Turn on thread page Beta

Do you belive in Animal rights watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you belive in Animal rights?
    Yes
    20
    27.78%
    No
    12
    16.67%
    I dont belive in Animals rights but im gainst cruelty to Animals
    40
    55.56%

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No

    There are bigger problems in the world. Lets solve the problems with our own specie before we look at others.

    Animal testing, I say go for it!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    Yes, but It could be argued that theres no way to kill an animal without it suffering, even if it just for a second.

    And since we don't technically need to eat animals to survive, I would class killing animals for food unnecessary suffering.
    You could indeed argue that, but if you look at what 'animal welfare' is you can see that there's no contradiction with believing in it and eating meat, which is what you suggested.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Miss-Brightside*)
    No

    There are bigger problems in the world. Lets solve the problems with our own specie before we look at others.

    Animal testing, I say go for it!
    It is possible to do both simultaneously.

    I still don't understand what you mean by rights if things like protection from cruelty don't count because its a "law" not a "right".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    Yes, but It could be argued that theres no way to kill an animal without it suffering, even if it just for a second.
    Well since they instantly knock them out with some kind of stunning device they don't suffer for that second, ok well maybe a millisecond as their brain is disabled
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    Thats a slightly contradictry statement? You believe in animal welfare but you'd quite happily see one slaughtered so you can have a nice tasty burger?

    I believe animals shouldn't be subjected to unnecessary suffering but I don't think they have rights.
    I believe in animals being allowed to eat other animals?

    Or do you think that should be banned?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    I believe in animals being allowed to eat other animals?

    Or do you think that should be banned?
    That isn't possible though is it...

    And even if it was, the animals aren't going to go "now the meat is gone from my diet, I need to eat more of xxx to get a healthy amount of vitamin B12" are they? It would result in more deaths.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MSB)
    You could indeed argue that, but if you look at what 'animal welfare' is you can see that there's no contradiction with believing in it and eating meat, which is what you suggested.
    Yes but eating meat is unnecessary suffering since humans don't need it to survive.

    Animal welfare believes in no unnecessary suffering

    So animal welfare should believe in not eating meat, I'm not saying it does though I'm just pointing out that according to its own definition humans shouldn't eat meat.

    Which is where I believe the contraction is. xD
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    That isn't possible though is it...

    And even if it was, the animals aren't going to go "now the meat is gone from my diet, I need to eat more of xxx to get a healthy amount of vitamin B12" are they? It would result in more deaths.
    Exactly.

    Hence why it was an absolutely ridiculous, yet oh so typical, statement for her to make.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I do believe in animal rights, but when you see young people/adults say "Awww thats awful" to an abandoned dog on an RSPCA advert you sometimes think..

    What about that starving child in Africa, who's bones are all visible? Why aren't people as sympathetic towards the child, but they are towards the dog?

    Personally, I think human rights should always come before animal rights. Animals here are fed better than people living in developing countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Miss-Brightside*)
    No

    There are bigger problems in the world. Lets solve the problems with our own specie before we look at others.

    Animal testing, I say go for it!
    I don't quite agree. You imply that we can't afford to divert attention to other species than our own. What's the reason? Not enough time? But we don't need everyone concentrating on the welfare of the human species and there seems to be no clear reason why it would help. In fact, we have the capabilities and resources (philosophers, other commentators) to do so.

    Another important reason to give attention to animal rights/welfare/whatever you want to call it, is that they seem to be the beings that suffer the most as a result of human actions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lulu*et*Moi)
    I do believe in animal rights, but when you see young people/adults say "Awww thats awful" to an abandoned dog on an RSPCA advert you sometimes think..

    What about that starving child in Africa, who's bones are all visible? Why aren't people as sympathetic towards the child, but they are towards the dog?

    Personally, I think human rights should always come before animal rights. Animals here are fed better than people living in developing countries.
    So when you saw them say "awwww" at the dog, did you turn around and quiz them on their thoughts of starving children and then they said "the dog is more important"?

    Didn't think so. It is perfectly possible to have humility to both your own species and a different species. Thats like saying you can't be sympathetic towards white people starving if you are towards black people starving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cal.)
    Well since they instantly knock them out with some kind of stunning device they don't suffer for that second, ok well maybe a millisecond as their brain is disabled
    You don't think chickens having their necks broken or cows having a captive bolt penetrate their brain causes them suffering?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any living person, being or thing can only have a right id it has a responsibility.

    Seeing as the overwhelming majority of animals have little or no responsibilites, therefore I find the concept of animals rights hilarious and the concept of human rights minus responsibilities that are not codified ridiculous.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitarphantom)
    I don't quite agree. You imply that we can't afford to divert attention to other species than our own. What's the reason? Not enough time? But we don't need everyone concentrating on the welfare of the human species and there seems to be no clear reason why it would help. In fact, we have the capabilities and resources (philosophers, other commentators) to do so.

    Another important reason to give attention to animal rights/welfare/whatever you want to call it, is that they seem to be the beings that suffer the most as a result of human actions.
    That's why third world poverty, hunger, people dying of prevantable diseases exist.

    I don't care about animals welfare, simple as. I'd rather put all resources into solving the problems I've mentioned above.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    You don't think chickens having their necks broken or cows having a captive bolt penetrate their brain causes them suffering?
    Well both are pretty much instantaneous so not really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    I believe in animals being allowed to eat other animals?

    Or do you think that should be banned?
    Yes I believe we should stop tigers and lions from easting meat and should just serve them salad :rolleyes:

    What a ridiculous statement to make. Humans can survive perfectly well without eating meat, wild animals or even domestic animals cant. Hence why were omnivores and their carnivores.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    Yes but eating meat is unnecessary suffering since humans don't need it to survive.

    Animal welfare believes in no unnecessary suffering

    So animal welfare should believe in not eating meat, I'm not saying it does though I'm just pointing out that according to its own definition humans shouldn't eat meat.

    Which is where I believe the contraction is. xD
    Maybe you mean paradox? There is no contradiction though. One thing is the treatment of X, another is the life of X. We may treat animals well and give them an almost or maybe even completely pain-free death. To argue against killing animals, you need to employ arguments relating to the value of the animal's life.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 为人民服务)
    I don't think there should be a international charter of animal rights. Different people should be allowed to practice what they see fit in accordance to their culture. Different cultures have different values on the treatment of animals. What one culture does may seem cruel to another but seems perfectly fine to the people within the culture.
    C CVXXVB XV BXC
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wildstarchild)
    What a ridiculous statement to make. Humans can survive perfectly well without eating plants, wild animals or even domestic animals cant. Hence why were omnivores and their herbivores.
    Does that work too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Animals shouldnt be treated with unessacary cruelty, as to do so is a reflection upon the perpertrator, however the idea of giving animals rights is ludicrous.

    Those advocating against their use in medicine or as food stuff are living on their own planet. Its entirely natural for one species to use another as food etc.

    I would say the likes of PETA and ALF are imbeciles, who need to sort their priorities out. For example PETA sent a remonstration to the leader of hamas in isreal for his use of a donkey in the bombing of an isreali cafe. No mention of the dead people, only that it was unethical to involve a donkey....
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.