Some scientists belive animals are just our experiments. Scientists belive that they could be used as raw materials and its wrong!

quote:

rights are a privilege only to those who have the moral and intellectual abilities to respect another's rights

These explanations all involve the limitations of language and our knowledge of what 'rights' mean in the sense of civilisation. Perhaps if you thought more widely, it would come to you that an animals rights cannot be dictated by a dictionary.

quote:

horse racing is not a sport for the jockey's who ride - I don't understand the athleticism of racing if your not the one running.

Have you ever ridden a horse? Perhaps if you had, you might understand.

quote:

When I said "boundaries," I didn't mean territory. Boundaries like mindless killing.

Neither did I.

quote:

I'm being difficult on purpose because the irony of telling humans they can't kill animals (it's unnatural) while allowing animals to kill humans (it's natural) is really getting to me.

I have no problem with humans killing animals. If they need to. If the human is threatened, protect yourself. If the human is hungry, feed yourself. This race doesn't respect life at all, and it should start.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
We need to set boundaries, clpo, because if we don't, we're going to have mass extinction on our hands. That's why we have hunting seasons and endangered species lists. You don't think that's a display of animal rights?

A lot of animals set their own boundaries anyway. Attacking of cattle and of humans are caused by one thing: human expansion. We're invading what they see as their territory. They assume that the marks other animals can clearly see, we can too. Need I expand? You're just looking at this with an impossibly closed mind, now.

When I said "boundaries," I didn't mean territory. Boundaries like mindless killing. Certain animal species practice infanticide: dominant males will often kill infants that are not their own in order to limit challenges to their dominance. If we're going to say humans can't kill animals just because we want to, someone should probably let those animal species know it's not cool to kill babies, right? I'm being difficult on purpose because the irony of telling humans they can't kill animals (it's unnatural) while allowing animals to kill humans (it's natural) is really getting to me.

Is that so? I never knew that. I remember the first time I hiked a mountain. I thought something similar. But how can we debate an abstract thing like beauty? It's not going to get anywhere.

quote:

but I do not doubt and I will believe they recognised and enjoyed the beauty.

I don't know, the first man to hike a mountain purely for the hell of it said immediately that men should not do such for it was a foolish endevour, against god, etc

so different world views result in different views of beauty in the world

I agree, no one went canoeing for fun, or hiked a mountain trail for the beauty, but I do not doubt and I will believe they recognised and enjoyed the beauty. If we're able to, how can they not be able to?

quote:

Because we can all really claim to know what they were thinking.

now your just trying to be dense and contrary. Surely you've studied history Shade, we know as closely as possible what their attitudes were by their actions, their records and what we know of their culture. The mongols for example worshiped the sky and earth but no mongol would have had the time to go out and frolic in the daisies, not if he wanted to live a long full life any way. Respect for nature and worship of nature are different then nature as entertainment/pleasure

Because we can all really claim to know what they were thinking.

What about the ancient Greek philosophers? Thats not so recent.

quote:

I understand the time frame you meant. I still stand by my statement.

Again speak to our ancestors about that, actual pure enjoyment of nature is a recent (small recent) thing, for a time when leisure is actually something we all can have.

quote:

Big Recent being several centuries dear and talk to the mongols about that, or some native tribes, or well just about any one back in the day. Nature was worshiped but it was part of survival, not enjoyment

I understand the time frame you meant. I still stand by my statement.

quote:

Not so. Nature has always been something of enjoyment and worship

Big Recent being several centuries dear and talk to the mongols about that, or some native tribes, or well just about any one back in the day. Nature was worshiped but it was part of survival, not enjoyment

As to rights, the key to rights for humans is being able to stand up for them (actual standing not required) but as soon as our wild brethren demand them I'll be the first to say they should have them

What you say does make sense, but it doesn't deny the fact that many cultures, older more than newer it seems, respected animals as equals, and believed they had rights. Why people don't think other living things have rights is similar to dehumanizing someone. They're less important than us, or rather, they don't have as much (insert noun here) as humans, so they don't deserve to have rights. Am I correct?

quote:

In recent years (in the big sense of recent) people have begun to enjoy wildlife as something other then a food source and so

Not so. Nature has always been something of enjoyment and worship.

quote:

what about the endangered species?

We're preserving them to help maintain the balance

quote:

That's pretty selfish if that's the only reason

No it's natural for a intelligent hunter. Shark numbers are kept low through starvation, as are other major predators. But man does not check it's numbers and so we must balance our food supply or fear overgrazing. Were we just sharks or tigers or wolves our numbers never would have grown so massively because we would have died off massively from overkilling the food source. Because we realise the consequences of over killing the wildlife, we reduce the numbers we are allowed to hunt to maintain the balance between ourselves, less intelligent predators and the prey. In recent years (in the big sense of recent) people have begun to enjoy wildlife as something other then a food source and so we must strike a greater balance so that those who wish to just view or wild brethren can do so with out problem (beyond of course our brethren not wishing to be seen). In addition we've started to boost the dwindling numbers of those species headed for extinction. this also is in the name of maintaining the balance. The world is like a gyroscope and man's lot now is to keep it spinning properly. Why did we draw such a lot in the universe? simple we broke it, now we have to fix it

That's pretty selfish if that's the only reason. And what about the endangered species?

quote:

We need to set boundaries, clpo, because if we don't, we're going to have mass extinction on our hands. That's why we have hunting seasons and endangered species lists. You don't think that's a display of animal rights?

No that's looking to keeping our food source at a proper level, the act of a intelligent predator that wishes to maintain it's prey

We need to set boundaries, clpo, because if we don't, we're going to have mass extinction on our hands. That's why we have hunting seasons and endangered species lists. You don't think that's a display of animal rights?

A lot of animals set their own boundaries anyway. Attacking of cattle and of humans are caused by one thing: human expansion. We're invading what they see as their territory. They assume that the marks other animals can clearly see, we can too. Need I expand? You're just looking at this with an impossibly closed mind, now.