WOW, PETA people really are crazy!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, so you agree we can skin them alive too.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, so please send them some $ and show your support.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, so please send them some $ and show your support.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're the former and I'm the latter and the difference is very wide.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I think that philosophically we need to distiguish rights from laws. Laws prevent people from doing certain things. Rights are an entitlement based on a duty. Maybe we should start a thread discussing this.

A lot of people here have these two concepts mixed up and interchanged.

If we are willing to have laws regarding the treatment of animals, that's one thing. If we want to give rights to animals, that's quite a different thing.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, so you agree we can skin them alive too.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are laws against that if you didn't know.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, so you agree we can skin them alive too.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are laws against that if you didn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can just as easily pass laws against skinning animals, too. So are you saying that you are only against skinning kids alive because of legal, not moral, issues?

[Peter666]

That movie is ugly on the surface, but I really don't think that animal suffered much pain, nor are animals capable of suffering much at all because they are irrational.

And here is my groundbreaking evidence: How many of you remember suffering pain as a baby? It is only when we reach the age of reason does one become aware of painful experiences and form a conscience. Why were all of us happy as young children? It must be a similar experience for the most advanced animals. Sentience doesn't seem to matter without sapience.

Having seen PETA and other animal rights literature, I also have a theory that animal rights people are a brand of fetishists. They seem to take a perverted pleasure in agonizing over animal cruelty, and are fascinated by the so-called tortures afflicted on animals. It seems to me that they need animals to suffer in order to justify their own existence, much like other unreasonable moralists.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
...nor are animals capable of suffering much at all because they are irrational.

And here is my groundbreaking evidence: How many of you remember suffering pain as a baby? It is only when we reach the age of reason does one become aware of painful experiences and form a conscience. Why were all of us happy as young children? It must be a similar experience for the most advanced animals. Sentience doesn't seem to matter without sapience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of long-term memory != incapable of suffering

It is frightening that a supposed "rational" sentient being like yourself believes that all other creatures are incapable of suffering. Given common sense biology, this belief is rather unsubstantiated.

Edit: Why does there always seem to be a correlation between the more fervently Christian, the more fervently one disregards the welfare and suffering of the rest of God's living creations?

[Peter666]

"Lack of long-term memory != incapable of suffering"

That is the only reasonable thing you said. What people view as "suffering" seems to be intimately linked with memory, intelligence, and rationality. Feelings like dread, loss and despair, which are the heights of human suffering cannot be felt by animals. Even physical pain requires a great sense of awareness of what is going on. We don't feel pain when unconcious. How concious is an animal really?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
"Lack of long-term memory != incapable of suffering"

That is the only reasonable thing you said. What people view as "suffering" seems to be intimately linked with memory, intelligence, and rationality. Feelings like dread, loss and despair, which are the heights of human suffering cannot be felt by animals. Even physical pain requires a great sense of awareness of what is going on. We don't feel pain when unconcious. How concious is an animal really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Conscious enough to feel pain. If you ignore this, you are either a liar or a retard, possibly both.