Animal Rights

[OverMind]

I feel the Serious Discussions forum needs a bit of revamping so I'm going to make a thread.

What's your position on animal rights?

http://temple.fpsbanana.com/ico/sprays/bk_2.png

Are you a vegetarian?

http://s0.causes.com/photos/ey/Vz/A4/uj/Ps/8P/IkXJ.jpg

Or are you like me?

[OverMind]

Mmm, I don't feel that thread does enough justice to the issue.

However, it does bring up PETA which, I feel, needs to be inevitably discussed here, for one. To sum it up in one word; hypocrisy.

- Critics have raised the point that PETA's VP (see Penn & Teller's Bullshit), while belonging to an organization that advocates animal liberation, uses diabetic medicine that was created because of animal testing.
- There's some evidence linking PETA to the Animal Liberation Front (see domestic terrorism) which has taken credit for setting fire to University research labs and animal shelters, with the latter being targeted because they euthanize animals. On the other hand, PETA runs a program which also euthanizes animals not necessarily because they are sick, but (like the shelters) there simply isn't enough room for them.
- They advocate animal liberation, which if you take their definition, means setting free any animal under so-called slavery. This includes pets (since, apparently, we're keeping pets against the animal's will). However, many of their sources of donation come from the average American pet owner.

I also find their advertising campaigns questionable, whereby they get celebrities to endorse them. It's a very underhanded way to try to forecast a "hip" image in order to get people to adapt your ideology (though, to be fair, all the cool kids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) are doing it).

And I'm not convinced by the purported benefits of vegetarianism. You hear vegetarians shouting "cancer" and "heart disease" when we eat meat, but you don't see us yelling "osteoperosis" or "low sex drive" in retaliation. It's a croc.

[Noah Kaiba]

Just don't treat animals cruel, plain and simple. If they are going to get slaughtered to be food/clothing/etc, they should be treated properly and killed quickly/humanely.

Wild animals need to be protected the IMO. Urbanization is really taking a toll on them. It's quite sad, really.

[Kanariya674]

Yeah, we're more sophisticated, but we're not the best. Hey, throw us in the wild with a pack of lions in the savanna. Who's the best now? I'm sure anyone from a sophisticated society wouldn't know what the hell to do, besides make a spear and try your best to not die.

We're animals, they're animals. We may have progressed, but in the end, we are all the same. We will have our downfall, as with species before us, and other animals will, too.

In the meantime, I think animals should have rights, too. If you're going to slaughter an animal, please, like mentioned before, do it quick and painlessly.

For me, animal abuse is worse, because it's not even you're own species. Many are helpless when faced against us, and to me, that's as bad as torturing a human baby.

Just recently here in Baltimore, some people held down a pitbull and lit it on fire. It suffered third degree burns, and had to be put down not even like, two days later.

You tell me that's humane?

[EdBat]

I have no issue with eating something that was bred specifically for eating purposes, and although I don't like some one the butchering methods, I am going to continue to eat meat. Humans are omnivores, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to digest it.

PETA is just shit. The head of the organization is a complete fruitcake, she'll euthanize a dog in a second but when a turkey is "liberated," something that doesn't fit into the general "pet" category, she'll put it in a nice room with classical music. She has a huge house (using the money from the donations) and a very nice office and yet some animals will have very minor problems and they'll claim they "can't afford" the vet bills which screams bullshit. I mean, where are they going to relocate a turkey? It just seems silly to me.

Kanariya674, I've heard of the story you're talking about. They named the dog Phoenix, and she did not make it. They're looking for the sickos that did that currently, and offering a nice reward. I hope they get caught and persecuted. She was a pitt, which unfortunately, "TOUGH GUYS" get, and involve in dog fights which really sucks because the breed is so so sweet. Honestly, I work in a grooming salon, and they're some of the sweetest happiest dogs on the planet.

[OverMind]

Just like to throw this in here:

Kosher/Halal methods of slaughter are deemed inhumane by animal rights advocates (i.e. they assert the animal feels pain). However, they are mandated by Jewish/Islamic dietary laws.

So, what do we do in this situation?

(In fact, some European countries have banned these methods of slaughter, much to the displeasure of these minority populations).

[EdBat]

Just like to throw this in here:

Kosher/Halal methods of slaughter are deemed inhumane by animal rights advocates (i.e. they assert the animal feels pain). However, they are mandated by Jewish/Islamic dietary laws.

So, what do we do in this situation?

(In fact, some European countries have banned these methods of slaughter, much to the displeasure of these minority populations).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm

It's a single cut to the throat. I see no issue here.

[Kanariya674]

Kanariya674, I've heard of the story you're talking about. They named the dog Phoenix, and she did not make it. They're looking for the sickos that did that currently, and offering a nice reward. I hope they get caught and persecuted. She was a pitt, which unfortunately, "TOUGH GUYS" get, and involve in dog fights which really sucks because the breed is so so sweet. Honestly, I work in a grooming salon, and they're some of the sweetest happiest dogs on the planet.

They suspect it being two twin seventeen year olds. Of course, their mother completely denies it...

[OverMind]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm

It's a single cut to the throat. I see no issue here.

I agree. The issue I have is that these lobby groups attempt to enforce their own ethical values into the legal system without considering that not everyone shares them. It's paramount to religion.

For instance, if you ask a Muslim or a Jew, he finds no ethical problem with eating animals or performing ritual slaughter because it is mandated by God. There's nothing wrong with it because God says its OK.

[EdBat]

I agree. The issue I have is that these lobby groups attempt to enforce their own ethical values into the legal system without considering that not everyone shares them. It's paramount to religion.

For instance, if you ask a Muslim or a Jew, he finds no ethical problem with eating animals or performing ritual slaughter because it is mandated by God. There's nothing wrong with it because God says its OK.

I tend to think it's a bit of a shame about how much people can get away with because of what "God" says, but that's an issue for another topic.

They suspect it being two twin seventeen year olds. Of course, their mother completely denies it...
People are sadly buying Pitt Bulls and tough looking dogs as status symbols. Yes, Pitts were originally bred for fighting, but back then fighting was a whole different story. A dog I believe was usually fought like five times at the most, then bred and retired. The new generation of fighters will force the dog into fighting until it's dead or useless and then find a way to "get rid of it."

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

My cat, Koko, has the right to eat, sleep, be cute, and stay fuzzy.

also in the WTF category, people are ACTUALLY worried about how Bubbles the Chimp will take Michael Jackson's death, so they HAVEN'T BROKEN THE NEWS TO HIM.

IMO: when they tell the chimp, he'll
1. eat some fruit.
2. take a nap.
3. throw some poo.
(not necesarily in that order.)

He's a chimp.

[EdBat]

My cat, Koko, has the right to eat, sleep, be cute, and stay fuzzy.

also in the WTF category, people are ACTUALLY worried about how Bubbles the Chimp will take Michael Jackson's death, so they HAVEN'T BROKEN THE NEWS TO HIM.

IMO: when they tell the chimp, he'll
1. eat some fruit.
2. take a nap.
3. throw some poo.
(not necesarily in that order.)

He's a chimp.

Chimps don't speak english. How are they going to "break the news to him."?

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Chimps don't speak english. How are they going to "break the news to him."?

inorite.

Bubbles won't understand anyway.
He'll just keep right on doing chimp things if and when they tell him.

[EdBat]

inorite.

Bubbles won't understand anyway.
He'll just keep right on doing chimp things if and when they tell him.

I'm sure he'd "get it" if they showed him the body, but I'm not sure if he'd care. It's been so long since Bubbles was with him and Jackson never even visited him.

Although even if they showed him the body he might not recognize it anyway because of the smell of formaldehyde and all of the plastic surgery he had.

[Insane]

He's a chimp, they show him the body, he might realise he's dead...
He probably won't care...

He might just go for a swing/nap/lunch.

[Just a Canadian Eh]

I pick option deux. But everything shouldn't taken in extreme.

I mean, theres a difference between a Hindu who can't eat meat for religious reasons, and a crazy Vegan burnng down a burger-King

[EdBat]

I pick option deux. But everything shouldn't taken in extreme.

I mean, theres a difference between a Hindu who can't eat meat for religious reasons, and a crazy Vegan burnng down a burger-King

PFFT just like a Canadian, picking the middle ground.:furrysmile:

[MrsSallyBakura]

lol I'm American and I'm all for middle-ground as well. XD
Well I live an hour away from Canada... or maybe it's the fact that I grew up in a Catholic home but lived in a liberal area, so it's like... combining the best of both worlds or something.

I'm a meat eater. I love meat. I think it's delicious and good for you. But I also love fruit and vegetables and I also think they're good for you. I'm not incredibly picky about food.

Animal cruelty is absolutely wrong. Who's to say that beating and torturing a puppy won't transition to beating and torturing a human baby?

Before HS comes in and makes some kind of notion about cannibalism, well, for the most part people are satisfied with eating the meat of non-human animals and therefore don't have to go to the extra lengths of eating human flesh (since most people don't even hunt for their own meat anyways; they just buy it at the store, and you can't buy human meat at the store). Torturing animals, as far as I'm concerned, can indeed transition to torturing other human beings. I don't know the exact psychology behind it, but it makes sense, I think.

[EdBat]

lol I'm American and I'm all for middle-ground as well. XD
Well I live an hour away from Canada... or maybe it's the fact that I grew up in a Catholic home but lived in a liberal area, so it's like... combining the best of both worlds or something.

I'm a meat eater. I love meat. I think it's delicious and good for you. But I also love fruit and vegetables and I also think they're good for you. I'm not incredibly picky about food.

Animal cruelty is absolutely wrong. Who's to say that beating and torturing a puppy won't transition to beating and torturing a human baby?

Before HS comes in and makes some kind of notion about cannibalism, well, for the most part people are satisfied with eating the meat of non-human animals and therefore don't have to go to the extra lengths of eating human flesh (since most people don't even hunt for their own meat anyways; they just buy it at the store, and you can't buy human meat at the store). Torturing animals, as far as I'm concerned, can indeed transition to torturing other human beings. I don't know the exact psychology behind it, but it makes sense, I think.

I know, the middle ground Canadian thing was a joke.

A lot of serial killers get their start by torturing animals you know?

[killshot]

Let me start off by saying that I believe animals have no rights. That's not to say I condone torturing animals, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to make a human concept like having rights apply to animals. I think that all legislation that involves animals should only apply to the people interacting with the animals and not the animals themselves.

How would one decide if an animal was being treated inhumanely? Sure there are obviously things that almost everyone would find inhuman such as torture, but what about small cages, electric fences, or even using animals for labor? I don't think most people think of horseback riding as cruel, but I can see why some people could. The problem with animal rights is we have no way of knowing what is cruel and what isn't. How can we give animals rights if we can't decide on what violates these rights? I think its best to just use good judgment and avoid harming animals unnecessarily.

[Just a Canadian Eh]

Hey, Canadians are always on one side! Think of every major war the Britain was in, we were backing them up.

Animal abuse sucks! Have you seen those commercials with the sad looking animals? Thats reasonable to take them away and give them to a family that will care for them. But PETA won't rest until:

1) Animals have the same or more rights as people

2) All animal based products and buisnesses are no more

3) Everybody is a Vegan

4) the testing of Vaccines and cosmetics on animals is abolished

5) Paul Mcartney is declared the king of the world

Okay, I was joking about the last one, but PETA are a menace. I read that on one of there websites, the banner says "Question authority" with a bloody knife next to it.

[Kanariya674]

Hey, Canadians are always on one side! Think of every major war the Britain was in, we were backing them up.

Animal abuse sucks! Have you seen those commercials with the sad looking animals? Thats reasonable to take them away and give them to a family that will care for them. But PETA won't rest until:

1) Animals have the same or more rights as people

2) All animal based products and buisnesses are no more

3) Everybody is a Vegan

4) the testing of Vaccines and cosmetics on animals is abolished

5) Paul Mcartney is declared the king of the world

Okay, I was joking about the last one, but PETA are a menace. I read that on one of there websites, the banner says "Question authority" with a bloody knife next to it.

I just watched one of those. I cried. I cry every time that commercial comes on. I want to get a job so I can donate to the ASPCA.

PETA needs to get a grip and freaking realize we are going to continuously eat meat. It's the classic food chain; other animals eat us, and we eat those other animals. Personally, I'm not a big fan of meat, but I don't condemn those who do like it. We were born omnivores for a reason, you know; to eat meat, to digest it. So, it's there, why not eat it?

Just, the way going about getting that meat is pretty controversial.

I don't mind vegetarians, but vegans...I still don't get that one.

And I'm going with SR on the point of lethal injection.

[Fat1Fared]

With eating them, I eat meat, as do many other animals and humans, but I wouldn't tell a vegie to eat meat and expect them to respect my choice in same way, (lets say I know I few and they bug hell out of me, as all of them sit their with judging eyes, why can't be like my sister, she vegie, but wouldn't dream of telling others to be vegie, one acturally said to me (without joke) "I don't judge poeple for their ill informed choices, but I hope you know your a sick and evil person" <WTF> now not going to say I need meat or anything (though heathier if balanced, can be very heathly without it, if balanced (and both can be unheatly)) but fact is I like meat and I think animals have rights, but not same rights as humans and it is something that happens)

Though on flip side, my Mum annoys me, she is willing to eat meat, but then buries her head in sand when see's how killed, (i'm all for free range farming...etc (as long as done right and not done like gemick) but I won't hide my head from less nice side of it,)

EDIT

I think Kill has my feelings, only I do think have rights, but like he said, not same rights


4) the testing of Vaccines and cosmetics on animals is abolished



Anyway Rant over, this is one I wish to talk about, I know someone who is a Scientist who use to work in this area (but of course, not saying who, just that their an old friend of my family,) and have spoke to this Scientist about it:-
=Now this scientist said many reasons do this and that there are many products that would have gone onto market and caused people serious damage if this wasn't done, but main reason it happens is simple, compaines won't take risk with humans (as it can cost them billions, even with willing test subjects) till had at lest some testing before hand:-
=Now this may seem cold to say the lest, but fact is it needs to happen and dispite what groups like PETA say it does do valid important reseach, it has not only found and made many cures to many things which couldn't have done without animal testing as risks where too high to place on human, it has also done millions of peices of small reseach, which has stopped harm to human commusers in areas of body care...etc and protects companies from law sites, which would push up market peices (basically it is one of few times, I think a Utleaism agrument holds water, I don't like it, but see the pro's for it)

-So in short 2 reasons:-
1=Protects poeple (and most see poeple in this area as more important than humans)
2=Protects the Market for medical (both phyiscal and mental) and body care areas. May seem harsh, but bet our animal rights potestors would be first to complain if they couldn't afford their body cream anymore (as the non-animal care ones would be infaited with rest)

-Another thing these groups forget is, even if England, USA...etc banned this, do you think these compaines would stop it? NO, they would go to China, Turkey and Portugal, where it is already lot cheaper, but unless lot lot lot less animal rights caring. As if you look at rules in this area, it isn't some torture lab, the animals all have very high standards of care and the second one is injured, it will be put down, if unsavable and those which survive do get reirment lol (ok, shouldn't laugh there,) however fact is, our countries have high standards which cost these compaines a lot to meet and only reason they pay it at minute, is because our labs have good images and high standards, but if we force their hands they will just go elsewhere, so you have to live in real world with this (I don't like it, but like with many things, the lesser of two evils, is still lesser)

[MrsSallyBakura]

Animal testing is a-OK by me so long as the animals aren't being tortured. I do prefer some products to not be tested on animals, but sometimes it's better that the animals get tested than humans.

How would one decide if an animal was being treated inhumanely? Sure there are obviously things that almost everyone would find inhuman such as torture, but what about small cages, electric fences, or even using animals for labor? I don't think most people think of horseback riding as cruel, but I can see why some people could. The problem with animal rights is we have no way of knowing what is cruel and what isn't. How can we give animals rights if we can't decide on what violates these rights? I think its best to just use good judgment and avoid harming animals unnecessarily.

You raise a good point, killshot.

I don't see horseback riding as cruel because the rider still cares for the horse that s/he rides, feeds the horse, gives it a good stable to live in, etc. A relationship is usually built between horse and rider. It's not the same as a human relationship, obviously, but it's something. I have a relationship with my dog, and I have relationships with my friend's cats. These relationships can't really replace human relationships due to our need for communication and mutual understanding, but there are people who love a few simple relationships with furry cuddly creatures.

[Fat1Fared]

True sally on first point, but on how Animal Testing is needed:-

As for second, I agree with you, but you bort something up I noticed

furry cuddly creatures.

Now you may not have meant in this way, but it does seem most, poeple care about the cure cuddly animals however forget about less cute ones

[MrsSallyBakura]

Now you may not have meant in this way, but it does seem most, poeple care about the cure cuddly animals however forget about less cute ones

lol you're right about that one. But I don't think that some people can help it if they prefer the cuddly ones over frogs, snakes, lizards, etc.

But some people like the non-cuddly ones as well. It all just depends on tastes. It's not wrong to like some animals more than others. :3

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

I think lethal injection should be made legal everywhere on humans if it's legal everywhere for animals. There aren't different levels of 'humane'. Either it's humane or it isn't, regardless of who it's going to. There's been some controversy involving the death sentence, but I think that if it's humane to kill an animal like that, it's humane to kill a human using the same method.

lethal injection and assisted suicide.


You would expect an animal to live with poor health and pain, why make humans do it?

[Velocity]

Let me start off by saying that I believe animals have no rights. That's not to say I condone torturing animals, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to make a human concept like having rights apply to animals. I think that all legislation that involves animals should only apply to the people interacting with the animals and not the animals themselves.

How would one decide if an animal was being treated inhumanely? Sure there are obviously things that almost everyone would find inhuman such as torture, but what about small cages, electric fences, or even using animals for labor? I don't think most people think of horseback riding as cruel, but I can see why some people could. The problem with animal rights is we have no way of knowing what is cruel and what isn't. How can we give animals rights if we can't decide on what violates these rights? I think its best to just use good judgment and avoid harming animals unnecessarily.
I essentially agree with this.

Secondly, PETA has devolved from a legitimate, good-intentioned organization into a pathetic attention grabber every time an animal is "harmed." Take, for instance, the ridiculous stance they took after President Obama killed a fly during an interview. There is an interesting argument that somebody (from another forum I frequent) made... I'll try to re-state it. Basically, if PETA takes the stance that any harm to any animal is wrong, then PETA members must not drive because this inevitably results in bugs being killed when they hit the windshield. They also must not walk anywhere, because when walking, they will at some point step on a bug and kill it. They also must not clean or eat vegetables, because bugs on the plants/vegetables are killed upon cleaning of the food.

In short, the members of PETA taking this "extreme" view (there are plenty of reasonable PETA members) are inherently hypocrites.

Insofar as eating is concerned, our mouths and digestive systems were created to be able to digest plant and animal matter. Some people desire to make the decision to not eat animal matter, and that is perfectly legitimate. However, to suggest that all humans should not eat other animals is to suggest that we should turn our backs on biology. I eat meat, and I likely will never let that go fully (eggs are amazing, and nothing beats a perfectly-cooked steak). However, I have greatly reduced my intake of dairy (think about it: humans are essentially the only species on the planet that CONSCIOUSLY drink the milk - and use products based on milk - of another species). The meat I do eat, I prefer it to be from animals raised how they should be raised: ethically, free-range, not from a "factory," etc.

That is where I stand on the thought of animal ethics. Meanwhile, testing things on animals (vaccines, etc.) brings up another question. What would be the alternative to testing on animals? Should things be tested on humans? If so, which part of the population should be targeted? This brings up a whole new argument, especially into the realm of different races, demographics, and the tests representing a good enough cross-section of the population to merit the results of the test. Animal testing, at this time, is the best and most convenient option, with the fewest repercussions.

That's my two cents.

[Xanadu]

I tend to think it's a bit of a shame about how much people can get away with because of what "God" says, but that's an issue for another topic.


People are sadly buying Pitt Bulls and tough looking dogs as status symbols. Yes, Pitts were originally bred for fighting, but back then fighting was a whole different story. A dog I believe was usually fought like five times at the most, then bred and retired. The new generation of fighters will force the dog into fighting until it's dead or useless and then find a way to "get rid of it."

God says a lot of things
like in the bible it says you can sell your daughter into slavery, stone disobedient children, and long hair is disgraceful-religious people really like to pick and choose what to believe in, but when it comes to animal rights or homosexuality they like to say "you can't pick and choose what to obey in the bible"
which is funny,

[Velocity]

Cows LIKE when you milk them, and we LIKE when we drink said milk. It's beneficial to both of us. While we may be special in that regard, special isn't bad.

I mean, really. If some guy a girl likes comes up to them when they're horny and starts milking them, it'll probably feel good to them if milk comes out. Cows don't really have a sense of love in that regard. It feels good, so they produce milk. The better it feels, the more milk comes out.
I'm not saying that the consumption of dairy is inherently bad for humans. I was making a distinction. However, once a baby has been weaned off a mother's milk, it no longer really needs milk. Many adults have some degree of lactose intolerance (of course, lactose being the primary sugar of milk), and this is in part due to the previous statement. We simply don't need the milk anymore. Sure, it can be beneficial, but it isn't necessary. The nutrients from cow's milk can easily be absorbed from other sources. As an example, in an equal caloric serving of plain dairy yogurt and spinach (the former is the best source of dairy calcium for the calorie load, I think), spinach wins in a LANDSLIDE. In 130 calories, spinach will hand you nearly 600 mg of calcium, while the yogurt gets about 450.

It's just a matter of having plenty of alternate, more easily digested and assimilated, sources of nutrients for the same stuff in cow's milk.

[Xanadu]

Cows LIKE when you milk them, and we LIKE when we drink said milk. It's beneficial to both of us. While we may be special in that regard, special isn't bad.

I mean, really. If some guy a girl likes comes up to them when they're horny and starts milking them, it'll probably feel good to them if milk comes out. Cows don't really have a sense of love in that regard. It feels good, so they produce milk. The better it feels, the more milk comes out.

_______________

Now see, Xanadu, I never said anything like that, and I'm religious. What does that make me?

Seriously, people like you (atheists) like to blame everything on religion and constantly bring it up just to insult religious people. Fucking let it go. If you want to be accepted, accept us. There's criticizing, and then there's constantly making blanket statements that just aren't true about something that we all KNOW you hate.

I'm not telling you to stop. Just be a bit more conscious of others so I won't make statements like these. I don't like to.

ohh because christians are always so polite and nice to everyone :thatface:
you seem to make it your mission to somehow get rid of me or something, i donno, you fallow me around all the time going on and on and on-never really trying to get what I mean just insulting me at every turn
your the only one on this whole forum who has shown any actual disdain towards anything I have said, your the only one who goes into every debate thread I go in, even if I didn't talk to you at all in it, and jump at me for something, always trying to pick a fight with me because you don't like what I think, because you don't like what I believe in, or you just want to be annoying or something
I don't really give it much thought
no one has had a problem with anything I've said, just you

[Xanadu]

Yes but you keep sticking your nose in, time and time again
like the sun thing
you were so mad that I worship the sun
seemed like you couldn't handle that one
and you called me all sorts of things, now when I insult you I am the bad guy
but when you insult me "its for good cause" cause I worship the sun and consider humans a second rate species

[Velocity]

Who cares about that? Did cavemen count calories? Hell no.

Milk tastes good. That's all I care about.
That's fine. Who said anything about calorie counting? I was just giving an example to illustrate that the nutrition from cow's milk (and its derivatives) can be easily found in other foods.

The point I am trying to make is that consuming cow's milk (and its derivatives) is not necessary for humans.

[Velocity]

And what's wrong with living in excess? Your point is moot if you can't make an argument that living in excess is bad in every aspect.
*sigh*

For crying out loud, learn how to reason. I said that humans don't need the milk of another species because they get what they need from milk as infants. People can drink it if they so choose. Nowhere did I say that if a person chooses to drink milk (or consume a product derived from milk), that person is then living in excess. It's another choice for nutrition; it's just not necessary for humans once they've weaned off a mother's milk (same as for any other mammal).

Good grief.

[Velocity]

So you're saying that milk is not in excess?

Oh, in that case...

A diabetic trying to lose weight and get healthy will eat the bare minimum. They survive. Therefore, drinking milk is excessive and unnecessary.
No, a diabetic seeking to lose weight (and keep it off) and increase his/her physical health (for the long term) will follow a healthy diet (hopefully) comprising primarily of fruits, vegetables, healthy protein/fat sources, whole grains... essentially natural foods, and the lower the sugar spike they give, the better (save for whole fruit; the natural sugar is beneficial for the body). Eating the "bare minimum" will crash a person's metabolism, decrease insulin sensitivity, and can actually exacerbate a diabetic's condition.

Milk and its products have their place in a diabetic's diet, providing that they are not processed to smithereens and do not contain (m)any additives. For instance, plain yogurt and cottage cheese are listed as foods that a diabetic can safely eat.

It is the excess and refined sugar in a diabetic's diet, not dairy, that poses problems. Your point is fundamentally flawed.

[Eia]

PETA needs to either take a chill pill, or disband. That's my honest opinion. They cause more problems than good because of their overzealous attempts to draw attention to animal rights causes.

However, I totally and completely support groups such as the ASPCA. Animals do have basic rights, including the rights to proper nutrition, health care and quality of life. I also believe this should apply to farm animals, including what we eat. Just because an animal is going to die at a set time in it's life does not mean it does not have the right to enjoy its time while it is here (before it enters my stomach, anyway). Lastly, this also applies to wild animals, as far as they should be left the hell alone and their living environments unpolluted, and paths made available to migratory animals to keep them off the highway and in my car grill. >_>

[Velocity]

Milk is unnecessary and they can get their nutrients through other, healthier means. Therefore, if they drink milk, it's excessive.
*sigh*

Okay, I'll use your logic. Electricity is unnecessary because people can get things done without needing electricity (get light, wash a dish, etc.), and there are other, more environmentally-friendly means to achieve the goals of a day. Therefore, if someone uses electricity, it's excessive.

Reference this and get back to me. (click on the quote itself and it will lead to the webpage)

In short, in my view (and in the view of the man whom I quote here), dairy isn't necessary.

Got Milk?

May of you know by now that dairy is not good for getting lean. Others probably know that the consumption of dairy products has been linked to a decreased immune system response.

But there may be a few things about milk that you don?t know.

Before you have another glass of milk or consider chugging another whey or casein shake or loading an extra slice of cheese on your sandwich you should know that most of us are lactose intolerant to some degree.

All human beings can handle lactose as babies. Most of us lose this ability as adults. The majority of adults have some level of lactose intolerance. It is not a rarity but rather the normal state for fully grown adults; we simply don?t need milk anymore.

Below are some more accurate numbers, although as stated, most of us have lactose intolerance to some degree.

Lactose Intolerance Among?
People of Asian descent- 90-100%
People of Native American descent- 95%
People of African descent- 65-70%
People of Italian descent- 65-70%
People of Hispanic descent- 50-60%
People of Caucasian descent- 10%

You also have to consider that human beings are the only species that actually drinks the milk of another species. Think about that for a second and really let it sink in.

If I poured someone a glass of milk that I just squeezed out of a pregnant womans right breast they would freak out and not even consider drinking it. But if I poured them a glass of milk laced with 80 different allowable antibiotics (according to the FDA) that I just got down on my knees and squeezed out of a smelly, disgusting cow that same person wouldn?t think twice about slugging it right down.

Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

High milk consumption has also been shown in studies to actually increase the risk for osteoporosis instead of decrease it. In fact, the calcium absorption rate of milk is quite low.

Below are calcium absorption rates for a few different foods:
Brussel sprouts- 63.8%
Mustard greens- 57.8%
Broccoli- 52.6%
Turnip greens- 51.6%
Kale- 50%
Cow?s milk- 32%

As you may have guessed I am not a fan of milk consumption and no longer recommend it for anyone. But the choice is yours.

What should I drink instead?

Water.

What about in my cereal or with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

Soy milk, rice milk, almond milk or oat milk.

Doesn?t soy increase estrogen?

The research is not conclusive in my opinion but even if it does, 1-2 cups of soy milk won?t be enough to do it. Of course, if you are a pear shaped fat ass who already has a pair of D cups I wouldn?t go near anything that even had a one in a billion chance of being slightly estrogenic.

I drink a glass or two of soy milk a day and haven?t noticed anything negative from it. I also use rice and almond milk. (http://jasonferruggia.com/got-milk/)

That said, now, we're tailing off-topic. The topic is animal rights... if you wish to continue this discussion, PM me.

[kudos]

PETA needs to either take a chill pill, or disband. That's my honest opinion. They cause more problems than good because of their overzealous attempts to draw attention to animal rights causes.

However, I totally and completely support groups such as the ASPCA. Animals do have basic rights, including the rights to proper nutrition, health care and quality of life. I also believe this should apply to farm animals, including what we eat. Just because an animal is going to die at a set time in it's life does not mean it does not have the right to enjoy its time while it is here (before it enters my stomach, anyway). Lastly, this also applies to wild animals, as far as they should be left the hell alone and their living environments unpolluted, and paths made available to migratory animals to keep them off the highway and in my car grill. >_>

I honestly agree with Eia. Animals should be treated with dignity and respect, in other words, humanely... but there is a point when a line gets crossed and animals are treated better than humans. In my opinion, that's totally wrong.
As far as the wild animals thing goes... I agree that we should take care of the earth and not pollute, but I see nothing wrong with hunting an animal as long as you're actually going to eat the meat. (although I totally disagree with killing purely for sport) But I do think that people should try to leave their habitats undisturbed... nothing sucks more than having an interstate built right through your old territory!

[Kochiha]

The whole thing about animal rights should be put on hold until we get our own human rights straightened out. Additionally, I have the following to say to PETA and cronies:

It's wrong to take lives, isn't it? But to take something that has given its life for the purpose of being consumed and then deny it that purpose...isn't that even worse?

[Turtlicious]

animals have no rights they are food pets or sex toys

and to everyone who knows me NO IM NOT INTO BEASTIALITY

[Kanariya674]

animals have no rights they are food pets or sex toys

and to everyone who knows me NO IM NOT INTO BEASTIALITY

So they're slaves?

That's very humane of you.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Originally Posted by Turtlicious View Post
People have no rights they are food pets or sex toys

and to everyone who knows me NO IM NOT INTO WOMEN

Lolz that is MAD wrong but funny hahha.

Animal rights. To be blunt and honest. The only right animals will recieve is right from human to animals. As in what humans can and cannot do to an animal. I dont see a lion getting the death sentence because he failed to comple with the endangered species act when he decided to eat that poor L'hoest's monkey.

[Fat1Fared]

Lolz that is MAD wrong but funny hahha.

Animal rights. To be blunt and honest. The only right animals will recieve is right from human to animals. As in what humans can and cannot do to an animal. I dont see a lion getting the death sentence because he failed to comple with the endangered species act when he decided to eat that poor L'hoest's monkey.

I actually think there is a good point here, why'll I don't think it is right to be unnesserality cruel to animals (whatever that maybe to you) we have to remember that though humans are an Animal, Animals ain't human, so cannot be fully treated like one

[Ohara]

I hate animal cruelty.
...but I can't ever see myself becoming a vegetarian.

[OverMind]

I hate animal cruelty.
...but I can't ever see myself becoming a vegetarian.

It's because animals are so damn tasty.

On a side note, vegetarians aren't as bad as vegans. The former simply don't eat meat. The difference with vegans is that they conform their lifestyle in such a way that they "never" use animal products. It's like vegetarianism++ (i.e. avoiding animal-tested products, animal-derived clothing, animal-derived anything really).

I'm not sure how practical this is and I wouldn't be surprised if they have eventually used animal product unwittingly.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

can animals really get any rights if they dont have any wrongs

[OverMind]

Well, OverMind, fruit seeds are carried by animals, so vegans are exploiting their free labor when they eat fruit.

Or, from the top of my head, catching a ride with a friend, only to realize that the car has leather interior. Should you feel guilty for enjoying such comfortable seating or should you catch a bus home out of principle?

[killshot]

Or, from the top of my head, catching a ride with a friend, only to realize that the car has leather interior. Should you feel guilty for enjoying such comfortable seating or should you catch a bus home out of principle?

If we're taking this route, we can also include living in a house, since houses require the destruction of natural animal habitats. For that matter, driving on paved roads indirectly supports deforestation. Do vegans feel guilty that they are running poor animals out of their homes?

[OverMind]

If we're taking this route, we can also include living in a house, since houses require the destruction of natural animal habitats. For that matter, driving on paved roads indirectly supports deforestation. Do vegans feel guilty that they are running poor animals out of their homes?

This is precisely why I'm always suspicious of people claiming to support some "just cause"***. No matter which way you slice it, veganism is a label of moral superiority. In order to fully commit yourself to these ideals, you'd have to give up a lot and this includes the North American lifestyle of convenience. Hence, it seems as if these people are getting into this thing for all the wrong reasons, and not committing themselves properly to begin with (i.e. it doesn't just stop at clothes and food).

***Other "just causes" I'm not particularly fond of include:
- the organic food movement/anti-biotechnology
- carbon credits as a guilt tax
- anti-corporate/anti-global activism
- government handouts (both foreign and domestic)

All of our lives are vacuous. Some people choose to fill that void with something "meaningful". I choose to fill that void with video games.

[darkarcher]

One of the funny things about veganism is that they won't partake in dairy products...while it's actually beneficial for a cow to be milked.

[M.P.]

Let me put it this way: Humans are at the top of the food chain. It's no use complaining about the rights of animals when you need to eat SOMETHING. It's like Niko Bellic with a rocket launcher having a bunch of policemen shooting at him and Niko Bellic being like 'Hey, wait a minute, policemen have rights too. I'll stop kicking ass and I think I'll go make friends with them...'. You don't eat animals, you die (that's no threat) (even if you are a vegetarian, you eat eggs that count as animals). The end.

[loveistears]

i love to eat meat. i just hate it when people kill an anime (ex. deer) just for the hide and doesnt use every useable peice of the animal. it just really pisses me off.

[Cocyta]

Just like to throw this in here:

Kosher/Halal methods of slaughter are deemed inhumane by animal rights advocates (i.e. they assert the animal feels pain). However, they are mandated by Jewish/Islamic dietary laws.

So, what do we do in this situation?

Well, from what I understand, Hebraic law requires that you drain all the blood from the animal.
I suppose a compromise would be humanely killing the animal, and then draining the blood after it's dead.

Of course, having the animal bleed out alive is better for making sure all of the blood is gone,
so there's the issue.

Animal abuse sucks! Have you seen those commercials with the sad looking animals? Thats reasonable to take them away and give them to a family that will care for them. But PETA won't rest until:

1) Animals have the same or more rights as people

2) All animal based products and businesses are no more

3) Everybody is a Vegan

4) the testing of Vaccines and cosmetics on animals is abolished

Why aren't there plant-activist groups? Plants are also alive! Maybe we should just eat fruit, since plants evolved fruits in order to better distribute their seeds. :wink:

Well, OverMind, fruit seeds are carried by animals, so vegans are exploiting their free labor when they eat fruit.

Maybe humans should be allowed to crap wherever they want in order to help spread seeds...
nah, that'd be gross.

That is where I stand on the thought of animal ethics. Meanwhile, testing things on animals (vaccines, etc.) brings up another question. What would be the alternative to testing on animals? Should things be tested on humans? If so, which part of the population should be targeted? This brings up a whole new argument, especially into the realm of different races, demographics, and the tests representing a good enough cross-section of the population to merit the results of the test. Animal testing, at this time, is the best and most convenient option, with the fewest repercussions.

Someone once brought up using people in prison as human test subjects instead of animals.
How does that sound?

I just hate it when people kill an anime (ex. deer) just for the hide and don't use every usable piece of the animal.

Anime deer? :thatface:

Sorry, I know what you meant; it just amuses me. :biggrin:

Just don't treat animals cruel, plain and simple. If they are going to get slaughtered to be food/clothing/etc, they should be treated properly and killed quickly/humanely.

Wild animals need to be protected the IMO. Urbanization is really taking a toll on them. It's quite sad, really.

agreed

[HeyDudez]

I don't see a problem with eatting meat because it is a natural thing. As long long as the animal is respected before it dies I'm fine with it.
I don't like cosmetic testing on animals. I think you should only do animal testing if it will save other animal's and/or Human lives

[Cocyta]

I don't see a problem with eating meat because it is a natural thing. As long long as the animal is respected before it dies I'm fine with it.

Agreed - if we were only allowed to eat the things evolved specifically to be eaten, we'd only be eating fruit, and let's face it - despite how healthy and tasty it is, we can't only eat fruit.

I don't like cosmetic testing on animals. I think you should only do animal testing if it will save other animal's and/or Human lives

I agree. I mean, animal testing can save the lives of other animals, but it's not like most animals are going to be wearing cosmetics - only female humans and some male humans wear make-up.

The question, however, is how do we test the cosmetics?

I know some products say "not tested on animals," but I don't know how they test items.
It would be nice to find out, and to see if other companies can use the same process.

[Elky]

the concept of animal rights is inherently misanthropic

[Ishikawa Oshro]

the concept of animal rights is inherently misanthropic

dear god he found a place where hes allowed O.O
lolz

[Cocyta]

the concept of animal rights is inherently misanthropic

How is it inherently misanthropic?

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

In fact, humans are a species of animals.

[Cocyta]

We're not talking about taking away people's rights. We can give animals rights without taking away the rights of humans.

[JesusRocks]

One of the funny things about veganism is that they won't partake in dairy products...while it's actually beneficial for a cow to be milked.

I SHALL LAMPOON THIS TO ALL VEGANS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME!!!

[OverMind]

I SHALL LAMPOON THIS TO ALL VEGANS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME!!!

While it is beneficial for the cow to be milked, it is a consequence of the benefits of using said milk to nurture the cow's young. In essence, we are then stealing the natural sustenance a maternal cow can give to her young, which is ethically questionable.

Just a heads up of the kinds of arguments that will be thrown back to you if you do pursue this so-called noble endeavor of lampooning vegans.

[Cocyta]

While it is beneficial for the cow to be milked, it is a consequence of the benefits of using said milk to nurture the cow's young. In essence, we are then stealing the natural sustenance a maternal cow can give to her young, which is ethically questionable.

Can we split the milk 50/50? 60/40 with the calf getting 60?

I mean, not that I care, since I don't like milk. The calf can have it all, as far as I'm concerned.

[OverMind]

Can we split the milk 50/50? 60/40 with the calf getting 60?

Sure.

By the way, I've decided to rob you of your money on a regular basis, money which could be used to support your children (assuming you have some). However, I feel guilty taking all of your money so I'll just split it 50/50 with you. Heck, on second thought, I think I deserve a bit more than that, let's make it 60/40.

Sound okay? I'm glad we agree on that because, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to appease my guilty conscience or justify taking anything from you in the first place.


I mean, not that I care, since I don't like milk. The calf can have it all, as far as I'm concerned.

Right, the example above is just the sort of argument a Vegetarian/Vegan would use to your proposal. Absolutism; you either set animals free or you don't, there really isn't a middle ground.

[JesusRocks]

While it is beneficial for the cow to be milked, it is a consequence of the benefits of using said milk to nurture the cow's young. In essence, we are then stealing the natural sustenance a maternal cow can give to her young, which is ethically questionable.

Just a heads up of the kinds of arguments that will be thrown back to you if you do pursue this so-called noble endeavor of lampooning vegans.

I am in love with your avatar O.O

And thanks for the heads up :V

[Cocyta]

Sure.

By the way, I've decided to rob you of your money on a regular basis, money which could be used to support your children (assuming you have some). However, I feel guilty taking all of your money so I'll just split it 50/50 with you. Heck, on second thought, I think I deserve a bit more than that, let's make it 60/40.

I said I'd let the cow keep the 60, since the calf deserves more than I do.

Still, I see your point.

Let's see... considering we control so many cows, how about us taking 10%, kind of like the old idea of tithes?

That leaves 90% for the cows to feed their calves.

Or is that still unreasonable? I ask because I really do want to know.

[darkarcher]

Most dairy cattle produce milk even when they have not birthed recently.

[HeyDudez]

I think they use some sort of hormone to produce milk. I'm not sure I'll go and research it.

[darkarcher]

I think they use some sort of hormone to produce milk. I'm not sure I'll go and research it.

Oxytocin (sp?) if I'm not mistaken. Whatever it is, dairy cattle produce it on a regular basis.

[JesusRocks]

Overmind is right though,

Either you have no problem eating animals, and using their products, or you do.
It's hypocritical to say that you only agree with eating SOME animals based on an "animal rights" argument.

There really is no reasonable middle ground.

The difference between vegetarianism and veganism can't really be seen as a middle ground. Using the products of an animal, like milk or unfertilised eggs, is different from killing them.
And in reality, you're not really depriving the animal's young of the food it would get if the milk the animal produces is continually being produced.
You're not really depriving eggs the chance of fertilisation when the hen lays unfertilised eggs without the prescence of a cockerel regardless.

Yes, the ways in which these are exploited can be deplorable, but the use of these products in and of themselves, I see no problem with.
The problem comes when people get obsessed with WE NEED MORE MORE MORE!! and do horrible things like keeping hens in cages and under conditions which artificially maximise output beyond reason, purely because it's cheaper.

Thing is, if people had the choice between battery-hen eggs and free-range eggs of the same price, they'd much more readily choose the free-range.
This kind of attitude has been shown when Cadbury's introduced their Fairtrade Dairy Milk bars, they were the same price as non-fairtrade. The result was that the Fairtrade bars consistently sold out, while the non-fairtrade was left behind on the shelves.

And before you mention the eating of animals like dogs and cats... well tbh, I can't see the appeal, mainly because I don't see cats or dogs as being very tasty... I've never tried it, I could probably imagine it to be rather tough meat, and not particularly pleasant to eat...
But beyond that, I don't really see why not, aside from, of course it would make people happy to keep them alive to love as pets, and that would be preferable to eating the animal...
Same as if I had a pet hen, or a pet cow, or a pet pig (and I mean actual pet - not just some sense of favouritism with a view to eating it), I'd be unwilling to kill it for food as well...


I dunno, I can sympathise with vegetarians. Some of my friends are vegetarians (although one really has no choice in the matter - he's been a vege since birth and if he eats meat it'll make him ill)... I cannot, however sympathise with vegans.

To end, I have a serious question - do vegans breastfeed their children?

[OverMind]

Veal.

Way to miss my whole point entirely. I'm glad JesusRocks got it though.

[JesusRocks]

By the way, in the US constitution, animals have no rights. They're essentially slaves. Not sure if it was said before.

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

"If the baby is dead, there's no reason not to take the milk"

Your reasoning, while highly morbid and disturbed, is strangely sound - moreso than I would like >_>

[OverMind]

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

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

[Ishikawa Oshro]

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

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

[Elky]

How is it inherently misanthropic?

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

In fact, humans are a species of animals.

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

[AllisonWalker]

You raise a good point, killshot.

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

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

http://www.horsetackinternational.com/images/iw115_b.jpg

Not being a bitch, just saying!

[Bluetune]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A whole website and campaign has been made about this scandal that still continues today, called Petakillsanimals.com (http://petakillsanimals.com/)

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

[G.O.R.25]

I'm a vegetarian. I care for just about all life equally. If we categorised how important a life is based on how intelligent it was (i'm reffering to the argument 'animals don't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy life) then we would also theoretically kill mentally disabled people and eat them.

[Underling]

What? Even the most mentally retarded human has far more intelligence than any other animal.

[Aninamar]

I'm a vegetarian. I care for just about all life equally. If we categorised how important a life is based on how intelligent it was (i'm reffering to the argument 'animals don't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy life) then we would also theoretically kill mentally disabled people and eat them.

I WILL TAKE A GUY WITH A DOWN SYNDROME...
*GAAAAAAAAAASP*
AND EAT IT!!!
*CRUNCH*

"Theoretically" I'm having sex with Angelina Jolie, you know.

The argument was that "animals don't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy life". I'm not autistic nor do I know an autistic, but I can tell pretty much that most of the time those people can live normally and don't have problems with enjoying their lives. Not even those maniacs with Aspergers that you see on TV shows that always obsess over their special little activities until they do them perfectly. A guy with Asperger, for example, might be so fixated on atoms until he's capable of atomic diffraction with his bare hands. Hey, they enjoy it, don't they? I can tell they enjoy it a lot more than a typical guy's routine of sleep-work-food-wank-sleep.

Meanwhile the aforementioned Asperger kid has no problems with this. 'He's just chilling with his atoms, maaaaan.' In that case, he should be eating me; after all, he's contributing to society (he might be useful in some physician's laboratory) and the overall well-being of humanity, while I? I sit here and I write this lengthy post.

Meanwhile an animal? Given that apparently in this world every single feeling or thought process you go through is a work of chemistry in your body.

Besides, everyone knows there are animals more intelligent than humans, for example, penguins. They're more intelligent than BBC programme planners (and they qualify as humans).

And by the way, why would you kill and eat a member of your own species? Animals have the dignity not to do that (well, most of them. Pity for those suckers who die after their first orgasm. ...Or maybe not. That might actually be quite pleasant.), why would we, barring really horrible circumstances, kill and eat someone of our own? (Yeah, I know, SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEEEEOPLEEEEEEE!!!!)

A right is a power based on what you are born with what you own and what you inherit. In other words i have the right to personal space because I claim the rights to the space around my body.

Not quite. After all, we made up all the rights that exist in this world. Yes, made up. We made them up. Like the Boogieman. That also actually means that when you crap on someone's possession it's not illegal, because the moment your crap fell on the floor (because it's also, sort of, a part of your body), it immediately claimed the territory. But it doesn't work that way.

The very idea of giving something their rights also creates the idea that you can "take away" or "sell" rights.

It doesn't "create" that idea. This idea exists from the time the humans made up rights.

However since we are "giving animals rights" humans have to "protect them" because animals can't protect the rights they are given.

Oh, I wouldn't be sure. Ever tried to try to take away your cat's right of sitting on your bed when he really doesn't feel like it?
I sure remember I tried.
He transplanted the skin off my arm to my ass.
Even Phoenix Wright couldn't compete with this argument.

When in reality any rights written down on paper are only reflecting a claim to a god given right in real life.

Of course! God loves us and all the God given rights have been already acknowledged by humans and written on paper.

Remember that awesome right from 1939 that was issued in Poland (and certainly other places of German occupation?)? A German family had the right to enter your house, kick you out and live there with your things!

God definitely wanted that. He loves us all! Even the Germans!

In North Carolina there was a case where a woman was euthanizing animals in her PETA van after she had promised to find them a new home. She dumped many of the bodies in a dumpster because she said "she couldn't stand the smell"

Forsooth, what a strange woman. I do love the smell of decomposing animals in my house. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't enjoy that lovely scent. In fact, it works well in the mix with my pheromones. Chicks dig dead parrots.

[MrsSallyBakura]

What? Even the most mentally retarded human has far more intelligence than any other animal.

^ This.

Yeah yeah, you can make an argument about how apes and monkeys are really smart and you can train them and everything, but primates are far more intelligent than most of the animals we eat anyways. Most cultures that I know of don't even eat primates. The only ones that would are the ones that don't have supermarkets and such available to them and their only source of food and meat are... well, the animals around them.

And what, should these people starve themselves or give up their culture for one like ours just because they need to eat something that has /almost/ as much intelligence as they do? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

I respect vegetarianism as a way of life for individuals if they do it out of personal preference. I have a few friends who are vegetarians. But I think to claim that animals as a whole are just as smart as mentally retarded humans is... not accurate.

[OverMind]

I'd gladly eat a Komodo Dragon before it ever tried eating me.

[AsteriskRocks]

Dolphins?

[Aninamar]

Anne McCaffrey killed the dolphins.

[AsteriskRocks]

Anne McCaffrey killed the dolphins.

D:

[Aninamar]

You could help save someone's life, but a cow wouldn't be smart enough to save a drowning child.

How exactly is a cow supposed to save a drowning child? I must admit that I'm pretty ignorant on the matter, but I don't think cows can swim that well.

[AllisonWalker]

I think a dog would, but most animals would not.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I think a dog would, but most animals would not.

It's instinct for the dog. And it depends on the type of dog as well.

[AllisonWalker]

It's instinct for the dog. And it depends on the type of dog as well.

My lab would. He'd be very pleased, not so much for saving someone, but getting the attention afterwards.

[OverMind]

I'd gladly eat an elephant before it ever tried eating me.

[Underling]

I'd gladly rape an elephant before it ever tried raping me.

[Aninamar]

You know, people, you're damn disappointing.

For once I try to be nice, not use (too many) profanities, and actually go on with some discussion on the topic at hand.

To which you respond with some ridiculous things about your relations with elephants.

[Spoofs3]

I'd gladly rape an elephant before it ever tried raping me.

Well that's for granted, I think we all would

[OverMind]

You know, people, you're damn disappointing.

For once I try to be nice, not use (too many) profanities, and actually go on with some discussion on the topic at hand.

To which you respond with some ridiculous things about your relations with elephants.

Don't mind Underling, while I'm sure he definitely could, he doesn't intend to have serious conversations on this forum and likely views most threads here with contempt.

I don't think intelligence should be used as the determining factor of whether we should eat something or not.

I think, logically, we fit in a food chain, somewhere near the top if not the top. I'm hesitant to say that we're at the top because of a few oddities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_maneaters) I've read about.

We are animals too, perhaps highly evolved, but animals nonetheless. As such, like any other food chain, anything below us is fair game.

[Fat1Fared]

Don't mind Underling, while I'm sure he definitely could, he doesn't intend to have serious conversations on this forum and likely views most threads here with contempt.

I don't think intelligence should be used as the determining factor of whether we should eat something or not.

I think, logically, we fit in a food chain, somewhere near the top if not the top. I'm hesitant to say that we're at the top because of a few oddities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_maneaters) I've read about.

We are animals too, perhaps highly evolved, but animals nonetheless. As such, like any other food chain, anything below us is fair game.

basically everything overmind has put here, is what needs to be put, aspecially the underling part (who is probably smartest person writing here...hmmm that made me feel dirty :thatface: )

[Aninamar]

Shining, OverMind, I really didn't expect from both such no-nonsense, intelligent people that I admired on those forums to be talking about elephant eating and other delirious subjects.

I am disappoint.

:(

*sad*

[Aninamar]

DISREGARD THAT I SUCK GLOCKS