Animal Rights

[Ele'ill]

Why are so many leftists opposed to animal rights?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm no Leftist, but they aren't human and have a completely different purpose on earth than people. That being said--they should be treated decently and shouldn't be killed for no purpose whatsoever. But cows and pigs, etc. always have been food for the omnivore humans and should continue to be for those that choose to live that way.

Besides once you give animals "rights" where do you draw the line--a cat has "rights" then what about an ant, how about a microbe? It's nice that when we are children we want all animals to be our "friends" but essentially it's a bit of juvinilia that should be given up when get to a certain age.

[Ele'ill]

What about factory fur?

[Dimentio]

Human beings do not have intrinsic rights either. It is perfectly possible to treat human beings in degrading ways and manners, even turning them into soap. The point is that humans need to struggle for their rights. Human rights are a consequence of resources and class struggle, not something inherent to human beings.

[Che a chara]

In certain cases i support - Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, skin for skin ..... ? a bit too far, but you get my drift .....?

Animals should have as much right to live as humans do. They are an important part of life and evolution, but others such as farm animals are used as a food source. Many are slaughtered inhumanely, and that shouldn't be the case. I love meat and chicken, but there should be measures put in place to ensure of a more humane process. and also what must be noted is halal. Why shouldn't this be opposed ? Many on the left don't because it may be perceived as Islamophobic.

To look from the opposite side, how do we expect to test products such as new medicines and such without endangering animals ?

[RedStarOverChina]

Why are so many leftists opposed to animal rights?
Why not?
Why should animals have rights?
And what do those rights consist of?

[Che a chara]

Why not?
Why should animals have rights?
And what do those rights consist of?

Erm, they're born on this earth naturally like humans. They shouldn't be used as game or targeted for other reasons other than as a food source.

[Bud Struggle]

What about factory fur?

Listen: it could be done better and more humainely and it should be--but I have no problem with people wearing fir. I have no problem with people using animals for whatever purpose they think necessary for the most part.

Now we shouldn't slaughter the last remaining rinos so that some guy could get penis up or cut off shark fins and leave them to die in the ocean--but if unendangered animals are killed cleanly and quickly, well, it is how things happen nature.

[Bud Struggle]

Erm, they're born on this earth naturally like humans. They shouldn't be used as game or targeted for other reasons other than as a food source.

Yes to an extent. We shouldn't go tiger hunting. But there no problem with deer hunting to cull the herds--it benefits the animal. FYI: I fish but don't hunt--but I'm thinking of shooting some wild pigs that root up my property. I'd eat them.

(Good topic, Mari3L. But should you be bringing up something like this when the Mighty Lords Of RevLeft are thinking you are too "nonhumanist?")

[Ele'ill]

I think a lot of my own feelings regarding industry and worker struggles generates from the same emotions as my feelings for animal rights and environmental issues. I think our world can exist without factory fur and inhumane treatment of livestock. I believe animals have a right to exist as living creatures without their existence being exploited, without their having to undergo abusive tests with little scientific reward (in those particular cases), I think as humans we can do better.

Can we justify destroying ecosystems? What about extinction?
Why are these things happening? Why is animal rights an issue?

I think the systems that are destroying worker's rights and oppressing people globally are the same systems causing extinction, inhumane treatment of animals, destruction of our planet.

It isn't juvenile to care about life.

[Ele'ill]

Yes to an extent. We shouldn't go tiger hunting. But there no problem with deer hunting to cull the herds--it benefits the animal. FYI: I fish but don't hunt--but I'm thinking of shooting some wild pigs that root up my property. I'd eat them.

(Good topic, Mari3L. But should you be bringing up something like this when the Mighty Lords Of RevLeft are thinking you are too "nonhumanist?")

It may clear some things up.

Or maybe I don't 'deserve' to be unrestricted. I don't dance- this is who I am.

[Bud Struggle]

There is a difference between distroying the ecosystem and eating a hamburger--and it all comes down to what is reasonable. I doubt we could get along without factory farms, though. There are just too many people in the world that want to eat meat.or fish.

[Ele'ill]

Listen: it could be done better and more humainely and it should be--but I have no problem with people wearing fir. I have no problem with people using animals for whatever purpose they think necessary for the most part.

What about farming for fur? The only purpose those animals are given life is to have it taken away.

[Che a chara]

Yes to an extent. We shouldn't go tiger hunting. But there no problem with deer hunting to cull the herds--it benefits the animal. FYI: I fish but don't hunt--but I'm thinking of shooting some wild pigs that root up my property. I'd eat them.

(Good topic, Mari3L. But should you be bringing up something like this when the Mighty Lords Of RevLeft are thinking you are too "nonhumanist?")

Why cull when you can resettle them elsewhere ?

Why do you feel the need to shoot a defenceless animal ? There's ways and means. If you want to go hunting, go shoot something that actually dangers your living, like a corrupt politician ;) (joke like)

[RedStarOverChina]

Erm, they're born on this earth naturally like humans. They shouldn't be used as game or targeted for other reasons other than as a food source.
That's not the kind of coherent reasoning I was expecting, but sure.

What rights exactly do animals have? Could you please pin that down so I have something to work with?

[Ele'ill]

There is a difference between distroying the ecosystem and eating a hamburger--and it all comes down to what is reasonable. I doubt we could get along without factory farms, though. There are just too many people in the world that want to eat meat.or fish.

From what I understand, the beef (cows) that are used are grazing on open plots of once-rainforests. Toxic agricultural run-off flowing into water sources-

What of indigenous struggles?

[Che a chara]

That's not the kind of coherent reasoning I was expecting, but sure.

What rights exactly do animals have? Could you please pin that down so I have something to work with?

I'd like to hear your reasons for opposing animal rights. You haven't said yet. Is it because they aren't as intelligent as humans ?

Animals don't have rights per-se, cos they can't speak, but when they are harmed, they express their feelings in their noises and body language. What right do we have to harm another part of this earth's breathing and living creatures ? (*EDIT*) do they harm you or oppress you ?

Would the earth and our living be better if they had no rights and we killed them all of ?

[Dimentio]

Ecosystems and animal rights are not entirely synonymous issues. What you are doing, rather than naturalising humanity, is to humanify nature.

[synthesis]

I think a lot of my own feelings regarding industry and worker struggles generates from the same emotions as my feelings for animal rights and environmental issues. I think our world can exist without factory fur and inhumane treatment of livestock. I believe animals have a right to exist as living creatures without their existence being exploited, without their having to undergo abusive tests with little scientific reward (in those particular cases), I think as humans we can do better.

Can we justify destroying ecosystems? What about extinction?
Why are these things happening? Why is animal rights an issue?

I think the systems that are destroying worker's rights and oppressing people globally are the same systems causing extinction, inhumane treatment of animals, destruction of our planet.

It isn't juvenile to care about life.

That's all ethics really are - emotional responses we intellectualize. Ethics are also remarkably inconsistent (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Bloom-t.html). I eat meat, but I couldn't work in a slaughterhouse. I think that unfortunately the real onus is on the plaintiff in any ethical scenario, to find ways to generate sympathy/empathy for those they choose to defend. Such is life.

[RedStarOverChina]

I'd like to hear your reasons for opposing animal rights. You haven't said yet. Is it because they aren't as intelligent as humans ?
Because 1st I think nothing good could come of it. Second, giving animal "rights" is a pretty absurd and inconsistant idea because someone (us humans, obviously) would have to go out and actively uphold these rights for them, like keeping rabbits safe from wolves, etc. Otherwise they are not "rights".

Now if you could spare some time in defining exactly what "rights" you are advocating for them, that'd be great.

[Che a chara]

Because 1st I think nothing good could come of it. Second, giving animal "rights" is a pretty absurd and inconsistant idea because someone (us humans, obviously) would have to go out and actively uphold these rights for them, like keeping rabbits safe from wolves, etc. Otherwise they are not "rights".

Now if you could spare some time in defining exactly what "rights" you are advocating for them, that's be great.

Let nature take it's course. Nature isn't slaughtering defenceless animals to just take their fur, skin or other parts of their being.

What rights I think animals should be allowed is free from inhumane contact. It's really common sense i think.

[RedStarOverChina]

What rights I think animals should be allowed is free from inhumane contact. It's really common sense i think.
So you think predators like wolves, tigers, etc should not brutally "murder" and devour other animals? Do they not also have the right to live?

[Ele'ill]

Because 1st I think nothing good could come of it.

Why not?


Second, giving animal "rights" is a pretty absurd and inconsistant idea because someone (us humans, obviously) would have to go out and actively uphold these rights for them, like keeping rabbits safe from wolves, etc. Otherwise they are not "rights".



Now if you could spare some time in defining exactly what "rights" you are advocating for them, that's be great.

Why not uphold their right to not be treated inhumanely within industry? I mean, fur? Really? We're not past that as a species yet?

[Che a chara]

So you think predators like wolves, tigers, etc should not brutally "murder" and devour other animals? Do they not also have the right to live?

Let nature take its course ;)

[Ele'ill]

Why do humans have more of a right to live than a microbe- ant- wolf or cow?

I am not suggesting they do or don't.

[Bud Struggle]

Why do humans have more of a right to live than a microbe- ant- wolf or cow?

I am not suggesting they do or don't.

I rather say they do.

[Che a chara]

As for fur and the other excuses, that's capitalism for you. Exploiting the murder of an animal for financial gain.

[Ele'ill]

I rather say they do.

Yeah I know from past conversations- Why though?

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah I know from past conversations- Why though?

Sorry. We are different. We are self conscious. Animals are instincts and meat--really nothng more. They suffer true, and that should be taken into consideration, but consideration nothing more.

I'll give an animal equal rights with humans when it comes to the table and asks fo it. When a chimp puts a man in a cage in a zoo, fine. I'm with the chimp.

Until then they are for our use. To be treated with respect, but for our use.

[Ele'ill]

So you think predators like wolves, tigers, etc should not brutally "murder" and devour other animals? Do they not also have the right to live?

They're surviving. We need to survive too. The difference is the amount of waste. The tigers and wolves and bears are not rounding up their prey into tiny cages to breed so they can have pretty purses and scarves.

I think perhaps the technocrats can come up with a more logical, less wasteful and more humane way to run the current meat industry.

[Robert]

Man is better than the AIDS virus and the scorpion. He can and does take affirmative steps to help endangered species, provide shelter for abused dogs, raise abandoned cubs and so on. No animal would ever do that for us.

Yeah, I know, they're endangered because of man. Not always though. It ain't my fault there are no more dinosaurs.

[Dimentio]

Animals (at least most mammals) do have conciousness and empathy. The main problem is that they don't have the political means to act within human society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

I am against the fur industry and believe that meat eating needs to be abolished, but I simply don't believe in giving animals any rights since that would be meaningless since they wouldn't understand the terms of rights. Rights would need to follow with responsibilities.

Rights are not inherent, but a product of human history.

[Che a chara]

I don't think Marx had anything to say on animal rights, but I remember watching a programme not that long ago that said during Stalin's era of the USSR he imposed animal rights and criminalised hunting of animals.

[RedStarOverChina]

Why not?
What good could come of it? How would it benefit a single human being?


Why not uphold their right to not be treated inhumanely within industry? I mean, fur? Really? We're not past that as a species yet?
Why should I care?

And no, I don't wear fur, that'd be ridiculous. Leather is more my type.


Let nature take its course ;)
Eh, Humans are omnivores. By "nature" we are supposed to eat both plant and meat.

Would it be better if I go out bare naked, catch my prey with bare hands and tear it to pieces with my teeth and THEN eat it? You know, instead of buying factory processed meat which is harvested with cruelty.

[Ele'ill]

Sorry. We are different. We are self conscious.
Animals are instincts and meat--really nothng more. They suffer true, and that should be taken into consideration, but consideration nothing more.


So they're self conscious to the point of being able to recognize their own suffering but it's not our problem as the dominant species- that is completely self conscious- to try and make sure pain isn't felt in our world- by any creature- so long as we can help it....

[RedStarOverChina]

They're surviving. We need to survive too. The difference is the amount of waste.

As far as I know, the waste problem isn't nearly as serious as some made it to be, especially not in third world countries.

All the organs, even the intestines are consumed or otherwise ultilized in East Asia. Even in the US, chicken farmers are exporting chicken feet and other previously useless parts to Asia.

[Bud Struggle]

Rights are not inherent, but a product of human history.

Ouch. I see the point. If animals have rights--then they innate in a being just for the simple reason that he/she is a living being.

That would give humans innate rights, too. And that would take human rights beyond Communism or Socialism. Actually, it would make Communism a subsection of human rights that already exist not the means for humans to have rights.

I think I may change sides in this argument. ;) :)

[Dimentio]

I don't think Marx had anything to say on animal rights, but I remember watching a programme not that long ago that said during Stalin's era of the USSR he imposed animal rights and criminalised hunting of animals.

Hitler did it as well. It is usually used by proponents of animal cruelty to make any animal rights activist seem suspicious. Heck, Nazi Germany even banned vivisection (on animals).

[Vanguard1917]

I don't think Marx had anything to say on animal rights

Marx said that humanity needs to master nature and subject it to its will if it is to progress socially. He had no time for irrational ideas which sought to elevate the status of animals. For example, he condemned the caste system in India because it:

"brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow."

As for the co-founder of Marxism, Friedrich Engels:

"On Saturday, I went out fox-hunting – seven hours in the saddle ... That sort of thing always keeps me in a state of devilish excitement for several days; it’s the greatest physical pleasure I know.”

[Dimentio]

Ouch. I see the point. If animals have rights--then they innate in a being just for the simple reason that he/she is a living being.

That would give humans innate rights, too. And that would take human rights beyond Communism or Socialism. Actually, it would make Communism a subsection of human rights that already exist not the means for humans to have rights.

I think I may change sides in this argument. ;) :)

Communists and socialists usually - like liberals and conservatives - are talking about innate human rights. For communists, they are derived for just being human, while conservatives are talking about in God's image.

I am not against human rights. I simply don't see them as innate because they could be physically violated. It is not impossible to for example lock a human being into a cage naked and then poke him with long sharp sticks for public amusement.

All kinds of human rights have been established either by increased humanitarianism due to better education and a questioning of old clan-based values, or by class struggle against elites which have perpetuated systems which have been hugely violent against human dignity.

I rather talk about human dignity than human rights, since dignity could be evaluated as a more objective value.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why are so many leftists opposed to animal rights?

Why should we bother about animal rights when we still live in a world where so many humans have no rights?

[Ele'ill]

What good could come of it? How would it benefit a single human being?


I do things without needing or wanting a reward.



Why should I care?

You don't have to- why are you against it though?





Eh, Humans are omnivores. By "nature" we are supposed to eat both plant and meat.

Would it be better if I go out bare naked, catch my prey with bare hands and tear it to pieces with my teeth and THEN eat it? You know, instead of buying factory processed meat which is harvested with cruelty.

....while juggling ten mangoes- blindfolded- dodging missile fire from a helicopter gunship... :rolleyes:


I think people can survive eating vegetables and fruit.

[Ele'ill]

Why should we bother about animal rights when we still live in a world where so many humans have no rights?


I agree- there are probably more pressing issues and I tend to think that once we take care of the human element the animal 'rights' issue will start to be taken care of as well.

The other side is that a lot of the animal issues can be taken care of now, or while the human issues are.

[RedStarOverChina]

I do things without needing or wanting a reward.It's good that you don't want rewards for sanctimoniously condemning other people for what they eat.


You don't have to- why are you against it though?
Because it's sanctimonious, illogical, distracting us from the important stuff (like workers' rights) and that it serves no good purpose.


I think people can survive eating vegetables and fruit.
You can survive without a decent shelter, too. But why would you want to?

[Che a chara]

Wasnae aware of this.


Marx said that humanity needs to master nature and subject it to its will if it is to progress socially. He had no time for irrational ideas which sought to elevate the status of animals. For example, he condemned the caste system in India because it:

"brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow."

There's a difference though in worshipping animals and 'elevating their status' to murdering them for further financial gain.

What about indigenous people's (tribes etc) rights of worshipping animals ? do we oppose that and hope to make that part of their culture extinct ?


As for the co-founder of Marxism, Friedrich Engels:

"On Saturday, I went out fox-hunting – seven hours in the saddle ... That sort of thing always keeps me in a state of devilish excitement for several days; it’s the greatest physical pleasure I know.”

Is this a personal opinion or should we take it for granted as marxism ?

Fox hunting is largely opposed by the left, and mainly the royal family in the UK support it as a sport. It's not though. It's slaughtering of an animal for fun. What good does killing a fox do ? is it a food source ?

[Ele'ill]

It's good that you don't want rewards for sanctimoniously condemning other people for what they eat.

What?





Because it's sanctimoniousHow?


illogicalIllogical would be violently defending aspects of a struggling species, your own, and then violently standing against another (animals).

The same injustices done.



distracting us from the important stuff (like workers' rights) and that it serves no good purpose. Hate to break it to you but the same reason people think they can exploit workers, indigenous and the physical environment for profit is the same reason they exploit the lives of animals, recklessly and without much purpose. Same people- same systems of oppression.

Explain to me the purpose of a manufactured fur coat in current times.



You can survive without a decent shelter, too. But why would you want to?No you can't, you'd die of exposure.

I think people can survive healthily without eating meat.

[Vanguard1917]

What about indigenous people's rights of worshipping animals ? do we oppose that and hope to make that part of their culture extinct

I don't oppose anyone's right to practice their religion. But that does not mean that i don't oppose their religious beliefs.



There's a difference though in worshipping animals and 'elevating their status' to murdering them for further financial gain


Animals are very rarely killed for no reason. They are usually killed, and otherwise utilised, to meet human needs and desires (for food, clothing, medical research, recreation, etc.).



Fox hunting is largely opposed by the left


A moralistic, authoritarian left that has nothing in common with the Marxist tradition. The same people who also want more bans on smoking, for instance, or more restrictions on alcohol sales (another thing Marx strongly opposed).



What good does killing a fox do ?


It provides those who like that sort of thing hours of fun.

[Ele'ill]

If animals feel pain and fear what's the difference between hunting them and hunting humans?

[Che a chara]

Lets give cannibals rights !!!!, human meat is their fun and food source !!!

[Vanguard1917]

If animals feel pain and fear what's the difference between hunting them and hunting humans?

Animals do not feel pain in the way humans do. Theirs is a reflex reaction. They have no concept of pain or fear. Humans, on the other hand, are conscious beings.

[Ele'ill]

Animals do not feel pain in the way humans do. Theirs is a reflex reaction. They have no concept of pain or fear. Humans, on the other hand, are conscious beings.

A reflex reaction- Are you kidding?

When an animal is hurt it vocalizes- it limps if its paw is injured because it hurts to use it. An animal when chased becomes fearful in the same way a human does. The same physiological responses.

[Ele'ill]

Perhaps you could detail how you think an animal experiences fear and pain?

[No pasarán]

I think the easiest way to defend animal rights is humans simply don't need to eat meat, at the height of my weight lifting I was around 200lbs and vegan at the time. I've known meat eaters who couldn't make the gains I was making?

Added to that I think its cruel and unneccesary. If you live in the country go out and hunt all your meat as you would in the wild I think that is justified, but if you live in a town or city you just don't need to eat meat.

[Vanguard1917]

A reflex reaction- Are you kidding?

When an animal is hurt it vocalizes- it limps if its paw is injured because it hurts to use it. An animal when chased becomes fearful in the same way a human does. The same physiological responses.

Superficially similar physiological responses, yes, but not the mental or emotional responses which humans have.

[Steve_j]

In regards to the op I think for many it boils down to putting the interests of the human species above all else, it seems to me alot of socialists see the animal rights movement as people trying to stop them from eating meat or utilising animals in a manner that they deem aceptable, thus infringing on their rights as a human.

[Steve_j]

Superficially similar physiological responses, yes, but not the mental or emotional responses which humans have.

Go spend some time with a primate, then spend some time with a new born child and then let me know if you still hold the same position on that one.

[Che a chara]

In regards to the op I think for many it boils down to putting the interests of the human species above all else, it seems to me alot of socialists see the animal rights movement as people trying to stop them from eating meat or utilising animals in a manner that they deem aceptable, thus infringing on their rights as a human.

Anything other than using animals other than a food source (humanely) is a crime in my eyes.

[No pasarán]

In regards to the op I think for many it boils down to putting the interests of the human species above all else, it seems to me alot of socialists see the animal rights movement as people trying to stop them from eating meat or utilising animals in a manner that they deem aceptable, thus infringing on their rights as a human.

I see it as most socialists are too lazy to stop eating meat. Why oppress an animal when you don't need to? It's pointless and a waste of resources. Gradualy stop breeding livestock and use what land is used to produce meat to produce crops and there would be more crops being produced and more food for humans.

[Vanguard1917]

Go spend some time with a primate, then spend some time with a new born child and then let me know if you still hold the same position on that one.

An animal primate experiences life very differently than a new-born baby. And the latter will one day grow up to be a mature, conscious being. A monkey will remain a monkey until it dies.

[Steve_j]

Ok so what about a human born with severe mental development issues and as a result will not be capable of maturing into a concious being?

Can i eat it?

[No pasarán]

Funny how everyone is ignoring my posts...

[Vanguard1917]

I see it as most socialists are too lazy to stop eating meat. Why oppress an animal when you don't need to?

You can't 'oppress' animals. But you can oppress humans, e.g. by dictating to them that they can't eat mean. Go tell the hundreds of millions of working class people around the world, who want to be in an economic position in which they can add more meat to their diets, that they are 'too lazy'.

As always, the animal rightists elevation of animals goes hand in hand with utter contempt for people.

Yours is an entirely minority outlook. Thankfully the vast majority of humanity has more sense than you.

[Vanguard1917]

Ok so what about a human born with severe mental development issues and as a result will not be capable of maturing into a concious being?

Can i eat it?

No, because that person is potentially a healthy human being. We need to find ways of treating him/her by always seeking to advance our understanding of human illness.

Comparing the disabled to animals is a huge insult to those with disabilities.

[Steve_j]

You can't 'oppress' animals. But you can oppress humans, e.g. by dictating to them that they can't eat mean.

Well dont opress me when i come to eat your dog, cat, goldfish, whatever

[Steve_j]

No, because that person is potentially a healthy human being.

No im talking a case such as they dont have their brain stem atached or something like that.

[No pasarán]

You can't 'oppress' animals. But you can oppress humans, e.g. by dictating to them that they can't eat mean. Go tell the hundreds of millions of working class people around the world, who want to be in an economic position in which they can add more meat to their diets, that they are 'too lazy'.

As always, the animal rightists elevation of animals goes hand in hand with utter contempt for people.

Yours is an entirely minority outlook. Thankfully the vast majority of humanity has more sense than you.


Wow way to try and patronise someone you know nothing about. Tommorow I will have a fried breakfast, I was wrong for the last 15 years... I was oppressing humans by not eating meat. Do you really think I would be on the left or dedicating large amounts of my time to trying to help people if I had utter contempt for them.

I put humans first but eating meat is pointless in 'westernised society'/ richer capitalist nations. In poorer nations I'll admit it is not as simple, but the capitalist system has just mantained the image of humans 'needing' meat to survive and as a food source that gives you status. How about educating those people they can grow more crops on that land and eat more food by not having to feed livestock.

Humans are still oppressed in the as are animals, its wrong in both cases.

[Vanguard1917]

Well dont opress me when i come to eat your dog, cat, goldfish, whatever

In the hypothetical situation that there arise famine conditions in Britain and you were in my house dying of hunger, you would be welcome to eat any pet of mine. Humans come before pets, even 'animal rights' humans.

[Steve_j]

In the hypothetical situation that there arise famine conditions in Britain and you were in my house dying of hunger, you would be welcome to eat any pet of mine. Humans come before pets, even 'animal rights' humans.

Thanks :thumbup1: but im quite well fed, its just your pets look tasty ;)

[Vanguard1917]

I put humans first but eating meat is pointless in 'westernised society'/ richer capitalist nations. In poorer nations I'll admit it is not as simple, but the capitalist system has just mantained the image of humans 'needing' meat to survive and as a food source that gives you status. How about educating those people they can grow more crops on that land and eat more food by not having to feed livestock.


Because humans do not want to eat just grain and vegetables. We want to have meat in our diets.

And the implication that hunger is caused by meat production is pure fallacy. There is more than enough food produced to feed everyone on earth. The problem is the poverty produced by capitalism -- poor people cannot afford to buy the food that is produced. Turning everyone vegetarian will not change this underlying socio-economic problem.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Animals do not feel pain in the way humans do. Theirs is a reflex reaction. They have no concept of pain or fear. Humans, on the other hand, are conscious beings.

Do you have any sort of scientific research to back this up?

[Ele'ill]

Superficially similar physiological responses, yes, but not the mental or emotional responses which humans have.

Where is the proof that they do not feel pain or fear.

[Che a chara]

Fuck, if humans can be 'executed' by an injection, then why can't animals ? is it because we're higher in the food chain? damn, i'd love for some higher intelligent aliens to come down and treat us like dirt. it'll be ok sure they're smarter than us, we have no right to defend ourselves.

[Vanguard1917]

Where is the proof that they do not feel pain or fear.

Depends on your definition of pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines it as:



An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage. Note: The inability to communicate verbally does not negate the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain and is in need of appropriate pain-relieving treatment. Pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life. Biologists recognize that those stimuli which cause pain are liable to damage tissue. Accordingly, pain is that experience we associate with actual or potential tissue damage. It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience. Experiences which resemble pain but are not unpleasant, e.g., pricking, should not be called pain. Unpleasant abnormal experiences (dysesthesias) may also be pain but are not necessarily so because, subjectively, they may not have the usual sensory qualities of pain.

Many people report pain in the absence of tissue damage or any likely pathophysiological cause; usually this happens for psychological reasons. There is usually no way to distinguish their experience from that due to tissue damage if we take the subjective report. If they regard their experience as pain and if they report it in the same ways as pain caused by tissue damage, it should be accepted as pain. This definition avoids tying pain to the stimulus. Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause.

http://www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Pain_Defi...isplay.cfm&ContentID=1728#Pain

If pain is more than just a reflex reaction, and if it necessitates an 'emotional experience' and 'is always a psychological state', then, no, animals do not experience pain. The feeling of pain is particular to humans.

[Ele'ill]

Depends on your definition of pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines it as:


http://www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Pain_Defi...isplay.cfm&ContentID=1728#Pain

If pain is more than just a reflex reaction, and if it necessitates an 'emotional experience' and 'is always a psychological state', then, no, animals do not experience pain. The feeling of pain is particular to humans.

Thanks, I am looking at several links regarding animals (other than humans) and pain.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

"Other animals respond to painful damage in a similar way. Their responses comprise several behavioural and physiological changes: they eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones. As these responses are complex and coordinated, it is likely that the brain is involved and they are more than just simple reflexes."

The issue seems to be physical pain vs emotional pain neither of which are acceptable.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

"Ethics" debates are always interesting. Though they may be pointless, they can still provide some food for thought and entertainment more importantly, at least for me.


Ok so what about a human born with severe mental development issues and as a result will not be capable of maturing into a concious being?Can i eat it?
No, because that person is potentially a healthy human being. We need to find ways of treating him/her by always seeking to advance our understanding of human illness.

"Potentials", huh? So I'm sure you must be opposed to abortion as well. I mean the fetus is "potentially a healthy human being", after all. Why abort it? It should have a "right to life" like we do, if we were to consistently follow your ethical outlook.

Furthermore, if we take your "potential" reasoning to the extreme, a sperm cell in some relatively healthy guy's testicles should have as much rights as a baby suffering from Tay-Sachs disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease#Management). Which one has more of a "potential" to become "a healthy human being", all things considered?

[Kamerat]

Humans can probably survive by just eating plants. But i don't want to spend my days sleeping 17 hours a day, nose bleeding all the time and staying in bed all day because i get dizzy when i stand up. I have tryd not eating meat and thats what happened to me when i did. Humans are supposed to eat meat, we are omnivores.

You 8 year old little girls don't want to face reality. The fox and wolf needs to eat the cute little bunny to survive.


I put humans first but eating meat is pointless in 'westernised society'/ richer capitalist nations. In poorer nations I'll admit it is not as simple, but the capitalist system has just mantained the image of humans 'needing' meat to survive and as a food source that gives you status. How about educating those people they can grow more crops on that land and eat more food by not having to feed livestock.
In the 'westernised society'/ richer capitalist nations of USA, Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway some people are dependent on eating meat. The climate is not suited to grow any plant food humans can eat. Its too cold, too little sun and/or too much snow/ice. Are you going to force the Sami people to stop herding reindeer, or force the Inuits to stop hunting whale, walrus, caribou and seal.

There is too much unemployment up north as it is.

[Steve_j]

"Ethics" debates are always interesting. Though they may be pointless, they can still provide some food for thought and entertainment more importantly, at least for me.
Yeah im with you on the ethics debate, but i dont usually like to go into it because it does get messy, but i must admit it is hard for people to maintain a solid "human supremacy", or "animal rights" because all of the arguments, such as the ones highlighted in this thread and many others on here are circumstantial, furthermore both sides come out looking like moralists.

In the end for me, human wellbeing comes first, they always will, but that does not negate the fact that animals are capable of their own emotional responses and experienceing pleasure and pain and in my view should be treated acordingly.


Humans can probably survive by just eating plants.

We deffinatly can, there are plenty of people on this board who are testament to that. However what you experienced was probably due to a poor diet, its like arguing i dont want to get fat so i cant eat meat.


Humans are supposed to eat meat, we are omnivores. But the point is for many of us we dont need to and do so out of things like pleasure, tradition or convenience, not out of need. And as for the places where it is out of need, well much of this is due to the capitalist system and this need would be erradicated uner a sensible socialist socitey.


You 8 year old little girls don't want to face reality
No need for the sexist insults.

[Kamerat]

Maybe it was a bit sexist/ageist, im sorry. I just wanted to point out that you people are very naive.

And as i pointed out in my last post is that some people need meat to survive. Maybe some people are adapted to just eating plants, but some of us needs meats in our diets to function. And some of us have to eat meat because there is no other source for food.

[Steve_j]

Maybe it was a bit sexist/ageist, im sorry. I just wanted to point out that you people are very naive.

No worries, i understood what you meant, but i dont think im very naive on this matter at all.


Maybe some people are adapted to just eating plants, but some of us needs meats in our diets to function.

I disagree, anyones digestive system should be capable to adapting to a responsibly planned plant based diet. It might involve supplements or fortified foods (in b12 and such) by very doable in a healthy manner.


And some of us have to eat meat because there is no other source for food.

I understand that many people have to rely on meat to maintain their health, and this is a fault of the capitalist system and hopefully something we can address within a socialist one.

[Bud Struggle]

I still see "rights" as a major issue. Actually as THE major issue. "Rights" have to come from somewhere. If they are innate then they can only come from God who gave them to men and maybe animals. If they are "taken" then only man has stepped up to the plate and taken them. I don't see the justification in man having them innately by just being human.

In the USA (for example where I live) I have rights because men have revolted from a previous set of rights and set up a system where certain broader rights are part of the social framework. We set up the Constitution to innumerate those rights. But men set them up for themselves. If one isn't going to posit a God--then we really have to wait till animals set up their own set of rights and privledges for them to mean anything.

We could make laws to protect animals, but we can't give them "rights"--only they could do that for themselves and that doesn't appear to be an option in the near future.



Communists and socialists usually - like liberals and conservatives - are talking about innate human rights. For communists, they are derived for just being human, while conservatives are talking about in God's image.

I am not against human rights. I simply don't see them as innate because they could be physically violated. It is not impossible to for example lock a human being into a cage naked and then poke him with long sharp sticks for public amusement.

All kinds of human rights have been established either by increased humanitarianism due to better education and a questioning of old clan-based values, or by class struggle against elites which have perpetuated systems which have been hugely violent against human dignity.

I rather talk about human dignity than human rights, since dignity could be evaluated as a more objective value.

[Vanguard1917]

"Potentials", huh? So I'm sure you must be opposed to abortion as well. I mean the fetus is "potentially a healthy human being", after all. Why abort it? It should have a "right to life" like we do, if we were to consistently follow your ethical outlook.

:confused:

I said that you cannot compare a disabled person to an animal because of the fact that the disabled person is potentially a healthy human being (with scientific advancements in our understanding of illness, etc). The animal, on the other hand, will always remain an animal and thus cannot be equated to any human, however severe the disabilities of the latter may be.

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks, I am looking at several links regarding animals (other than humans) and pain.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

"Other animals respond to painful damage in a similar way. Their responses comprise several behavioural and physiological changes: they eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones. As these responses are complex and coordinated, it is likely that the brain is involved and they are more than just simple reflexes."

The issue seems to be physical pain vs emotional pain neither of which are acceptable.

Obviously 'the brain is involved' in animal responses. But that's not the same as the psychological and emotional experience that humans have. As the IASP notes: '[pain] is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause.'

[Ocean Seal]

Why are so many leftists opposed to animal rights?
Animals are to be treated decenty. Maltreatment should not be tolerated and killing endangered species should also not be tolerated. The animals that we kill for food in the agricultural sector should also be killed in the most humane way possible. Ultimately animals need to have some respect, but if they are part of our food source they will remain part of our food source.

[Dimentio]

Vanguard1917's attitude feels like a combination of Juche and general Biophobia. In the country I am living in, those who use to argument like him are most often exclusively on the liberal right of the political spectrum.

One question. If human beings enjoy watch animals being taken to arenas and then tortured to death, would it be oppression to deny them that experience?

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard1917's attitude feels like a combination of Juche and general Biophobia. In the country I am living in, those who use to argument like him are most often exclusively on the liberal right of the political spectrum.

If we're going to try to discredit arguments by association, the first government in modern European history to apply the kinds of laws demanded by 'animal rights' activists today was Nazi Germany. They wanted bans on vivisection and hunting, and they made 'animal rights' propaganda compulsory in school education. That's not the 'liberal right', it's the fascist right. Even today, if you look at far-right policies, you will see the promotion of 'animal rights'. The British National Party, for instance, has various 'animal rights' policies, including advocating a ban on halal meat on the basis that it's 'cruel'.



One question. If human beings enjoy watch animals being taken to arenas and then tortured to death, would it be oppression to deny them that experience?


Why would you want to enforce authoritarian bans on activities such as bullfighting and hunting? Is the fact that you find such activities distasteful a legitimate reason to ban them? What rational basis do you have for your ban?

[Robert]

One question. If human beings enjoy watch animals being taken to arenas and then tortured to death, would it be oppression to deny them that experience?

No, because no one has a right to enjoyment at the expense of another organism's pain and suffering. Hence no oppression for denial of the experience.

Hell, I'm against killing ants if it's only done to get your jollies.

[Dimentio]

If we're going to try to discredit arguments by association, the first government in modern European history to apply the kinds of laws demanded by 'animal rights' activists today was Nazi Germany. They wanted bans on vivisection and hunting, and they made 'animal rights' propaganda compulsory in school education. That's not the 'liberal right', it's the fascist right. Even today, if you look at far-right policies, you will see the promotion of 'animal rights'. The British National Party, for instance, has various 'animal rights' policies, including advocating a ban on halal meat on the basis that it's 'cruel'.



Why would you want to enforce authoritarian bans on activities such as bullfighting and hunting? Is the fact that you find such activities distasteful a legitimate reason to ban them? What rational basis do you have for your ban?

Yes, that is true that Nazi Germany was a forerunner when it came to animal protection laws.

The fact that animals could feel stress, joy and a wide range of emotions, as well as being more intelligent than previously thought should make such things illegalised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

[Bud Struggle]

Hell, I'm against killing ants if it's only done to get your jollies.

Then you don't have FIRE ANTS where you're from. :D

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

:confused:

I said that you cannot compare a disabled person to an animal because of the fact that the disabled person is potentially a healthy human being (with scientific advancements in our understanding of illness, etc). The animal, on the other hand, will always remain an animal and thus cannot be equated to any human, however severe the disabilities of the latter may be.

What are the intellectual limits of animals, however? It may be scientifically plausible to expand the capacities of animals without removing their identity. There are other factors, too. I'm sure there are plenty of animals that really improve the world and, as a result, could justifiably be saved from death at the expense of my life.

[Dimentio]

What are the intellectual limits of animals, however? It may be scientifically plausible to expand the capacities of animals without removing their identity. There are other factors, too. I'm sure there are plenty of animals that really improve the world and, as a result, could justifiably be saved from death at the expense of my life.

The idea that animals more or less are machines is a crude 17th century idea, which was propagated by the same landed gentlemen who thought that coloured people, women, children and workers did not have any emotions or intellect. Start to see a pattern?

Modern biology have started to realise that a lot of animals possess traits very similar to emotions and intellect.

[Bud Struggle]

Modern biology have started to realise that a lot of animals possess traits very similar to emotions and intellect.

That's nice. Really nice. But until animals posess the self awarness to demand "rights" the point is moot.

[Dimentio]

That's nice. Really nice. But until animals posess the self awarness to demand "rights" the point is moot.

That is exactly the reason why I ain't a proponent of animal rights, though I would like to argument for humane treatment of animals.

Rights are a consequence of human struggle and of a social contract with rights and responsibilities.

[Bud Struggle]

That is exactly the reason why I ain't a proponent of animal rights, though I would like to argument for humane treatment of animals.

Rights are a consequence of human struggle and of a social contract with rights and responsibilities.

Something further--we should treat animals well not because of the amimals themselves but because treating animals better makes humans better at treating other humans well.

[Dimentio]

Something further--we should treat animals well not because of the amimals themselves but because treating animals better makes humans better at treating other humans well.

That is also a very important reason. I know that in some armies and police forces, cadets are trained to get decreased empathy by killing animals by their hands. In the German SS for example, all cadets were given a puppy, which they should take care of for their first two terms.

At the end of the terms they would be given the order to kill the puppies.

[Ele'ill]

There are a couple separate issues running in the thread now

one being can non-humans have rights- I think we can give animals and trees and everything else the right to exist without brutality by human hand. This is not hard to do and as several people have said, including myself, it would probably make humans a little bit more aware of their impact.

Can animals feel pain? Yes, of course they can. Because they're not expressing pain in the same fashion as human beings doesn't mean they're not feeling. No, they are not going to articulate where it hurts or why they're afraid by speaking a human language. There is also evidence as I posted above that they feel emotional pain from various events.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Do you have any sort of scientific research to back this up?

Seemed like a pretty simple question at the time. Maybe I was just wrong to assume you were basing your position on science as opposed to backwards 17th century philosophy.

[Ele'ill]

That's nice. Really nice. But until animals posess the self awarness to demand "rights" the point is moot.

It very well may be that there are other life forms we have not encountered, on this planet and off, I would hate to enforce such an ideology as yours- if they were to land and be a bit smarter- and 'feel a bit more' than you or me.

They do posess self awareness- the article I posted suggest that because animals can size each other up when fighting that they are aware to some extent of their existence.

Using the word 'rights' is getting skewed through out this thread- Perhaps they should have the same 'right' to exist as a forest and the 'right' to a content life by its own standards without interference from humans.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The idea that animals more or less are machines is a crude 17th century idea, which was propagated by the same landed gentlemen who thought that coloured people, women, children and workers did not have any emotions or intellect. Start to see a pattern?

Modern biology have started to realise that a lot of animals possess traits very similar to emotions and intellect.

I agree with that. I meant to be interpreted as arguing in favor of the animals rather than against.

[Ele'ill]

Relevant news on the thread topic


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100529/ap_on_re_us/us_shark_fin_ban

[Stand Your Ground]

That's not the kind of coherent reasoning I was expecting, but sure.

What rights exactly do animals have? Could you please pin that down so I have something to work with?
Well, I think everyone here agrees humans have the right not to be exploited for their labor, so animals shouldn't be exploited for their flesh.