Why I Defend Animals...

Does that apply to humans too? If you are happy then can someone come and take a kidney?

That's not replaceable, and I don't make kidneys with regularity. But I have donated hair for cancer kids. If someone was kind to me, and I regularly produced some product I did not use, I would be glad to share it with others if they "asked" and housed me/paid me/whatever and treated me with respect.

Small sure steps get you there.

Exploiting animals for entertainment is vile.

While I understand your statement, as in regard to bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting, or any other so called entertainment that inflicts injury on animals, what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? For example, would you consider the horses of Cavalia "exploited"? Would you consider Stacy Westfall's great mare Whizard's Baby Doll (may her sweet soul rest in peace) as having been "exploited"? (In case you are unfamiliar with her...I am including a video in my response.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKK7AXLOUNo&feature=player_embedded

Animal and human partnerships can be marvelous things. Entertaining people can also help to educate and inform them, if done with care and consideration for the animal's welfare.

I have two horses, both of whom will come a runnin' when they hear the trailer back up to their pasture gate, because they know that means they are going for a ride...and it must be a least somewhat enjoyable to them, or they wouldn't come and stick their noses in the halters. That doesn't mean that my gelding won't toss me off if he gets tired, or if I want to go a different way than he does...and we are still working out some communication problems (I say "whoa" and he hears "go")...but it does, IMHO, mean that he enjoys going somewhere, seeing other horses on the trails, a change from the daily routine.

Dogs, cats, birds, as beloved companion animals of man, I cannot see as exploitation, rather as mutual benefit between the species.

Raising animals for food I have no problem with, provided that they are treated from birth to slaughter in a humane manner. (I refuse to eat veal, for example, because the way the calves are treated is horrendous, IMHO.)

Sheep shearing is actually beneficial to the animals...would you like to go through summer wearing a heavy wool coat?

Animal testing for cosmetics I abhor...although I can see that one should be sure that the products don't cause instantaneous blindness if one gets them in their eyes, etc...but I also don't wear cosmetics, although not for that reason.

Animal testing for medicine I am on the fence about. I feel that a lot of it is useless (thalidomide, anyone?) and some medicines, had they been tested on some animals, would never have been used...aspirin, for example, is toxic for cats. However, many advances in medicine that have saved both animals and humans came about through animal testing...and little as I like it, I know that family members have benefited from medicines that were created using animal testing.

I read this somewhere once, and I don't know who said it, but it pretty much sums up how I feel.

"To have dominion I define, as a command to cherish, life, lest all life perish."

For people who are gratuitously cruel to animals, who harm, torture or kill them for the enjoyment, I have nothing but contempt...and a very great desire to inflict the same on them.

For example...there is no penalty under the law harsh enough for this girl, IMHO...and there should be:

http://www.gohorseshow.com/article/Columns/Sudden_Scoop/BREAKING_Teen_Female_arrested_in_SAU_stolen_horses_case/36308

Problem is that decapitation and/or starvation are frowned upon as means of human punishment...if you can still think of her as human after knowing what she did, and seeing the condition of the horses that lived through her torture.

Voted up, good article!

I stand corrected, Ripley, I should have said "if done properly" about the shearing...it does not have to be done inhumanely. I have a friend who has six sheep as pets, they shear them in late spring for their comfort, and certainly do not do any of the practices described in your link that I know are inhumane and cruel.

The problem, as I see it, is not always so much what is done, as how it is done. People who have their own small flocks, or herds, where every animal is known and valuable, don't treat them that way. People, on the other hand, who have tens of thousands of animals where the loss of a few hundred is immaterial to the bottom line...that's where you get the carelessness and inhumane procedures described in your link.

It would have been nicer if more had posted and given their opinions here but that did not occur.

Yeah, you pretty much have to be slamming a political party to get much interest on the Vine, ya' know?

I prefer almost all animals to almost all humans..."animal" in a title will get my attention every time!

It would have been nicer if more had posted and given their opinions here but that did not occur

Sadly animal welfare is not a priority with too many people.

The entrainment issue is something I wanted to talk about further. The recent law in Spain giving great apes limited human rights I completely support except for one small part: They completely ban the use of them in the entertainment industry.

While I agree that a majority of the treatment in entertainment is reprehensible, some animals absolutely love "showing off" and demonstrating tricks. They enjoy and recognize the attention they get for doing it. Heightened regulation and real oversight would have been better than outright banning - but when you get into huge production budgets, who will actually speak up for an animal that is not feeling well that day?

I mean that most animals (even "domesticated" breeds) are taken advantage of for profit. If a domesticated animal can be proven to enjoy and desire an activity then it would not necessarily be exploitation but I don't know how that can be determined.

What is the dividing line between semi-unenjoyable gainful employment and slavery when you exclude payment from the discussion? It's hard to define. I feel it is respect.

I do not enjoy & love my job, but I do it to provide a living for myself. If an animal is provided with a home, a decently fulfilling life, and appropriate mental stimulation, I think some work or productivity is acceptable if it is regulated for the animal's best interest. I can't imagine a chicken that would not trade unfertilized eggs that would otherwise rot for good living conditions and food (good living conditions are admittedly almost unknown though)

---

(Disregarding the questionable morality of Sea world itself...) The killing of a trainer by an Orca whale at a sea world last year is a good example. They KNEW the whales were agitated that day. Why could they not give the whale a day off? A sick day? That was not an option the owner would even consider. Cancel a show? Never!

We could and should have behaviorists and guidelines for canceling shows / work in an animal's best interest (and in some cases the trainer's best interest) Profit cannot always be the primary and deciding factor when animals are concerned.

---

Question for Polka... (and not an entrapment/gotcha question, I just want your thoughts)

If you had a chicken, and this bird was imprinted to you since hatching, and specifically viewed you as it's mother to the point it would not want to be separated from you (as they do) and you personally did everything you could to make sure it had a fulfilling and enjoyable life, and it did not mind you taking the eggs that it laid, would you eat them?

I think some work or productivity is acceptable if it is regulated for the animal's best interest.

Definitely. Some animals not only enjoy their work...they need to do it.

Certain breeds of dogs, particularly herding breeds, will get sullen and angry if they can't get out and run...they need the stimulation and exercise. I have a Catahoula Leopard. On weekends when we bring the horses home to cut the front lawn (yeah, I know, I am exploiting them...but I'm also helping the environment through not driving my gas guzzling lawn tractor...does that count?)...anyhow...when we bring them home and put them in the front, my Catahoula will gallop up and down the fence line trying to "herd" them away from the house. Having a healthy respect for my mare's doubled barrel kick, and knowing perfectly well that my Catahoula is reckless to the point of insanity...I don't let them in the same area. But we have to literally force him to come in and lay down...he will run until the pads of his feet are bleeding.

Catahoula's are rather...head strong. Bwahahahaha...they are stubborn as an iron mule. They use them to hunt wild hogs (which fact would have, you might think, hinted to my husband that perhaps they don't make great house pets, but I digress again...), and because they are used for hog hunting, they breed for an independent mind. (A dog that needs instruction from his master in an encounter with a wild hog does not live long.) So taking orders from humans does not come naturally to them...but they are amazingly intelligent. Mine will be barking his fool head off at someone and nothing I can say or do will stop him...until I pull out my cell phone and threaten to call his daddy. Don't know why that works, and I discovered it by accident...but it does.

Without mental stimulation in the form of work or interaction with people, without exercise, they become bored...and with their intelligence, they can come up with a multitude of entertainment on their own...generally in the realm of destroying things. Normal dogs chew up couch cushions...Catahoula's chew up the couch...ripping the arms off and tearing out the springs. (Which is why mine goes to work with me every day and stays in my office with a steel gate separating him from the showroom.)

These dogs need work...and they are only one example of a breed that needs to do something...be it herding, guarding, hunting.

On the other hand, the horses would be, I am sure, perfectly content to eat, sleep and poop for the rest of their lives...as long as they got to go for a ride in the trailer once in a while.

Animals should be exercised. That is not the same as entertainment in my opinion.

But it can be. Teaching an animal to perform an athletic feat can be marvelous entertainment for humans and the animal as well.

Certain equine sports can be cruel and dangerous...the Mexican so called sport of "horse tripping" for example. But others have elements of beauty and interaction between horse and human that are breathtaking in their entertainment value...and the animals also enjoy it, such as Cavalia. If a horse doesn't enjoy what it is doing, it won't do it well. If it does, you get something like this:

http://www.flixxy.com/world-equestrian-games-freestyle-dressage.htm

Look at her ears, watch her dance to the music...she is loving every minute of it, and if that's not entertainment...I don't know what is. I still get teary eyed watching her perform...and I bet I've seen it 100 times.

Whether entertainment with animals is good or bad depends on the love.

Dressage is beautiful to watch. So much work and training. A horse will never be able to achieve that if it doesn't like what it's doing.

If you had a chicken.........and it did not mind you taking the eggs that it laid, would you eat them?

MarkD, I do take your comments into consideration but as a vegan, I can't eat animals. I don't think I could consume an animal that lived on my land if I had animals and land.

The eggs, not the chicken. Unfertilized eggs. No living creature inside.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Polka, I raise chickens for the eggs and meat. I feed them, they feed me. Rights don't come into play.

I was asking Polka. The average person's answer is quite obvious. I wanted to know a vegan's opinion.

Rights don't come into play.

Do you beat the hell out of your chickens when ever you feel like it for entertainment? I would assume no. Why is that? Do they have a right to not be flagrantly abused? Many would say yes. You definitely do not have a right to do so, because it is illegal.

Rights do come into play, and that is what this article is about.

Chickens don't have rights. In order to have rights, one must be able to understand the concept. The idea is to treat the environment well, and in return the environment sustains us.

Chickens don't have rights. In order to have rights, one must be able to understand the concept.

So we can do whatever we want to mentally disabled humans? They can't understand the concept. What about native tribes without contact with the modern world? They don't have the social background to understand "rights".

That is an extremely arbitrary justification.

Dogs and many other animals can understand when they are being treated unfairly.

A "average of the species" based understanding of philosophical ideas is not justification for respecting life or not.

Polka, thanks for the answer.

I don't think the unfair treatment of animals is a right either. Rights come in the form of an agreement between individuals. I agree that your rights are protected and vice versa. Try to explain that to a hungry Grizzly Bear, and you get the picture.

LOL. Yes but that is beside the point. I get your point that might makes right. Without a gun, the grizzly would win. But as humans we agree to respect one another, a bear can't enter into such an agreement.

I'm not trying to undermine, I think you know me better than that. I'm putting a different light on it. I think rights are equivalent to responsibility and that what you are illustrating is a responsibility that humans have toward those in our care, including animals and even plants for that matter, the entire Earth.

Seconded :-)

Polka

Not even an "omnivore"?

Was just making a joke using the meatatarian word.

Their way was simply another rationalization for the consumption of animals. If we had an "Animal" Bill of Rights then that would end animal cruelty of any type. I would like to know why you think another animal is less then your own species? Do you think that mindset is rational?

Yes I do think it is rational. Does a lion have to think less of the zebra it is eating to want to survive? No but that is how the food chain works. Will foxes stop eating rabbits when this bill of rights for animals come out? Will they have to be vegans as well? Nature is nature. It is not necessarily that I think I am better then another animal, but this is how we are. Foxes will still eat rabbits with or without a man made bill of rights, unless you can some how get it ratified by all different species of animals, which is insane I know.

I will always wish we were more like the Indians since I think that they lived as part of nature not opposed to it like we do now.

Maybe humans should hold themselves to a higher standard?

Maybe and maybe we should not. I would rather, like I stated, live as a part of nature. Nature is not always gentle it can be violent. I am not saying my view of it is the right or wrong way it is just my view.

It does the sheep no good to preach the goodness of a diet of grass, if the wolves are of a different mind. - Nathan Rahl Sword of Truth

To be fair, he did put quotes around the word to imply it was not something he would directly say - but something that others would say.

I have animals that live with me. Others would call them "pets".

I have animals that live with me. Others would call me their staff...let dogs in, let dogs out, let dogs in, let dogs out...feed me, pet me, take me for a ride in the car, let me in, let me out...move over, you're in my spot in the bed, I want to sleep next to Daddy...time to get up, I need to go out, NOW!

We have some for non-humans but they are not like the laws that protect humans.

We never will, Polka. All we can do, and what we must do, at this point in time, is make every attempt possible to criminalize deliberate cruelty and torture...which at the moment are punished way too lightly, IMHO, and force animal owners to provide at least a minimum standard of care, or have the animals taken from them for their protection.

A good friend of mine runs a horse rescue in Alabama...I have seen pictures of some of the horses she has rescued that could give you nightmares, yet very seldom do the perpetrators, people who have allowed these horses to starve nearly to death, to walking skeletons covered with sores, get anything more than a slap on the wrist from the courts, and law enforcement have thier hands tied.

When plants develop a nervous system that can actually feel pain other than signaling damage chemically, can recognize others in their family unit and remember them when they are gone, and develop a rudimentary sense of morals... get back to us on that one.

Till then it's a tired and overused anti-vegetarian argument.

When plants develop a nervous system that can actually feel pain other than signaling damage chemically, can recognize others in their family unit and remember them when they are gone, and develop a rudimentary sense of morals... get back to us on that one.

Um, you do realize that none of that applies to MANY animal species, don't you?

Till then it's a tired and overused anti-vegetarian argument.

Don't blame me for your inability to understand the point. I have no problem with someone choosing to be a vegetarian.

Don't blame me for your inability to understand the point.

So enable me to understand and make the point that animals are equal to plants. In the ability to feel pain (not a chemical signal), recognize others, and have a mind.

Plants don't suffer so their use doesn't inflict the cruelty

And yet when asked about the use of animal species that don't suffer, you are against it because they are animals. I guess you still haven't figured out your own position on this.

That is not true

So you 'defend' animals without bothering to know anything about them. I'd be embarrassed.

Animals should be protected because they suffer

Which means absolutely nothing to a species that cannot suffer any more than plants can suffer.

Sad to see that in the intervening weeks, you have yet to figure out just where you stand on the issue.

So enable me to understand

Polka has stated an opposition to the death of animals, solely on the basis of being animals. An animal, lacking any of the attribute you mention, a non-sentient species that feels no pain, is for some reason more special than all the other forms of life. When asked why, Polka has no better response than 'they're animals'.

Very few animals can't feel pain

Very many species of animals have no pain receptors of any kind. How do you propose that they feel pain?

Those animals that can feel pain

Have absolutely nothing to do with the species that don't. You're trying to avoid the subject again.

This article is where I stand on the issues of defending animals

It's sad to see that the depth of your views extend no deeper that 'I defend animals'

. You've still, even in this entire article of yours, not come up with any reason WHY you feel the way you do.

as they are our fellow animals

Which brings us to the point of it: you place animals as special and more important than all other forms of life, but you haven't even come up with a reason for doing so.

That is not true

And yet you have no answer for the question, just a 'Nuh-uh'

I listed the reasons why I defend them.

Yes, you said you defend them because they're animals. What you've never done is come up with a reason WHY you view animals as special.

Thank you for kindly providing a link demonstrating why you are incorrect.

They are special because they feel pain

So something that doesn't feel pain is special because it feels pain.....you obviously didn't think that one through.

Polka has stated an opposition to the death of animals, solely on the basis of being animals.

Ah ok. Completely understood if you were questioning the basis.

So Polka, you STILL haven't explained any reasoning behind your 'all animals are special' belief. We disagree obviously, and I doubt either of us are likely to change our position. All I ever wanted to know was the WHY behind your position...something you have steadfastly refused to provide.

Animals are special because the majority of them feel pain and are aware of their surroundings

If you even bothered to read through the information on the links YOU post, then you wouldn't need to make false statements like that. Do you not even recognize how nonsensical it is to claim that an animal that doesn't feel pain is special because another animal feels pain?

That is the reasoning behind the idea that animals are special.

No, that was a circular argument that they 'should be treated special because they should be treated special'. The problem is that not only is that as painfully obvious a senseless, circular 'logic' as it is possible to come up with, it also blatantly ignores the issue.

Why are you so uncomfortable telling anyone else WHY you feel that animals are special?

Polka14:

And the treatment of animals must be special because we should protect other members of the animal kingdom from harm and respect their rights. That is the reasoning behind the idea that animals are special.

I'm Ringo:

No, that was a circular argument that they 'should be treated special because they should be treated special'.

That wasn't circular reasoning. "...other members of the animal kingdom" That's a reason. Humans are part of the animal kingdom. If you want a more detailed or exacting reason, that's fine, I'm sure Polka could go into more detail if needed, but it wasn't a circular reasoning statement.

It's good for everyone to review what they are doing and what moral choices they make and why on a regular basis.

(whoops, posting the same time as 7.18)

Mark, you didn't actually read it. The statement was quite literally: their treatment should be special because we should treat them special.

but it wasn't a circular reasoning statement

How is 'they should be treated special because we should treat them special' not a circular argument?

I am not uncomfortable

And yet you'd spent literally dozens of posts responding to me before while intentionally avoiding answering that very question.

Well, if it based on being a superior form of life, then I guess we don't need to treat them like humans, since humans are so far ahead.

Mark, you didn't actually read it. The statement was quite literally: their treatment should be special because we should treat them special.

If you want to quote people, quote people. Don't provide a different quote you personally typed and say "The statement was quite literally", when it was not - and then proceed to attack the statement.

Here is the sentence with the non-circular reason:

And the treatment of animals must be special because we should protect other members of the animal kingdom from harm and respect their rights.

Bold added by me.

It was quite literally... not what you said.

Unless you are suggesting that drawing a comparison between similar things is not a valid reason.

Don't provide a different quote

The only time I quoted anyone, I used the quote function provided by Newsvine. Why are you so confused by that?

The argument, that is obviously circular to anyone taking an honest look at it, was that we must treat animals in a special way

must be special

because we should treat them in that special way

because we should

That is as circular as it is possible to get....there's only one thing circling DIRECTLY back to itself.

Humans are not superior to other animals

Oh yeah, because animals that cannot feel, have no self-awareness, are non-sentient are all somehow exactly like us, but other life forms that don't do any of those things are all magically inferior.

Again, you never actually back up your statement for any reasoning behind it.

What makes other animals equal to humans? What makes an animal superior to any other kind of life?

Most animals feel pain and are aware of their surroundings

Which is not only false, it is an intentional avoidance of the question. I'll never understand why you spend so much effort making it so obvious that you don't want to answer the question.

Other lifeforms are the basic lifeforms that exist to support animals

Which is entirely your personal opinion with no basis in fact, and is the exact same reason that could be given for other animals existing to support humans.

They don't move or suffer when destroyed

Which in no way even attempts to answer the question, since many species of animals are less mobile than many other lifeforms, and many of them are no more capable of suffering than other lifeforms.

If you're really that confused, I'm asking you: what attributes of animals make them so superior in your view?

What makes all animals equal to humans in your view?

Most animals feel pain and are aware of their surroundings

Which is not only false, it is an intentional avoidance of the question.

Wait a minute. Too easy of a dismissal.

Define "animal".

Are you including the bacteria, protazoa, fungi, and chromista kingdoms in the Animal kingdom? They aren't in the animal kingdom. Are you counting by number of species to declare the statement false?

One of you may scientifically be counting insects among animals that generally do not have the same nerve pain receptors as we know them - they do not react to some "wounds" - but they do have a pain response to venom using many of the same pain chemicals that we use.

And one of you may be talking in a non-scientific usage of "animal" indicating common vertebrate animals and most non-insect invertebrates down to nematode worms that do have our same pain receptors.

---

So take "most" out of the statement if you have such a problem with it, if it's there or not it's still an answer. Nobody is avoiding the question, but the philosophical nuances and exclusions could go on and on.

What makes all animals equal to humans in your view?

...animals feel pain and are aware of their surroundings. Those animals at least are equal.

That's an answer. You may continue on with the technicalities of that answer now.

People are entitled to their beliefs, and my belief is that criticizing others for having "too much" compassion is the very last thing on my list to criticize others for in this world.

Are you including the bacteria, protazoa, fungi, and chromista kingdoms in the Animal kingdom?

No, I include only animals when I say animals. You manage to come up with some pretty crazy stuff, but not much that really pertains to the discussion.

That's an answer

To a question that wasn't asked.

Nobody has been criticized for having compassion, must be another of those things you come up with that don't have anything to do with the discussion that is actually taking place.

yeah I think we should stage a 'cancer rights' protest. I should be condemned for not having compassion for my tumor. By the way, since nobody seems willing to acknowledge this, plants have feelings, and know pain as well as any of you. The plant just doesn't bow to communicating to inferior beings like mammals who think rights are significant and should be dealt out to others like playing cards from a deck.

No, I include only animals when I say animals.

Ok then. Just checking. I'm just attempting to find out where the heck you are getting your facts, or how you are making this stuff up that "Most animals do not feel pain". Care to share that?

Here is an article discussing different levels of pain experienced by animals, referencing over 50 different studies on animal pain in various species.

("Understanding Pain and its Relevance to Animals by Dr. John S. Church" professional Veterinary research, not a PETA document)

---

To a question that wasn't asked.

You asked her view:

What makes all animals equal to humans in your view?

She gave her view. You think it's invalid? Don't like it? Oh well. You asked.

The continued assertion that your question was not answered or avoided seems to be your way of avoiding discussion containing facts.

yeah I think we should stage a 'cancer rights' protest.

And other people have different ways of avoiding factual discussion.

Mark, make your point. Don't pretend to defend another's point. You don't like my analogy, I accept that, but it's valid. If you defend animal rights, cancer is an animal, and you defend its right. If you think cancer is a plant, go for a home run in soccer.

I accept that, but it's valid. If you defend animal rights, cancer is an animal, and you defend its right.

You serious? Ok. Sorry about that.

Cancer is a mutation of your own genetic material, has no independent thought, has no brain, has no nervous system, cannot feel pain inside it's own tissue (only causes it for the surrounding tissue), cannot live on it's own, is not an independent living being, is one cell cloning itself uncontrollably, and is not an animal any more than your liver is an animal - less than that actually. It's a malignant neoplasm.

----

Mark, make your point.

Sure thing.

People don't like questions about the morality of their actions or daily behavior. It pisses them off greatly. So when subjects like this come up, the tempers go through the roof. But all our behaviors need review at times. Most people just don't want to. It's uncomfortable. It is necessary if we want to live in a just society. That goes for all things, animal rights, racism, discrimination, whatever. If we don't occasionally stop and think, then we will continue to do what the person next to us is doing, right or wrong. That's what this article is good for.

I don't agree with Polka on completely equal rights with animals, but human society does need to greatly review what it does in regards to treatment of animals and progress in that direction in a reasonable manner. The idea that animals do not have rudimentary morals and emotions or do not feel pain is an antiquated and wrong remnant of our cultural history.

Many groups like PETA are actually detrimental to the cause of animal rights by focusing on unobtainable unrealistic goals (Nobody should eat meat, close all farms and zoos) instead of short term achievable goals that most can agree on such as decent humane living conditions for farm animals. It's a waste of time that could be used making real advancements for animals.

Meat eating just is not going to go away until there is an enjoyable identical and better alternative such as "in vitro" meat. Easy to make fun of concept yes, but if the technology progresses to where it actually tastes better, is healthier, and is cheaper with no chance of contamination; then real progress can be made as far as getting rid of most factory farms.

Till then I think it's a good idea to cause as little death as possible within reason, avoid needless cruelty and suffering in all creatures that can feel pain whenever we can. Not everyone is going to give up meat and that's absolutely fine with me, for that matter I support hunting, but everyone should occasionally spend a moment and think about the impact they have, unpleasant thought or not.

You asked her view

And she hasn't given it. If I ask you for your favorite auto brand, and you reply 'chicken satay', you've given AN opinion, but not the one that was asked.

I'm not sure why you struggle so much with such a simple concept.

And if you bothered to look at the sources in your link, perhaps you'd notice that they are about cattles, sheep, dogs.....a minute fraction of a percent of the animals out there.

All right Mark, your point is well taken. My eye hurts, but I can rub a little dirt on it....

I agree with you actually. Polka's point is also quite well established. You have made my day. Not everyone is going to give up meat.

I don't kill arbitrarily, and I don't respect that disposition. I say a prayer (out loud) each time I take a life to sustain my own, and I am stupid or idealistic enough to thank my girls for the eggs I receive.

My point is, I don't give out rights. If my birds were able to accept responsibility for their decisions, I could deliberate with them on the concept of whether it's a good idea or not to run around in the woods. They can't, so I won't accept the concept that they have rights. I do however respect my environment enough to place the value of my achievement on the trust between human and environment that exists and has existed since way before I was born.

I feed them and they feed me. If I have to take a life to sustain mine, I am thankful for the opportunity, but I don't take a life for the pleasure of taking a life.

I'd personally recommend Do insects feel pain? - A biological view for anyone honestly interested

I don't think we should worry about superiority in regards to animals. In my own opinion, animals are automatically superior as a condition of their status as part of the animal kingdom. But this article addresses the idea of animal rights and natural rights that should be afforded to non-human animals. This should be done because it is the right thing and too many animals that are killed are known to suffer as a result.

So your claim is 'animals are superior because they are animals'. So what you're saying is that you don't have any reason. Okay, well then humans are superior because they are human.

A human is nothing but another animal. That obviously makes them equal.

A fungus is nothing but another life form. That obviously makes them equal.

I think that about sums it up. You place animals above all other life, but for no actual reason. Thank you

That would be your opinion. I believe it is not relevant as my own opinion is about the defense of animals.

Just as that is YOUR opinion.....yet you condemn other people for having a different opinion than you.

That would be your opinion but even if they were equal (and they are not),

They are not, in YOUR opinion.

Plants and fungi have no rights and no reason to be defended. Only animals need defending.

Non-human animals have no rights and no reason to be defended. Only humans need defending.

What did you call those holding a different opinion than you? Oh yeah, murderers

I'm going to break this to you gently: Your opinion is not magically more important than those of everyone else.

Well they are killing other animals. If killing animals isn't murder then should we repeal all laws that forbid the killing of humans??

And you're killing other life forms as well, you murderer.

You present your opinion as important, and then dismiss those of others as 'just their opinion'....that is, when you're not condemning others for having a different opinion.

Yes, but non-human animals didn't count as murder in their opinion, but you thought their opinion didn't really matter. If their opinion of their actions didn't matter, then your opinion of your actions doesn't matter.

I think their opinion is wrong. Their views are based on human supremacist opinions.

I think your opinion is wrong. Your views are based on animal supremacist opinions.

My opinion is just unlike their opinion.

But no more valid

It is based mostly on anti-cruelty opinions

No it isn't. You stated before that it was about animals, and that cruelty had nothing to do with it.

This thing where you keep changing your position repeatedly is exactly what I was talking about earlier. YOU don't even know where you stand.

In your opinion, anti-cruelty opinions are not valid?

So what you're saying is that you cannot even come up with a question that pertains to my post.

That cannot possibly be true, since you stated that you feel the same even in a complete absence of cruelty

Are you now changing your mind and claiming a stance against cruelty, instead?

It was always about the cruelty

Not according to you.

Tell you what, if you ever figure out where you stand, why not come back and write an article THEN?

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't. You waffled around between several different things, refusing to ever actually reveal your true stance.

Okay, so now you're claiming it is in opposition to being cruel, a definition for which you use

"disposed to inflict pain or suffering".

So then, if that is actually your stance, then killing and eating animals in the absense of cruelty shouldn't be very bothersome for you.

That is not possible.

Except for the fact that it is entirely possible by the definition that YOU chose to use.

Why are you avoiding the question?

Then the majority of processes do inflict cruelty

The majority of animals don't even feel pain

I can not say

Actually, you can. It's very simple, you just keep typing on that little keypad/keyboard in front of you

I would not engage in those practices

For what reason?

That is not true.

That's not what ACTUAL studies show. Your opinion doesn't count as evidence.

I am a vegan

That has nothing to do with it. I didn't ask about your personal food choices.

If you spent a tenth of the effort answering questions that you currently spend avoiding them, then we could already know where you actually stand.

I already provided one, very short, easy to read example on pain in animals.....did you not bother to read it?

I answered it correctly

No way to honestly claim that unless you didn't even understand it.

Being vegan does not mean what you seem to think it means. It is simply a personal food choice. I didn't ask you about what you eat.

I already provided one, very short, easy to read example on pain in animals.....did you not bother to read it?

The insects one you didn't provide a link to? "Do insects feel pain? - A biological view"? If it's the book I found, it's 30 years old. A bit outdated, and still recommends in the final paragraph that insects be treated as though they do experience pain:

We consider that the experimental biologist would be
advized to follow, whenever feasible, Wigglesworth's
recommendation that insects have their nervous systems
inactivated prior to traumatizing manipulation.
This procedure not only facilitates handling, but also
guards against the remaining possibility of pain infliction
and, equally important, helps to preserve in the
experimenter an appropriately respectful attitude
towards living organisms whose physiology, though
different, and perhaps simpler than our own, is as yet
far from completely understood.(pg 167)

So once again, you are basing your statement on "Most" animals do not feel pain purely on the large number of insect species in the animal kingdom, correct?

You didn't answer the question from 7.28:

Are you counting by number of species to declare the statement false?

Is too hard to simply state "You are wrong, most animals do not feel pain, because (I think) insects do not feel pain, and there are an overwhelming number of insects in the animal kingdom" -

It's very simple, you just keep typing on that little keypad/keyboard in front of you

- instead of going on vaguely for 30+ posts between two people that aren't actually clear on what the other is talking about???

*Most* insects do not feel physical trauma pain *as far as we know* but do feel pain from toxins and venoms.

This could have been cleared up ages ago, but you just had to take stabs at me for attempting to get everyone to voice some clarifications. I know everybody loves arguing on the internet, but this is ridiculous.

Hell, it's bordering on cruelty. (har har)

A bit outdated

30 years means the science is magically not good any more? Interesting then that you attempt to refute it with something 29 years old ....and on a different subject.

As for your question, species, number of animals....it's true EITHER way.

Polka, I do not hold myself higher than nature. But... I am higher on the food chain than cows, chickens, goats and all the creepy crawly things one sees on a summer day.

That is just the way of the world. You can fight it. You can seek to say it is not so. But all of nature stands out there to contradict you. Bugs eat smaller bugs. Birds, bats, frogs and other vertebrates eat bugs. Bigger animals eat smaller animals.

Humanity is a part of this mosaic of life. This is not a rationalization. It simply recognizing the way nature works. I see no reason why human beings should behave otherwise than all of the other critters out there. None of them are possessed of fine sensibilities regarding other forms of life.

Why us?

The higher standard you allude to does not, in the minds of most people, include according the same rights to cows as we accord to members of the human species. To kill another person is murder. Morally I see no equivalence between this act, and the swatting of a fly, or the slaughter of animals raised for food. It is something humans have always done, and will continue to do.

I would agree that human use of nature must be balanced and sustainable. But that is a far cry from eschewing the consumption of animals as food. While I would certainly support limits on the harvesting of fish to sustainable levels, I've absolutely no issues with the raising of cows, pigs, sheep and other domesticated animals as a food source.

When this becomes the standard then humans will no longer need to eat meat by killing an animal.

Which will end, inevitably, with cows and pigs on the endangered species list.

Extinction is forever, Polka, and certainly not a goal we should aspire to, you know?

You can't "integrate" domestic animals into the "wild". There isn't enough "wild" left, for one thing, and with their natural instincts blunted by centuries of domestication, they would starve, providing they weren't eaten first.

Polka, it's like horse racing. People get all upset and want to ban the sport when a horse is injured, not realizing that once they do...it's a death sentence for all Thoroughbreds everywhere. OTTB's can take years of retraining to become "rideable" in any other venue, they have one speed (flat out gallop) and are usually too excitable to be reliable for any but the most experienced riders.

When they are not needed then they will no longer be allowed to exist in today's artificial populations

When they are not needed then they will no longer be allowed to exist...period.

Polka, I live on a dead end dirt road near a state park. People dump animals out here all the time thinking that they are going to be just fine "living in the country".

My neighbors and I feed them, try to find homes for them, and adopt some ourselves. They do not fend for themselves outside of human influence, they freaking STARVE unless some human takes them in and cares for them. I've seen them with ribs sticking out like barrel staves, they get diseases that can easily be prevented by inoculation, they get hit by cars, kittens end up as dinner for hawks, as do some small dogs, they get shot in the woods by hunters, that is...if some home owner doesn't take a shot at them for trying to kill their cat for food.

I know you mean well, I know your heart is in the right place...but what you are advocating here would result in the end of life for all animals, not just the abused ones.

When they are not needed then they will no longer be allowed to exist...period.

All living alive today will die.

All living in the future will die.

Guilt for "not needed" animals dying - when those individuals will eventually die no matter what we do is not something to feel guilty about (unless it's a tortuous death).

It's how they live.

The big question is how many living things will we cause to exist for the express purpose of only living in terrible conditions then dying? (never seeing the sun, living in a small box, feces encrusted floor, no social interaction, ect)

Extinction is forever, Polka, and certainly not a goal we should aspire to, you know?

Extinction of a species is when we do not have ample genetic material to re-create that species. We now may have the opportunity to re-create the Mammoth species. (If we should do so is another argument) Would they be extinct?

If say pigs are "not needed" at current populations in the future, we can preserve their genetic heritage for the future. Mourning future *possible* generations that do not exist isn't valid.

Mourning lost a genetic heritage that is 4+ billion years old and not having a diverse world full of varied creatures is valid.