Animal Liberation

[gprime]

Earlier today, I was looking into the College Scholars program offered by the university I'll be attending, as I would need to apply during the second semester of freshman year. In doing so, I came across a list of past speakers brought in through the program, and saw that Peter Singer was among them. For those unfamiliar, this nutjob authored the book Animal Liberation, and founded The Great Ape Project, whose stated goal is to have the UN adopt a resolution ensuring certain rights to said animals. As such, it seemed as good a time as ever to discuss the matter, since it tends to crop up every so often, whenever a member of the fringe-left manages to get media coverage for this insane cause.

The notion of animal liberation is a fundamentally flawed one. It assumes that animals have the intellectual wherewithal to function independent of human influence, and should therefore be treated on par with humans. Consumption or use in labor of animals would be prohibited. So too would animal ownership. In other words, they would typically be the legal equal of a human. Now, I imagine some animal lovers might, on a basic level, approve of the idea, and would equate speciesism with racism, as these fanatics so often do. Thus, we must consider the logic here:

• Animals cannot stand trial. If a wild bull gores a man to death, what will happen? As they do not speak any language understood outside their species, and cannot understand court procedures, much less conform to them, how can a defense be mounted?
• Animals cannot be jailed. If a trial cannot occur, how can they be jailed? And would you put them in the same jails as humans? That simply isn't realistic. You can't give a criminal a mountain lion for a cellmate. And separate prisons would just be another act of speciesism that the left would complain about.
• Animals cannot work. To get a job, paperwork needs to be completed, and contracts cannot be signed. How would a cow, or an owl, or any other animal do that? And, if they don't understand the terms of it, how can they be expected to follow it? What happens if they fail to meet the terms therein? How do you collect money from a monkey?
• Animals can't use money. Without a job, how is an animal to get money? And without money, the cannot contribute to the economy. They could only leech off of it, requiring government feeding and housing, as intrusion onto private property or theft from humans would be criminal.
• Animals can't pay taxes. Being unable to hold a job or make money, animals would be exempt from taxes, but would all require government handouts to stay alive, thus creating a massive tax burden on humans. Welfare and current social spending problems are bad enough. Do we really need to take it to a new level?
• Animals present legal issues. One example would be running for president. If a goat was born in the US, and the required documentation has been filed, can he become president? Or, since animal years are different from humans, how would you handle age of consent laws? How would animals even give consent? Or accuse somebody of rape?
• Animals aren't smart enough. Yes, people are stupid as hell. But even the dumbest among us surpasses the great minds among lesser species. Be they a mop jockey or a mentally retarded teenager, humans still have the intellectual edge.
• Animal owners would be the victims. Whether we're talking about loving dog owners who've spent $30,000 raising their dog, or cattle ranchers who depend on selling cows to feed their family, those who owned the animals lose. And for what logical purpose? For those with money involved, how are they to be compensated?
• Animals are essential to medical progress. Without being able to test breakthroughs on various animals, we would be exposing people to unwarranted risks, and limiting medical advancement. Clinical trials still have their place, but do we want humans exposed to unsafe medicine to begin with?

The fact is, animals are not intellectually capable of functioning on the same level as humans. They cannot enter into contracts, communicate with us, follow the law, or be held to the same standards. Their freedom would harm consumer food choice, as well as the bottom line of millions of Americans whose jobs revolve around meat. Add to that the damage done to medicine, and it becomes all the worse. That doesn't even begin to take into account the number of conveniences we would have to give up, such as leather shoes or fur on the inside of gloves.

[apocalypticdreamer]

Next you're going to try and tell me Animal Farm is a work of fiction.

;)

[alizardsbet]

Be prepared for rant...

Heh… Personally I am against this kinda thing, I like meat, I am a carnivore, it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize an animal having an equal right to life, to pursue happiness to the best of their abilities and to live it free of interference by another said life form. On a level that would get me hung by my fellow species I do think animals should have some sort of legal recognition, and representation, just like the rest of us do, but I don’t think it needs to be the radical changes you are suggesting here in part. On the other hand, that would have me killed by a marauding boar I don’t think that animals should be viewed as human. They are not and that is insulting and degrading to their “culture” as it is to our species to suggest such an idea. I defend these preposterous notions with the small facts that we are apart of nature, and play a vital “conscious” part in the ecosystem thingy. We are predator, and on a level prey, we are exploited and providers. Barn finches for example are wild animals learning to adapt and cooperate with our structures, not unlike certain species of the weasel family that invade or take up roost in old termite towers. However, where I recognize equality of life, I do not hold the personal philosophy of any animal’s (man or otherwise) life equal to mine or greater than mine where concerns survival. What sane organism would?

The fact that an animal does not speak any language of man does not mean he should not have legal representation. That’s like suggesting if you are in a country and commit a crime, but do not speak the language, and come your trial date can not find a translator you should be euthanized. I’ve always thought this to be a kinda copout on the judicial part to kill a rogue animal for tasting the blood of a human. The fact that they use this argument when determining the animal’s fate is weak, close minded, and their right. Most times when an animal wild or otherwise go about killing a person there is circumstantial evidence that should be addressed and considered. Ex.)A victim has been pardoned of responsibility in killing their tormentor when brought to trial.

Actually animals do stand trial on rare occasion, and are jailed for a hearing. Whenever a human is attacked, it is a legal act to have them put down, so the case is brought before a judge and represented by a lawyer.

Paperwork is a human necessity and animals do perform jobs, dogs on the police force have human representatives fill out the necessary paperwork. Horses have a trail of paperwork that documents their heritage, think nobility, (as if they care) and earnings, well some do. The stock breeds don’t, commoners, and can’t enter in some sporting competitions. Yet the whole concept of paperwork is human, and unnecessary where concerns an animal. Not all humans go about filling out paperwork for a job. Kids cutting grass do not sign a contract. People outside the U.S. some don’t even know how to read and write.

Animals are smart, they don’t need the waste of time the concept of money is. They have no use for material status, and are content with food, shelter, and water… for the most part. Some could be said to want to pursue a higher quality of life and if that is true than I think they “do” need to learn to do what is necessary to earn that privilege.

Again taxes are another human aspect that is being forced upon animals, and is an unnecessary one, even for the human. However you can consider territory occupation, or certain necessary sacrifices in product or life to be a proper donation to the overall society of the animal kingdom if you really want to split hairs.

These are human functions you are describing, and not something an animal should interfere with. However if one wanted to run, and met all of the qualifications I could honestly say I would vote for the fella. (please consider that a joke.)

Animals are not stupid, just different. You are using the retard argument that a “mentally disabled person” does not have the functions necessary to actively participate in human society, and must be reduced to a burden of representation and charity as without it some would likely starve. This I can agree with, but it is dangerous ground suggesting higher intellect would mean more right.

Yes by your arguments, animal lovers and ones that make their lives around them and use their products would be the victims. Yet removing the idea of such merchandise from a legal maketing stand point, how else would an animal make a living in society? I am more of the opinion, from a practical and reasonable stand pit (at least I think) that such people would in the long run be the rightful caretakers and representatives of these animals. This might be considered a burden yes, but I think for the most part this would be a calling too.

This I frown on. I agree with its necessity but I think there have got to be other ways, and am not above human testing in the first stages, yet concede… other routes than those… should be investigated. I think your medical field refuses to do this, as it would be time consuming, possibly expensive and just something they don’t want to do for the extra work it would provide them. My argument against this is fine, so be it, suffer the consequences. This has the potential for epidemic with more and more the introduction of human DNA in test animals. Think rats of nimh. Not only are they breeding “smarter” more human like rats, sheep, monkeys these animals I would think have the potential to qualify for some if not all the arguments you have made. By your argument don’t you think these animals should have more of an active part in society should they want it? To put it bluntly the whole experimentation gives me the willies.

In this, our changing world and as human’s continue to encroach on animals territories I think this is becoming a bit of a serious issue. I mean yes our food has to have some place to go, and should only be the highest quality, no animal can disagree with me. My dog will take a ***** steak over mcdonalds any day of the week. However I am kinda curious the possible implications if we did just bulldoze the free world entirely, wiped out all species not directly necessary to our survival or that of our food what would happen. I am guessing at unforeseen consequences that will work its way up the foodchain. We evolved (don’t yell at me please) from many different ecosystems, we still in a way exist, removed, as do our food in them, I wonder at the biological problems removing those far reaching factors from our environment will do. It’s proof sunlight is cancerous and the one thing we really should have watched out for back in the day, yet without it we are exposed to a host of diseases.

End of rant...:D

[gprime]

Heh… Personally I am against this kinda thing, I like meat, I am a carnivore, it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize an animal having an equal right to life, to pursue happiness to the best of their abilities and to live it free of interference by another said life form. On a level that would get me hung by my fellow species I do think animals should have some sort of legal recognition, and representation, just like the rest of us do, but I don’t think it needs to be the radical changes you are suggesting here in part. On the other hand, that would have me killed by a marauding boar I don’t think that animals should be viewed as human. They are not and that is insulting and degrading to their “culture” as it is to our species to suggest such an idea. I defend these preposterous notions with the small facts that we are apart of nature, and play a vital “conscious” part in the ecosystem thingy. We are predator, and on a level prey, we are exploited and providers. Barn finches for example are wild animals learning to adapt and cooperate with our structures, not unlike certain species of the weasel family that invade or take up roost in old termite towers. However, where I recognize equality of life, I do not hold the personal philosophy of any animal’s (man or otherwise) life equal to mine or greater than mine where concerns survival. What sane organism would?

I'm not entirely sure I understood all of what you were saying. What I did notice is that you suggested we are a part of a broader ecosystem. And that is true. But think about how other animals in said system act. Do they work with the interests of weaker species in mind? Or do they merely see them as prey and treat them accordingly? In terms of what is natural, affording animals such a degree of protection is not. Humans are the most powerful predator, and we ought not be afraid to act accordingly. Greater intellectual development means that rather than just killing weaker species for nourishment, we can find other productive uses, such as scientific experimentation. But it boils down to the same essential idea of disregarding the wishes of lesser species. Were they able to function on the same level as humans, and could meet the criteria addressed in my initial post, then it might be reasonable to consider affording animals greater legal rights. However, that is not our reality, so we cannot act as though it were.

The fact that an animal does not speak any language of man does not mean he should not have legal representation. That’s like suggesting if you are in a country and commit a crime, but do not speak the language, and come your trial date can not find a translator you should be euthanized. I’ve always thought this to be a kinda copout on the judicial part to kill a rogue animal for tasting the blood of a human. The fact that they use this argument when determining the animal’s fate is weak, close minded, and their right. Most times when an animal wild or otherwise go about killing a person there is circumstantial evidence that should be addressed and considered. Ex.)A victim has been pardoned of responsibility in killing their tormentor when brought to trial.

The two are not truly similar. Even in the foreign country, being on a similar intellectual level, some type of communication, even if it was in the form of pictographic messaging, could be utilized. And, in such a case, there are still others who speak the language. With animals, the reality is that humans cannot understand them. Thus, they could not testify in court, discuss options with a lawyer, or otherwise defend themselves in a fashion consistent with modern judicial processes.

Your cop-out claim is all the more bothersome. The notion than animals are entitled to greater legal rights, but at the same time can kill humans without facing punishment is absurd. It sounds that you aren't championing equality as much as you are superiority. Do you really want lesser species to have greater rights than you and I do?

Actually animals do stand trial on rare occasion, and are jailed for a hearing. Whenever a human is attacked, it is a legal act to have them put down, so the case is brought before a judge and represented by a lawyer.

And that is fine for such cases. But, were animals to be equal, they would be subject to all the same laws. How would they testify in their own defense in a theft case, were they to consume so random farmer's corn?

Paperwork is a human necessity and animals do perform jobs, dogs on the police force have human representatives fill out the necessary paperwork. Horses have a trail of paperwork that documents their heritage, think nobility, (as if they care) and earnings, well some do. The stock breeds don’t, commoners, and can’t enter in some sporting competitions. Yet the whole concept of paperwork is human, and unnecessary where concerns an animal. Not all humans go about filling out paperwork for a job. Kids cutting grass do not sign a contract. People outside the U.S. some don’t even know how to read and write.

I'm not debating the existance of paperwork related to animals. I am saying that they cannot read, understand, and agree to contracts. Thus, they could not work. Humans who do menial, under the table labor such as lawn care can issue verbal consent. How does a yak or sheep do that? As they cannot, they would all require government aid to live on their own, thus growing the debt.

Animals are smart, they don’t need the waste of time the concept of money is. They have no use for material status, and are content with food, shelter, and water… for the most part. Some could be said to want to pursue a higher quality of life and if that is true than I think they “do” need to learn to do what is necessary to earn that privilege.

Smart compared to what? Certainly not to humans. They are less intellectually capable. And regardless of what they need, were they to have the same legal rights as you and I, they would have to be bound by the same laws. And they lack the ability to understand and follow said standards.

Again taxes are another human aspect that is being forced upon animals, and is an unnecessary one, even for the human. However you can consider territory occupation, or certain necessary sacrifices in product or life to be a proper donation to the overall society of the animal kingdom if you really want to split hairs.

Like it or not, taxes have to exist. I would like to see the vast majority of it abolished. But it must still exist to fund matters such as justice and defense. Even in such minimal standards, people have to pay in. Animals could not be exempt if they are to be equal. Of course, without the social support nets, all animals would either be criminals requiring jailing, or would die. Thus, it is all the more unrealisitc.

These are human functions you are describing, and not something an animal should interfere with. However if one wanted to run, and met all of the qualifications I could honestly say I would vote for the fella. (please consider that a joke.)

Joke if you will. But in theory, full equal rights would have to extend that far. And I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want an animal on the ballot. Democrats are bad enough.

Animals are not stupid, just different. You are using the retard argument that a “mentally disabled person” does not have the functions necessary to actively participate in human society, and must be reduced to a burden of representation and charity as without it some would likely starve. This I can agree with, but it is dangerous ground suggesting higher intellect would mean more right.

Like it or not, intellect does have some relation to rights. For example, in many states, those who qualify as retarded are assured a right to life even if guilty of a crime that normally garners the death penality. And on the other side of things, those who qualify as legally retarded cannot (insofar as I know) own a gun, while those of greater intellect can. So, why not see that the same is true of animals?

Yes by your arguments, animal lovers and ones that make their lives around them and use their products would be the victims. Yet removing the idea of such merchandise from a legal maketing stand point, how else would an animal make a living in society? I am more of the opinion, from a practical and reasonable stand pit (at least I think) that such people would in the long run be the rightful caretakers and representatives of these animals. This might be considered a burden yes, but I think for the most part this would be a calling too.

Why would they be caretakers? They cannot make money from selling the animals, turning them into food or goods, or otherwise exploiting their value. So they should just lose money from it? A pet owner might not care, but I can assure you the cattle ranchers feel quite a bit different.

This I frown on. I agree with its necessity but I think there have got to be other ways, and am not above human testing in the first stages, yet concede… other routes than those… should be investigated. I think your medical field refuses to do this, as it would be time consuming, possibly expensive and just something they don’t want to do for the extra work it would provide them. My argument against this is fine, so be it, suffer the consequences. This has the potential for epidemic with more and more the introduction of human DNA in test animals. Think rats of nimh. Not only are they breeding “smarter” more human like rats, sheep, monkeys these animals I would think have the potential to qualify for some if not all the arguments you have made. By your argument don’t you think these animals should have more of an active part in society should they want it? To put it bluntly the whole experimentation gives me the willies.

This isn't a point I can really argue with you about for two reasons. One, you seem to have absolutely no grasp of medical science and experimentation. And two, your position seems be grounded less in reason and more in an irrational phobia inspired by a work of literary fiction and an overactive imagination.

In this, our changing world and as human’s continue to encroach on animals territories I think this is becoming a bit of a serious issue. I mean yes our food has to have some place to go, and should only be the highest quality, no animal can disagree with me. My dog will take a ***** steak over mcdonalds any day of the week. However I am kinda curious the possible implications if we did just bulldoze the free world entirely, wiped out all species not directly necessary to our survival or that of our food what would happen.

But why would we do that? A product of our evolution is the ability to develop more advanced societies. What we have built is the product of millions of years of evolution, and thousands of years of civilization-based progress. Technology and modernity are to be praised and protected, not demolished.

I am guessing at unforeseen consequences that will work its way up the foodchain. We evolved (don’t yell at me please) from many different ecosystems, we still in a way exist, removed, as do our food in them, I wonder at the biological problems removing those far reaching factors from our environment will do. It’s proof sunlight is cancerous and the one thing we really should have watched out for back in the day, yet without it we are exposed to a host of diseases.

That isn't entirely clear, but what I assume you're implying is that because there is a balance to life, and a disruption on one level impacts another, we would be impacted by what happens to lesser species. But I would point out that a critical component of the natural order is having a top predator. And humans are that. Without us, the balance that has existed for longer than recorded history would cease, causing problems all around, while also spitting in the face of evolution.

[alizardsbet]

Weaker species is an interesting way of describing how an animal might view other life, and I know from my personal experiences with a broad range of domesticated animals from your common dog and cat types to the livestock, to the more exotic life forms, I can say that there is a sense of community crossing that line. Our domesticate animals do act for our pleasure, protection and providing for the “family unit” that they themselves understand. Ex.) a cat that leaves dead rodents at the back door step is a gesture of sharing for the good of all, but also has the practical use for eliminating undesirable vermin. Outside our own personal interactions such as the rhino and the little birds that live on their leathery backs, the rhino has poor eye sight and the bird eating parasites off the rhino also serves to sound warning. Fish on a coral reef live in community. Other heard animals like types of gazelle, horse, camel that are wild and away from their given herds are known to pair up and work together. Even wild cats have in isolated instances adopted other cats outside their species.

My pt being is that so far I have problems with both camps, and choose to keep my own council, and work on a case by case basis for analogy. I don’t give a rats ass about what is happening in Africa where concerns the animals there or the so precious human life. I care about my family, animals, friends and coworkers, and the small isolated group of other creatures that populate my life outside those given classifications, and nothing outside that. Anything that challenges them will be met with hostility and death if necessary, and I don’t give a damn about the laws. Well not actually true, but for arguments sake…

“humans can not actually understand them” (the animals). That I would have to agree with, but an animal can understand us as far as it is concerned about understanding us. A parrot can speak does that mean I think it has a stronger comprehension of our linguistics than say a dog? I would have to say nay. Dogs, depending on the breed and the individual have a strong human vocabulary. I don’t see animals as being on a level of human life, their thinking facilities, their desires and interests are different than ours I can not disagree, and it would be foolish to try. The problem most times where communication is concerned is that people simply do not want to “lower themselves” to the level of communication with an animal, but an animal can express itself to a human being.

As far as lawyers and the judicial system are concerned I can not see possibly where an animal would have any interest in pursuing such aspects. I never suggested such an idea as any animal being superior to another. Only human beings think that. I do not suggest that animals should not suffer consequences for their actions. Animals already in a sense are aware of the danger for unimaginable retaliation from humans should they choose to attack one of us, and as a result avoid us for the greater part. I might be leaning more toward the idea that animals should be given more protection from humans, but then that is interfering with my own personal rights, and I can not entirely condone that. Animals have a universal right, not a judicial sanction to process, which is something our culture’s principles, at their root address. That is more my argument, I think it kinda silly that people try to make an animal jump through legal hoops when they themselves are not willing to debase themselves to an animals comprehension. Whether they are saying they have a right or not is the same matter.

Well what would you suggest is dumb? To me that is something extinct and incapable of taking care of itself in changing circumstances. I would say a good amount of the human population would qualify. That an animal refuses to follow American idol, or play on the internet or get into religious debates to me is a sign that they are otherwise preoccupied with practical matters.

Not disagreeing that taxes have to exist. But an animal does perform a job, he provides services to his family, and that is then generated in to the legal process of the human side of that transaction, so in a sense they are already paying tax… through their human representatives. And this includes test animals and cattle and sheep and chickens that are used for food and will likely loose their lives. They just don’t bother keeping bank accounts, or filing tax forms. Smart little suckers.

Yay, but if some numbskull shoots you with a gun illegally he is given life in prison. Why shouldn’t an animal be afforded the same consideration? And besides, something I should have said earlier I think it perfectly fitting locking up bad people with bad animals, as I think of said people as being less. Let nature end any disputes, and then they can no longer be a burden on society as well.

What I really meant was if the complete removal of rights to life and liberty were denied to animals and animals were preserved as some thing to be idealized by the human population which is what I can assume was your original suggestion (what else would you do with the animals once they are banned from any human interaction?) is that these people would be imprisoned for breaking the law. Humans that choose to make a living through interacting with animals or just for the recreation already are in a sense the caretakers and representatives, they just aren’t afforded the legal titles and due process, though there is some degree of licensing and paper work that goes into it. I am not saying it would be a burden, what I am suggesting is that they already are doing what they are wanting to draw out or prevent, they just don’t need it all pretty and fancy on paper like. They already are shouldering the responsibility and duties that go along with taking on and providing for another life form and a damn site better managing such tasks better than some of our charity for human facilities are I might like to add.

Sure, I don’t have a degree or wear a fancy lab coat, but I am abreast on current events, and developing technologies. But here is something for your amusement http://www.slate.com/id/2168932/, that’s where I got the human DNA thing. I don’t pull everything out my ass, though I do prefer to improvise as I prefer original thought than repeating endlessly repeating. My example was more humor and the simple fact I am sure you are familiar with the media example. Why else do you think the activists are having such a bitch fest? Why do you think people are screaming about the umbilical cord thingy? Its not simply the cruelty that is done to these animals, and prehumans it’s the being plain wrong for it.

I never disagreed with the having a top predator. In my beginning argument I stated I was a carnivore, so assuming that would mean I kill. Being human, and by your description would imply I am a top predator. Now I don’t like to brag or anything…

[swivel]

Great debate. I think both of you guys have articulated your positions very well. It is a difficult controversy to take sides in because both extreme positions seem excessive.

If you go gprime's route you get into a position where it is hard to empathize and feel compassion for animals. It would require such callousness in order to organize our society around the absolute dominance of other animals.

If you go alizardsbet's route, you get into a nasty situation where our own needs and health suffer in exchange for increased status of clearly inferior beasts.

The truth probably lies in the middle, with a mixture. We grant as much equal status as is logically possible. We make sacrafices with zoning, construction and hunting to protect some habitats and species. We punish poachers. But, we do the research that is needed to safeguard human health, and do it as humanely as possible. We allow people to raise animals for the express purpose of eating them, as long as they do THAT as humanely as possible as well.

It is such a polarizing issue. The people on one side want us to treat all animals the same (better, actually) than we treat our fellow man. This is too much to ask. The other side thinks that human progress should completely disregard the firing of neurons in brains which are very similar to our own. I think that this is too much to ask as well.

Wherever we can, we should think of ways to replace animal research with computer simulation, or even better (if I was in charge) the use of prisoners for medical testing. We would have a 1 to 10 scale of testing categories. Level 1 testing would be the sort of thing that volunteers (usually college students) get paid to do now. Take a drug, rub a topical cream on your feet twice daily, eat nothing but rhubarb, etc... For Level 10 testing, think "Silver Springs Monkeys". You could have your arm deafferenated, your other arm immobilized, starved half to death to test the plasticity of motor functions of the cerebral cortex as you learn to feed yourself with your dead limb, have your brain mapped and scanned as often as needed, and killed whenever we want to autopsy you prior to publishing.

I think the accuracy of our research would go up as quickly as crime would go down. And the drug companies and medical hospitals can relieve taxpayers of the burden of housing and feeding people that have betrayed our trust.

[brokenandtwisted]

Next you're going to try and tell me Animal Farm is a work of fiction.

;)

Wait, what? Boxer was real?

Selfish thought of the day: Shouldn't we worry about our species first?

What are your thoughts? I'm sorry...I know the snow leopards are lovely looking, but I'd rather help a child dying of malnutrition.

[swivel]

Wait, what? Boxer was real?

Selfish thought of the day: Shouldn't we worry about our species first?

What are your thoughts? I'm sorry...I know the snow leopards are lovely looking, but I'd rather help a child dying of malnutrition.

Which is more important, a dozen children of 6 billion, or the last dozen of an entire species?

[brokenandtwisted]

Which is more important, a dozen children of 6 billion, or the last dozen of an entire species?

We can just trim the edges. God swivel, aren't you familiar with The Great Flood? We only need two of each species! Isn't it great how we can relate Biblical events to reality? (Yes...now that I'm aware you're vehemently opposed to religion, you will see religious quips from me.)

I believe some system should be formulated, where we can measure starvation. I know the whole famine response chain of events, but we actually need a scale...I've never heard of one anyway. People on the lower end of the scale should be fed, nourished...and people on the higher end...oh, let's say...Rosie O'Donnell shouldn't be as much.

I think I'd be a great dictator!

The bit about animals...I'm appreciative of them - after all I said snow leopards because they're one of my favourite animals - but as stated, some system needs to be formulated.

[swivel]

We can just trim the edges. God swivel, aren't you familiar with The Great Flood? We only need two of each species! Isn't it great how we can relate Biblical events to reality? (Yes...now that I'm aware you're vehemently opposed to religion, you will see religious quips from me.)

I believe some system should be formulated, where we can measure starvation. I know the whole famine response chain of events, but we actually need a scale...I've never heard of one anyway. People on the lower end of the scale should be fed, nourished...and people on the higher end...oh, let's say...Rosie O'Donnell shouldn't be as much.

I think I'd be a great dictator!

The bit about animals...I'm appreciative of them - after all I said snow leopards because they're one of my favourite animals - but as stated, some system needs to be formulated.

Oh, yes. Let's feed the people that can't care for themselves so that they can be healthy enough to have more children that can't take care of themselves.

I would gladly donate money to poor countries if the first thing they did is make the recipients of all charity unable to EVER have children. If you can not care for yourself, you should have the ability to breed stripped away from you. As of this moment, African women are AVERAGING 6 OFFSPRING APIECE! Feeding them is as morally repugnant as having them was.

Oh, and guess what, religion is mostly to blame here. We can not get these fucking idiots to use contraceptives because of Christian missionaries. And Bush controls government donations to ensure that money is wasted on abstinence instead of condoms. Un-fucking-real.

[alizardsbet]

Grumbles-Grumbles, just for the record: I HATE peta! The whole thing about spending $1000s on saving a single seal for an oil spill in Alaska just to watch as it returns back to the sea and is then eaten by a killer whale is just laughable to me.

I would donate to a charity like that. Heh heh… I’d get a degree in human studies if I could perform any test after Level 5! Give me a lab coat, and drill and call me a scientist! I think social reforms should only go as far as preventing death, ex. bread/water, and emergency medical attention. That’s it. The rest is up to you bucko! Go back out into the wilds and be free! I mean com’on, we already have wild animals on birth control, why can’t some sly sorta fella just ya kno… slip something into their water? They would see it as a sign from God to stop having babies! But it would have to be untraceable…

I have to agree with BrokenandTwisted however, on a strictly naturalists pt of view, we should be solely interested in our species. Even after it is assured that we are at a more than secure population. We can’t do that, however…Darn.

[gprime]

Weaker species is an interesting way of describing how an animal might view other life, and I know from my personal experiences with a broad range of domesticated animals from your common dog and cat types to the livestock, to the more exotic life forms, I can say that there is a sense of community crossing that line. Our domesticate animals do act for our pleasure, protection and providing for the “family unit” that they themselves understand. Ex.) a cat that leaves dead rodents at the back door step is a gesture of sharing for the good of all, but also has the practical use for eliminating undesirable vermin. Outside our own personal interactions such as the rhino and the little birds that live on their leathery backs, the rhino has poor eye sight and the bird eating parasites off the rhino also serves to sound warning. Fish on a coral reef live in community. Other heard animals like types of gazelle, horse, camel that are wild and away from their given herds are known to pair up and work together. Even wild cats have in isolated instances adopted other cats outside their species.

But see, in those cases, you're citing examples of mutualism. To raise the status of animals to the point you imply, that would not happen. Instead, animals would be engaged in parasitism, thereby harming humans. That hardly sounds reasonable.

My pt being is that so far I have problems with both camps, and choose to keep my own council, and work on a case by case basis for analogy. I don’t give a rats ass about what is happening in Africa where concerns the animals there or the so precious human life. I care about my family, animals, friends and coworkers, and the small isolated group of other creatures that populate my life outside those given classifications, and nothing outside that. Anything that challenges them will be met with hostility and death if necessary, and I don’t give a damn about the laws. Well not actually true, but for arguments sake…

And most of that is fine. Nobody cares whether you can show empathy for the African poor and would care to aid them financially or otherwise. Accordingly, nobody ought to make laws that would force you to act otherwise. I hold that the same is true of animals. Nobody ought to give a damn if I don't care to aid animals, nor should laws try to alter that. Excluding animals owned by others, as they are just glorified pieces of property, I should be allowed to hunt as I see fit. It so happens that I don't hunt, but that doesn't mean I should have to give up that right for the benefit of a different, less evolved species.

The problem most times where communication is concerned is that people simply do not want to “lower themselves” to the level of communication with an animal, but an animal can express itself to a human being.

To an extent perhaps, but limits exist. How does an animal understand and then express according its own innocence in murder trial?

Animals have a universal right,

According to what exactly? It is easy to make such a statement, but less so to prove. I am not yet convinced that property can have rights, so try and persuade me otherwise.

I would say a good amount of the human population would qualify. That an animal refuses to follow American idol, or play on the internet or get into religious debates to me is a sign that they are otherwise preoccupied with practical matters.

Those are not metrics of intellect. Put aside personal concern regarding animals, and consider objectively whether or not you really think animals could function totally independently, without infringing upon the rights of humans, were they to be granted such legal rights.

Not disagreeing that taxes have to exist. But an animal does perform a job, he provides services to his family, and that is then generated in to the legal process of the human side of that transaction, so in a sense they are already paying tax… through their human representatives. And this includes test animals and cattle and sheep and chickens that are used for food and will likely loose their lives.

But they don't really. Both business and income taxation exists, and even if in theory they are paying one, they aren't covering the other. They would be no better able to in the scenario you propose.

Yay, but if some numbskull shoots you with a gun illegally he is given life in prison. Why shouldn’t an animal be afforded the same consideration? And besides, something I should have said earlier I think it perfectly fitting locking up bad people with bad animals, as I think of said people as being less. Let nature end any disputes, and then they can no longer be a burden on society as well.

Quite sure that qualifies as totally unconstitutional, not to mention half-baked and dangerously radical.

though there is some degree of licensing and paper work that goes into it. I am not saying it would be a burden, what I am suggesting is that they already are doing what they are wanting to draw out or prevent, they just don’t need it all pretty and fancy on paper like.

And that is fine for the devoted dog owner. But again, what about the rancher? His concern with the animal is ultimately making them into money by selling them as meat. Your system would screw him and millions others over in a big way.

Why else do you think the activists are having such a bitch fest

Becuase that is what activists do?

[alizardsbet]

I could say the same is true of any animal that exchanges goods or services in return for a likewise favor to be mutualism. I go to work; I sacrifice 9 hours a day five days a week for a pay check, an even exchange. Sir, there are also three different classifications of parasite, and “mutual” praying on another and likewise return of said is one, the other two is when one is benefited and no harm is done, and the third is when one is benefited and the other is harmed. Yes some animals engage in one form or another of these three categories, its not reasonable on a sense of morality with is subjective, but plain logical fact of what is happening in reality.

What you are suggesting is that animals would be a burden to society without the human acting as a go between… as they can’t take care of themselves. Animals, my dear sir, are quite capable of looking after themselves both completely removed from said society or even among its cracks and neglect. They are a boon to people, as human beings are a convenience for themselves, making their lives easier, more convenient, and raising their chances of survival and continuing their species on indefinitely, at least from an individual view. Yes, totally independently from social circles…

In a murder trial it kinda depends, and this is where I am case by case, but to provide you an example from my over active imagination I could suggest something from recent headlines. Say one of those dogs that have been entered into those fighting rings, intentionally abused and conditioned to attack by those football players, say was hit one too many times or was about to be killed, it has a right to defend itself, and that is natural for it to do so. What you are suggesting is that an animal should defy its instinctive programming and lay down and die. Not even a human being will do that. How would a dog defend itself at a murder trial, I bet if I took one of the murdered “victims” shirts and allowed the animal to take a whiff of it, the reaction would be quite understandable… not unlike a rape victim having a break down on the stand into incomprehensible weeping, the impression is still understood by a jury. Besides, most testaments are circumstantial anyway without being provided with physical evidence and other testimonies to validate such a claim. So in all actuality it is not entirely necessary. I mean look at the recent plethora of crimes concerning babies, and small children who don’t have the facilities yet to plead their case, and yet it is still deemed a crime worth prosecuting.

Yet should an animal be pardoned for doing what a human would do if exposed to such an environment? No. I can’t say they should. Rescued animals, that are rehabilitated and the sense of trust are reestablished tend to make excellent companions. Sadly those ones that kill, not that I can be sure without knowing if actual studies were performed here to prove this indefinitely or if it is just another human irrational phobia, are more likely to repeat the act with less provocation, with the knowledge that they can. It is proven to me as far as repeat offenders goes that humans that kill or commit violent crimes don’t learn not to and are all the more likely to repeat such acts so why not put the animals out of their misery? The lame reasoning for this, it inhumane…

Universal right, animal/human/plant are alive and will do anything to survive, that is what the base programming boils down to. Plants will slowly strangle other plants to have at the sunlight, animals will kill for obvious reasons, humans will sit on their butts all day thinking they are the best thing ever. Each has a right to go about their lives as they see fit, whether just surviving or dominating the planet, who is strongest prevails. Some will loose, as life isn’t about being fair, or just or moral. Humans have established this concept that there are consequences for your actions, and sure there are, but they are interfering on a level that can be thought of as dangerous because of this silly concept of karma and god. It’s simpler than that, there are winners and losers, and poor losers. We complicate the matter with the idea of revenge and justice, war and our criminal reform system; we blow the whole picture all out of proportion in our search for morality.

For your cattle ranchers, I have had more than one personal snarling match, particularly the ones attacking wolves unprovoked. Big beef their, however I defend their right to raise cattle (that are destructive to the environment, not quite as bad as sheep) as food as we are omnivores and eat a large variety of foods. I’m not going to give a wolf a citation for feeding itself. (Wolves, who have never ever been documented as killing a human being) Why would I the rancher? Or the chicken keeper? (who if you know anything about farm life, which I truly doubt would know you should be jumping up and down more about justifying the appalling conditions chickens live in) My system does not screw him, my system acknowledges his right. Your system completely removing any right at all to interact with animals would place him on the wrong side of the law.

[gprime]

I could say the same is true of any animal that exchanges goods or services in return for a likewise favor to be mutualism. I go to work; I sacrifice 9 hours a day five days a week for a pay check, an even exchange. Sir, there are also three different classifications of parasite, and “mutual” praying on another and likewise return of said is one, the other two is when one is benefited and no harm is done, and the third is when one is benefited and the other is harmed.

Sorry, but there are not multiple types of parasitism, Rather, there are multiple typics of symbiotic relationships, one of which is parasitism, and the others being mutualism and commensalism. And, in a case where animals are to be afforded legal protection from humans, even if not equal, then surely they must also protect other organisms, thus making natural parasitism illegal, thus disrupting ecological balance, while imposing undue burden on man.

Yes some animals engage in one form or another of these three categories, its not reasonable on a sense of morality with is subjective, but plain logical fact of what is happening in reality.

Right. And that is yet another reason why affording animals any legal rights is an issue. We cannot give animals the same legal rights but hold them to different standards. And holding them to our standards wouldn't mesh with innate behavior of any other species.

What you are suggesting is that animals would be a burden to society without the human acting as a go between… as they can’t take care of themselves. Animals, my dear sir, are quite capable of looking after themselves both completely removed from said society or even among its cracks and neglect.

There is a problem with that line of logic though, as it rests upon a notion of openness that does not exist. A wolf can exist on its own, but not without intruding upon private property. And legally, trespassers may be shot. Thus, the wolf would not be able to survive on its own, unable to follow the laws of private property.

They are a boon to people, as human beings are a convenience for themselves, making their lives easier, more convenient, and raising their chances of survival and continuing their species on indefinitely, at least from an individual view. Yes, totally independently from social circles…

We ought not have a mutualistic relationship, when we stand to gain more through pure predatory action and emotionless self-interest.

In a murder trial it kinda depends, and this is where I am case by case, but to provide you an example from my over active imagination I could suggest something from recent headlines. Say one of those dogs that have been entered into those fighting rings, intentionally abused and conditioned to attack by those football players, say was hit one too many times or was about to be killed, it has a right to defend itself, and that is natural for it to do so. What you are suggesting is that an animal should defy its instinctive programming and lay down and die.

I would expect the animal to fight back. But that doesn't mean I believe it has a right to. In my mind, an animal is as much a piece of property as farmland or a video game console. Thus, while instincts may dictate a certain course of action, the law does not have to be derived from that, nor should it. This is true in the same way that human instinct would call for theft to save one's own life, but doing so remains illegal under typical circumstances.

Not even a human being will do that. How would a dog defend itself at a murder trial, I bet if I took one of the murdered “victims” shirts and allowed the animal to take a whiff of it, the reaction would be quite understandable… not unlike a rape victim having a break down on the stand into incomprehensible weeping, the impression is still understood by a jury.

Huh? Care to try explaining that one again?

Besides, most testaments are circumstantial anyway without being provided with physical evidence and other testimonies to validate such a claim. So in all actuality it is not entirely necessary.

It is true that not all witnesses testify in their own defense. But that might must be protected. With animals it cannot, due to the communication barrier. Moreover, the inability of an animal to articulate its case means that a strong defense could not be shaped, and the animal would have to be convicted due to an inability to disprove the charges levied against it.

I mean look at the recent plethora of crimes concerning babies, and small children who don’t have the facilities yet to plead their case, and yet it is still deemed a crime worth prosecuting.

Care to link to some? I don't know of too many babies engaging on homicide. Victimhood can be observed, but innocence cannot be proven.

Yet should an animal be pardoned for doing what a human would do if exposed to such an environment? No. I can’t say they should. Rescued animals, that are rehabilitated and the sense of trust are reestablished tend to make excellent companions. Sadly those ones that kill, not that I can be sure without knowing if actual studies were performed here to prove this indefinitely or if it is just another human irrational phobia, are more likely to repeat the act with less provocation, with the knowledge that they can. It is proven to me as far as repeat offenders goes that humans that kill or commit violent crimes don’t learn not to and are all the more likely to repeat such acts so why not put the animals out of their misery? The lame reasoning for this, it inhumane…

I think it is very humane. What could possibly be more humane than saving human lives? Animals are property, and do not have a right to life. And certainly, even if they did, once they have assaulted a human being without justification, then any right they may have had is waived by safety concerns.

Universal right, animal/human/plant are alive and will do anything to survive, that is what the base programming boils down to. Plants will slowly strangle other plants to have at the sunlight, animals will kill for obvious reasons, humans will sit on their butts all day thinking they are the best thing ever. Each has a right to go about their lives as they see fit, whether just surviving or dominating the planet, who is strongest prevails.

I hope you realize that with that you've just acknowledged that my line of thinking is entirely correct.

Some will loose, as life isn’t about being fair, or just or moral. Humans have established this concept that there are consequences for your actions, and sure there are, but they are interfering on a level that can be thought of as dangerous because of this silly concept of karma and god. It’s simpler than that, there are winners and losers, and poor losers. We complicate the matter with the idea of revenge and justice, war and our criminal reform system; we blow the whole picture all out of proportion in our search for morality

If by complicate you mean improve in a logical way, then I agree. It is in our best interest to protect our own lives and our property. Thus, we developed a series of laws and methods of enforcement to that in a way not seen in lesser species. Our justice system and society in general has room for improvement, but in contrast to that which is exhibited by inferior species, I think we've done a damn good job. I very much like the idea of laws based around justice.

For your cattle ranchers, I have had more than one personal snarling match, particularly the ones attacking wolves unprovoked

And that is your right. But by the same token, it is their right to own, slaughter, and sell for profit, any and all property they own, including animals. As the wolves lack owners, we can only expect the ranchers to act in their own best interest, and take steps to ensure that their livelihood goes unharmed.

Big beef their, however I defend their right to raise cattle (that are destructive to the environment, not quite as bad as sheep) as food as we are omnivores and eat a large variety of foods.

If animals do not have a right to life, how can they have any rights at all? That is undoubtedly the most fundamental right, and the one from which all others stem.

I’m not going to give a wolf a citation for feeding itself. (Wolves, who have never ever been documented as killing a human being) Why would I the rancher? Or the chicken keeper? (who if you know anything about farm life, which I truly doubt would know you should be jumping up and down more about justifying the appalling conditions chickens live in)

I am familiar with the conditions of chickens. I've seen videos and read articles. But that doesn't matter, because like all other animals they are property. They have no rights. It is our species that must come first.

My system does not screw him, my system acknowledges his right. Your system completely removing any right at all to interact with animals would place him on the wrong side of the law.

Umm, no. My system would remove the government from matters of personal jurisdiction. Recognizing that animals are property, I suggest we act accordingly by removing their rights, and act only with the interests of man in mind.

[alizardsbet]

I concede the vocabulary exchange, I don’t concede the degree of eliminating rights based on the supposed value of human life. What I was referring to was still aiming toward explaining what is living in close quarters in an interspecies relationship, with the benefit of one or both parties. And human beings are living on that on an intercontinental level. However, as we are conscious we are also aware of the fact that we are doing it. We may think we are better for it, but if we let selfishness rule us entirely will future generations be able to reap the benefits of what such established relationships bring to the table of mankind? I can’t say as it would. And being pro human life on a social scale and not a fundamental individualist how can you not consider such acts to be anything but?

A piece of property still must be afforded some respect. If you destroy it, which I can’t argue is your right, what does that do? Other than destroy a thing, which can not be replaced. You are saying a life, an animal life is of the same value and as easily replaced as a video game. Not true. Nor are our resources easily replaceable either. I propose an idea of community property (or the closest description to it), as one individual may yes not use the animal, but it does not give that particular individual the right to destroy what may benefit the group because that animal can not be seen as useful to itself. Yet I am not suggesting that life can be owned as property, it can only be managed. If it is not managed correctly, then all loose. In part you are suggesting we need laws to explain this to the intelligent homo-sapiens, so they can act accordingly. Which is to say, again, that I argue against the idea of imposing laws one way or another, I simply argue that this is not a judicial matter but a matter above that. Life changes, and if we set in stone procedures to follow it does not allow us to think freely and adjust to changing times, as most people commonly refer to old moldy texts, instead of present facts at hand.

Something being rare is obviously more valuable to something that is typically more common, and so the scales tip and dip depending on the situation. Besides, there are already laws in place that permit or don’t that rancher from shooting stray animals, or protect their property. There are procedures already in place to prevent direct action of violence. Besides, those animals are already considered property of the gov’t, not unlike we are owned by the gov’t as its citizens. We belong to a collective the animals belong to the collective community of this planet, so in a sense it’s just a matter of being polite and considerate. Think of it this way, there are no laws dictating to a farmer how he must grow his vegetables or raise his cattle, it is common sense how you are to proceed. My argument again is that there should be no gov’t interference one way or another, as you said you did not think it right to interfere with your hunting or choosing not to, so I agree. So arguing that an animal has no right is the same as interfering.

I have not conceded the pt of what you propose as being correct. You asked me to explain my concept of universal right, and I did. However, I also cited the small fact that we are conscious in our environment and that so far no evidence has provided to prove that an animal is accursed as we are. As a result we can’t go about killing every living thing on this planet, it wouldn’t serve any benefit for ourselves, it might even be self defeating. So we must endlessly debate moral prudence, except nothing ever really gets resolved.

“How does an animal have any rights, if not the right to life?” Well on a personal note, I guess that is a little contradicting, but then again you are talking to someone who also doesn’t look at human beings as being the wonderful creatures that you have put them on a pedestal as being. Let me see if I can explain that. We are animals, animals kill for food. The rancher is doing just that. Does that mean I don’t think an animal has a right to life, it does and it has fulfilled its purpose as to live, possibly reproduce, and then die. An animal also has a right to death, as do humans, but some people forget that as being one of the more sacred passages of right.

By annihilating all things as I have said, to make more room for more of us is not necessarily beneficial to human kind. Kids that grow up with pets, at least the ones that don’t go about torturing them, are in part more respectful and courteous of life, and have a better grasp at responsibility. Eliminating everything that isn’t steel, concrete and glass can not in your opinion be beneficial to the quality of human life. I mean yes we now have the technology to develop gray forests, that are silent and produce oxygen, but while that benefits us on a base level, it does not promote mental health.

Explanations. People always want explanations, what are you going to do with it once I give it to you? Argue some more? No, only kidding. Let’s see… Have you ever seen an abused animal? Have you ever interacted with a human being previously tortured? There is a candor about them that is unmistakable. This thing, I was talking about earlier concerning conditioning, they are conditioned to a certain reaction, we already have a default set of reactions, introduce the stimulation you get a reaction. These reactions can range from a hormonal shift, to chemical, to a very bad, very nasty and all too often fatal physical action. There are means to prove this. An animal that senses its tormentors have certain varying degrees of cowering, loosing bodily functions, or turning savagely violent. These actions can be validated with the physical evidence of past abuse, to circumstantial witness correspondence. I am not trying to make a case however.

I don’t know about the baby thing, it was more a victims perspective of being able to accuse and the accused being able to confront their accuser. I am sure if I really wanted to dig up evidence of a four year old shooting someone I can. A four year old in theory might have some grasp of language but it lacks the reasoning, and mind set to prove coherently that there was no form of intent implied in its innocent actions. Does this mean I excuse the kid? I could, I am programmed to sympathize with young cute things, I don’t however reason based on my own evidence think I could permit the thing to go on living, as it has killed, and getting off on it means it might grow up to think life is that easy. There have been cases where kids as young as 6 have taken a gun to school and killed their teacher and classmates, were they in complete comprehension of their actions? Not likely. Yet they can talk…

[swivel]

Great debate, you two.

Umm, no. My system would remove the government from matters of personal jurisdiction. Recognizing that animals are property, I suggest we act accordingly by removing their rights, and act only with the interests of man in mind.

gprime, wouldn't you concede that many of the exceptions pointed out by alizardsbet are the times when mankind's interests coincide with the animal's?

I think one of the gulfs between the two of you is invisibly bridged. Most of the examples that alizardsbet uses to prove her points are most likely arguments in YOUR favor as well. For instance, the health of a pet-owner later in life is an example of how a human's interests align with the animal's. Abusing an animal has deleterious effects for the abuser, as well as the abused.

For this reason, you can maintain the superior nature of man's intellect while still taking into account the effects our actions have on lesser creatures. Primarily because a system set up by us which condones animal abuse could have negative psychological consequences for the entire race. The mechanisms built up via evolution for empathy and compassion are not easily ignored. For our own health, as a race, we HAVE to mitigate the suffering of creatures that sense pain. Only justifying it when the ends outweigh the means.

That means animal testing, but no rusty cages, and keeping the animals in communal states, and not isolated. A very common example when the needs of three systems align: The psychological health of the animal, the psychological health of the scientists and their peers, and the health of the data collected in the experiment, which could be upset by the stress induced in the animals by placing them in an environment too far removed from the norm.

There is a line that pro-choice fanatics cross that make them seem to be pro-abortion. As well, there is a line that pro-human fanatics cross that makes them seem anti-animal. It need not be so.

[gprime]

I concede the vocabulary exchange, I don’t concede the degree of eliminating rights based on the supposed value of human life. What I was referring to was still aiming toward explaining what is living in close quarters in an interspecies relationship, with the benefit of one or both parties. And human beings are living on that on an intercontinental level. However, as we are conscious we are also aware of the fact that we are doing it. We may think we are better for it, but if we let selfishness rule us entirely will future generations be able to reap the benefits of what such established relationships bring to the table of mankind? I can’t say as it would. And being pro human life on a social scale and not a fundamental individualist how can you not consider such acts to be anything but?

All other species act in the best interest of their own kind. Be it through pack behavior, sharing of food, or otherwise, a common trend emerges. Animals act with the goal of advancing their own kind, with no regard for other species. Why then should humans act differently? If you're talking about selfishness, on a species level, it makes perfect sense. Among humans is another, and entirely different matter.

A piece of property still must be afforded some respect.

Well no, it doesn't have to be. By definition, property is something owned. Therefore, it is the will of the owner that matters, and nothing else. If the owner doesn't see fit to respect his property, then so be it. Animals are property, and so this applies to them too.

If you destroy it, which I can’t argue is your right, what does that do? Other than destroy a thing, which can not be replaced. You are saying a life, an animal life is of the same value and as easily replaced as a video game. Not true.

You and I will simply not ever agree on that point. I see animals as property, whereas you see them as living beings entitled to certain things. In terms of the financial worth, an animal typically exceeds a video game, but in terms of general value, there is nothing that makes an animal of greater worth.

Nor are our resources easily replaceable either. I propose an idea of community property (or the closest description to it), as one individual may yes not use the animal, but it does not give that particular individual the right to destroy what may benefit the group because that animal can not be seen as useful to itself.

So we should ignore the Constitution, the very notion of individual liberty, and the fundamentals of capitalism to ensure animals have better lives? Comminity property cannot be a reality, nor should it even be considered desirable or otherwise worthy of consideration.

Yet I am not suggesting that life can be owned as property, it can only be managed. If it is not managed correctly, then all loose. In part you are suggesting we need laws to explain this to the intelligent homo-sapiens, so they can act accordingly. Which is to say, again, that I argue against the idea of imposing laws one way or another, I simply argue that this is not a judicial matter but a matter above that. Life changes, and if we set in stone procedures to follow it does not allow us to think freely and adjust to changing times, as most people commonly refer to old moldy texts, instead of present facts at hand.

What? Are you saying that laws need to be fluid? If so, they clearly are. I think the end of slavery is a pretty solid example in that regard. But that doesn't mean we should abandon rational laws in favor of seemingly humane, but truthfully dangerous laws, including those that afford rights to animals. Already too many legal rights are granted to them.

Something being rare is obviously more valuable to something that is typically more common, and so the scales tip and dip depending on the situation. Besides, there are already laws in place that permit or don’t that rancher from shooting stray animals, or protect their property. There are procedures already in place to prevent direct action of violence.

Nobody is denying the existance of laws covering that. My point is that were animals to be treated as equals, they would be bound by the same non-trespassing laws as humans, which they would not be able to follow, thus endangering their lives.

Besides, those animals are already considered property of the gov’t, not unlike we are owned by the gov’t as its citizens.

Much as it might appear to be the case given the current state of the nation, people are not owned by the government. A more apt way of putting it would be to equate the government with the mafia, and the citizens as those being forced to pay protection fees.

We belong to a collective the animals belong to the collective community of this planet, so in a sense it’s just a matter of being polite and considerate. Think of it this way, there are no laws dictating to a farmer how he must grow his vegetables or raise his cattle, it is common sense how you are to proceed. My argument again is that there should be no gov’t interference one way or another, as you said you did not think it right to interfere with your hunting or choosing not to, so I agree. So arguing that an animal has no right is the same as interfering.

No, it isn't. A right must be enshrined in the law, specifically in this nation through the Constitution. Otherwise, it is not a fundamental right. Passing laws that grant animals rights is exactly the type of governmental intrusion I'm objecting to. Any laws regarding how an owner treats his property is a violation of the person's rights. And as it is only man that matters, my concern lies there.

I have not conceded the pt of what you propose as being correct. You asked me to explain my concept of universal right, and I did. However, I also cited the small fact that we are conscious in our environment and that so far no evidence has provided to prove that an animal is accursed as we are. As a result we can’t go about killing every living thing on this planet, it wouldn’t serve any benefit for ourselves, it might even be self defeating. So we must endlessly debate moral prudence, except nothing ever really gets resolved.

So humans can only act in their own interest? If so, we had better ban quite a number of currently legal things, including candy, alcohol, video games, knives, and so forth. Humans should act in their own interest, but have no obligation to do so. Thus, even if harm might come from it, people have a right to kill animals they own. Of course, even in such a case, some animals would live, as there is money to be made in ensuring that certain ones live.

“How does an animal have any rights, if not the right to life?” Well on a personal note, I guess that is a little contradicting, but then again you are talking to someone who also doesn’t look at human beings as being the wonderful creatures that you have put them on a pedestal as being.

I'm not saying humans are wonderful. In fact, I'm greatly misanthropic, and hold almost all the other members of my species in very low regard. But that doesn't mean that I'd even have the chutzpah to suggest that animals were on a same, or even similar level, and therefore could in any way be allowed to impose upon the rights of man.

Let me see if I can explain that. We are animals, animals kill for food. The rancher is doing just that. Does that mean I don’t think an animal has a right to life, it does and it has fulfilled its purpose as to live, possibly reproduce, and then die. An animal also has a right to death, as do humans, but some people forget that as being one of the more sacred passages of right.

Right to death? Death is the natural end to life, and not something we can revoke as we see fit. It is not a right, as much as it is a reality.

By annihilating all things as I have said, to make more room for more of us is not necessarily beneficial to human kind. Kids that grow up with pets, at least the ones that don’t go about torturing them, are in part more respectful and courteous of life, and have a better grasp at responsibility.

As far as I know, Bill Gates didn't grow up with a pet, and still turned out to be responsible. I know that I never had a pet, and I too am responsible. There might be value in having a pet, and I'm not objecting to people owning them. I am merely suggesting that being property, the animal lacks rights, and as such, may be treated in whatever way the owner sees fit.

Eliminating everything that isn’t steel, concrete and glass can not in your opinion be beneficial to the quality of human life. I mean yes we now have the technology to develop gray forests, that are silent and produce oxygen, but while that benefits us on a base level, it does not promote mental health.

I don't think I ever called for that. However, I'm not the type that would care if the rainforests of South America all burned to the ground. I would rather see them privatized and exploited for business purposes, but as I don't own them, what happens to them is not my concern.

Explanations. People always want explanations, what are you going to do with it once I give it to you? Argue some more? No, only kidding. Let’s see… Have you ever seen an abused animal? Have you ever interacted with a human being previously tortured? There is a candor about them that is unmistakable. This thing, I was talking about earlier concerning conditioning, they are conditioned to a certain reaction, we already have a default set of reactions, introduce the stimulation you get a reaction. These reactions can range from a hormonal shift, to chemical, to a very bad, very nasty and all too often fatal physical action. There are means to prove this. An animal that senses its tormentors have certain varying degrees of cowering, loosing bodily functions, or turning savagely violent. These actions can be validated with the physical evidence of past abuse, to circumstantial witness correspondence.

You believe that to be sufficient for a just court case? If you were on trial, and could not in any capacity involve yourself in your own defense, would you find that fair? Of course not. And if animals are to be granted these rights, then surely their needs would be no different. The problem is that reality isn't condusive to that.

I am not trying to make a case however.

So you didn't just write that past paragraph?

I don’t know about the baby thing, it was more a victims perspective of being able to accuse and the accused being able to confront their accuser. I am sure if I really wanted to dig up evidence of a four year old shooting someone I can. A four year old in theory might have some grasp of language but it lacks the reasoning, and mind set to prove coherently that there was no form of intent implied in its innocent actions. Does this mean I excuse the kid? I could, I am programmed to sympathize with young cute things, I don’t however reason based on my own evidence think I could permit the thing to go on living, as it has killed, and getting off on it means it might grow up to think life is that easy. There have been cases where kids as young as 6 have taken a gun to school and killed their teacher and classmates, were they in complete comprehension of their actions? Not likely. Yet they can talk…

And yet, these kids can stand trial. Two week old babies don't kill people. Young kids that do, by the time they are able to, can quite typically speak. So while they might not be fully mentally developed, they can still involve themselves in their own defense. At the end of the day though, trials have to occur, whether they can understand what is going on or not. Knowing how poorly that works out with humans, do you think the results would somehow be better with stupider animals?

[gprime]

Swivel, I don't mind coming off anti-animal. I am not, in the same way that I'm not anti-computer. In my mind, the two are essentially the same. Each has utilitarian value and a practical worth that can be ascribed to it. Thus, one would think that it would be in the best interest of the owner to treat their property, be it an animal or a computer, quite well, so that they could get the most out of it. However, what people should do and what they will do differ. And because ultimately the animals are property, I don't think the law is any more justified in sheltering it from abuse or destruction than it is for a computer.

You speak of the potential impact on the whole race, or as I assume you meant more broadly, species. That might be fine in theory. But do you honestly believe that we have an obligation to ignore our own interests to serve the interests of our fellow man? I certainly don't. Similarly, while evolution might instill certain elements into our species, we cannot force others to accept them and act as such. At the end of the day, people aren't obligated to each other or to animals. While they can choose to be, there is nothing automatic or universally true about it.

[dop]

Man, I have nothing to add but im loving this debate.

[alizardsbet]

Dear I am not trying to convince you one way or another, I am simply providing an alternative opinion to be a direct contrast and therefore highlight your position, as I do think this conversation is interesting for the most part. So no worries, I am not out to convert you. I am here simply to hear what you might have to say, you put it out there, let’s see why. Shall we?

"All other species act in the best interest of their own kind." Not true, animals as you keep referring to them, act for their self interest, which is very primitive. No animal acts in regard to its species as a collective. It has no need to consider its actions and what might happen to future generations. That is something only human beings can do. The so precious intellect of human beings is only set apart from the animal kingdom is because we are conscious in our environment. This relatively unique facet of human kind does not set us above nature’s mechanics, it only makes us aware of nature’s magic. *cough* And why yes we can act with self serving intent to satisfy base needs of the present moment (on a level with an animal) does not mean we actually go to honor the “gift” we’ve been given. To act thus, without proper consideration for the future, and for that compassion is to be as primitive as the lowly animal you suggest yourself, or your fellow kind being so far above. That we have an option to go the route of excellence and choose not to is in my humble opinion even lower than an animal. Our so precious intellect binds us to our environment; it does not set us above it.

My dear sir, I will cite that roman’s who kept slaves, which were considered less than legal citizens it was actually illegal to kill them. Barbarians that were not considered evolved enough to be human, that had no civil status what so ever were afforded the respect to not be killed by their owners. This was a consideration for life. It was a law. It was a law that was not enforced, but it was a law, and there were penalties on rare occasion that were enforced depending on the circumstance that liberty considered. Nor were they allowed to excessively torture, or not properly tend their slaves, their property.

Heh, I am not ignoring the constitution. I might be in direct opposition of it right to exist, (as I am more that laws need to be non exisistent but acknowledge the fact that that is not likely going to be possible in this reality so am trying to be reasonable) however here it serves to preserve both our rights, as you see fit to bury one of ours, as you have taken the position for stronger liberties and more individual accountability how is adding one more law onto those 100 year old books, with 1000s of laws going to guarantee you more liberty? What should happen should you change your mind? (I am not saying you should, but it is your right to do so) How by giving your right to choose and that of millions of your kind’s innate liberties to choose does that relieve you of the burden of the task of caring when you give up your right to gov’t control? Preserving your choice, maybe on a personal level I can concede, but it would persecute all others who would not. And as you have taken a bit of an extreme pt of view perhaps, I can say such callous hearts are in the minority in this population at least on the surface.

Right is not something that should be told you by some higher authority, it should be something you should have the intelligence to decide for yourself. That you put so much awe in big brother is something I don’t feel comfortable addressing at the moment. Again, I just don’t understand how putting a law that strips said insignificant object of rights to exist and be as it is real… to be the answer. That’s like taking your video game and having a law made up that says it can’t have the right to vote. Why would you do that? I mean yes, our technology is getting smarter by the day… but am I going to afford a machine human rights to participate in said society, as one of us… hell no. And the same is true of animals, as I stated in the very beginning, it is insulting to both parties, to pretend. But life is life. I am not going to ask you to have a baby, or that I should have my breasts surgically removed so we can be perfectly equal. Nothing is so. There are qualifying terms to participate in society, especially human, you have to meet those requirements, if you don’t you can’t play. Simple.

By the way privatizing does not work. Already lands have been lost that were bought with that specific intent in mind. Were later confiscated by the gov’t or put in trust, and then later sold to development companies. There was a farm stink a couple of months ago.

You can’t kill a trespasser in less they are trying to kill you, and in some places not even then. “Thank you random chance I have been born in the south!” You can call the police, or animal control. You just can’t shoot anyone these days… well in less you are the gov’t. That, is something I am strongly opposed to because I do think you should have the right to defend your property any way you see fit. Aren’t you glad there are laws that prevent trigger happy psychos like me from getting paranoid and shooting out in the dark?

“Death is the natural end to life, and not something we can revoke as we see fit. It is not a right, as much as it is a reality.” Exactly. It is reality that animals die for food. It is reality that animals kill. It is reality that death comes for us all. It is reality people kill for some pretty stupid reasons, and for that should be handled with great caution, as the push of one shiny red button could kill us all. Humans need boundaries, not the rest of the world, we are the only species out there that in our great intellect would actively pursue the complete destruction of our species. We need laws in regards to protecting ourselves from each other. Not some silly conspiracy of animal that wants to president.

The pet theory isn’t something that is true for all cases, I never said it was. You will find I do not ever lean 100% on a topic one way or another. I am simply showing that such is likely to garner a better behaved individual that is sane, and will not go about masquerading as a serial killer, or some other not so nice person.

“I don't think I ever called for that. However, I'm not the type that would care if the rainforests of South America all burned to the ground. I would rather see them privatized and exploited for business purposes, but as I don't own them, what happens to them is not my concern.”

If the rain forests burns… just curious… how are you going to breathe? If the gov’t has to create those little gray forests I was talking about to continue to produce oxygen what do you think that will do? That’s like giving the gov’t all the guns… you just don’t want to do that. I am just curious though, as you do concede not to be entirely hard nose on this what you are you suggesting would be fair…just or right?

“And yet, these kids can stand trial.”

Yah, but sir when they stand trial it has the great potential to have a very bad impact upon cross examination. Depending, yes on the trial and what other evidence is provided. But I again, maintain testimony is not exactly necessary. And I don’t want to go look up some criminal that was not sane, or was badly wounded upon capture, or was retarded or something like that to prove my pt that why yes it is not fair that they can’t verbally articulate or make a lame attempt at doing so to defend their claim of innocence of wrong doing, but just simply could stand trial. You would do better at this argument if you looked at in matter of a jury of your peers. Now that is a circus court for prime time tv.

[alizardsbet]

Gprime, sorry, i did not mean to go on like that. It was not my intent, and i am going to shut up now. that was terribly rude, and will try in the future not to do that again.

[gprime]

Not true, animals as you keep referring to them, act for their self interest, which is very primitive. No animal acts in regard to its species as a collective.

On a species level, that is true. But think of bands of chimps, how one will sacrifice itself to defend the rest. Clearly, animals on some level act selflessly.

It has no need to consider its actions and what might happen to future generations. That is something only human beings can do. The so precious intellect of human beings is only set apart from the animal kingdom is because we are conscious in our environment. This relatively unique facet of human kind does not set us above nature’s mechanics, it only makes us aware of nature’s magic.

Right, it doesn't set us above. And that is why we too should act in the interest of our own species rather than that of others. We are a part of the system, and ought not behave otherwise.

And why yes we can act with self serving intent to satisfy base needs of the present moment (on a level with an animal) does not mean we actually go to honor the “gift” we’ve been given. To act thus, without proper consideration for the future, and for that compassion is to be as primitive as the lowly animal you suggest yourself, or your fellow kind being so far above. That we have an option to go the route of excellence and choose not to is in my humble opinion even lower than an animal.

Perhaps. But what matters is that humans can, IF they so choose, make sound choices grounded in logical consideration of the realities, consequences, and future impact.

Our so precious intellect binds us to our environment; it does not set us above it.

Right. And just as all other animals manipulate their environment with their own personal and communal gain in mind, so too should we. Otherwise, we would be acting "above it".

My dear sir, I will cite that roman’s who kept slaves, which were considered less than legal citizens it was actually illegal to kill them. Barbarians that were not considered evolved enough to be human, that had no civil status what so ever were afforded the respect to not be killed by their owners. This was a consideration for life. It was a law. It was a law that was not enforced, but it was a law, and there were penalties on rare occasion that were enforced depending on the circumstance that liberty considered. Nor were they allowed to excessively torture, or not properly tend their slaves, their property.

You are ignoring an important point though. The slaves were people. Whether or not they legally qualified as property, they remained part of the same species. The same doesn't hold true of other animals. But if you want to cite Rome, go back and review laws surrounding how animals could be treated. You'll find essentially nothing, as the state knew that it was not their place to be involved.

Heh, I am not ignoring the constitution. I might be in direct opposition of it right to exist, (as I am more that laws need to be non exisistent but acknowledge the fact that that is not likely going to be possible in this reality so am trying to be reasonable)

So you want anarchy? Then how does that protect the rights of anybody? Neither animals nor people would be assured of anything. That would do far less to protect animals that what I've suggested.

however here it serves to preserve both our rights, as you see fit to bury one of ours, as you have taken the position for stronger liberties and more individual accountability how is adding one more law onto those 100 year old books, with 1000s of laws going to guarantee you more liberty?

How am I calling for new laws? We currently have laws that govern animal ownership and treatment. I would suggest repealing all of them, not passing further legislation. I am on the side of personal liberty, not governmental intrusion.

hat should happen should you change your mind? (I am not saying you should, but it is your right to do so) How by giving your right to choose and that of millions of your kind’s innate liberties to choose does that relieve you of the burden of the task of caring when you give up your right to gov’t control? Preserving your choice, maybe on a personal level I can concede, but it would persecute all others who would not

No, not at all. Please tell me in what way I am taking away the rights of any PERSON. Nobody is being asked to give up liberty to the government. Quite the opposite, as I think I've made more than clear throughout this discussion.

And as you have taken a bit of an extreme pt of view perhaps, I can say such callous hearts are in the minority in this population at least on the surface.

You're right. A respect for liberty, and a desire for laws that protect that, puts me in the extreme minority. But popularity and correctness are not always synonymous. In this case, they are polar opposites.

Right is not something that should be told you by some higher authority, it should be something you should have the intelligence to decide for yourself.

Well, that is untrue. Certain things are rights, and government exists to protect them, even if in practice ours fails to. But what a person decides is their right is not automatically valid. For example, a member of the Nation of Islam might believe that it is his right to burn down houses owned by white people. Does that make it true? Certainly not. Morals are relative; rights are not.

That you put so much awe in big brother is something I don’t feel comfortable addressing at the moment.

Do you understand anything I've ever said? I'm a vocal critic of government, and want it to be LESS involved in our lives. That includes in protecting certain "rights" of animals.

Again, I just don’t understand how putting a law that strips said insignificant object of rights to exist and be as it is real… to be the answer. That’s like taking your video game and having a law made up that says it can’t have the right to vote. Why would you do that? I mean yes, our technology is getting smarter by the day… but am I going to afford a machine human rights to participate in said society, as one of us… hell no. And the same is true of animals, as I stated in the very beginning, it is insulting to both parties, to pretend. But life is life.

See, but that isn't true. Not all lives are equal. The life of a fruit fly has objectively less value than that of a human infant. Similarly, I would assert that a life like Albert Einstein had far more value than some militant Islamic suicide bomber. You take a utilitarian approach, which might be fine, if you limited it to humans. But by including animals, you prove youself to be even less rational than Kant (who, whether he likes it or not, was one).

I am not going to ask you to have a baby, or that I should have my breasts surgically removed so we can be perfectly equal. Nothing is so. There are qualifying terms to participate in society, especially human, you have to meet those requirements, if you don’t you can’t play. Simple.

And by the same token, there are requirments to be considered a life that is entitled to rights. One such qualification is belonging to the correct species. Otherwise, it is property.

By the way privatizing does not work. Already lands have been lost that were bought with that specific intent in mind. Were later confiscated by the gov’t or put in trust, and then later sold to development companies. There was a farm stink a couple of months ago.

Privatization always works. The problem is that you and I have different expectations. You want the private owners to preserve a piece of land, or to ensure open access, or otherwise avoid interfering with nature. I realize the right to commercialize it, and applaud the way land is used for profit.

You can’t kill a trespasser in less they are trying to kill you, and in some places not even then.

The specifics vary based on state, with some just requiring you to feel threatened. This though, is hardly the point. Property owners should have the right to shoot trespassing animals without giving it a second thought.

“Thank you random chance I have been born in the south!”

What? If you're implying that I'm a redneck, I would point out that I was born in Michigan, and raised in Canada and New England, not the South.

You can call the police, or animal control. You just can’t shoot anyone these days… well in less you are the gov’t.

Therein lies the problem.

It is reality that animals die for food. It is reality that animals kill. It is reality that death comes for us all. It is reality people kill for some pretty stupid reasons, and for that should be handled with great caution, as the push of one shiny red button could kill us all. Humans need boundaries, not the rest of the world, we are the only species out there that in our great intellect would actively pursue the complete destruction of our species. We need laws in regards to protecting ourselves from each other. Not some silly conspiracy of animal that wants to president.

I won't debate with you on that point, since I see the ONLY function of goverment as being protecting the citizens from their fellow man. That does nothing though to address the goat scenario I made mention of, as equality would make that a possibility.

The pet theory isn’t something that is true for all cases, I never said it was. You will find I do not ever lean 100% on a topic one way or another. I am simply showing that such is likely to garner a better behaved individual that is sane, and will not go about masquerading as a serial killer, or some other not so nice person.

Fair enough. But until I read of a scientific study (if you know of one, please do share) that not only shows a correlation, but proves causation, I remain unconvinced.

If the rain forests burns… just curious… how are you going to breathe? If the gov’t has to create those little gray forests I was talking about to continue to produce oxygen what do you think that will do?

Well, as you would learn in a basic biology course, over 90% of earth's oxygen is produced aquatically. Thus, the end of the rainforests, wouldn't matter.

Yah, but sir when they stand trial it has the great potential to have a very bad impact upon cross examination. Depending, yes on the trial and what other evidence is provided. But I again, maintain testimony is not exactly necessary.

Testimony isn't. But aiding in your own defense is. Animals cannot truly do that.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Earlier today, I was looking into the College Scholars program offered by the university I'll be attending, as I would need to apply during the second semester of freshman year. In doing so, I came across a list of past speakers brought in through the program, and saw that Peter Singer was among them. For those unfamiliar, this nutjob authored the book Animal Liberation, and founded The Great Ape Project, whose stated goal is to have the UN adopt a resolution ensuring certain rights to said animals. As such, it seemed as good a time as ever to discuss the matter, since it tends to crop up every so often, whenever a member of the fringe-left manages to get media coverage for this insane cause.

The notion of animal liberation is a fundamentally flawed one. It assumes that animals have the intellectual wherewithal to function independent of human influence, and should therefore be treated on par with humans. Consumption or use in labor of animals would be prohibited. So too would animal ownership. In other words, they would typically be the legal equal of a human. Now, I imagine some animal lovers might, on a basic level, approve of the idea, and would equate speciesism with racism, as these fanatics so often do. Thus, we must consider the logic here:

• Animals cannot stand trial. If a wild bull gores a man to death, what will happen? As they do not speak any language understood outside their species, and cannot understand court procedures, much less conform to them, how can a defense be mounted?
• Animals cannot be jailed. If a trial cannot occur, how can they be jailed? And would you put them in the same jails as humans? That simply isn't realistic. You can't give a criminal a mountain lion for a cellmate. And separate prisons would just be another act of speciesism that the left would complain about.
• Animals cannot work. To get a job, paperwork needs to be completed, and contracts cannot be signed. How would a cow, or an owl, or any other animal do that? And, if they don't understand the terms of it, how can they be expected to follow it? What happens if they fail to meet the terms therein? How do you collect money from a monkey?
• Animals can't use money. Without a job, how is an animal to get money? And without money, the cannot contribute to the economy. They could only leech off of it, requiring government feeding and housing, as intrusion onto private property or theft from humans would be criminal.
• Animals can't pay taxes. Being unable to hold a job or make money, animals would be exempt from taxes, but would all require government handouts to stay alive, thus creating a massive tax burden on humans. Welfare and current social spending problems are bad enough. Do we really need to take it to a new level?
• Animals present legal issues. One example would be running for president. If a goat was born in the US, and the required documentation has been filed, can he become president? Or, since animal years are different from humans, how would you handle age of consent laws? How would animals even give consent? Or accuse somebody of rape?
• Animals aren't smart enough. Yes, people are stupid as hell. But even the dumbest among us surpasses the great minds among lesser species. Be they a mop jockey or a mentally retarded teenager, humans still have the intellectual edge.
• Animal owners would be the victims. Whether we're talking about loving dog owners who've spent $30,000 raising their dog, or cattle ranchers who depend on selling cows to feed their family, those who owned the animals lose. And for what logical purpose? For those with money involved, how are they to be compensated?
• Animals are essential to medical progress. Without being able to test breakthroughs on various animals, we would be exposing people to unwarranted risks, and limiting medical advancement. Clinical trials still have their place, but do we want humans exposed to unsafe medicine to begin with?

The fact is, animals are not intellectually capable of functioning on the same level as humans. They cannot enter into contracts, communicate with us, follow the law, or be held to the same standards. Their freedom would harm consumer food choice, as well as the bottom line of millions of Americans whose jobs revolve around meat. Add to that the damage done to medicine, and it becomes all the worse. That doesn't even begin to take into account the number of conveniences we would have to give up, such as leather shoes or fur on the inside of gloves.

Honestly? If I had never read this? I never would've known. Thank you.