View Poll Results: My position on animal rights is as follows:

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • I believe in animal rights.

    54 68.35%
  • I do not believe in animal rights.

    20 25.32%
  • I am indifferent.

    5 6.33%
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93

Thread: Animal Rights

  1. #51
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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 ....

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    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? :
    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.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  3. #53
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    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.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    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.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    theTasmanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 20th, 2019 @ 10:24 AM
    Ethnicity
    Prussian X Anglo/Celt
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Tasmania Tasmania
    Location
    Hobart
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Back to Boilermaker/weldering
    Politics
    not the Greens
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    815
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    I believe animals have some rights to good treatment....no stupid kosha kill here thanks:

    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/press...fm/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......
    Tasmanian twice the heads!!.......twice the intelligence!?

  6. #56

  7. #57
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,666
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    29
    Thanked in
    29 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dagna View Post
    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?

  8. #58
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    14
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    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.

  9. #59
    Moderator
    Resist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    51
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    295
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    382
    Thanked in
    207 Posts
    While I do believe that animals should have certain rights, such as the right to humane treatment, I don't subscribe to the PETA kind of animal rights activism. For example, I see nothing morally wrong with hunting or raising farm animals for their meat, fur, milk, labor etc. as long as the conditions under which they are kept are good quality. I also see nothing wrong with keeping pets, selective breeding or keeping animals in captivity, quite on the contrary such activities have proven to benefit them e.g. by saving various species from extinction, not to mention that animals raised in captivity have longer lifespans, unlimited access to food, supplements and other resources such as veterinary treatment and consequently a better quality of life. Needless to say, humans and animals aren't equal but different, so it goes without saying that they should consequently enjoy different types of rights. It's a tad ridiculous to think of humans having the same status as a mollusk or insect. I swat insects in my home, and I don't feel like I should have to go to prison for it.

  10. #60
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, August 21st, 2017 @ 11:37 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Gender
    Posts
    857
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    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?
    "Life; it kills 100% of those who experience it."

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If You Could Be Any Animal...
    By The Horned God in forum Pets & Animals
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 16th, 2019, 11:16 PM
  2. Holland to Get Animal Rights Police Unit
    By Dagna in forum Netherlands & Flanders
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 12th, 2009, 09:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •