WOW, PETA people really are crazy!

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you guys stopped and read the PETA homepage? These are not stuff people make up about them, it's actually on THEIR PAGE:

“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”

PETA-Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings


Read LOTS more insane ideas here:
http://www.peta.com/about/faq.asp

How can anyone with a brain endorse this organization? They are one of the best funded charities on the world with millions in revenue. stop donating you fools

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see one thing crazy about that webpage. However, I found your rant to be lunacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21

I think the point in the OP is rather innocuous as well, but PETA really is an awful organization.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Somebody please show me how an animal can accept a responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

First you show how a newborn human can accept responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what a right actually is. Newborns have no rights.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what a right actually is. Newborns have no rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see you explain your defintion and reasonning without looking ignorant and stupid.

[foal]

I'm not fond of the term "animal rights" either. I prefer to call myself anti animal cruelty or pro ethical treatment of animals rather than pro animal rights.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what a right actually is. Newborns have no rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see you explain your defintion and reasonning without looking ignorant and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paraphrased definition: A right is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another. The target against whom such a claim may be registered can be a single person, a group, a community, or (perhaps) all humankind. To comprehend any genuine right fully, therefore, we must know who holds the right, against whom it is held, and to what it is a right.

So a right can only be applied between two or more moral agents. Obviously, newborns cannot sue Bayer nor can any other human who is not fully aware. However, humans are of the same kind. So I can protect another human whether it's a newborn or a coma victim with my own rights.

So semantically speaking, a person or thing cannot have a right unless they can exercise it. Such a person must be able to make concious choices and moral judgements.

However, I would strike that "newborns have no rights" comment from my post if I could. I realize it is unecessary and provocative.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would strike that "newborns have no rights" comment from my post if I could. I realize it is unecessary and provocative.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not find this quote particulary offensive, but false.
Actually, your argumentation is neither stupid, nor ignorant, well done!
However, I still think you're wrong.
They have do have rights. For example, they have the right to live. This is the claim that they exercice against the rest of humankind. It means that no one is allowed to kill a newborn child.
They don't have to sue anyone. The state will se for them. What is interesting in this case is that it is the same for an adult, as a murdered adult can't personnaly press charges.
[ QUOTE ]
However, humans are of the same kind. So I can protect another human whether it's a newborn or a coma victim with my own rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a dubious idea. How do you protect a child with your own right? What rights do you actually exercise?

Your ideas are not stupid and similar arguments are often employed to discuss animal rights. However this ideas are irrlevant when discussing newborns or senile people for the simple reasons that theirs rights are guaranteed by our laws.

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
However, humans are of the same kind. So I can protect another human whether it's a newborn or a coma victim with my own rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
So I can transfer my rights to a non-moral agent so long as it qualifies as "human"? Who made up that rule?

I agree that this is largely irrelevant since the law recognizes that infants, having plenty of their own rights, do not need to borrow anybody else's.

But the larger issue is that any line of reasoning that relies on a black and white distinction between humans and other animals is doomed to fail eventually. This distinction is already being blurred by the creation of human-animal hybrids (more) (more). It's pretty clear that this line will continue to blur. Who knows what the ramifications of this will be, but concepts of "human rights" and "moral agents" will need to be rethought.

[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
This distinction is already being blurred by the creation of human-animal hybrids (more) (more).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a need to distinguish this from truly human chimerae, who have cells arising from more than one (human) zygote. In principle they're quite similar, but the bio-ethical controversy surrounding the one cries out for a proper term to distinguish the other.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I completely reject the idea that animals should have "rights".

To be given a right whether you're a dog or Canadian person, you need to accept reponsibilities that go along with that right.

Somebody please show me how an animal can accept a responsibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, we have rights to treat animals with ruthless cruelty? How is that responsible?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not fond of the term "animal rights" either. I prefer to call myself anti animal cruelty or pro ethical treatment of animals rather than pro animal rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was getting around to distinguishing between an animal rights supporter and an animal welfare supporter of which I am the latter.