Why Animals Don't Have Right's

Just wanted to share some interesting read's...

Google Search (Why Animal's Don't Have Right's), first page

It's a moral issue, treatment of Animal's; I love my dog's... But I love my X6 and my fish tank too. It's all personal private property.

I'd like to start by prefacing the read's with my opinion

"We often strike at the outer fringes of the issue but (G*d Dam*n*t) you can't legislate morals.

If it's not a public health issue (the fecal matter in your yard is making the neighborhood sick, your animal needs a rabies shot or you can't have blood in the street's from your animal sacrifice) you can't just make laws cause you disagree.

And even the law's that address Public Health concern's have to be mindful and respectful of people's right's. Some religion's sacrifice Chicken's and some chicken farmer's have been fighting them for 5 generation's. Some sick individual's like to step on goldfish, I couldn't do it; but who am I to judge.

Animal's don't have Right's, there is an attack on little boy's around America when a 10 year old boy faces juvenile charge's for crushing a frog., what's really going on."

Please feel free to attack the thought's of mine or the writer's presented... Don't worry if it's 3 years from the O/P; I welcome the discussion.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

This first read is from a Libertarian who make's complete sense.

Why Animal Rights Dont Exist | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty
Why Animal Rights Don"t Exist


<!-- /#content-header --> Column by Tibor R. Machan, posted on March 13, 2004




Since 1991 I have been arguing about animal rights and liberation. It came about because I wrote a paper, 'Do Animals Have Rights?' after learning that a colleague, Tom Regan, had had a book prominently published by University of California Press, The Case for Animals Rights. I had been writing on natural rights theory since I did my doctoral dissertation on the topic, and so I thought I needed to get straight about this animal rights issue.
My point was, in essence, that rights are just not the sort of things animals other than people could have. Could animals have guilt, be blamed, feel regret and remorse, or apologize or anything on that order? No, and why so, that was the gist of my thesis: They are not moral agents like us, not even the great apes.
If a non-human animal, however evolved, kills, maims or injures another animal of its own kind, we may lament this all we like, but to hold the perpetrator responsible just will not work. Animals are mostly instinctually driven to behave as they do, even if that may involve some slight measure of intelligence and self-awareness. What it does not involve is self-direction by means of free will, self-reflection and self-monitoring, all of what would enable them to initiate their conduct and to be morally responsible agents.
Why do folks like Regan think animals have rights, nonetheless? Because they ascribe rights not on the basis of moral agency but because of a certain level of intelligence.
In nature there aren't very sharp divisions'a child doesn't become an adult at some precise point in time, a fetus doesn't become a child at some moment. Especially when it comes to biological entities, we leave off the precision of geometry and algebra. Instead there are areas of more or less grayness, as it were. And that's true about intelligence, too.
Yet this is no justification at all for abandoning the task of sensibly classifying things. And all in all it is human beings who have moral capacities, nothing else we know of, not even animals with some measure of intelligence'which, at any rate, tend to exhibit this intelligence mostly under prodding from human beings who capture them and start manipulating them to extend their smarts.
Yes, matters are more complicated than it was once thought, say by Rene Descartes, the great French philosopher who believed non-human animals were machines!
Recently I penned a book about this topic, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=striketheroot-20&path=tg/detail/-/074253345X/qid%3D1079240053/sr%3D1-1"]Putting Humans First[/ame], expanding my earlier paper and developing the idea further to show that environmental ethics, too, is misguided by not recognizing that human beings are at the highest rung of nature and that conduct and public policy need to be forged with that in mind. No, this doesn't mean anything goes'torturing cats is still vicious, disregarding the pain of laboratory or household animals, or cattle or chicken, is wrong. But it doesn't follow that human goals and purposes do not justify our using animals.
Some have begun to take notice of my thesis since very few have gone on record about this'in part perhaps because PETA and other animal activists are not a friendly bunch and most would just as soon stay out of their way. The most telling point against me goes as follows: 'But there are people like very young kids, those in a coma, those with minimal mental powers, who also cannot be blamed, held responsible, etc., yet they have rights. Doesn't that show that other than human beings can have rights?'
This response doesn't recognize that classifications and ascriptions of capacities rely on the good sense of making certain generalizations. One way to show this is to recall that broken chairs, while they aren't any good to sit on, are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees. Classifications are not something rigid but something reasonable. While there are some people who either for a little or longer while'say when they're asleep or in a coma'lack moral agency, in general people possess that capacity, whereas non-people don't. So it makes sense to understand them having rights so their capacity is respected and may be protected. This just doesn't work for other animals.
One last point. Some fault my approach for not proving with logical certainty that animals have no rights. But that is a mistaken demand'to prove a negative, like asking the defense to prove the innocence of the accused. It's animal rights proponents who haven't made the case for rights of animals, and I merely did some leg work to point that out.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

A blogger from 2009 make's even more sense in a straight forward manner.

Jealous Attention: Why Animals Don't Have Rights

​

<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) --> Thursday, July 2, 2009

Why Animals Don't Have Rights


Ever since I heard of the concept of "animal rights," I knew that it was flawed and false. The problem was, I could never really say why I felt that way. Recently this came up with a friend of mine (he argued for, I against), and I was forced to try to articulate why animals don't have rights. I did a good job, and in fact by the end of the discussion my friend said "okay, that makes sense." I'm not sure he agreed with me, but he at least could not refute my logic, which is good enough for me. I'll attempt to reproduce and expand a bit on my reasoning here for you to use in your discussions.

First off, we have to define what we mean by "animal rights." Most proponents don't really have a firm grasp on this beyond a vague notion that animals should be respected as people are. While there are some that think that chimps should have voting rights (in spite of their inability to read a ballot) and all sorts of other insane notions, most animal rights activists stick to an idea that animals should be free to do as they please. In this view the animals should be as free as people to roam about and do their animal things unmolested and restrained by humans. After all, animals are organic creatures just like people and should therefore enjoy the same rights...

The problem here is that rights are not based on biology. If they were, we'd have to apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to every petri dish full of virus cultures. After all, they are based on DNA just as we are, so they must have the same right to go about their viral business. This is on its face rather ridiculous; a virus is nothing but a protein coat surrounding a DNA core. It can't even reproduce without forcefully taking over the machinery of a host cell.

I have coined a term to describe what rights truly are based on, which is "reciprocal responsibility." What does that mean? Reciprocal responsibility means that you, as a holder of a particular right, are held responsible for respecting the similar and equal rights of others. You have a right to free speech, but you must respect both another's right to free speech, and must not misuse your right of free speech against another (in slander, for example). You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you must not infringe on another's right to bear arms, nor shall you use your arms in unjustified force against another. This is reciprocal responsibility. A violation of reciprocal responsibility opens you to criminal and civil liability. No right exists without this attending responsibility.

A mountain lion asserted its "rights" to this man:
​

The problem with animal rights is that animals are incapable of recognizing and respecting reciprocal responsibility. If left completely free, animals would habitually engage in acts that would be criminal if performed by human beings. Bears and cougars would attack (assault) people. Dogs would defecate on (vandalize) people's lawns. A million other "criminal acts" would be perpetrated by animals, in violation of others' rights. This leads to one of two outcomes:

1) Humans and animals would necessarily have to have different standards of behavior. Acts against persons or property that would be criminal for humans, would be allowed for animals. In other words, animals would have superior rights to humans. We'd be constantly cleaning up after the criminality of animals, and would effectively be enslaved to creatures that didn't have a second thought to us and our rights (which undoubtably do exist). This is backward, to put it mildly.

2) To protect us from the criminal acts of animals, we'd have to imprison animals that "break the law." Since animals don't have the reasoning ability to make rational choices, most animals would eventually end up imprisoned for breaking the law. So we'd be locking up all these "freed" animals...how exactly does that respect their "rights?"

The concept of "animal rights" is an enviro-fantasy based on a misguided and ill-considered desire for animals to be happy. We have a responsibility to animals, not to mistreat them or cause them undue pain or suffering. There are, and should be, laws against animal cruelty. But to ascribe "rights" to animals goes against the concept of reciprocal responsibility which is inherent in the very definition of rights. Those who cannot respect rights cannot hold them...ergo, no rights for animals. Sorry PETA.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

And the simplest Argument of all.

Human Property Right's over the Right's of Domestic Animal's

You can tell another man
1) Not to beat his Kid, because that's assault. One day that kid will be a man or woman
2) Not to beat his Wife, because that's assault.
....

Not to beat his dog or cat or chicken or cow...

We eat cow and chicken in America...
They eat cat and dog elsewhere around the world...

We're carnivore's (omnivore's) what's next i can't kill my food either. How about I just stop eating cause plant's have to live... How bout i just die right now.

Tree Rights - Forbes.com

That's right tree's have right's now too... it's coming

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

I would lastly argue... that although they are afraid to say
(Wrong is a moral issue not a Criminal one)
(Some say it's just as wrong to cheat on your spouse; how would you like 2 years in jail as well...and that's harm against a human)

Illegal is a harm against your fellow man...

You can't legislate morals... it's a very slippery slope

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Correction The Forbes article was placed incorrectly...
Tree's have right's too should be this link...

How To Make A Difference - Wildlife - Enshrining legal rights for the planet - The Ecologist

They make a good argument

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Well this thread is gonna bring all the tree fuckers out...
The title should be , " Why Humans Dont Have Rights"...
We have no rights because people are giving the animals all the rights...
Like the OP said, Animals are property and people should have the right to do as they please with their property.
Shit, They are givin alleged dog fighters more time than thieves,murderers and sex offenders.
The GP is made to believe that these dogs are forced to fight,when the fact is they can jump the wall and high tail outta their anytime they want...
Lol.. Sorry for ranting but fuck animal rights....

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Good posts AmericanDogMan

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

human beings are the most worthless, nasty pieces of $hit on the planet... they should be the ones outlawed, not the dogs

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

I don't believe in animal "rights" either; but do you believe in the case of animals that it should be limitless as to what we can do with THAT property?

Dreamer

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Bring em on CLK... Time to have the discussion... I want to see them make a common sense argument as to why honest family men and women and maybe not so honest people are getting years in prison, what's the real reason, "if they even know."

Appreciate the :thumbsup: WDK... This is a great forum

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

I have some morals and there are things that I'm just not gonna do, But i dont expect the next man to have the same morals as i do.With that said I'm not gonna expect him to treat his animals the same way I treat mine, And Im definately not gonna try and force my beliefs on you..
Sorry for the rant but to answer your question, the answer is yes,what you do with your animal should be limitless.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Ok outlawed... Ok no BSL... I agree,

But what I want to know is why do animal's have right's, if they're not in the street with other people (like a car rule's to the road). Why do you have the right to tell a man how to deal with his personal property. If I have a Bentley and I want to dismantle it and put a RedBull sticker or take the wheels off and replace it with cement blocks and it stays in my driveway what does it matter to you or anyone else. If I want to to take a bat to the windshield of my Bentley in my driveway. I'm the one who paid 200,000 dollars for it.

I'm the one wasting my money breeding chickens and letting the big rooster's fight instead of selling the meat or letting them impregnate chicks

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Couldn't say it better (only qualify the statement by saying as long as it doesn't without option personally harm another person)

without option: You don't have to have to watch hunting video's, so you have the option not to have your feeling's harmed.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Dude, had no idea you were also a NY Red Bulls fan - nice.

My problem with the idea is that it all traces back to the stupid BS of the Bible (a work of fiction) that says man has been given by God (who doesn't exist) the dominion over the animals. That's the source of this idea that we are above and may treat them as property. When an animal is viewed as property instead of as a sentient being that feels pain and something like emotions, then abuse is an issue. In my opinion, owning an animal is no excuse for neglect or abuse of any kind. And I think those who do abuse animals should be done away with.
Even raising animals for food may be done a right way, where they aren't trapped in cages and aren't killed inhumanely.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

i dont know why you guys are talking about animal rights. pitbull is not only animals in the world. we kill / eat anmials everyday. that is why aninals do not get their rights.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Really??
How many times have you died?

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Bible being fiction (your peronal opinion and I respect that)... You don't see me and you can't legislate the Bible either.

Law says animal's property food. How are animal's food and have right's

You see where HSUS and Humane goes. You can kill an animal anyway you want for your personal food and if that change's that's sick what's the next step.

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Just my opinion...

 

Re: Why Animal's Don't Have Right's

Because they don't have thumbs.
But we should be responsible