- 3,194
I've met him
Funny guy, he has some of the worst perspectives I've ever heared,...... along with some of the best.
Do non-human animals have "rights?"
- Thread starter milefile
- 48 comments
- 1,508 views
I've met him
Funny guy, he has some of the worst perspectives I've ever heared,...... along with some of the best.
- 10,081
- WFG9
seems he refers to those on welfare as blood suckers. Some of them.
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
It disagrees with you because your post suggests that beings only have rights if they have souls. My contention is that the criteria by which we should assess whether a being has rights is dependent upon our relationship to them. Therefore, animals should have rights irrespective of whether they have souls.
I personally do not beleive in souls, so it has no bearing on my response, and thus also not on my disagreement with you.
- 3,194
Ironic,.. he's from one of the poorest counties in the state.
@GG = Ahhhh,... k.
- 3,425
Teds on the fringe without doubt, and I think you missed my points..If an animal had a soul would you still eat it ? Would you be a canibal ? And being a decent person should include respect for all forms of life. I don't know Nugents veiws on those subjects but I don't think a welfare reciepient is a blood sucker , I just think they must be pretty bad off to have to try and survive on welfare. Anyone who thinks welfare is a bad thing should really take some time to learn a bit more about it. Especially how it is now that its been "REFORMED". Do the math I can't see how anyone can survive on it and that may be just what the government wants.
- 10,081
- WFG9
well, my comment is based on how i remember an interview he did on hannity and colmes. my memory may be mistaken.
- 3,194
Yes,.. animals have souls, IMO, and I eat them. I'd eat a person if I HAD to,... I'll take that latisimus dorsi (sp?) medium please.
- 80
I think that we, as the dominant species ont hsi planet, have a responsibility to not destroy everything we touch. I do not agree with destructive testing of animals that are merely for instructional purposes. There are medical schools out there that subject animals to torture in order to study contusions and the like. I think we have better ways to study contusions than placing a monkey in a device that is essentially a commerical clothes dryer with hammer heads mounted on the inside of the drum and beating the poor animal to death. Just to study bruises? That is wrong in my opinion.
I also think that hunting for trophy is worng in the extreme. It is wasteful and criminal to kill something just because it has pretty pelt or huge rack of antlers. If you kill it in a hunt, you better eat it.
I do not subscribe to the notion that animals should not be eaten or held as pets or as food. That is naieve thinking. Animals do not think they way we do. They do not feel guilt about eating one another. That is a function of nature. Besides, is it any more of a crime to eat a plant than it is to eat an animal? Just because the plant does not have a voice box to scream as it is eviscerated? Because it cannot look at you with doe eyes? Does it not feel pain as we eat its offspring, just because we are not smart enough to measure the depth of its grief?
I also think that hunting for trophy is worng in the extreme. It is wasteful and criminal to kill something just because it has pretty pelt or huge rack of antlers. If you kill it in a hunt, you better eat it.
I do not subscribe to the notion that animals should not be eaten or held as pets or as food. That is naieve thinking. Animals do not think they way we do. They do not feel guilt about eating one another. That is a function of nature. Besides, is it any more of a crime to eat a plant than it is to eat an animal? Just because the plant does not have a voice box to scream as it is eviscerated? Because it cannot look at you with doe eyes? Does it not feel pain as we eat its offspring, just because we are not smart enough to measure the depth of its grief?
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
He was an (excuse my opinion) ass on stage! Showing little respect for the audience unless they were of perfect human breeding in terms of looks. For some reason, he felt that imperfect looks had no place to cheer him on during his show.
His hunting video's are quite entertaining though.
- 118
It is my belief that while MOST animals don't have rights they still should be not be mistreated. I mean, a domestic animal is property and you can do what you wish with said property, but if you were to play demolition derby with you car down main street, you would expect reprecussions. domestic animals have the same rights and priveleges responsibility as any other high maintainance item.
animals that may potentialy be self aware, such as some monkeys and dolphins are given more rights than this until we can PROVE one way or the other that they are or are not self aware. If they turn out to be self aware, killing one would get you a murder charge(seems odd, but think about it for a bit).
Non self aware beings cannot fully apreciate the rights given to then, so should only get the rights that they can appriciate. The only right that I would give an animal is the right to not be mistreated(euthenasia and animals bred for meat are not mistreated when they are killed.).
I would go on, but my whole belief on this matter is pretty wild.
animals that may potentialy be self aware, such as some monkeys and dolphins are given more rights than this until we can PROVE one way or the other that they are or are not self aware. If they turn out to be self aware, killing one would get you a murder charge(seems odd, but think about it for a bit).
Non self aware beings cannot fully apreciate the rights given to then, so should only get the rights that they can appriciate. The only right that I would give an animal is the right to not be mistreated(euthenasia and animals bred for meat are not mistreated when they are killed.).
I would go on, but my whole belief on this matter is pretty wild.
- 10,832
Some of the routine cruelty that goes on all over the world toward animals seriously bothers me. Japanese "fishermen" taking sharks out of the water, chopping off their fins, and throwing them back. Whaling. Elephant and Rhino poaching. Ape poaching of all kinds. Eating dogs. Shooting cats for fun. Etc.
The pathetic losers who commit such acts are truly the scum of the earth (but of course aren't alone). The depravity necessary to be capable of totally disregarding a life, conscious or not, and either taking pleasure in it's suffering, or being indifferent to it's demise for the sake of your bank account, is diabolical.
The pathetic losers who commit such acts are truly the scum of the earth (but of course aren't alone). The depravity necessary to be capable of totally disregarding a life, conscious or not, and either taking pleasure in it's suffering, or being indifferent to it's demise for the sake of your bank account, is diabolical.
- 118
i don't see anything wrong with eating dogs, that's just a western taboo, wastefulness on the other hand, i DO have a problem with, like just cutting off the fin of a shark.
- 2,125
i don't think you should just senslessly abuse them, but some people give animals more rights than humans, which isn't right. that's all I have to say!
- 3,425
Look at a hamburger from Mac Donalds. The cow comes down the ramp . A worker takes an air operated nail gun and places it to the cows head and terminates it. the cow is chained to a hoist an lifted to the next worker who cuts its throat to drain the blood from the carcass. the body / produce goes down the line and is quartered and delivered to different divisions for production into various forms of edible materials that we then package and ship. When in this process ....before we consume the result ...do you suggest rights.. or wrongs should be involved ?
- 3,194
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Here's my take on the subject:
Killing animals for food is ok in my book. Killing animals for clothing is also cool by me. Killing animals for decoration is marginal - I don't think it's terribly ethical, but I'm not going to tell other people that they shouldn't do it. Killing just for the sake of killing is no good at all. Running cats over with your car for the heck of it is an indication of a distrubed mind.
I think it is important to add though that animals that are self-aware should not be killed for any of the above purposes. It's just not ethical.
Torturing animals is another issue. Testing makeup and drugs on animals is pretty ruthless. I'm going to say that it should be done in the most humane way possible while still getting the results from the test.
In my eyes, self-aware animals are off limits. All others are fair game - so long as there's a good purpose. Unnecessary torture is no good either, better to just kill it (eg: cutting fins of sharks).
Killing animals for food is ok in my book. Killing animals for clothing is also cool by me. Killing animals for decoration is marginal - I don't think it's terribly ethical, but I'm not going to tell other people that they shouldn't do it. Killing just for the sake of killing is no good at all. Running cats over with your car for the heck of it is an indication of a distrubed mind.
I think it is important to add though that animals that are self-aware should not be killed for any of the above purposes. It's just not ethical.
Torturing animals is another issue. Testing makeup and drugs on animals is pretty ruthless. I'm going to say that it should be done in the most humane way possible while still getting the results from the test.
In my eyes, self-aware animals are off limits. All others are fair game - so long as there's a good purpose. Unnecessary torture is no good either, better to just kill it (eg: cutting fins of sharks).
