Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: January 15, 2003
Posts: 3714
|
quote: this may be getting into religion a little bit but if you do believe people have souls then that there is the difference betweeen a human and an animal...they dont have souls...and they dont have rights...
What is a soul? Is it an advanced way of thinking? Is it something you can measure? Can you look into an animal's eyes and see it? Can you look into your own eyes and see it? quote: I don't think we should use them for fun of it.
Really? I guess I should stop playing with my cats then.
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6044
|
quote: Should we deprive them of rights just because they can't declare them?
One, it happens. Two, doesn't the Constitution say something along the lines of, "All men are created equal"? By default, Americans (people born in America, whether citizens or not) have all the basic human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) from the get-go. There's no document that says the same for animals. quote: But just because we're fighting for animal rights doesn't mean we can't fight for human rights as well. You can support more than one cause.
Indeed. But watch what your priorities are. I've seen animal rights activists rush to the aid of a stray cat with rabies that would bite and infect them in a minute, yet completely ignore the homeless and helpless on the side of the road who are only looking for a few cents to buy some food and a cardboard box. I guess that shows who's worth more. quote: Do you realize how many times processing plants violate the rights of human beings?
I assume we're talking animal processing plants? Right. Do I need to start talking about how simple vegetable farming can violate human rights? I didn't think so. Cheap migrant labor isn't exclusive to the meatpacking industry, my dear. But even a job such as that is better than no job at all, am I right? But hey, this is an animal rights thread, not a human rights thread. That's a whole different argument.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: July 25, 2005
Posts: 580
|
Really? How so? I mean all hunting but I didn't know it's beneficial to the dog.
Have a nice day...
|
Registered: May 07, 2005
Posts: 1213
|
quote: Originally posted by Apology:
However, I don't think we should used animals for sports like hunting.
Are you talking about like fox hunting or hunting with a gun dog? Hunting with a gun dog is actually very beneficial for the dog.
myspace.com/thesnowfell
|
Registered: July 25, 2005
Posts: 580
|
I love animals so I am all for animal rights. I think we should use animals for the basic things like food. However, I don't think we should used animals for sports like hunting. I don't think we should use them for fashion like make-up and clothes. I don't know about using them for testing. I guess it's okay but don't mistreat them. Same with food, let them live a good life, don't mistreat them then kill them. I don't think we should use them for fun of it. We shouldn't take advange of anything, we shouldn't mistreat anything. Take what you need and leave. Don't over do it and I feel like some people are over doing it with animals.
Have a nice day...
|
Registered: December 14, 2003
Posts: 381
|
quote: Animals are not people, their animals. If they were people, like the rest of us, we would call them people, not animals.
I have to admit, that was a pretty asinine statement. According to widely accepted science, people are animals. Ooo what a shock!  Are you saying that science and scientists are insane? quote: acutally animals dont have souls...there is no doggy heaven...this may be getting into religion a little bit but if you do believe people have souls then that there is the difference betweeen a human and an animal...they dont have souls...and they dont have rights...
Like Bella said, none of this can be proven, scientifically or otherwise. If you want a definitive answer, read this: quote: But human beings have immortal souls. Doesn't that mean that we have rights that animals don't? In humans and animals alike, it is the mundane creature that suffers and dies, not the immortal soul. Therefore, it is wrong to inflict suffering on any being who is capable of experiencing it, whether that being has an immortal soul or not. Furthermore, if animals do not have immortal souls, and this life is all they have to look forward to, isn't that all the more reason why we should not turn their only fleeting chance for joy into hell on earth? Having said that, it is important for us to realize that nowhere does the Bible teach that animals do not have souls. One passage in the King James Version (KJV) that is widely cited in support of the view that animals lack souls is actually a misleading translation. In Genesis 2:7, the KJV tells us that God breathed life into the man God had created "and man became a living soul." A few verses later God creates the nonhuman animals, whom the KJV describes as "every living creature," apparently drawing a distinction between human beings and other animals (Genesis 2:19; emphasis added in both cases). In the original Hebrew, however, the same term, nephesh hayah, is used in both instances, making no distinction between the nature of the living spirit with which God endowed humanity and that with which God endowed nonhuman animals. Recognizing this, the New English Bible, which was published in 1970 under the supervision of the Church of England, corrects the King James' editorializing by rendering nephesh hayah both times as "living creature." But unfortunately, many of the most popular modern translations perpetuate the King James' bias, usually by saying "living being" in verse 7 and "living creature" in verse 19. These include the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the New International Version (NIV), which are all Protestant sponsored, and Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures, which is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. The New American Bible for Catholics is more circumspect; it renders nephesh hayah in verse 19 simply as "them," and so avoids an overtly misleading translation while still concealing the identical nature of the life force in humans and animals. The prophet Isaiah tells us that in the coming kingdom of heaven, "the wolf shall live with the sheep, and the leopard lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall grow up together, and a little child shall lead them; the cow and the bear shall be friends, and their young shall lie down together" (Isaiah 11:6-7). This popular passage is usually quoted for its depiction of the "peaceable kingdom." What often goes unnoted is that animals will participate in the coming kingdom of heaven as fully as human beings. Although some claim that the animals in this passage are merely symbolic and that no actual animals will be present in heaven, there is nothing in the text to support this view; it is an unsubstantiated claim put forward by people who wish to ascribe a uniqueness to humanity that is not taught in the Bible. The literal participation of animals in the kingdom of heaven -- and by extension, their possession of souls -- is described even more clearly in this passage from the prophet Hosea: "Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear" (Hosea 2:18). Based on these and other Biblical passages, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught in a sermon titled "On the General Deliverance" that nonhuman animals have souls and will be present in heaven. From http://www.fundforanimals.org/library/documentViewer.as...=640&table=documents
Please don't turn this into a religious discussion, the Christian vegetarian thread was enough. quote: Until an animal comes up to me and specifically asks me (verbally or otherwise) for rights equal to those of humans, I won't treat them as equals for the simple reason that they aren't.
I don't know of any human infants who have come up to anyone and said this either. Should we deprive them of rights just because they can't declare them? quote: Perhaps you're unaware that there are humans who lack those basic rights. Maybe we should start worrying about providing basic rights of life to humans before we start *****ing about animals.
I'm aware of this and I do fight for human rights too; it goes hand-in-hand really. But just because we're fighting for animal rights doesn't mean we can't fight for human rights as well. You can support more than one cause. quote: If faced with denying the rights of an immigrant worker from Mexico who wants a job or denying the same rights of a chicken who doesn't want to be eaten, I'll, of course, eat the chicken. In my humble opinion, humans are worth much, much more.
You've just opened a can of worms there, pal. Do you realize how many times processing plants violate the rights of human beings? http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/07/meatpacking.htmlHere's a quote from that article: quote: In some American slaughterhouses, more than three-quarters of the workers are not native English speakers; many can't read any language, and many are illegal immigrants. A new migrant industrial workforce now circulates through the meatpacking towns of the High Plains. A wage of $9.50 an hour seems incredible to men and women who come from rural areas in Mexico where the wages are $7 a day. These manual laborers, long accustomed to toiling in the fields, are good workers. They're also unlikely to complain or challenge authority, to file lawsuits, organize unions, fight for their legal rights. They tend to be poor, vulnerable, and fearful. From the industry's point of view, they are ideal workers: cheap, largely interchangeable, and disposable.
The workers are used, abused and then thrown out like they were garbage. It's been said that working in a slaughterhouse is the most dangerous job someone could have. How can you possibly say that that is a good job to have?
|
Registered: May 07, 2005
Posts: 1213
|
quote: Originally posted by clpo13:
Perhaps you're unaware that there are humans who lack those basic rights. Maybe we should start worrying about providing basic rights of life to humans before we start *****ing about animals.
When you're right, you're right.
myspace.com/thesnowfell
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6044
|
quote: They have a right to feel safe. They have a right to be safe. Everyone has a right to live.
Perhaps you're unaware that there are humans who lack those basic rights. Maybe we should start worrying about providing basic rights of life to humans before we start *****ing about animals. If faced with denying the rights of an immigrant worker from Mexico who wants a job or denying the same rights of a chicken who doesn't want to be eaten, I'll, of course, eat the chicken. In my humble opinion, humans are worth much, much more.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: June 09, 2003
Posts: 5084
|
quote: Face it: animals don't need rights. If they did, they'd have them.
Are you stupid? Why do we have endangered species?! They need rights because we're killing them! The rest of this world needs our protection, from us. They have a right to feel safe. They have a right to be safe. Everyone has a right to live.
None of us can ever be free while others are still in chains. -Leslie Feinberg
|
Registered: June 09, 2003
Posts: 5084
|
quote: Animals are not people, their animals. If they were people, like the rest of us, we would call them people, not animals.
Have you forgotten that humans are mammals (animals) too? And some of us do call them people. Most of humanity are ignorant *******s, though and they have no idea what they're talking about.
None of us can ever be free while others are still in chains. -Leslie Feinberg
|
Registered: July 26, 2004
Posts: 2891
|
quote: we might as well be asking for carrot equal rights.
Carrots don't have brains. And don't say "neither do you".
Evitere Les Contrefacons.
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6044
|
There is no proof that there is a doggy heaven, either. Until an animal comes up to me and specifically asks me (verbally or otherwise) for rights equal to those of humans, I won't treat them as equals for the simple reason that they aren't. Perhaps this comes off as callous to some of you, but you might as well be asking me to give a carrot equal rights. Face it: animals don't need rights. If they did, they'd have them.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: July 26, 2004
Posts: 2891
|
quote: there is no doggy heaven
You have no proof behind that statement.
Evitere Les Contrefacons.
|
Registered: July 28, 2005
Posts: 174
|
acutally animals dont have souls...there is no doggy heaven...this may be getting into religion a little bit but if you do believe people have souls then that there is the difference betweeen a human and an animal...they dont have souls...and they dont have rights...
|
Registered: July 29, 2005
Posts: 9
|
sometimes insanity is the only true answer
|
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 29
|
quote: Originally posted by depressedwavemaster:
Animals are people, too. Just because they don't communicate with us in the only way our narrow minds can conceive doesn't mean they are not individuals with a soul.
Animals are not people, their animals. If they were people, like the rest of us, we would call them people, not animals. People are people and animals are animals, to think otherwise is insanity. |
Registered: July 29, 2005
Posts: 9
|
I agree animals have rights and souls just look into their eyes and any lout with a single neuron can see that animals feel. One of the basic parts of being a living organism is interacting with the enviroment and in the animal kingdom that includes feelings. By the way plants, as far as I know don't have feelings, so they can be eaten and I'm not saying that we can't eat animals; after all animals eat animals and humans are just another animal, but the way the animals we raise to eat are treated is just wrong. Unless of course you would like to live in a cage the size of a bathroom stall with five other people.
|
Registered: June 09, 2003
Posts: 5084
|
Of course animals have rights. We all have souls and we all are people. Do Mexicans have rights? Do the French have rights? Does white trash have rights? Animals are people, too. Just because they don't communicate with us in the only way our narrow minds can conceive doesn't mean they are not individuals with a soul.
None of us can ever be free while others are still in chains. -Leslie Feinberg
|
Peer Moderator
Registered: July 14, 2005
Posts: 76
|
I just wanted to let you know that I moved this thread out of International Relations and into Environment. I think that this is a more suitable board for such a topic. Thanks for your understanding.
We shall NOT be moved.
|
Registered: July 28, 2005
Posts: 174
|
Just dropping by to say...animals...have no rights....they are....animals..and they are under our dominion-- clearly we abuse this -- but in all fairness, what man can do...it will
|
|
