|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:49 pm
There is a distinction between those two- Animal Rights/Liberation and Welfare.
For one thing, Animal Rights concerns elevating animals to the legal degree of humans, while Animal Welfare means keeping their conditions, physical as well as mental, to the degree of humans.
We've all heard of PETA. They are an Animal Rights group, whereas the ASPCA is a Welfare group.
For an example, take Petstores. Selling of animals. Compare it to the slave trade, if you will.
Rights People would possibly think that it is unfair to sell animals for profit- think of it as buying an apple, an orange, and an eight-year-old.
Most Welfare people, as long as the petstore was responsible and caring for their animals, are okay with it.
So discuss...
Which side, if affiliated, are you on?
Why is there so much public confusion over this?
etc.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 pm
Which side, if affiliated, are you on?
I am mostly on the ASPCA side of the spectrum. Our local SPCA has done some very wonderful things to help abandoned and neglected animals. I have volunteered there and worked at an all species animal refuge. The thing is there is never going to be a day where humans don't exploit animals. The one thing I know how to do is pick up the shattered pieces.
Why is there so much public confusion over this?
Because it's like politics I suppose. You can agree with principles from one side and also agree with some of the principles on the other side.
ASPCA
PETA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:26 am
Animal welfarists want to improve the conditions for animals in farms, labortitories and zoos. Many are happy for people to eat meat as long as the animal has been treated 'humanely'. As far as I am concerned slaughter will always be cruel. I am against animals being used and abused by humans for profit and entertainment.
To me, animal welfare will never be enough - so you increase the size of a cage of a battery hen - it is still a cage. I am in favour of Animal Rights, of bringing an end to all the industries which abuse animals - No compromise!
As far as pet shops go, I would strongly encourage anyone who wants to give a home to a companion animal, to get one from an animal shelter rather than buying from a pet shop or breeder. Many, many, healthy but unwanted animals are 'put to sleep' (KILLED) every day because they can't find a home, so please think of them first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:15 am
Both i think. I mean Welfare is very good, but maybe Rights is better because it stops it happening in the first place confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:12 pm
I'm more affiliated with the Animal Welfare side of things. I'm sure there are some issues where I might side with animal rights groups, but for the most part, I find many of their methods and ideas too .... pushy, and even narrow-minded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:42 am
I'm mostly on the side of welfare. But then again, thinking about it, I've got to go for rights as well, because I forgot how badly animals are treated. I say they should get basic rights at least.
But seriously, animals aren't going to give a crap about their rights. As long as they're not euthanised without cause or killed young, their rights won't matter to them. Unless the right to be treated with care and respect counts . . . The line between rights and welfare seems very fuzzy to me. And people aren't going to stop eating meat, even though we could probably feed the world if they used the land from feed production, grazing and factory farms to grow crops, etc. But that's never going to happen, because people are idiots. I'd rather be realistic and not try to convince people that meat is murder etc, which I do believe, but that free range is better, and fur is murder and that sort of thing. Then some might listen. :XP:
But I'm just for making the animals as happy as possible, even if we can't save their lives. It's better than nothing, right? We have to compromise, or nothing will happen.
xp
That's my opinion anyway. A longer opinion than it was originally intended to be, but oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:50 pm
I'm with both sides. I think it's idiotic that a dog can be put to death for killing a child, but dogs can't have the right to other things. If a law is being applied to an animal, they should have rights as well.
Because animals can't speak for themselves, we should always err on the side of compassion, and to me that means both rights AND welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:08 pm
I'm for Welfare. I've always called myself a "lite" animal rights activist. But I don't think an animal has the same rights as me... I don't even think stupid people do. Animals do not have the same intellectual capacity that humans do, nor do they have the same emotional capacity.
My argument, though, is that they have it, and need to be treated humanely for that. I'm in favor of Free Range Dairy and Eggs, I am in Favor of better conditions for Farms, because I know not everyone is going to stop eating meat. I don't care if people eat meat or not. I choose not to.
I believe that keeping pets is a dubious endeavor, but caring for animals is a great thing to do. So I'm not against Pets based on the philosophy of keeping them. After all, I share my room with Two Rabbits. I don't own them, I care for them.
I have alerted authorities to Pet Store shenanigans, and have been called a fanatic for complaining about caging two rabbits in a 20 gallon tank with cedar bedding (Cedar is poisonous, you twits). I only shop at Pet stores with a good record (the one I got El Ahrairah from takes EXCELLENT care of the animals, and even discriminates who they sell to).
Not every pet store is as good. They want to sell you the most expensive garbage and not care about the animal's well being. My rabbit came with a "starter kit" that included pine bedding, and the manager said "Yeah, don't use that stuff. You'd be better off with Newspapers." He also told me how to construct a larger, cheap cage. He didn't know that I had already started planning one out. He didn't try to sell a larger cage, because he knew the ones in stock had wire floors which are harmful. He gave all the right information (useless, though, as I know what I am doing).
Zoos do great work and have made great finds that help conservationists. Of course, sometimes animals do not handle Captivity well. Didn't a shark recently commit suicide at Seaworld or something? Maybe they should stop trying to keep them. I opposed the Shedd Aquariam's keeping of Beluga whales after a few of them could not handle the transition. I am no longer opposed seeing that the problem has been solved, and the whales have been living happily and healthily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:02 pm
Quote: But I don't think an animal has the same rights as me... I don't even think stupid people do. Animals do not have the same intellectual capacity that humans do, nor do they have the same emotional capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:47 pm
Shiloh1991 Quote: But I don't think an animal has the same rights as me... I don't even think stupid people do. Animals do not have the same intellectual capacity that humans do, nor do they have the same emotional capacity. The only rights I want garaunteed for animals is to have a safe and happy life. They can feel pain, they can feel joy, we should not try to infringe on those. But if they are not equals then why should they be treated like that? Fairness is treating equals equally and inequals inequally. Humans are equal to other humans. Rabbits are equal to other rabbits. And other animals of the same intellect. I mean, there are even divisions in animals. Most of what we eat are prey animals, that is there purpose in nature. They don't have the right to magically stop being prey animals. They do have the right to not be tortured, force fed, ect. We also have the right to take an animal and make it a companion, assuming it's mutually beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:27 pm
Newski Shiloh1991 Quote: But I don't think an animal has the same rights as me... I don't even think stupid people do. Animals do not have the same intellectual capacity that humans do, nor do they have the same emotional capacity. The only rights I want garaunteed for animals is to have a safe and happy life. They can feel pain, they can feel joy, we should not try to infringe on those. But if they are not equals then why should they be treated like that? Fairness is treating equals equally and inequals inequally. Humans are equal to other humans. Rabbits are equal to other rabbits. And other animals of the same intellect. I mean, there are even divisions in animals. Most of what we eat are prey animals, that is there purpose in nature. They don't have the right to magically stop being prey animals. They do have the right to not be tortured, force fed, ect. We also have the right to take an animal and make it a companion, assuming it's mutually beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:46 pm
I agree with Shiloh1991. what right do humans have to delegate rights and responsibilities to other species? The only advantage humans have over animals is technological advances, and with those advances have come exploitation and destruction of the natural world. Because of human intervention, the Earth is dying. Then, are we really superior to animals? Have we earned the position of judge, jury, and executioner that we have taken upon ourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:23 am
xANTI-HUMANx I agree with Shiloh1991. what right do humans have to delegate rights and responsibilities to other species? The only advantage humans have over animals is technological advances, and with those advances have come exploitation and destruction of the natural world. Because of human intervention, the Earth is dying. Then, are we really superior to animals? Have we earned the position of judge, jury, and executioner that we have taken upon ourselves? Excuse me, but we are not merely technologically superior. Most animals can't even recognize themself in the mirror. My rabbit Oreo still thinks that there is another rabbit in my bathroom. I agree, we ******** up the world. Because we forgot that it's not simply us being the superiors of the planet and getting what we want. We, the intellectual superiors of the planet, do have a right to judge. We have developed beyond all other animals. But we also have a responsibility to respect and conserve nature. That's the second part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:06 pm
Newski xANTI-HUMANx I agree with Shiloh1991. what right do humans have to delegate rights and responsibilities to other species? The only advantage humans have over animals is technological advances, and with those advances have come exploitation and destruction of the natural world. Because of human intervention, the Earth is dying. Then, are we really superior to animals? Have we earned the position of judge, jury, and executioner that we have taken upon ourselves? Excuse me, but we are not merely technologically superior. Most animals can't even recognize themself in the mirror. My rabbit Oreo still thinks that there is another rabbit in my bathroom. I agree, we ******** up the world. Because we forgot that it's not simply us being the superiors of the planet and getting what we want. We, the intellectual superiors of the planet, do have a right to judge. We have developed beyond all other animals. But we also have a responsibility to respect and conserve nature. That's the second part of it.
But you are a human, which makes your ideas "human ideas". Quote: Who gets to decide who is above whom? Is something truly insignificant, because it is weak or less intelligent? On Earth a tree is no lesser than a human. But in a human based society a human is more important than a tree. But who decides what is right? Of course a human will say human...but that's because they are human. I do not think your opinions are wrong, in fact all I am saying is who knows what wrong/right is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:06 pm
Of course they are human ideas. We are probably the only creatures capable of having such complex ideas. If animals had the ability to form a philosophy, form ideas, then we would see signs of artistic society or record keeping amongst animals. No, they have the necessary communication, emotion, consciousness, but not at the same level.
I highly doubt my rabbits have ideas as much as they have knowledge and desires based on that, which are ALMOST like ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
