Animal Rights

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I'm on my high school debate team, and the topic for the next three months just came out.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights. :mad:

Using any sort of argumentative style, I need to be able to support both sides (supporting and opposing the resolution). Ideas?

(I didn't know what forum to put this in... feel free to move it)

[Lobotomy]

Are you arguing for animal rights or animal welfare?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

If you read the resolution above, I'm arguing for animal rights. That exact wording is all I'm given and I can interpret however I'd like to.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Quick and painless death is all I want

[Misanthrope]

Well for opposition you could speak of the horror of the meat industry. You should google some animal lib groups, there's a lot of online literature.

[socialistjustin]

Bob Torres wrote a book about animal rights in a marxist style. It's called "Making a Killing".

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Bob Torres wrote a book about animal rights in a marxist style. It's called "Making a Killing".
I've never cared for puns in titles... but I'll look it up. Thanks :cool:

[MarxSchmarx]

The easy answer is that there is no clear dividing line behind what we consider to be an "animal" and "human". Chimpanzees for example share something like 98% of our DNA. My guess is something like Australopithecus or Neanderthals shared more like 99% of our DNA. So you pose, would the person arguing against animal rights favor the mass slaughter of neanderthals or even our ancestors?

if we take this to it's logical conclusion, at some point we have to say that somebody is "not human" and somebody "is human".

If we do this where we say only cro-Magnon''s are human then you turn the table on the other side and make it their burden to decide what is human and deserving of rights and what is not. As you do this, you can expose the fallacy of the assertion that only humans should have certain rights - because they backtrack first to neanderthals, then to australopithecus and thence to chimpanzee and to gorillas and so on.

So it is not shared genetics, physiological, or anything biological. But is it social? Again the burden on them is to show that bonobos mourning their dead, for example, is not a display of classically human emotions like empathy. If they happen to latch on to something uniquely human (like picking our nose) then ask why should this be the basis for denying or acknowledging rights.

I think you get the idea.

The thing is, at the end of the day I think these arguments are logically compelling.

Of course, I hasten to add, such logical contradictions do not bother me. For example, I accept that cockroaches have their own social relationships, they may be capable of something we humans cal love (parental care, for example, is observed in some species) and hell even some degree of learning. But I have no qualms about smashing one and setting out poison on the addage that if you see one there are thirty more.

[Princess Luna]

The easy answer is that there is no clear dividing line behind what we consider to be an "animal" and "human". Chimpanzees for example share something like 98% of our DNA. My guess is something like Australopithecus or Neanderthals shared more like 99% of our DNA. So you pose, would the person arguing against animal rights favor the mass slaughter of neanderthals or even our ancestors?

if we take this to it's logical conclusion, at some point we have to say that somebody is "not human" and somebody "is human".

If we do this where we say only cro-Magnon''s are human then you turn the table on the other side and make it their burden to decide what is human and deserving of rights and what is not. As you do this, you can expose the fallacy of the assertion that only humans should have certain rights - because they backtrack first to neanderthals, then to australopithecus and thence to chimpanzee and to gorillas and so on.

So it is not shared genetics, physiological, or anything biological. But is it social? Again the burden on them is to show that bonobos mourning their dead, for example, is not a display of classically human emotions like empathy. If they happen to latch on to something uniquely human (like picking our nose) then ask why should this be the basis for denying or acknowledging rights.

I think you get the idea.

The thing is, at the end of the day I think these arguments are logically compelling.

Of course, I hasten to add, such logical contradictions do not bother me. For example, I accept that cockroaches have their own social relationships, they may be capable of something we humans cal love (parental care, for example, is observed in some species) and hell even some degree of learning. But I have no qualms about smashing one and setting out poison on the addage that if you see one there are thirty more.
I don't think cockroaches are capable of emotional attachment to their offspring, which is what i would define as "love". I know in scorpians, if the babies don't leave the mother after a certain time frame, she will eat them. This proves that she takes care of them totally on instinct, not out of caring their well being.

[Luís Henrique]

The description of this forum:


Forum to address issues of social discrimination; especially those related to gender, sexuality, race, and identity.

This topic has nothing to do with social discrimination. Can it be moved elsewhere, in an attempt not to offend oppressed human beings by equating them to animals?

Luís Henrique

[CommunityBeliever]

For example, I accept that cockroaches have their own social relationships, they may be capable of something we humans cal love (parental care, for example, is observed in some species) and hell even some degree of learning. But I have no qualms about smashing one and setting out poison on the addage that if you see one there are thirty more.

One thing that we can do to determine the "rights" or the relative value of an animal is to evaluate its evolutionary closeness to humans. Cockroaches aren't even in the same phylum as us, where as most animals that most people refer to what they talk about "animal rights" are actually in the phylum Chordata (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordata.html) or at least in the super-phylum Deuterostomia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostomes).

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think cockroaches are capable of emotional attachment to their offspring, which is what i would define as "love". I know in scorpians, if the babies don't leave the mother after a certain time frame, she will eat them. This proves that she takes care of them totally on instinct, not out of caring their well being.

What we humans arrogantly call "emotional attachment" is simply a physiological and behavioral response to other individuals. Parental care is an adaptive response, and arthropods that do not simply abandon their offspring exhibit a physiological and behvaioral response (their "emotional attachment") to varying degrees.

As for parents that "eat their offspring", we humans (with our drawing and quartering, hydrogen bombs, and iron maidens) find this barbaric, but birds and mammals can be similarly "cruel" to their babies.



One thing that we can do to determine the "rights" or the relative value of an animal is to evaluate its evolutionary closeness to humans. Cockroaches aren't even in the same phylum as us, where as most animals that most people refer to what they talk about "animal rights" are actually in the phylum Chordata (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordata.html) or at least in the super-phylum Deuterostomia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostomes).

You are absolutely correct that this is how the animal rights crowd tends to view things.

And their view is utter rubbish.

If we take this argument that evolutionary closeness is what matters in terms of our ethical treatment of others, then what are we to say to a white-supremacist who argues that because they are evolutionarily closer to other whites, they are justified in treating whites better than non-whites?

Moreover, it's not at all clear to me why evolutionary concern should be extended up to, but no further, than the "phylum" (or super-phylum) level. Why should we stop at any given taxonomic determination? Why not stop at the species level? Or the genus level? Or the kingdom (since we are, after all, talking about ANIMAL rights)? Or the super-kingdom (and extend the rights to plants and fungi and Protists, but not to archaebacteria)?

[Vanguard1917]

This topic has nothing to do with social discrimination. Can it be moved elsewhere, in an attempt not to offend oppressed human beings by equating them to animals?

Luís Henrique

Speciesm is social discrimination. Humans aren't anything special. A banana shares half our DNA, which effectively makes human beings half banana. Consider that the next time you arrogantly peel one open.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Bananacide?

[Luís Henrique]

Speciesm is social discrimination. Humans aren't anything special. A banana shares half our DNA, which effectively makes human beings half banana. Consider that the next time you arrogantly peel one open.

Yes, and Marx's Capital shares all 26 alphabetic characters with the Bible, so there is absolutely no difference between dialectical materialism and Abrahamic theism.

Now, can we move this shit out from discrimination, preferable to a place where bananas can also read and contribute, so that they don't feel discriminated?

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Bananacide?

I'm just saying we shouldn't belittle their struggle, like Luis seems to want to.

[fionntan]

Its not a struggle its a bit of carry on for people with to much time on there hands..

[Ele'ill]

Please do a forum search for 'animal rights' etc..


There are several great threads covering this topic. I don't think this forum's two sides of this issue want to have another go just yet but if I'm wrong let's have at it.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm just saying we shouldn't belittle their struggle, like Luis seems to want to.

The struggle of bananas for banana liberation? It is impossible to belittle it, it doesn't exist.

Luís Henrique

[Lanky Wanker]

Well we do definitely need to recognise animals' rights, just not over humans' rights and freedom. Those PETA fuckers most probably own cars and TVs, both of which kill animals in the making/use and are not essential to human survival. If you wanna argue that animal rights are important, fine. If you're gonna argue that animal rights are such a huge priority, then go live in a caveman commune (which actually isn't a bad idea) where you'll hurt only as many animals as you need to in order to survive.