If you're talking about the innards? Usually fry 'em up and give them to the dogs. If I buy meat at the store, then I eat most of it (not a fan of livers and gizzards, but again, the doggies are).
It applies - I'm saying that animal rights should NOT include the right to not be eaten. That would be sick and wrong. Not only because it would go against the desire to eat meat that humans have held for so long, but because soy is disgusting.
Skyla, I can see the point you are trying to make, but You cannot compare what nature is and does, to what we, as humans, have done.
Why can I not compare what nature does to what we do? Please give reasons. You obviously didn't get my point, because what I was trying to put through was that we aren't doing as much damage as the media puts it, nature does far more.
Compare all the trees burnt by forest fires in the past 100,000 (when humans first came to existance, according to science) years and all the wood that has been chopped by humans in the past 100,000 years. Back up your points, full stop.
20 animals, regardless of our actions, will die in a day, according to my very trustworthy encyclopedia, 97% of all animals that have ever existed on Earth are now extict, and they disappear at a rate of 20 a day whether humans are there or not.
I can compare the way a lion survives to the way we survive, they kill and eat. We kill and eat. So what if we pump the cows, pigs and chickens with hormones? They're going to end up dead either way and I'm certain a little needle pinch won't hurt, in case you wanted to bring cruelty into the argument. You are drifting towards what is bad to us as humans.
Many of those animals become sick and diseased. and they still chop them up and ship 'em out to be sold and eaten.
What difference does it make if they can walk or not? They're going to end up in our tummy. If you are concerned about the health of humans... then I'll have to let you know you're on the wrong thread buddy.
Aminals have rights to an extent. Endangered animals have rights to be safe from being killed off. Any animal has a right to not be poached, since just about any law from any country states to not poach an animal. All animals have rights to good environments, which we are killing off anyways. This all links to humans, we need resources to power our machines and cars (drilling and destroying land to build power facilities) and such.
As far as all of that goes, animals can't have any other rights. It would just be silly. For life, animals have rights in that. Any others would just be pointless; animals live off instinct, they will do as they please no matter what we do. Just about any animal besides us on the planet isn't smart enough to have more rights than they already do. Which is why the only rights the animals get are from their life. You violate the life, it is torture.
I reckon animals should be protected and have rights. We have rights to eat them though... It all rests on one question, which I forgot what it was... that's just great... hrrm, I'll be back... If you read the His Dark Materials series you may know what the question is, but I can't remember it...
Animals Should be treated FAIRLY! Oh crud I forgot to feed my cat *runs away*
well it depends on what people consider an animal, and what people consider rights. This is what I believe... Animales are all other living thins besides a homosapion(human) on land, and in the sea.
Now indeed we need to kill some animals to feed us, and yes we NEED to kill some because we need fat and protein, we can't just eat vegetables. And vitamins come from animals and herbs so you can't get past that protein that was either.
I would say that animals in the wilderness such as tigers, and wolves, and other animals have rights until they start to kill our animals i.e. livestock, or to kill us.
And I would say that domesticated animals have rights because we domesticated them. They don't have the right to drive a car or anything(thought I would get that stupid question out of the way.)
um, now that the animals that we raise for the purpose to kill them. Um I would say it is wrong if we didn't need to raise them to just kill them. And they are treated fairly they're whole life before they're shipped off to the slouter house. And the killing of them is humane. I think they either break they're necks or cut they're throat.
So yeah, All animals have rights, and should be treated fairly. And someone in the government must have thought the same because there are agencies against animals cruelty. And you goto jail for committing that offense.
Well in the book of genesis is says that we are above the animals which means we should get more rights than them, but i dont think that we should give them too many rights, but i aslo hat wen ppl dont take feed their animals and stuff like that, even if there below us they have feelings too.
and start selling some body parts or fur its just wrong.
How is this wrong? Fur has been used for centuries for humanity to keep warm. Why should we stop now? Because suddenly it's become fashionable to support "animal rights"?
Thousands of years of treating animals as lesser beings, and now all of a sudden it's wrong to do just that? I don't think so.
I'm not a white supremacist. I live in an area where I'm actually in the minority as a white. I wouldn't live long as a racist. That being said, there's a major difference between racism and treating animals like animals, in that humans of different races are all of the same species. Animals are not, and are also not sentient. As such, they wouldn't know whether they had rights or not. They simply can't think about such things.
How is this wrong? Fur has been used for centuries for humanity to keep warm. Why should we stop now? Because suddenly it's become fashionable to support "animal rights"?
Well, do rich old ladies and celebrities who obviously hunt and kill bunnies and such with their bare hands and teeth really need fur to stay warm? Our ancestors killed animals for meat and for warmth. We are not people living in the bush and if anyone here actually is, I have to wonder how you have access to a computer.
My point is that pretending we are still big bad hunter gatherers, when in reality we are overfed sloths living in nice warm homes with synthetic materials covering our nakedness, is just silly. Our minds evolved. We are no longer the savage cavemen hitting small fuzzy things with rocks to feed and clothe ourselves. We now have supermarkets and cotton clothing. Our brains grew. Point in fact, we started to farm.
Cavemen ripping the hide off a bunch of rats to make a toga and then eat the rat is one thing. A fat fashionable celebrity wearing the fur of forty rabbits who are killed horribly and whose bodies are now rotting in landfill is quite quite the other. We now have the ability to take stock of our actions.
In a country like the US is it necessary to hunt? Mostly not. I know there are poor sections where hunting is a main source of food so I only say mostly. But generally killing for fun is not really necessary. Not in a modern country where food and clothing are abundant. Is a old rich lady wearing fur merely for fashion necessary? Of course not.
Our ancestors killed out of necessity. Not for fun or for fashion.
Our ancestors killed out of necessity. Not for fun or for fashion.
And the Romans pitted animals and humans against each other in the Colosseum for their own entertainment. How is this not for fun?
Your argument would be successful if it looked at all the facts, but it doesn't. People enjoy violence. We always have. I see nothing wrong with fur. Some people do? Fine. Let them wallow in their own pity for something that wouldn't know the difference if it were alive. Animals don't have emotions. They can't - emotion is something limited to sentient beings.
And the Romans pitted animals and humans against each other in the Colosseum for their own entertainment. How is this not for fun?
Well the Romans also thought having sex with children was okay. They were a people of excess not to be emulated. We have evolved past them.
Your argument would be successful if it looked at all the facts, but it doesn't. People enjoy violence. We always have.
Not all people. We have evolved past that. Murderers are not the norm in a modern day. With brain power comes the ability to think logically. We have the power to move past our baser instincts. To say we can't says we are no better then a dog or a pig or lion.
I see nothing wrong with fur. Some people do? Fine. Let them wallow in their own pity for something that wouldn't know the difference if it were alive.
Did you know that Dolphins are self aware? It's quite true. They recognizes themselves as entities. They are so like us. They are the only other animals, aside from us that is, that kill or have sex for fun. Evolution has given us an animal that can see itself as a separate entity. It's self aware. Well two animals if you count humans. Animals are certainly capable of evolving intelligence.
It's not pity but compassion. If you stomped a baby to death would it matter because humans don't develop self awareness until about two? Should we feel empathy for a torture victim? Animals feel pain. It's no less the ours. Should we delight in causing pain or wish to end it? Would the pain of a stupid person mean less then a Rhodes Scholar?
Animals don't have emotions. They can't - emotion is something limited to sentient beings.
It's funny how people will say that but I've seen things on TV and in my own home that lead me to believe that animals have to have emotions albeit a little rudimentary. Some species of animals mourn their dead. Logic would say if an animal died the others would leave it behind but what does it mean when a mother cradles her baby for days before finally abandoning it. That's not the way to survive in the jungle. What possible use would an instinct like that serve in the animal kingdom?
I guess that's a matter of opinion but after the things I've seen with my own eyes nobody could convince me that animals are completely devoid of any emotions.
