Babies and mentally disabled people are endowed rights under the Constitution. And in the case of the infants, they will eventually grow up to be able to fight for rights.
quote:
Just because they cannot ask for rights doesn't mean they don't deserve any at all.
Where did I say ask? I said fight. Last I checked, most dogs and cats can still cause bodily harm to humans. I'm talking about what those bears did.
Think about it: humans are very weak creatures compared to most of the animal kingdom. So why are we the dominant species on Earth? Our minds and our versatility, that's why. And if we're unique in that respect, why should we raise any inferior creatures--such as farm animals--to the same level? That's like taking a paraplegic kid with an IQ of 40 and saying he's exactly the same as Einstein. Not true.
That's what Mr. Jones said, but Napoleon pig and freinds soon had something to say about that.
Honorablecoalition.tripod.com Whereas;This message has hereby been proudly deemed racism and bigotry free by the Great and Honorable Coalition Against Racism. MMIV -Youthnoise's First Coalition.
If you're not willing to fight for your rights, you don't deserve any.
Then I guess infants and mentally disabled people shouldn't have rights either because they don't have the ability to fight for them. Now does that sound fair to you?
Just because they cannot ask for rights doesn't mean they don't deserve any at all. Think about this: Dogs and cats have never protested for anti-cruelty legislation, but they got it because of merciful people. Should dogs and cats be abused because they cannot speak like we do?
If you're not willing to fight for your rights, you don't deserve any. The same applies for animals.
See, I'm fairly sure that in a fight between a coop-full of pissed-off chickens and me, the chickens would win. So why don't they "rise up", per se, and rebel against the farmers? Hmm?
Starting over, this is how it works. In order to be a TRUE carnivore, plants are pretty much poisonous to it.
Name one animal, living or extinct, that could be poisoned by a non-poisonous, edible plant.
quote:
However, most things that are classified as carnivores are not technically carnivores in the sense that they eat meat, as they could go on without meat
A lot of carnivores can survive without meat, but as I pointed out with the big cats, they need the proteins in meat for good eye health. If you feed a tiger lettuce all it's life, it'll go blind. And the amount of lettuce you would need to feed it, in order to give its massive muscles enough energy to move like a normal tiger should, would rupture it's stomach. Large carnivores require massive amounts of calories and proteins and plants are just not enough. Omnivores are able to move their jaws from side to side, which allows them to effectively chew plant matter without choking on it. Carnivores can't do that. Their jaws only move up and down (with the exception of snakes).
quote:
there are lots of those, but in the sense the the vegetation would do them no good or even make them sick, there are NONE of those left on the planet.
I know that there are carnivores that could eat vegetation but I've never heard of any animal ever eating a regular non-poisonous plant and dying from it. If that ever happened to any animal, it was probably an alien from another planet. Every carnivore ever, could very well absorb nutrients from plants, but those nutrients wouldn't be enough to keep it alive for long.
Besides, I can't imagine a snake or alligator eating a plant. Nor would it ever happen.
Prove it. And I don't care about what your sister says, because she is obviously clueless.
According to her, I have misquoted her. Starting over, this is how it works. In order to be a TRUE carnivore, plants are pretty much poisonous to it. Even if it were to drop down dead the next moment from starvation, it would not eat a plant.
However, most things that are classified as carnivores are not technically carnivores in the sense that they eat meat, as they could go on without meat, and would, should the need arise (or they are domesticated to do so, such as a dog or a cat). They could physically remove the nutrients from the vegetation. However, the T-rex, for example, according to paleontologists could NOT remove the nutrition from the vegetation, thus it is not omnivorous.
So, the form of carnivore meaning meat eater (for main nutritional purposes, excluding special case instances), there are lots of those, but in the sense the the vegetation would do them no good or even make them sick, there are NONE of those left on the planet.
And besides, I'm REALLY not a vegetarian. I don't know how the dinosaurs died, but personally, just as a feeling, I don't think that they starved, so what they ate would play no part in that.
Just because nobody understands you, that doesn't mean you're artistic.
there are so many more productive things you all could be doing then arguing over an animals rights....i mean really people are out their starving, licing off little to no water, and ur discussing dogs? get out their and DO SOMETHING, what are you trying to acomplish on this site? sitting around and debate? over whats right and wrong? take a stand and go with it....if you decided that ur wrong and change ur mind then do that.... think a little bit more dictator and a little less democratic...being right isn't worth a flying **** unless ur being pro active
This has knawed at me for long enough. I needed a break, but I do not want to look like an uninformed coward, so that's why I'm back.
quote:
I've not read the book, as I've told you before. The reason being: Singer is a "bioethicist" that has a wacked out rational. Not only does he promote total animal liberation, but he also promotes euthaniasia, widespread infanticide, and the killing of the handicapped. This displays a very very low respect for human life, and I suspect that this flaw will continue on into Animal Liberation. I will probably not find his arguments persuading, and that assumption is supported by all the summarries and reviews of his works that I've read.
OK, but there are many other animal rights books out there that were not written by Peter Singer. There's Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Michael Scully (a former speechwriter for G.W. Bush); The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan; Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism by James Rachels; and many more. Don't let one author taint the whole subject for you.
quote:
Humanity is simply using our advantages as a species, building cities. sewing and reaping plants, collecting and efficently slaughtering animals. It's a natural progression, and we're still in large part driven by nature's instinct.
So in other words, might makes right? We have the ability to do a lot of things, including rape, child abuse and murder, but just because we have the ability to do so, doesn't make it right. This is a good, fair headed article on the ethics of animal rights, I think you should check it out: http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/beyond.html
What if in building cities and such we descrate the environment to such a degree that we wipe our species out? Is that a good thing in your opinion?
OK, so the "love animals, don't eat them" thing isn't working for you, fine. How about this: Animals don't really need us to "love" them, for love doesn't guarantee proper treatment (like how someone can love their child and yet abuse them or a spouse can abuse their wife/husband). They need us to respect them and their interests. Like how we need to respect animals in the wild and not capture them to keep as pets or destroy their habitats.
OK, now respond.
quote:
although i agree they need to eat meat, if a lion became veggie they wouldnt need to hunt or fight
if a lion became veggie they wouldnt need to hunt or fight
Lions fight for territory and mates.
quote:
but they couldn't live were it not for the plant spore in the water that they eat, supplementing the fish.
How in the world can a shark, other than a whale shark or a basking shark, eat the microscopic plants in the water? Its mouth and its digestive system are not designed for that. Whale or basking sharks, on the other hand, have the right "equipment" to swallow gallons and gallons of water and filter out all the plankton and microscopic plant matter. A great white can't do that. And the plant spores in the digestive system of a fish would be nearly useless as food for the shark, because all it's nutrient would have been digested by the fish.
Is that what you're thinking? That because the shark's prey eats plants, that automatically makes it an omnivore? I hope not.
Also, snakes don't eat plants, they're teeth aren't designed to bite off a peice of plant and chew it. They can only eat other animals, that's what they're meant to do, they wouldn't need venom or the ability to constrict if they could survive on plants. Crocodilians, the only living dinosaurs, can't chew plants either, they're mouths have a bite strength of up to 3000lbs per square inch, which is unneccesary for eating a salad, but perfect for eating a thrashing Wildebeest. Shark teeth, which vary in shape, are good for tearing, shedding, stabbing, ripping, and crushing. If plants were so vital in their diets, they're teeth would be very different.
You do realize that there were omnivorous and herbivorous dinosaurs too right? Why aren't they still around?
quote:
THEY ARE OMNIVORES!
Prove it. And I don't care about what your sister says, because she is obviously clueless.
but they couldn't live were it not for the plant spore in the water that they eat, supplementing the fish.
Oh for the love of Mike! That just means the fish aren't carnivorous. The fish eat the plants, the sharks eat the fish. Thus, the sharks do not consume any plant matter, except for what may be left in the digestive systems of the fish.
To clarify: the sharks do not swim around eating kelp, therefore they are not herbivores, not omnivores, but carnivores. They eat meat and only meat.
I'm not even a biologist and I know more than your sister. That's really sad. So very sad.
quote:
All "carnivorous" animals, supplement with other things.
The amount of plant matter a carnivore would have to eat in order to survive would make its stomach rupture. If you see cat or dog eating grass, that's usually because they have an upset stomach, not because they're hungry.
I know that. However, they aren't herbivores either. THEY ARE OMNIVORES!
Just because nobody understands you, that doesn't mean you're artistic.
I asked her why sharks are carnivors, by classification, and she said that they are because their teeth are designed for eating meat, but they couldn't live were it not for the plant spore in the water that they eat, supplementing the fish.
Just because nobody understands you, that doesn't mean you're artistic.
Topics 
