How PETA's Lawsuit Against Sea World Could End Factory Farming

Nov 11, 2011 | Posted by: UAAF | Full story: www.theatlantic.com

Expanding the Constitution to include animals that are non-human could lead us to reconsider how we treat the sentient mammals we farm Anyone who has taken a basic American history class knows something about the Thirteenth Amendment.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of46
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Interesting and well written article.
bored

Wiggins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Cats and dogs would be next. Great job America, keep pushing industry overseas.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

UAAF wrote:
Interesting and well written article.
Yeah, too bad it's based on a false premiss. The very idea of "rights" is exclusively human. The constitution is an exclusively human document. The constitution not only codifies the rights of humans it also designates the responsibilities that come with those rights. Since animals cannot recognize and be held accountable for those responsibilities they cannot have rights. See how that works?
kevin

Didcot, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, too bad it's based on a false premiss. The very idea of "rights" is exclusively human. The constitution is an exclusively human document. The constitution not only codifies the rights of humans it also designates the responsibilities that come with those rights. Since animals cannot recognize and be held accountable for those responsibilities they cannot have rights. See how that works?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl d/2008/jun/26/humanrights.anim alwelfare
kevin

Didcot, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 12, 2011
 
kevin

Didcot, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

5

5

5

the first link didnt turn out so good, try the shorter one.

animals can and do have rights in some countries.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

kevin wrote:
I tried to check out your information but the link isn't working.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

7

7

7

kevin wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/45zlyb
Okay, got it. My question to you is, when the animals violate the rights of others how will that be handled? For instance; there was a case where a chimp had been kept as a pet and treated like a family member until one day it decided to rip a visitors face off nearly killing her. If I have the right to be a free person I must also recognize and respect the rights of others to be free persons. If animals have rights they must also respect the rights of others. So if the owl and the field mouse both have rights how do you expect to get the owl to respect the rights of the field mouse and not eat the mouse? How do you expect to get the field mouse to respect your rights and not burglarize your pantry? Will we over load the court system with criminal charges against animals for trespassing, theft, and "murder"? Every time a cat violates the rights of a bird there will be a "murder" investigation? Will farmers need to litigate to plant their fields because it may violate the rights of the "creatures of the field"? Will rats have the right to live and multiply in the alleys and sewers of major cities even though they destroy our food stores and spread deadly plagues? And finally here is a question in the reverse; if animals have the "right" to kill and eat other species, does not man also have the same "right"? Spain is not America and to the best of my knowledge we do not follow their example. The Spanish may be toying with "rights" for great apes but they still have bull-fights, the "running of the bulls", and other activities that belie that premiss. Granting protections for certain animals is not the same as declaring animal have rights. Do I believe that animals should be protected from certain types of human behavior? Yes, I do. Do I believe that animals have "rights"? Absolutely not. The recognition of the rights of others is the key here and the only species capable of that on this planet is man. Which is why the very concept of rights is exclusively human.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Kevin,
Check out the link below. With that article I pose this question; The chimp is a great ape and supposedly has "rights" but what about the bush babies? Does the chimp recognize and respect their "rights"? Should the chimps be put on trial for "murder" and "cannibalism"? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm asking legitimate questions and seeking a better understanding of what you think we should do while also considering the consequences of "animal rights".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6387611.stm

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Another question that occurs to me is; If animals have "rights", will they be subject to taxes which generate the funds necessary to support the judicial system that defines and protects those "rights"? We humans are expected (and in most cases required) to do so. It's not as simple as just declaring that animals have "rights", there are many consequences attached to making that declaration. When ARAs proclaim that animals are equal to humans I don't think they are considering all of those consequences logically. If I am wrong, please explain.
QWERTY

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Squach wrote:
Another question that occurs to me is; If animals have "rights", will they be subject to taxes which generate the funds necessary to support the judicial system that defines and protects those "rights"? We humans are expected (and in most cases required) to do so. It's not as simple as just declaring that animals have "rights", there are many consequences attached to making that declaration. When ARAs proclaim that animals are equal to humans I don't think they are considering all of those consequences logically. If I am wrong, please explain.
You just don't get it Scott, do you? You don't.

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Even if this lawsuit doesn't stop factory farming, it'd still be a win for marine mammals held against their will in captivity. These animals are literally kidnapped from the ocean, and forced to perform stupid tricks for food. There is no educational value whatsoever, people don't visit Sea World and walk away knowing more about the lives of dolphins, they go because they want to see the killer whales dance, idiots.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
You just don't get it Scott, do you? You don't.
My name isn't Scott and it seems you and the ARAs are the ones who just don't get it. I keep pointing it out and it seems to go right over your head. Animals don't have, can't have, shouldn't have, and will never have "rights". See? I get it. Do you?
QWERTY

Ligonier, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Squach wrote:
<quoted text>My name isn't Scott and it seems you and the ARAs are the ones who just don't get it. I keep pointing it out and it seems to go right over your head. Animals don't have, can't have, shouldn't have, and will never have "rights". See? I get it. Do you?
Do you ever strain your neck from constantly looking up to see all the things that are going over your head? Grab a clue from the clue bag. In order for you, and those like you, to grasp this simple concept, you need to think 'outside the box'. To use a business model term,'Think globally, not locally'. Until you can free your mind from the constraints of 'We've always done it that way', you will never get it.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever strain your neck from constantly looking up to see all the things that are going over your head? Grab a clue from the clue bag. In order for you, and those like you, to grasp this simple concept, you need to think 'outside the box'. To use a business model term,'Think globally, not locally'. Until you can free your mind from the constraints of 'We've always done it that way', you will never get it.
Qwerty, you seem to be smarter than the average bear. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we've always done certain things "that way" is because it is the best and most correct/natural way to do it? In many cases the "modern" methods are far worse than the traditional ones. You think "globally" if you want to and I'll continue to think naturally. I am always outside the box, even when my conclusion agrees with conventional wisdom. You see? Just because we've "always done it that way" doesn't necessarily mean that we got it wrong.
QWERTY

Ligonier, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Qwerty, you seem to be smarter than the average bear. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we've always done certain things "that way" is because it is the best and most correct/natural way to do it? In many cases the "modern" methods are far worse than the traditional ones. You think "globally" if you want to and I'll continue to think naturally. I am always outside the box, even when my conclusion agrees with conventional wisdom. You see? Just because we've "always done it that way" doesn't necessarily mean that we got it wrong.
I have yet to witness any 'outside the box' thinking on your part, as evidenced by your posts; but I remain hopeful for you. To those who can, prove me right; to those who can't, prove me wrong.

Since: Jan 09

KEEP OUT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to witness any 'outside the box' thinking on your part, as evidenced by your posts; but I remain hopeful for you. To those who can, prove me right; to those who can't, prove me wrong.
"Prove me right...prove me wrong"?
I've not seen you actually offer anything to prove on this thread.
Thus far, you have only proven to be stuck in the same box as Chim Chim.(name calling tantrums)
Is there a post on this page under another moniker that you would us to consider as your argument?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to witness any 'outside the box' thinking on your part, as evidenced by your posts; but I remain hopeful for you. To those who can, prove me right; to those who can't, prove me wrong.
It's not my fault that you can't see the forest for the trees. Your pseudo-intellectual condescension just makes you easier to laugh at. You, my friend, are not the only person on this planet to give serious thought to the issues which face us and you do not have a monopoly on "the answer". The natural order of life on this planet is what it is regardless of where you place your "box". We can either recognize it and live within it or we can rant against it and waste our time trying to change that which cannot be changed. Animals have always been and always will be killed and eaten by other animals including man, "rights" are an exclusively human invention, and the killing/eating will continue as long as there is life on this planet regardless of the existence of humans and their "rights". Those are the facts.

“Scabies are people too!”

Since: Apr 11

Killing scabies IS MURDER!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

An "in the box thinker" laughs at what she perceives as an "in the box thinker." Oh the "ironing."

Since: Jan 09

KEEP OUT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 13, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

USA R0CKS wrote:
An "in the box thinker" laughs at what she perceives as an "in the box thinker." Oh the "ironing."
Qwerty fancies him/herself as a "free thinker".
Of course, a "free thinker" that is unable to accept or acknowledge the free thoughts of others.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of46
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Science Forum right now

Search the Science Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min Coffee Party 243,024
Can Tho: 'Mekong delta will be partly submerged' 8 min da bac ky di an cap 4
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 25 min bmz 199,409
Ukraine orders 1-week government cease-fire 1 hr George 10
Autism Risks Determined Most By Genetic Variant... 1 hr friend 2
Largest study to date shows majority of autism ... 1 hr friend 2
Glenn Zimmerman (Feb '10) 1 hr kate 44
•••
•••