DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Oy Vay!

I don't care what religious book you read, they all say that most animals were given to us by whatever deity to serve humankind in what ever fashion we so desire – be it food or beast of burden. However, some religions see certain animals as sacred – for instance the cow is sacred in some religion in India, I think.

Beef tastes good, Venison likewise. Some folks like rabbit, snake, fowl of all kinds, and even frogs.

Eskimo's like whale blubber and most orientals like seafood.

So what rights would you give them? I believe we should give them all the right to be food or not, whatever our taste buds desire . . . ^_^

So religious books are the only plausible source of rights?

Also, by your logic, dogs and cats, for example, only have rights based on whether or not we would want to eat them. This is fine by me, to a point (not that I plan on it). Lots of cultures do precisely that. I'm just making sure you understand your point's full logical implications.

It would seem to me that if we are harvesting animals for food, that avoiding needless cruelty and suffering would be a decent starting point of a "right".

(Also: most Americans and Europeans like seafood, it is hardly a simple "oriental" preference. In fact usually the only people on the planet who don't eat seafood of any kind are people who live on subsistence farming and aren't near a coast or a waterway in developing nations or people with allergies to shellfish.)

If you're deriving religious rights, then what of pigs which are religiously decreed as off limits.

And if all we're talking about is food, what of horses and dogs and oxen, or other practical animals used for various tasks by humans other than for calories?

According to those religious books, as you call them, whatever deity they pertain to – God, for one – gives Mankind his rights.

I thought you knew all about the Declaration of Independence?

I thought you knew everything? You mean to tell the world that you did not know that in our Declaration of Independence it states "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Not "animal rights", L94 . . . . It should be "Human Code of Personal Conduct"

Meaning that if one mistreats a pet, then that should be considered a crime – which in fact it IS in most states and countries all around this world.

In fact, there still exists a law in some western states that if you steal a horse, that is punishable with the death penalty – usually hanging.

Most animal cruelty laws carry severe prison sentences and stiff fines – just ask Michael Vick!

You have the right to remain tasty. Various spices and sauces can and will be used against you. You have the right to be barbecued. If I cannot afford a barbecue then I will roast you over a fire pit until you're crackling, sizzling and delicious.

The declaration of independence was not originally written with god in mind at all. In fact I do know all about it.

But nor is it a legal document declaring our rights…

The declaration of independence was not originally written with god in mind at all (I would think you would know all about this given the hostility most people of your ilk treat Mr Jefferson).

In fact I do know all about it:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;" (it then goes on to blame Christianity for the institution of slavery and monarchy, a bit much of a rhetorical flourish, but this was stricken from the page for what must be obvious reasons)

But in any case nor is it a legal document declaring our sovereign rights as individuals constituted under a government…it is a statement declaring a desire for independence from other forms of governance. And especially true it is not a "religious" document in the form of say, the Bible or the Qur'an or the Vedas, studied as religious canon and perceived by followers as the "word of god". At best it is a derived theology interpreting the nature of human rights and a religious sourcing of them.

So you did not answer my question. Religious BOOKS are the only source then? And if so, then you proceeded to ignore all of my subsequent inquiries as to the source of your views on more complex human-animal relations like pets or work animals.

Yes animals should have the protection of law but no it should not be considered 'rights' as such. Yes many countries have laws protecting animals from cruelty while also protecting the human rights to seek animals as a source of nourishment. The one reason, however, that i do agree and support (only vocally and only on this subject) 'animal rights' is that we as humans should be responsible in our care and management of our natural (animal) resources. No species should be hunted to the brink of extinction for any reason (ivory tusks, White tiger pelts, and the infamous American Bison- hunted to near extinction by sport shooters riding in the ever westward advancing railway system) these are just a few ways that we as humans have wronged our futures by the mistreatment of our animals. Even today the poaching of whales to cut them up only to harvest the blubber (a very valuable natural oil) and then cast the carcasses back into the ocean is rightfully an international crime which if caught could lead to more than 20 yrs in any prison (worldwide the determining factor being your location upon capture).

But let me also state that valuing "animal rights" above those of any human for any reason is morally wrong. I heard a few years ago about a woman who was taking her toy poodle in to a pet store when the tiny dog was grabbed by a hawk, which happened to be an endangered species. The woman had no idea what kind of bird had just tried to grab her dog, and began to use her purse to beat the bird off and ended up injuring the bird in some fashion. Now this is when the funny story took a turn for the pathetic… This poor woman with her injured pet poodle was sued by a group of 'animal rights activists' for some ridiculous amount of money and ended up being sent to prison over it.
their claim was that the hawk had more right to eat this woman's pet poodle than she did to protect a virtual family member!

NO!!!!!

Only half human/half animal should have.

And the order should be

Animals = non
Believers of Islam = non
half animal/half human = partial, Public swimming pool use – rejected.
Human = all without reservation.

Non – Human……sheeeesh you ever seen a human animal?
Ok wait, besides… Jeffry Dalmer, Son of Sam, Manson…..I mean like a goat in a business suit………..ok wait…………..