MotivatedSloth I wasn't saying if you don't like the topic then don't speak about it. But some of the people who replied to my post weren't really talking about their differing opinions and making a strong argument for it, they were mostly calling me "naive" or calling animals names.

And I'm not barring people from the discussion because they're not thinking alike, I'm telling them to go read something they'll actually enjoy because they're being rude.

Thanks for speaking up anyway, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you.

    Necroghan Initially I thought about replying properly, but given how 49% of your reply is a rant, 49% of your reply is pretending to claim that Netflix documentaries have ANY scientific value, while the other 2% will be you trying to diss my point without even noticing what it was.

    So I will put it in simple words for ya - If you cannot take responsibility for your actions, you will never be equal to those who can. This simple rule is even reflected in most of the laws with a point that people below legal age cannot enter any legal agreement. Because they are incapable of shouldering responsibility. Responsibility, black death, one's own actions, rats. Does the bell rings now?

    LopingWolf But yes, you're right. Our opinions differ, so let's just go and look at stuff we enjoy, right? I'm not sure why you even bothered posting here actually, as you clearly don't enjoy reading this.

    This is the part that bars others from entering the discussion, because with this the OP can claim that any post not to his liking is bad, hateful, and any other of the modern empty words crowd uses to go hunt for witches.

    Necroghan I actually don't understand what your point is.

    That can sum up everything in your point. You failed to spare this minimal effort required to focus and read what I wrote, not my problem you are apparently (according to your own words) incapable of understanding that. But hey, that doesn't call for attempting to insult me. If I were to talk with a physic scientists and he would start uttering magic words way beyond my knowledge ( you know, I'm lightly joking here with 'magic words' meaning the job specific jarrgon that I'm not well-versed with in case you once again would fail to understand what I consider entry level of discussion) that wouldn't give me any right to say that "he failed to make point" or "he spewed up a word-salad". That's the level you are currently at.

    Necroghan You're not actually correcting any of my points, though you seem to be under the misconception that you are.

    "I'm a vegan and I feel great! Ever since I became a vegan, my life changed 2083745608237456%, I started nailing world class models, my imouto grew wings and turned into an angled and wild animals often visit my home for a cup of tea and snacks" - This is how your "arguments" sounds like. The fact that something works for you, doesn't make it universal. And the fact that you are using Netflix, which is extremely leftist platform spending hefty amounts to promote all sorts of the nowadays popular and oppressive ideologies, you prove that you lack any proper science backpad to rest your claims on.

    Did you notice that I never claimed that Veganism and other sects are harmful? Because contrary to the black-and-white, simplified world that you live in, I'm perfectly aware that this topic is hard. Hard because human science is still far away from understanding everything about human bodies, how they operate, what they need and all. Just like back in the days people used X-rays to check if a shoe they wanted to buy was fitting nicely because they didn't know about its harmful effects, I believe that we have yet to determine whether or not eating meat is better or worse. For that matter, I personally BELIEVE that due to the simple biology making digesting the animal-sourced food easier for our stomach, meat is a necessary although in small amounts part of our diet.

    Necroghan So please tell me how your rant about the black death applies in a modern world?

    Once again, since you can't enforce rats to wash their paws and stay clear from human properties/food, you can't make them take responsibility for it, hence making them less than our equals. And this point applies to all the animals.

    Necroghan I just presented some facts, not some crazy theory.

    So far, you have yet to provide a single fact. Google what's the difference between a fact and your personal opinion.

    Necroghan Comparing it to Nazi Germany *ahem 'thought dichotomy' is ridiculous.

    This is a simple way to learn whether your point actually makes a moral sense. If killing a human is bad, then why killing a fly should be any different? Reversly, when asking a question, is killing a fly for fun bad or a good thing, you can extrapolate it on the first question I posed. I knew you would jump on this point because nothing irks people like you more than putting your own actions into perspective of greater scale.

    Necroghan Calling somebody names is not the correct way to provoke critical thinking. It is not a constructive way to debate. You shouldn't be ridiculed for having a different opinion.

    If you start throwing insults around. Generally its because people don't have a decent enough counter argument. So they resort to playground tactics.

    Funny, I just read yesterday how people learned what ad personam is and use it as stopgap for any discussion. Dear hypocrite, if you want to stand on a moral high ground, then read your previous post and write profuse apology for each and every insult you inserted there first.

    Pathetic.

    LopingWolf Thanks for speaking up anyway, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you.

    And that's how a normal person react when they are misunderstood. My bad mate, I'm just oversensitive regarding this topic, hence my nitpicking.

      LopingWolf Honestly, I don't know if I actually care about animal rights. They are not like humans. If I punch a human, he's gonna punch me in return first. We probably are not gonna talk about human rights and get to the act of punching each other. Maybe if we are in a corporate situation, and injustice, like mental abuse enough to cause trauma, perpetual physical violence, etc. happen, then it is only fair to question human rights. Bullying is a serious issue in that regard.

      Mental harm cannot be actually seen, sometimes goes unnoticed even for family members, the ones closest to the victim. The perpetrator might not even get any sentence, unless there is hard evidence against him. Even then, I don't know the law, so I don't know if there is any punishment for this.

      The victim, on the other hand might even commit suicide or be mentally traumatised for the rest of his life. An innocent person might be corrupted because of this, his outlook on life would be negatively skewed. A person that might be willing to lend a helping hand to others before might just watch a cruel scene with an apathetic expression.

      This is all because humans (a significant portion of them) have the tendency to silently endire, for various reasons.

      But, this is not the case in animals (Wild animals to be exact. Domesticated ones are somewhat closer to humans in that regard). If I pick a bone with a wild animal, it is guaranteed that it would pick my bone. It is not gonna think about any 'Rights' that we humans speak.

      rights and everything are stuff of modern society. You can fairly say animals live in an environment similar to the 16th century. You can argue on many fronts, but what animals pursue and what humans pursue are entirely different things.

      Animals prefer only two things: food, and a place of safety from the elements. That's all.

      As for humans, we have surpassed such a lifestyle ages ago. Just the fact that this world revolves around 'Entertainment' should speak of us. We no longer have to hunt for food, we no longer have to fear the rain, we no longer have to suffer to fill our belly. I'm not saying difficulties exist, but they are what they are, 'mere difficulties'.

      I feel like I completely derailed from the topic here. Sorry about that, ahaha.

        I disagree with the notion that humans and animals are equal or ever could be equal. I think that the topic is extremely open ended and for some reason defines different kinds of animals while leaving other, more relevant, pieces of information undefined.

        Much of what the OP mentions are based on feelings, and seem to be along the lines of "I like animals, I hope others will like animals too". To some extent, I agree with this. I think it's cool if you want to treat animals nicely, but I think there is no grounds to make other people do the same. I wish that everyone could be kind to one another and for everyone to live a warm and fulfilling life, but that's just a pipe dream. It's never going to happen unless humans stop sinning.

        Something I find questionable with the original argument is the nature of these so-called animal rights. Do you mean something along of lines of giving all animals food, drink, and shelter? Or do you mean something more such as rights listed on the Bill of Rights? Is the current treatment for pet animals in society today considered acceptable?

        What about spaying/neuturing (castration) and docking, two commonly performed operations on pet animals? Are these considered humane? To begin to answer any questions on the rights of animals I think it is important to say whether or not reproduction is considered important and a right?

          Aiwwioddkdkxz Thank you for inputting your opinion on this. It has given me more to think about on this topic. You're right, this is a very open-ended topic, and of course, there would be lots of differing opinions, which is what makes this topic to interesting.

          Aiwwioddkdkxz Much of what the OP mentions are based on feelings, and seem to be along the lines of "I like animals, I hope others will like animals too".

          Well, that is not entirely correct. I think pet animals, especially the family kinds, should be treated with the most respect from humans because they have been through so much with us, because our histories are linked. That's all. But I realize why you would say that, of course.

            MotivatedSloth

            MotivatedSloth LopingWolf But yes, you're right. Our opinions differ, so let's just go and look at stuff we enjoy, right? I'm not sure why you even bothered posting here actually, as you clearly don't enjoy reading this.

            This is the part that bars others from entering the discussion, because with this the OP can claim that any post not to his liking is bad, hateful, and any other of the modern empty words crowd uses to go hunt for witches.

            I'm not barring others from the discussion, I'm telling them to go enjoy themselves because clearly, they're not enjoying reading this and disagree with my views but also don't have/can't be bothered to offer proper arguments explaining why pet animals shouldn't be treated with proper respect.

            MotivatedSloth LopingWolf Thanks for speaking up anyway, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you.

            And that's how a normal person react when they are misunderstood. My bad mate, I'm just oversensitive regarding this topic, hence my nitpicking.

            I meant that I'm sorry if it appeared to you as if I were barring people who disagree with my views from the discussion, which I'm not. Reasons are as I stated above.

              LopingWolf

              LopingWolf why pet animals shouldn't be treated with proper respect

              Nobody is saying pets shouldn’t be treated with proper respect. Nobody advocates for animal abuse, but you are saying they should be equal with humans and treated the same way humans are. However, you only want to treat them in human standards in specific ways which favor your opinion. Hold those standards up to your house cat which tortures and murders mice why don’t you. If you are treating them as you would a human.

              LopingWolf I'm also interested if "love" is part of human rights and would be glad to bounce ideas off other people and hear from experts

              Ngl, this sends me huge bestiality warnings from you. Please ensure you look up your countries specific laws on this as some countries it’s legal, others it can be a death penalty.

                Wolfick

                Wolfick Nobody is saying pets shouldn’t be treated with proper respect. Nobody advocates for animal abuse, but you are saying they should be equal with humans and treated the same way humans are.

                I'm saying pet animals should be treated as our equals, not all animals. Also, treated as our equals is different from being our equals, which they aren't.

                Wolfick However, you only want to treat them in human standards in specific ways which favor your opinion.

                You mean treating pet animals with respect? Isn't that what we are taught to do from a young age? Treat other people with respect, at the very least?

                Wolfick Hold those standards up to your house cat which tortures and murders mice why don’t you.

                That is different. I'm saying treat pet animals with respect, but that doesn't mean protect every single one of them from harm because that is the way things work. But since humans made some animals into pet animals, we should treat them with respect. That's all I'm saying - treat them with respect.

                Wolfick Ngl, this sends me huge bestiality warnings from you. Please ensure you look up your countries specific laws on this as some countries it’s legal, others it can be a death penalty.

                Death penalty concerning "love"? Bestiality warnings from me? I meant loving someone, loving anyone of any gender and any race, just loving someone, especially in a romantic way. I meant to ask if everyone having the right to do that is part of human rights - but I suppose it isn't, not really, if some countries ban everything LGBT+ related ...? I haven't heard of people being banned from loving someone in a platonic way, but I have heard of bans on being LGBT+ in countries.

                  LopingWolf

                  LopingWolf I'm saying pet animals should be treated as our equals, not all animals. Also, treated as our equals is different from being our equals, which they aren't

                  I see, so it's a double standard

                  LopingWolf You mean treating pet animals with respect? Isn't that what we are taught to do from a young age? Treat other people with respect, at the very least?

                  Treating with respect, and treating as our equals, are two very different things. Again, nobody is advocating against treating animals with respect, and this is regardless as to whether they are a pet or a wild animal. You are rambling on by this point mixing one issue with another, and seem more confused than anything.

                  LopingWolf treated as our equals is different from being our equals

                  No, actually, it isn't. Also, your own opening statement was:

                  I think they should be considered our equals

                  So you are contradicting yourself even more.

                  LopingWolf Death penalty concerning "love"? Bestiality warnings from me? I meant loving someone, loving anyone of any gender and any race, just loving someone, especially in a romantic way. I meant to ask if everyone having the right to do that is part of human rights - but I suppose it isn't, not really, if some countries ban everything LGBT+ related ...? I haven't heard of people being banned from loving someone in a platonic way, but I have heard of bans on being LGBT+ in countries.

                  A ) Which bans in which countries?
                  B ) Wtf does this have to do with LGBT+ people? You were speaking about animals, unless you consider LGBT+ people as animals? Specifically, you were talking about the context of human rights and pet animal rights, as well as them being treated as our equals, and whether "love" is a part of human rights.
                  C ) Yes, if you "Love thy pet" it is illegal in most countries. If you are found to be loving thy pet in various areas of the middle east, especially for a repeat offence, you can be sentenced to beheading. Three strikes and your out, so to say.

                    Wolfick A ) Which bans in which countries?
                    B ) Wtf does this have to do with LGBT+ people? You were speaking about animals, unless you consider LGBT+ people as animals? Specifically, you were talking about the context of human rights and pet animal rights, as well as them being treated as our equals, and whether "love" is a part of human rights.
                    C ) Yes, if you "Love thy pet" it is illegal in most countries. If you are found to be loving thy pet in various areas of the middle east, especially for a repeat offence, you can be sentenced to beheading. Three strikes and your out, so to say.

                    That question was just one I put because I was interested. Thanks for your swift answer.

                    Treated as our equals is different from being our equals. Treated as our equals means that even though pet animals aren't truly our equals, we respect them as we would any human; being our equals is different, it means they are equal to us, which they aren't. And I say they should be considered our equals, also meaning we should think of them as equals (therefore treating them as equals) but not meaning they are our equals.

                      'LopingWolf' argument can overall be summarised into this: 'Love is absolute therefore if I love something then it makes it right and nobody should judge me.' SO I guess if I really really love my dog it would make it right by your logic to xxxxxxx it, and nobodyshould judge me....

                      16 days later

                      It seems to me that some enthusiasts confuse cause and effect. Yes, animals have the right to a happy, comfortable life. However, this does not mean that we should restrict human rights because of animals. I prefer to strengthen the measures of responsibility of those who want to have a pet. It's not just about nutrition and care. This is an education first of all. I am the owner of three dogs myself and I know I can afford it since I have a house with a large backyard. I also began to use special gadgets that work smartly. So, I solved the problem of clean floors in the living room and kitchen)) My dogs always know where they can go right after a walk and where not. These are the basic things for training.

                        LopingWolf

                        (I hate my grammar, I know it's not awake right now, sorry)

                        It shouldn't really matter if animals are equal or unequal to us, they're animals. If they want to stay with us they'll stay, if they want to leave they definitely have methods to leave. I mean, as long as we aren't treating the animals like they are our slaves or something and as long as we're not needlessly treating them like they're nothing it's also fine.

                        If we're semi-aware that we're sharing space with other species then it's good too. We can't ignore that there are other animals, but we also can't revolve around them because frankly, why should we revolve around others? If we live life, we should enjoy it, but also be prepared to have moments where we don't enjoy it. We have to give up some things to get better things. Not in the way like... give to our children, but in the sense that we can't spend our childhood messing around only to start working hard in our adult years because there might not be enough time to get up and going again (though some people may disagree).

                        There are much larger problems than whether or not animals should be equal to us in my opinion, and as someone who's also borderline teen. Even if we were to make this huge lengthy legislation, people will find loopholes, people who don't believe in the same policies will find ways to ruin it. There's no point in finding a way to make everyone happy if what drives people to be happy is different for every individual. It's impossible to cater to everyone's needs and we can't just force others to follow suit.

                        There are simply too many complications in making a statement as big as "Humans and animals are equal" because. as you can tell from this thread, there such a wide standing (I know that sounds weird, I just had class and I'm just gone) between ideas that it's hard to find middle ground. It's easier to head for a side that is, "we shouldn't mistreat animals", or just, "treat animals with respect" because it's simpler for people to follow and doesn't make everyone think, "Oh, so if I was going to die and a dog was going to die, save the dog." because I mean, other than some very few people, not a lot of people think like that.

                        If we want to get into the nitty gritty details of whether animals = humans, well first off, that is the weirdest thing I've ever seen because animals do equal humans as humans are animals (I know what the thing meant, I just had to point that out), also instead of talking about the ambiguity of that, we should focus on something more easier to answer and something that isn't so... open. If my government spent hours arguing over this I would move because seriously, make choices that are actually "choice-able" instead of choices that can be like "Ehhhhhh...".

                          I just saw the sixteen days later... I'm sorry if that did something weird or something...

                            Write a Reply...
                            Web Novel Novel Ask