Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 21, 2005 21:15:34 GMT -5
Uh, this is just a display about Animal Liberation. It shows how humans were treated in the past and it kinda resembles how animals are treated today. Here is the site. www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/display.asp*hides under the table and waits for criticism.*
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jul 22, 2005 1:24:00 GMT -5
Oh I like that quote....^_^
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 22, 2005 12:00:21 GMT -5
Have ANY of you ever stopped to think about what "Animal Liberation" actually means? I doubt it, seriously, especially those of you who have pets. Groups like PETA want to take away YOUR right, and MINE, to be able to keep dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, even invertebrates like spiders. Their ulitimate goal is to eliminate ALL-that's 100%-of human-animal interation, period. They want to eliminate zoos, in spite of the fact that many species have actually been saved from extinction by captive breeding in zoos. They want to eliminate ALL animal testing, in spite of the fact that not only have countless human lives been saved by such, but countless ANIMAL lives as well! Where do you think that the advances in veterinary medicine, and the vaccines to protect animals from diseases, come from? Of coures, if no one is allowed to keep animals anymore, since that is the equivalent of slavery, there will be no need for veterinarians, and any animals that do get hurt or sick will just have to suffer and die, won't they? They want you to think it's all about stopping animal cruelty, but their definition of "cruelty" is extremely broad. I, for example, would be considered the equal of a pre-Civil War slave merchant, because I own, breed, sell, buy and even capture some animals from the wild, with my evil, evil self. I also am strongly opposed to Breed-Specific legistlation,which are bans or severe restrictions on certain breeds or types of dogs. PETA in 100% in support of breed bans on Pit Bulls and other types of dogs. They SUPPORT laws which allow authorities to go on your property, take you much-loved pet simply because of what it LOOKS like, and KILL IT, under the assumption that all owners of such dogs are criminals and abusers, and no one can successfully, humanely, or safely keep and care for such an animal. They support bans on "exotics", like reptiles and birds, again, on the grounds that it is impossible to care for them humanely and that like human slaves, such animals are capable of abstract thought ideas like "freedom" and the family back home, when in fact there is absolutely NO proof that they are. I've asked before, and I'll ask again-IF animals have rights, as we do, WHAT ARE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES? You CANNOT have rights without responsibilities, anymore than you can have life without death, ying without yang. Rights without responsibilities equals chaos, anarchy, or is that what you want? WHO will hold the animals to these responsibilities, make sure they follow the law that is laid out for their protection? What will their punishment be when they fail to act within those responsibilities, and do you expect them to understand WHY they are being punished? Radical "Animal Rights" groups prey on young, impressionable people, people who are very emotional, people who are at that age where they naturally begin to question and often rebel against the values of the previous generation. They use emotions, NOT logic, as their weapon of choice. Many of the people who write and publish such articles have NEVER, in fact, spent much time around the animals they claim to represent, if at all! Most live in cities, and have for their entire lives, with little actual one-on-one contact with animals. They also would like for you to believe that there is no "middle ground" when it comes to animals, either you are 100% on THEIR side, or you are an animal hater/abuser who favors cruel treatment of animals and does not believe that they can even feel pain or suffering. This is WRONG, guys, totally, absolutely WRONG! If you do not believe any of the things I have just posted, WRITE to PETA. Ask them to give you their stance on keeping and breeding of pets or companion animals, ask them to give you their official stance of Pit Bull and other breed bans, ask them to give you their stance on keeping and breeding animals, especially Endangered species, in zoos or aquariums. It doesn't stop with factory farms or trying to impose a Vegan lifestyle on everyone, I assure you. And, while you're at it, ask them about the whole throwing-paint-on-ladies-wearing-fur thing, and WHY the HECK they NEVER throw paint on big biker dudes wearing LEATHER!
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 22, 2005 12:13:17 GMT -5
|
|
Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 22, 2005 22:47:48 GMT -5
PETA doesn´t want to get rid of your dogs or cats! They say that all animals should be free, but they also say that cats and dogs cannot survive in our urban jungle. They depend on us for survival!
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 23, 2005 0:30:55 GMT -5
If dogs and cats are "free", then it means that we can't keep them. While they acknowledge that most dogs and cats cannot survive without humans, they also want them to become extinct, in their present domesticated forms. They are working to accomplish this on several "fronts", by getting BSL passed, making it illegal to own, breed, buy or sell several different types of dogs(with more and more types being added everyday, and with broad definitions like "Pit Bull TYPE" or "anything having the physical characteristics of a Pit Bull or Wolf-hybrid". They are working to make spaying and neutering of ALL dogs and cats MANDATORY, so it will be illegal to own a pet which is still capable of reproducing-no reproducing animals means no next generation, which means ZERO-POULALATION GROWTH, i.e, EXTINCTION when the current generation dies of old age. They are working to impose limits on the number of dogs or cats people can keep, meaning that anything over that limit results in the surplus animals, often much-loved and well-cared-for, must either find new homes FAST or be seized and destroyed...for their own good, of course. All of these things, when combined, are making it VERY difficult for anyone to bother keeping dogs or cats, so that the goal of an animal-less human society gets that much closer.
The big downside, one which they didn't think of, is that now, many kids ARE growing up in animal-free households. They have never known what it is like to have a pet, to enjoy the company of a non-human companion. As a result, animals are something "foreign" to them, something "mysterious" and you know how we humans are when we find something strange. We make up stuff about it, we fear it, and we learn to hate it. I have seen many kids, who have grown up without any pets whatsoever, because they live in apartments or housing complexes where animals aren't permitted, who are absolutely terrified of cats and dogs. Rather than respect them, they hate and despise them, and rather than see animals as other living things for which they should have at least SOME compassion, they treat them only as objects. Most people learn to have affection for pets from their experiences growing up with them as children, but now more and more children have no exposure to animals, and to them, animals are simply dangerous things to be destroyed. The effort to remove animals from humans' lives is proving to be a double-edged sword.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jul 23, 2005 2:21:15 GMT -5
Hmph.....either way....there are still humans who do treat animals with abuse....heck....even other humans..... But. There are those that care for them with extent, like Pitbulllady. Taking away the right from those who spend THEIR lives taking care of "pets" should be given the benefit of the doubt that they would continue to care rather than neglect...
.....
|
|
|
Post by AvistheCrow on Jul 23, 2005 13:18:13 GMT -5
Someone tries to kill MY bird and I'll bite his ankle.
It's interesting to see both sides of the story like this--thanks for being willing to share so extensively, Pitbulllady.
|
|
|
Post by viperidae on Jul 23, 2005 15:53:31 GMT -5
I agree with pitbulllady on this. I have a lot to say on animal rights, I've got a national diploma in animal management and animal welfare was a major part of it. We can't live without interacting with animals, it's not possible. We all agree we shouldn't be needlessly cruel or kill animals for sport. But sometimes there's not much choice in the matter. The problem is partly where to draw the line, people who say shouldn't kill ANY animal, obviously don't count tapeworms as animals. A lot of people who say these things are just being sentimental, they see 'rabbit' written on a menu and think 'aw, those horrible evil people killing those sweet little bunnies,', yet they don't even bat an eyelid wwhen they hear 'non-cute' animals like sharks are on the verge of extinction, (I know a lot of people like this). We're all just hypocrits when it comes down to it.
|
|
ScrewyOldDame
Randall's Head Servant (300-799)
The classes that wash most are those that work least.
Posts: 402
|
Post by ScrewyOldDame on Jul 23, 2005 16:36:15 GMT -5
PETA scares me, quite frankly I totally agree with Pitbull Lady!
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 23, 2005 16:47:08 GMT -5
Excellent point, Viperidae. I seriously do not think that we humans CAN exist without close interaction with other animals, and that includes bringing other animals into our own homes. It has been scientifically documented, repeatedly, that interacting with an animal, one-on-one, actually reduces blood pressure and heart rate, thereby reducing factors which can lead to serious health issues in humans. The loss of that bond would not, I think, benefit either animals or us. Keep in mind that many species, especially the domesticated dog and cat, were NOT taken from the wild and "enslaved" against their wills; they sought US out. I've kept native snakes for months at a time, and then tried to release them, and they'd come right back and would be sitting on the deck when I opened the door the following morning. These WERE animals that were taken from the wild, who knew how to take care of themselves(snakes are born knowing this; they don't need anyone to teach them), but they figured out, in their limited snakey intellect, that they could get free food, all the water they could drink, shelter, and no predators here. I know what you mean about people complaining about eating certain animals, too. I've had people bless me out for hunting and eating deer(I do not believe in hunting for sport, either-if you kill it, EAT it), while they themselves were chowing down on a hamburger! At least that deer had a chance; a cow in a small holding pen, who has grown up learning to trust humans, does not.
I've read statements from some of the more radical Animal Rights groups that amount to us humans being a parasite on the face of the earth, as if we're some alien species which does not belong here. They go on and on about how much better off the planet and its other inhabitants would be if we were never here. How do they know this? WE evolved here, too, and WE are as much a part of the natural scheme of things as any other species, not separate from it. That's why I don't see any difference in ME eating a deer, and a cougar eating a deer, except that the cougar is better equipped, with its senses, than any human ever will be for getting the deer in the first place.
pitbulllady
|
|
Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 23, 2005 21:18:19 GMT -5
Okay, fine! I understand that you all HATE ME FOR TALKING ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS!!! I´m gonna go find somewhere and hide. Goodbye! *Walks out the door*
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 23, 2005 21:47:44 GMT -5
No, I don't hate YOU-but I DO STRONGLY DISLIKE any group who wants to take away MY RIGHTS, and who USES impressionable young people to achieve their goals! They are, in my opinion, little different from extemist Islamic groups who recruit teenagers to become suicide bombers. I strongly dislike ANY group who would put the life of a lab rat over MINE, or that of any of my friends, relatives, or complete strangers. Like it or not, virtually every medical breakthrough, for both humans AND animals, has come from animal testing. The whole movement isn't about helping animals so much as controlling PEOPLE. AND, you still have not answered my questions, : HOW can animals have rights, if they cannot understand those rights, are not held to responsible behavior within those rights, and who is to hold them responsible, and punish them when they fail to act responsibly? Your "rights" are NOT how others are supposed to treat you, contrary to popular misconception. Your rights are what YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO, as detailed by law. Anyone who has rights should understand this, and should also understand that in order to keep those rights, you MUST behave responsibly, or you CAN lose them! You must also know what your rights are, and be willing to defend them, since there are those who would gladly take them away from you, whether you behave responsibly or not. In the US, our rights are spelled out by the US Constitution. I'm guaranteed, as a citizen, the right to do whatever I can to achieve Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...as long as what *I* do does not infringe upon the right of someone else to the same thing. If I do something stupid, like run someone over with my car because it makes ME happy, I lose that right-all of it, my liberty(I go to jail), my pursuit of happiness(not going to be very happy in Maximum Security)and possibly, my life(we have capital punishment in my state). I'm held to acting responsibly within my Constitutional right by knowing that I can lose them. If animals are going to be granted rights, they, too, MUST be held to that same responsibility, but who is to enforce that? Can we honestly expect them to understand their rights, or what it means to violate them? Of course we can't; THAT would be the ultimate cruelty itself!
pitbulllady
|
|
Veg
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by Veg on Jul 23, 2005 22:38:36 GMT -5
ANIMALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUAL CONSIDERATION OF THEIR OF THEIR INTERESTS! For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jul 23, 2005 23:55:38 GMT -5
You are still talking about how others are supposed to treat animals! THAT is NOT a "right" of the ANIMAL! The animal's "rights" are what the ANIMAL is allowed to DO, NOT how it's supposed to be treated, considered, etc.! I've tried to explain that your rights ONLY involve the behavior YOU are allowed to engage in, and not how others should treat you, think about you, or whatever! Most people have absolutely NO FRIGGIN' clue what "rights" mean, unfortunately.
WHAT are animals ALLOWED to do? THAT is my question, NOT how animals are supposed to be treated.
When animals do NOT do as they are ALLOWED to, as per their legal rights, THEN what? Who decides if the animal has committed a crime, and who punishes it? YOU CANNOT HAVE RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES. PERIOD. I'm not talking about MY responsibilities, or YOURS, or any HUMAN's-I'm talking about the ANIMAL'S responsibilities, if it has rights. This has absolutely nothing to do with "interests", since regardless of "interests", the definition of "rights" is still what you are allowed, by law, to do.
Let's say that a law is passed guaranteeing all dogs the right to freedom, not to be kennelled, leashed, chained, or otherwise confined in any way. Now, let's say that Dog A uses this right to go and maul the ever-lovin' daylights out of Dog B. Who is responsible for Dog B's injuries? If the dogs do indeed have the right to freedom, that means that they technically are no longer property, are they? So, Dog A does not have an owner who can be held responsible for Dog B's injuries. AND, since it was the dogs' right to freedom in the first place, this can only mean that the dogs themselves must be held accountable. Dog A must be punished for mauling Dog B, right? What will his punishment be, I wonder, and who will carry it out? Will he UNDERSTAND that he is being punished for hurting Dog B? If he can't understand this, then it would be cruel to hold him responsible, wouldn't it? It would also be cruel to poor Dog B, since he will almost certainly be attacked by Dog A again, if no one can take away Dog A's right to freedom. You see why the concept of animals having rights is so problematic now?
*I* do not have a right not to have pain unecessarily inflicted on ME, and neither do YOU. HOWEVER, it is plainly stated that citizens also do not have the right to INFLICT unecessary pain and suffering upon others, and that if we choose to do so, we can lose our right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I have the right to keep and bear arms(guns), as do most adults in this country, even though they may not choose to excersise that right, due the different interests you mentioned. If, however, I use a gun to kill someone, or hold up a convenience store, I lose THAT right, too. That right spells out what I can do, NOT what others are supposed to do to ME, or how they are supposed to treat me. I am held responsible for how I behave within that right, but I am not responsible for how others behave.
Children do not have as many rights as adults, true, but it is NOT because of their lack of "interest" in things like voting. It is because it is recognized that they are not able to yet form such important decisions and act responsibly within such rights. If they did, they wouldn't need parents. Convicted felons also do not have the right to vote, but it is because they, too, proved that they could not act responsibly within their rights, so some of those rights were taken away.
pitbulllady
|
|