes.
But on top of the scale has always been the human. If an epidemic transmitted from animals starts, the animals are culled, while the effort is focused on saving human lives. Our culture is anthropocentric.

Nachtengel
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 12:44 PM
Insects cannot feel pain. An insect's nervous system is directly connected to the muscular system, and not to the brain. If you remove an insect's leg, it will limp away, it will not scream in agony. So killing an insect cannot be judged the same way as killing a puppy. If someone was going to kill me, I'd prefer to be an insect.

Bärin
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Animals and humans shouldn't have the same rights indeed. We aren't equal. Not even humans are equal. I wonder, I think nearly everyone agrees it's retarded to allow a monkey to vote or candidate for an office, but if you say Africans with average IQs low enough to fall on the imbecile scale of intelligence measurements shouldn't have the same rights as Germans who have high IQs averegely, it's cruel and "racist". :oanieyes Some Africans have lower IQs than gorillas. Species, races, aren't equal and it's retarded to think they should have the same rights. If intelligence is needed to vote responsibly, then all those with low intelligence, human or animal, should be devoid of such rights.

ChaosLord
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 12:40 AM
But on top of the scale has always been the human. If an epidemic transmitted from animals starts, the animals are culled, while the effort is focused on saving human lives. Our culture is anthropocentric.

True, but we humans are not the top of the food chain. That's merely an illusion of self-brainwashing. Take a walk into the African savannah or Alaskan wilderness and see what comes preying on you.


Animals and humans shouldn't have the same rights indeed. We aren't equal. Not even humans are equal.

I don't believe that animals and humans are equal, but respect should be given to animals. Just because they are not humans or equal to us doesn't exactly give us the right to abuse them, neglect them, or kill them for little given reason. I would rather shoot a person trying to break in my home than a confused bear who somehow wandered in my yard.

Bärin
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 06:02 AM
I don't believe that animals and humans are equal, but respect should be given to animals. Just because they are not humans or equal to us doesn't exactly give us the right to abuse them, neglect them, or kill them for little given reason. I would rather shoot a person trying to break in my home than a confused bear who somehow wandered in my yard.
I'm for harsh punishments for animal cruelty, I don't believe in any 'rights' to abuse them.

Kogen
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 09:54 PM
It is so strange to see people actually try to argue things like 'if you do it to a fly, why not an elephant'. Do they have no sense at all? To be so simple minded is a serious form of retardation. These people concerning themselves in animal rights are infact at the same level of many animals, and we should be discussing their rights in equal measure. I am not making reference to anyone exactly in this thread, as this is basically common in this type of discussion.

For example, I have actually had a Germanic, American Christain who was clearly educated try to argue with me that using mouthwash is to the same effect as the seal hunt. What social condition can put someone is such a mind set? It lacks basic understanding of life.

As for animal rights itself, I believe in giving specific groups of animals the rights they deserve. Of course not all deserve the same ones, as nothing is equal, no matter how much the hordes of idiots want to stress it (to them, either everything is a God, or everything should be abused). Mindless violence I really do not see as an issue of animal rights. If someone tortures a cat for fun, I would not judge the value of the cat then seek a punishment for them (in general, ignoring things such as endangered wild cats, and so on). Anyone with such a serious mental condition either needs to have their problem medically fixed, or if not possible, they need to be removed from society as they are unfit and a threat to everything around them.

As for my own personal actions, I rarely abuse any animals. I almost always take the time to do simple things like putting a spider outside if I see one in my room. I do not care if it can feel pain or not, or if removing it would really change anything, or even if it will die outside due to rain or some other issue. It is just my natural feeling to help something if I have the ability to do so, which also includes keeping my room clean in the process. As sort of an awkward example, I actually felt really bad in one instance after I passed by a worm that was stuck on the sidewalk, as I was ashamed to touch it in public; yet after I looked behind myself when passing by, the person behind me did it.

Grimsteinr
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 03:53 PM
Are you saying animals kill for fun? I strongly doubt that. Animals kill when they don't need to eat, but it's either to defend themselves, their territory, their families, or to teach their little ones how to hunt efficiently. That's why sometimes the parents don't kill the prey immediately, but hurt it to reduce it possibility of escape and leave their offspring to finish it off. When they don't need food, many animal species prefer to just warn the intruders, and not waste their resources on killing it.

I guess you have never seen a house cat, or a farm cat, a young one or an old one, "Playing" with a mouse or a young chipmunk. They will let it run a few steps and "Pounce on it." They will slap it or prod it to make it move about. Then grab it gingerly in their teeth.
In the end, they kill the prey animal. But sometimes they just plain "wear it out", playing with it. And it dies.I don't know.......But I'm told; bigger cats, bobcats, lynxs & leopards do the same thing

Cruelty.....no probably not consciously. More likely instinct.
They seem to take "Joy in the Game", though.;)

velvet
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 05:00 PM
The problem of 'animal rights' (that of equalling them to human rights) is indeed a serious mental defect, coming from judging the natural world with 'human(itarian)' standards. Like labeling the cat who plays with the mouse for a while 'cruel'.

Cruelty is a human trait, it is a willing decision to torture, with the sole intent to torture. This requires the ability to connect cause and effect in a chain of psychological events. The cat just follows her play instinct though, she doesnt intent anything.

Another thing is with humans torturing animals. People beating their pets are the very last scum on earth. Who beats his pet beats also his partner and children.

Animal torture is also to lock thousands of chickens in several levels in grid cages above each other, leave the died ones in until they rot away and gas them with nicotine to kill the bacteries that are caused by this sort of livestock farming. This indeed is cruel.

Cows and other livestock farmed in similar conditions is also cruel and should be persecuted accordingly.

Besides that I consider this not right in itself, it also poisons the livestock that is supposed to be eaten by me. We should treat the animals we want to eat with a bit of respect, even if they are supposed to die anyway I dont think they should suffer - beside that they taste just better when they didnt :D

Like with everything, some bored people fetch things too far and then we end up with freaks not eating eggs, chees, or meat and anything else that could 'take something away' from the complete out of control 'animal rights' (some of these freaks dont even eat salad because it's bunny fodder?). The only thing missing indeed is giving them voting rights. (okay, let's imagine my cat making a stamp with her paw...well :rofl )

Hmm, we should make 'nonsense' an offence, because this fetched too far bs is exactly this, criminal nonsense.

Freigeistige
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 06:35 PM
True, but we humans are not the top of the food chain. That's merely an illusion of self-brainwashing. Take a walk into the African savannah or Alaskan wilderness and see what comes preying on you.

Actually, as long as you have the proper human-made tools, you are on the top of the food chain anywhere. Cleverness makes up for what we lack in strength. We are so far up the food chain, it doesn't feel like competition anymore.

We should be first and foremost concerned with our own survival, and we shouldn't be outright mean to other animals without cause. However, if a situation arises that is human against animal, we should always give preference to the human in our actions. Our unanimal-like compassion will be our undoing.

Neophyte
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:54 PM
Our unanimal-like compassion will be our undoing.

Indeed. We must regain the understanding that we are as much part of nature as any cat or mouse and that the same basic laws apply to us as well.

Kogen
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 08:34 PM
Actually, as long as you have the proper human-made tools, you are on the top of the food chain anywhere. Cleverness makes up for what we lack in strength. We are so far up the food chain, it doesn't feel like competition anymore.

We should be first and foremost concerned with our own survival, and we shouldn't be outright mean to other animals without cause. However, if a situation arises that is human against animal, we should always give preference to the human in our actions. Our unanimal-like compassion will be our undoing.

You make the poor assumption that a human is always correct. If someone is attacked by a bear with cubs, for example, whose fault is that? Would you attack a bear in your home that was near your children? You are just simply wrong, as situations need to be reacted to according to the circumstance. If anything, that should be the 'more human' thing to do.

It is also unfortunate that you would rate all humans by this standard, as if the filth of the third world is more important than everything else living. I am surprised you are Athiest when you have such Semitic values.

Resist
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 08:40 PM
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It's not about fairness. It's about survival. Every single animal has this instinct. Why should humans be an exception?

Kogen
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 10:30 PM
If you are at or below other animals, then what puts you in a position to give or deny rights?

Neophyte
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 10:35 PM
If you are at or below other animals, then what puts you in a position to give or deny rights?

The power and the ability to do so.

Resist
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 10:37 PM
If you are at or below other animals, then what puts you in a position to give or deny rights?
As I said, I'm not an animal rights advocate. But to answer your question, if I am stranded in the woods, hungry and I come across a rabbit, I will turn it into my dinner, because I can. I'm bigger, I'm stronger, that's how nature works. The animal that is above me is the one that defeats me, and it doesn't need any rights to do that. It does it because it can.

Kogen
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:24 AM
As I said, I'm not an animal rights advocate. But to answer your question, if I am stranded in the woods, hungry and I come across a rabbit, I will turn it into my dinner, because I can. I'm bigger, I'm stronger, that's how nature works. The animal that is above me is the one that defeats me, and it doesn't need any rights to do that. It does it because it can.

Outside of awkward groups with no realistic goals, since when has this ever been an issue?

I think you are making fantasy situations to create some sort of correct answer for yourself. No one with a real intent on animal rights is against basic laws of nature, as it would itself go against the same animals you are looking to give rights to.

Rainraven
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:37 AM
I think animal rights need to be balanced.

On one side we are higher in the food chain and I do enjoy eating meat.

On the other side animals are weaker then us and I do not believe in torturing them or hurting them for little or no benefit.

Zimobog
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 09:55 AM
You can tell a lot about a person by how he/she treats animals. Someone who kicks their dog for no reason can't be trusted with children, for instance.

I am a ruralist and these big-city urban values about animals having rights sounds queer to me.

When it comes to animals: I love mine, but I hate yours. Keep your dogs out of my chicken yard and your goat out of my garden or I promise to shoot them.

Wild animals are mine to take if I can out-wit them or track them down. They are mine to eat, skin, wear, and harvest. Domestic animals exist for humans to eat, wear, and do whatever we see fit to do.

I would never harm an animal that was in danger of extinction or one that was not "fair game". I avoid unnecessary amounts of suffering in the harvesting of animals.

But animals do not recognize animal rights, so why should I?

Kogen
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 11:17 AM
You can tell a lot about a person by how he/she treats animals. Someone who kicks their dog for no reason can't be trusted with children, for instance.

I am a ruralist and these big-city urban values about animals having rights sounds queer to me.

When it comes to animals: I love mine, but I hate yours. Keep your dogs out of my chicken yard and your goat out of my garden or I promise to shoot them.

Wild animals are mine to take if I can out-wit them or track them down. They are mine to eat, skin, wear, and harvest. Domestic animals exist for humans to eat, wear, and do whatever we see fit to do.

I would never harm an animal that was in danger of extinction or one that was not "fair game". I avoid unnecessary amounts of suffering in the harvesting of animals.

But animals do not recognize animal rights, so why should I?

Then you are an animal yourself, correct? You follow their laws.

As such, why should I not do the same to you (in theory, of course, not a real threat). If you do not give respect and value to life, do not expect any for yourself.

To me, this description exactly fits that of the people I want out of European countries. They are commonly known as savages.

Zimobog
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 11:57 AM
Then you are an animal yourself, correct? You follow their laws.

As such, why should I not do the same to you (in theory, of course, not a real threat). If you do not give respect and value to life, do not expect any for yourself.

To me, this description exactly fits that of the people I want out of European countries. They are commonly known as savages.

Am I an animal? Yes, I am predatory animal, a human. Am I a savage? Sometimes. I don't expect anything from Nature except the freedom to participate in the life and death struggle.

I do value life and respect it, but it is "mine" before "thine". For instance, my chickens have a right to live over your dog's right to eat them, just as my folk have a right to what is theirs.

Kogen
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:48 PM
Your post seems to imply far more than simply defending your chickens, which of course you have a right to do. You state things as if you hate everything outside of your household and that no rights or laws matter outside that of your own. You seem like an anarchist; and what use is an anarchist to the Germanic race? It cares for itself only.

I really cannot see how such attitudes are healthy for a community.

Zimobog
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:46 PM
Your post seems to imply far more than simply defending your chickens, which of course you have a right to do. You state things as if you hate everything outside of your household and that no rights or laws matter outside that of your own. You seem like an anarchist; and what use is an anarchist to the Germanic race? It cares for itself only.

I really cannot see how such attitudes are healthy for a community.

Look, new kid, you don't know much about my posts or politics since you have only recently joined this board. I submit that your reading comprehension skills might be low or that you were in a big blasted hurry when you read my posts. I would ask you to take another look at them.

Saying that my own animals are more important to me than yours makes me sound like an "anarchist"? :D . I care (and in this order) for my children, my household, my extended family, my gods, my friends, and my community.

Without the family and household, there can be no community (or have you forgotten how our ancestors lived?). Don't try to negate the basis and very foundation of community in order to make a claim that I dont care for community. Community begins at home, good fences make good neighbors. Good neighbors respect my property rights and make sure their property/chattel also respects it.

If you think I am poaching or breaking a law when I bag one of the dozens of animals I have bagged and eaten this year, please call 1(800)478-3377 and report me to my local authorities. I have a legally issued permit for what I do and I always follow the laws of my local authorities, folk and state when I hunt, fish, or trap. I am going to guess that you live in an area without an outdoor culture, and sadly so.

Like I said, wild animals are mine to take assuming I do so fairly and humanely. If you think animals in the wild are defenseless and helpless "sitting ducks" for me, you are way off! It is hard work hunting or trapping and very satisfying to be apart of the natural cycle. Wild animals might be free, but they do not have "rights".

Domesticated animals are raised by human hands for human sustenence and therefore are property and not family. If you don't believe it, than look at stealing a dog or a cow... assuming one is caught they are arrested for theft, not kidnapping. They do not have "rights".

If someone is tourturing an animal just because they are a sick person, that is entirely different that a violation of the animal's non-existant "rights".


As such, why should I not do the same to you (in theory, of course, not a real threat). If you do not give respect and value to life, do not expect any for yourself.

You are parapharsing "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As if I should respect the words of Christ from a Christian.

Life will not treat ANYONE more kindly or with less violence because they live a sheltered life. As a heathen, I am parapharsing the Havamal.

Kogen
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I would ask you to take another look at them.

Will do.


You can tell a lot about a person by how he/she treats animals. Someone who kicks their dog for no reason can't be trusted with children, for instance.

Yes, you are against mindless violence. But this is something I expect from those who are not mentally ill or of degenerate birth.


I am a ruralist and these big-city urban values about animals having rights sounds queer to me.

So already you are abusing a 'class' gap. It is like me saying you are an 'inbred redneck'.


When it comes to animals: I love mine, but I hate yours. Keep your dogs out of my chicken yard and your goat out of my garden or I promise to shoot them.

So apparently you hate 'my' animals. By this I can only assume you hate all animals that are not your own, as you obviously are not directing this at me specifically.

As for your second statement: do not put your chicken yard next to dogs or your gardens next to goats or I will burn them.

See how these attitudes lack merit?

A good person who cares about their community and their land would never hate other animals without just cause. If they had a problem with dogs and goats of others in their property, they would seek to ask the owner and then authorities about it before considering to take care of the problem themselves. It is the civilised and resonable thing to do. Reacting with violence and hate without second thought is savage. Despite what you may think, your garden is not more important than someone's goat; and goats can accidently get loose, unlike a peice of land.


Wild animals are mine to take if I can out-wit them or track them down. They are mine to eat, skin, wear, and harvest. Domestic animals exist for humans to eat, wear, and do whatever we see fit to do.

You already admitted to lying about this one. If you require a permit to hunt an animal, then wild animals are not yours to take. You buy them.

As for saying all animals are for whatever you want, then you are selfish and lacking in morals. To wear animals without specific need, for example, is nothing more than greed. Your attitude is the same attitude that creates abuse, extermination, and slavery. Someone with the mind of a Chinese sweat shop owner is not what I consider even close to moral, or a family man, or something suitable for any European community.


I would never harm an animal that was in danger of extinction or one that was not "fair game". I avoid unnecessary amounts of suffering in the harvesting of animals.

Whatever makes you feel good about your greed.


But animals do not recognize animal rights, so why should I?

Why not? Again, for arguement, why should anyone recognise your rights in comparison?


Am I a savage? Sometimes.

So yes.


I don't expect anything from Nature except the freedom to participate in the life and death struggle.

This seems anarchist to me. A life based around ego.


I do value life and respect it

A savage does not. This is false.


but it is "mine" before "thine".

Another example of an egotistical individualist.


For instance, my chickens have a right to live over your dog's right to eat them, just as my folk have a right to what is theirs.

Certainly so. But it is also your duty not to leave your chickens in the open where a dog can easily get them. Everything is not the fault of others.


Without the family and household, there can be no community (or have you forgotten how our ancestors lived?). Don't try to negate the basis and very foundation of community in order to make a claim that I dont care for community. Community begins at home, good fences make good neighbors. Good neighbors respect my property rights and make sure their property/chattel also respects it.

Attacking your neighbours and shutting yourself out is not a healthy community. I do not understand your logic.


If you think I am poaching or breaking a law when I bag one of the dozens of animals I have bagged and eaten this year, please call # and report me to my local authorities.

I already said I was not making any threats. What is the point of this?


I have a legally issued permit for what I do and I always follow the laws of my local authorities, folk and state when I hunt, fish, or trap.

So much for your 'do what I want' attitude? Again, more lying.


I am going to guess that you live in an area without an outdoor culture, and sadly so.

No, my entire life has been in isolated cabins in the forest, in small villages, and in semi-rural towns. The largest population of a town/city I have lived in is 22 000.


Like I said, wild animals are mine to take assuming I do so fairly and humanely. If you think animals in the wild are defenseless and helpless "sitting ducks" for me, you are way off! It is hard work hunting or trapping and very satisfying to be apart of the natural cycle. Wild animals might be free, but they do not have "rights".

Ruining your above statements already. Are they your animals to take or are they the government's animals to give?

And since I do not know how/what you hunt, I cannot really say if what you are doing is hard work or natural. Trapping rabbits and inspecting them daily for food is different than picking off bears for rugs, as examples.


Domesticated animals are raised by human hands for human sustenence and therefore are property and not family. If you don't believe it, than look at stealing a dog or a cow... assuming one is caught they are arrested for theft, not kidnapping. They do not have "rights".

It is possible to socialise with other species. So no, you can have them as part of a family. Most Europeans understand this.


If someone is tourturing an animal just because they are a sick person, that is entirely different that a violation of the animal's non-existant "rights".

What violation? I do not see how torturing an animal for fun is different than killing one for self satisfaction. Both are wants, not needs.

velvet
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 10:27 PM
Does socialisation automatically include 'rights'?
I love my pet, and I'm certainly socialised with her, but in the sense of 'human rights' I'm sorry, she doesnt have any.

Not torturing any being, whether animal or human, for fun is just common sense and a sign of mental health, and has nothing to do with having or not having rights. It would NOT BE RIGHT, but still, no rights.

Basically, you can break it down to that rights would require duties. Since animals cant take duties (they can take tasks, but that is something else), they cant have rights.

To imply hunting and eating an animal would mean 'self-satisfaction' is simply overseeing the fact that humans NEED to eat something (please, no comments we could eat bunny fodder and soja ersatz or other freaky stuff). And yes, in this relation it is after all much more honest to hunt the animal yourself than buying a steak at the local supermarket, where you can easily forget that this what you bought once was alive.

Eating is a need, not an egoistic self-satisfaction.

Kogen
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Does socialisation automatically include 'rights'?
I love my pet, and I'm certainly socialised with her, but in the sense of 'human rights' I'm sorry, she doesnt have any.

Not torturing any being, whether animal or human, for fun is just common sense and a sign of mental health, and has nothing to do with having or not having rights. It would NOT BE RIGHT, but still, no rights.

Basically, you can break it down to that rights would require duties. Since animals cant take duties (they can take tasks, but that is something else), they cant have rights.

To imply hunting and eating an animal would mean 'self-satisfaction' is simply overseeing the fact that humans NEED to eat something (please, no comments we could eat bunny fodder and soja ersatz or other freaky stuff). And yes, in this relation it is after all much more honest to hunt the animal yourself than buying a steak at the local supermarket, where you can easily forget that this what you bought once was alive.

Eating is a need, not an egoistic self-satisfaction.

I assume this is in reply to me and you did not understand my post. It is meant to be directed solely at the person I replied to. I pointed out in my post that eating food is obviously normal.

And some animals do have rights. For a random example, it is illegal to abuse domestic cats here. These cats have a right given to them.

velvet
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 11:12 PM
And some animals do have rights. For a random example, it is illegal to abuse domestic cats here. These cats have a right given to them.

No, they dont. It is a community rule, a law, that you shall not abuse. Not children, not people, and, since it was necessary, this was extended to animals too, because some people obviously lack common sense and a good portion of mental health.

This is a human-made law, and although it is not allowed to torture or abuse animals (and rightly so), this still isnt a 'right'.


The term 'rights' has become a very dangerous concept. I remember a headline which read "Illegal immigrants riot in the streets for their 'rights' to break British law". One should be very very careful to whom one grants rights.

And it is this twisting of the prohibition into a general right which makes freaks break into laboratories to set free animals, which are sick and poisoned and what not all, and probably harm wild animals, humans or someone's lifestock. While I'm not a fan of animal tests, this is utter nonsense, and yes, dangerous. But these freaks value the 'right' of the animals set free higher than the 'right' of wild animals, humans, nature and people's lifestock. So there is something very sick involved. Having 'rights' seems to free people from the need to develop some common sense and responsibility for their deeds.

Kogen
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:48 AM
No, they dont. It is a community rule, a law, that you shall not abuse. Not children, not people, and, since it was necessary, this was extended to animals too, because some people obviously lack common sense and a good portion of mental health.

This is a human-made law, and although it is not allowed to torture or abuse animals (and rightly so), this still isnt a 'right'.

The term 'rights' has become a very dangerous concept. I remember a headline which read "Illegal immigrants riot in the streets for their 'rights' to break British law". One should be very very careful to whom one grants rights.

And it is this twisting of the prohibition into a general right which makes freaks break into laboratories to set free animals, which are sick and poisoned and what not all, and probably harm wild animals, humans or someone's lifestock. While I'm not a fan of animal tests, this is utter nonsense, and yes, dangerous. But these freaks value the 'right' of the animals set free higher than the 'right' of wild animals, humans, nature and people's lifestock. So there is something very sick involved. Having 'rights' seems to free people from the need to develop some common sense and responsibility for their deeds.

I am confused by your definition of a 'right'. To be allowed to live safely is a right, to my understanding. Obviously a cat does not know this through any sort of language, just by experience, but it is still a right.

And why do you say it is a 'human law' and not a 'right' ? All rights we have were created by us. It is no different. We as a society are the ones who choose to treat eachother like we do.

About the immigrant example... I do not think comparing a Muslim (or whatever it was) to something like a rabbit is logical.

For the last example you gave, I do see your point, but I also see the point of the people who do it. Of course a diseased population should never be mixed into a healthy wild population, as there are zero benefits to doing this, but at the same time this diseased population should have never existed in the first place. The people who do this may be ignorant that they are going to harm the environment, but at the same time they are attacking those who torture for money. Personally I would take the rightous idiot over the sadastic capitalist if I had to choose one to be around.

Zimobog
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 03:34 AM
Zimobog said: I am a ruralist and these big-city urban values about animals having rights sounds queer to me.

Kogen said: So already you are abusing a 'class' gap. It is like me saying you are an 'inbred redneck'.

Abusing a class-gap :D? I was trying to put a finger on the origin of this difference in opinion between these two population groups (rural and urban)... I spent my entire life in rural settings and most rural people don't think that animals have "rights". It just sounds queer to us.

You, sir, are going to be the first in this discussion to employ the use of a derogatory racial slur and to abuse a class gap by saying you are "civilized" and I am "savage". I recognize this tactic: You are attempting to marginalize me and my kind so that you can judge our values and way of life as "inferior".

I am explaining where my views come from and that they are commonly held views by the people I call neighbors and friends. You may call us all rednecks if you wish, but you wouldn't call me "inbred" to my face.


So apparently you hate 'my' animals. By this I can only assume you hate all animals that are not your own, as you obviously are not directing this at me specifically.

As for your second statement: do not put your chicken yard next to dogs or your gardens next to goats or I will burn them.

See how these attitudes lack merit?

Hate? Naw, but it would be fun to find out how my neighbors would react to someone setting fire to my garden or someone allowing his dogs to eat my chickens. We ruralist have close communities ties and look out for each other's chickens. But we respect boundaries of property. Do you believe in the private owning of property?


A good person who cares about their community and their land would never hate other animals without just cause. If they had a problem with dogs and goats of others in their property, they would seek to ask the owner and then authorities about it before considering to take care of the problem themselves. It is the civilized and reasonable thing to do. Reacting with violence and hate without second thought is savage. Despite what you may think, your garden is not more important than someone's goat; and goats can accidentally get loose, unlike a piece of land.

Would it seem reasonable to disagree with trying to settle things in a neighborly fashion before turning to the gun? Of course not.

If you came to my house about my goats being in your garden, I would assume that your concerns are for your own garden. Ya selfish garden-owner. :D


If you require a permit to hunt an animal, then wild animals are not yours to take. You buy them.

No, the permit funds hunter safety education, habitat protection and enforcement of bag limits which has been the case in the USA since 1916. Hunters and other sportsmen are some of the largest funders of animal conservation and protection (like Ducks Unlimited). Alaska's constitution treats game as a resource commonly owned by the citizens. You only assume to know what our permits fund. Please educate yourself about hunting permits and our Alaskan laws if you want to interpret them for me.


As for saying all animals are for whatever you want, then you are selfish and lacking in morals. To wear animals without specific need, for example, is nothing more than greed. Your attitude is the same attitude that creates abuse, extermination, and slavery.

Sez you. I say animals are mine, if they are raised by me to eat or I can bag them ethically and legally and further more it is none of your damn business what I wear or eat.

It is apart of my heritage and history to eat and wear animals, and is my inherited right as such.

I say the attitudes you are parroting are the cause of extermination of indigenous cultures and subsistence skills. From what I am reading, your type of "civilization" amounts to the loss of self-reliance and pride in a person to provide for him/herself or his/her family. I think you look down on self-reliance and on primitive skills and attitudes which you have deemed "savage". You call them "savage", I call them traditional.



Zimobog said: I would never harm an animal that was in danger of extinction or one that was not "fair game". I avoid unnecessary amounts of suffering in the harvesting of animals.

Kogen said: Whatever makes you feel good about your greed.

So I try to explain my ethics about hunting, and to you it is a panacea pill for my own greed, but your ethics are something golden, noble and pure? Well, thank heaven you are here! (sarcasm)


[
QUOTE]Zimobog said: For instance, my chickens have a right to live over your dog's right to eat them, just as my folk have a right to what is theirs. Kogen said:
Certainly so. But it is also your duty not to leave your chickens in the open where a dog can easily get them. Everything is not the fault of others.[/QUOTE]

Folks in my area must agree with me, because we have a leash law for dogs but there is no law against chickens walking in my yard. I guess it is different where you live.



Zimbog said: I do value life and respect it Kogen said: A savage does not. This is false.

Once again, you are not an expert on my values.

Your constant insistence that I am a "liar" only shows you are ignorant of other's values even when they are trying to explain them to you. It shows that you have no respect for others who are different from you and live a different way and you have no interest in discourse or discussion.

I have discussed and argued differences with other citizens of Skadi (an online community) for a good while now and never have I ever seen anyone here ever call each other a "liar" when there is a difference of opinion. You wouldn't speak this way to anyone standing in front of you in person, so don't do it to me on this forum. You are out of line.




It is possible to socialize with other species. So no, you can have them as part of a family. Most Europeans understand this.

Animals are family? That explains it, you are married to a sheep or something aren't you?

ChaosLord
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 03:53 AM
Even though I respect animals and enjoy their company animal rights is a gray area. It is common sense that no cognitive person should abuse or neglect an animal for no justifiable reason due to the lack of irresponsibility and laziness. Therein lies the problem for the need of stricter penalties against this kind of treatment.

As far as wild animals go I see no real problem with Zimobog's reason. Hunting licenses are given out for a reason - to control animal populations from overpopulating. Though, this doesn't give someone the reason to go out and kill a deer just to shoot something for the hell of it. In TRUE hunting all parts of the animal are used and little is gone to waste. If a "hunter" goes out and shoots a deer and leaves it, then there lays an underlying psychological defect in that person.

I'm also not too fond of animal testing, even though "humanity" has made some good results from doing so. There are 6+ billion people on this planet who share 98%-99% of DNA with the lot. Why not use some of them for testing rather than something who shares a fraction of that same DNA? Surely, we'll come up with much better and accurate results, pertaining to humans. This however is only my opinion.

velvet
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 02:27 PM
I am confused by your definition of a 'right'. To be allowed to live safely is a right, to my understanding. Obviously a cat does not know this through any sort of language, just by experience, but it is still a right.

And why do you say it is a 'human law' and not a 'right' ? All rights we have were created by us. It is no different. We as a society are the ones who choose to treat eachother like we do.

A right granted to someone can only come to be within the societal structures, if the one who gets this right is a) a member, b) recognises and acknowledges the 'law (values) system' and c) doesnt violate any laws.
A right limits, due to its nature, the freedom of others (laws [should] regulate the society rules in contrast to that). So a right stands above the law itself, and it exists on same level like freedom. A right is universal. Therefore, one should be very careful with the selection to whom to grant a 'right'.

In this light, animals and immigrants is absolutely no difference, because a right overwrites law, the society rules, the perception of right and wrong.

And rights have the ability to not only limit other's freedom, but even ignore other's rights. When we start to grant the 'right to live in piece and without hunger' f.e. to the entire world, we end up with unlimited immigrants to feel entitled to demand from us the food and their 'pieceful' environment. Regardless that these immigrants abuse OUR wealth, disturb OUR society structure and even ignore and violate OUR laws. And this only because we grant them the right to live. Their right overwrites our very structure and values and OUR rights.

Again, not to abuse animals, children or other people is part of the level of the law and society rules, because we, as a society, dont want freaks abusing other living beings for their fun. We consider them mentally sick, and this distinction between having rights (see above) and breaking rules, become blurred, dangerously blurred.

But it is WE that created these rules and laws, it is WE who formed our society. Other societies do not have the same laws, they dont have the same values and the same perception of right and wrong. So we cant grant 'rights' from within our society system to people not of our society, because they pose a threat to this system.

So, within our society, 'we' grant that right to live and also live in a good environment, to our pets. If you want, call that a right, but understand that your cat in the wild does not have that right. You grant it to her, out of your socialisation and within your personal societal structure. That's fine as it guarantees that you are good to her (what you would probably be anyway, with or without calling that a right, because you just like your pet).
But it is still not a right in the sense of a 'human right'.


For the last example you gave, I do see your point, but I also see the point of the people who do it. Of course a diseased population should never be mixed into a healthy wild population, as there are zero benefits to doing this, but at the same time this diseased population should have never existed in the first place. The people who do this may be ignorant that they are going to harm the environment, but at the same time they are attacking those who torture for money. Personally I would take the rightous idiot over the sadastic capitalist if I had to choose one to be around.

The rightous idiot would have all my sympathy if he would go and kill the sadistic capitalist. This would be right and all of this sadistic capitalists should be handled the exact same way.
To set free the test population doesnt become right through the 'good intent' though. And, the enforcement of single rights against every interest and all of their rights, wild animals, lifestock populations, nature itself or sick animals attacking humans, is the sick result of wrong understood 'rights'.