Hello, everyone. I'm a bit bored right now, so I decided to see if anyone would be interested in ... this.

Topic:

The topic of this discussion is about human rights and pet animal rights, especially the ones about family pet animals.
You may talk about anything that concerns human rights and pet animals rights, but it is best if you compared them with each other.

Origin of topic:

You see, since pet animals, especially family pet animals, have been with humans for so long, I think they should be considered our equals, and therefore wondered whether human rights and pet animal rights show us as equals and what rights pet animals are given. 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. I've also heard that human rights and pet animal rights (and all animal rights) differ in countries, so I would like to know about the rights of people and animals in each country and how people feel about these rights. And even if these "rights" don't make pet animals our equals, that's fine (even expected), but I want to know if you think they should be treated as our equals - not they are our equals, but treated as equals.

Guide:

I divide Earth animals into three large categories: pet animals, trained animals, and untamed animals. A kind of animal may be in all three categories, and an animal individual may also fit in all three categories.

Pet animals are the ones most closely connected to humans and humans' lives, and I divide pet animals into three categories: family, work, and producing. Family pet animals are the ones that are closest to us, the ones that we care the most about; they are like our friends and our families. Work pet animals are the ones seen in circuses, zoos, riding stables, and fields; we earn money because of them and they work for their living and our living. Producing pet animals are there to give and give for us; usually, no attachment between them and their humans is formed because they are often killed soon, and if not, then they produce eggs, milk, and fur; basically, humans take and take from them and give them food, water, and a place to live, but that is all: no real affection or love for them(usually).

Untamed animals are the ones who don't have connections with humans and usually keep away from humans. Untamed animals live in the wild, in oceans, in lakes, in forests, in swamps - everywhere on Earth. They may be tiny, or they may be enormous. Humans have no claim on them.

Trained animals is the category that is the bridge between pet animals and untamed animals: untamed animals become trained animals and then pet animals, or they might stay trained and befriend humans, but they aren't put into circuses and zoos, it depends. Untamed animals may also be nearly trained animals; they can be found in zoos. Another type of nearly trained animals are pet animals; for example, a dog who doesn't know basic commands but understands its name and loves its family can be considered a nearly trained animal; or, six fish who live in a tank might be calm around its family and other humans and wait eagerly for their meal, but don't know their names can also be considered "nearly trained."

And that's it; I take my hat off to you if you had the patience to read all that. Just remember: an individual animal may be an untamed animal, a trained animal, and a pet animal, all at once.
Guide

Lastly, if you read this through, thank you, you're super! I know this is a bit lengthy, but I had to explain. So, thanks a lot, I appreciate it! (Plus you really are amazing.)

Also, I am no expert, I'm just an almost-teen. So I would appreciate it if someone pointed out mistakes and corrected me if I made one. But I also have my own opinions, and I divide non-human animals into three categories, and now I have shared it with everyone who is here, I would appreciate it if people don't discriminate my view on this; you may come up with your own set of rules, your own categories, and have your own opinions, but please be respectful toward others.

    LopingWolf TROLOLOLOLLOLOL!! They say 'I think they should be considered our equals.'
    adjective
    1.
    being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

    Someone really doesn't understand how nature and the world works. Teenagers yeah...However even I wasn't as naive...
    Comparing animals with humans with Sapience is downright insulting. Humans eh, sometimes we can be so cruel but also so stupid with our emotions. Truly we are living in an age where we can waste our time thinking about such nonsense. While our ancestors had to survive just to put food on their table. Now in our current age, we are discussing such foolishness. Sad really.

        Wolfick They aren't leeches. We all eat, and since humans "own" some animals, we should make sure we don't overfeed them. Also, they do have jobs: family pet animals are a comforting presence to their families and humans or guard their homes faithfully; work pet animals are there so we get money; food pet animals also "work," in a way.

            Uncle_Sheogorath Actually, I'm not naive at all. I lost my innocence when I was five, okay? You don't know me.

            I consider animals and especially pet animals my equals because they've helped me through life, more than any human has. They were - and still are - my friends when everyone else wasn't and still isn't. They keep me alive. You might not have that kind of attachment or connection with animals, but that doesn't mean pet animals shouldn't be treated fairly by us. Pet animals are pet animals because we humans made them into pet animals and then we mistreat half of them.

            Actually, I'm not going to bother explaining why I care so much about animals, especially pet animals, to you. I respect your opinion on this, though I would thank you to not call me naive; as I said, I lost my innocence when I was five. But I would like to bring up something that is very telling about the relationship between humans and pet animals: "A dog is a man's best friend." A man's best friend. A man's. That means pet animals (or more specifically, dogs) are humans' best friends. Then who are their best friends? Who have their backs? Remember, friendship is supposed to go both ways, but this seems to be a one-sided friendship - at least, it is, according to the saying.

            Also, a word to you all: Don't like this, don't read this. Go enjoy yourself. Don't read what you obviously dislike.

                Uncle_Sheogorath Also, yes it is insulting if you say pet animals are equal to humans because my entire life, pet animals have treated me way better than most humans (actually, no human except for maybe one has treated me as well as pet animals have). But the thing is, I say "they should be considered our equals." Our equals, not "equal to us," there's a difference. Our equals means we respect them as we respect others and we treat them fairly, equally (and they do work); saying "they're equal to us" means, yes, "being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value" - of course not, pet animals are more than just "equal to humans."

                    LopingWolf You sound quite pitiful, with the whole 'I am not naive I lost my innocence at five'. Your views are clearly naive. Anyway, I am not going to bother arguing with you. Bye.

                        Uncle_Sheogorath My views aren't naive. You can call it outlandish or crazy, but not naive; you can dislike and disagree with my views, but please show some respect.

                        I care very much about animals because they've helped me, that's all. We all have different lives, don't we? Different lives means different situations. Therefore, please do not be so judgmental, especially since I'm not discriminating anyone.

                        Also, please don't call me "pitiful," I'm the furthest thing from that. I'm just saying, calling me naive when you don't know anything about me (except that I care a lot about animals) - well, what proof have you got, besides the fact "I care very much about animals and think they should be respected"?

                        Also, this is the definition of naive on Cambridge Dictionary:
                        "Too willing to believe that someone is telling the truth, that people's intentions in general are good, or that life is simple and fair. People are often naive because they are young and/or have not had much experience of life."

                        I do not believe life is simple and fair, but humans teach their children to treat others with respect, don't they? So why shouldn't this same respect be extended to animals, especially the pet animals who have stood by us for so long? As for not having much experience in life - well, as I said, I lost my innocence when I was five, and this is not pitiful at all, so please don't call me pitiful.

                            Uncle_Sheogorath 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.

                                LopingWolf Human rights, animal rights, code of conduct, etc. are concepts made up by humans. They aren't absolute. Also, the concept of rights is against the survival of the fittest. That being said, do I want to be abused in a humiliating way? Of course not, but, we have to remember that anything man-made is fickle and fleeting. So, we should never put our trust in those.

                                    Justforfun Of course. Human morals are made up by humans. Human rights and laws are also made up by humans.
                                    Of course the concept of rights is against the survival of the fittest, the true laws of nature. But that's what the world is like now, with humans dominating with our creations that bring pollution.
                                    I don't really put my trust in human rights, morals, and laws, but as they are what most humans follow and believe in, I can't really do anything much about it (especially not now).

                                    Thanks for speaking up.

                                        TheDolphin I'm not saying your dog needs to "have a say in the house" because you don't understand dog language. All I'm saying is pet animals deserve respect. Your dog would probably thank you for a stable life and consistent schedule as well as true affection and he would probably return these simple gifts with his friendship and faithfulness.

                                        Stay safe and healthy during this dangerous time (of the COVID-19).

                                            I've thought long and hard about animals. Please listen to my story and I will explain why I see them the way I do now.

                                            When I was younger, I was sent to the middle east. It was 2009, it was not a pleasant place to be.

                                            This one night, on the base, I found a mouse in a trap. It was caught by its tail and was very much alive.

                                            I thought it would be funny to show my friends.

                                            "Look at this mouse!"

                                            They all thought it was funny, so did I.

                                            But then they thought it would be funny to get deodorant and a lighter. Then we burned the mouse.

                                            They all laughed as it screamed and squeaked. I felt sorry for it in the end, and crushed its head with a rock.

                                            That bothered me for a long time. It still bothers me now. It bothered me more than shooting at people. I didn't feel bad when I shot at people, they were trying to shoot me and my friends, after all.

                                            The mouse didn't try to hurt me. It couldn't hurt me. But I hurt the mouse. Because I felt like it.

                                            After a long time feeling guilty, I looked into nutrition and the lives of animals that were only born to be devoured.

                                            It was sickening, the conditions they live in, the standards of their lives.

                                            It's easy to say 'survival of the fittest' but most people who say that couldn't run ten kilometres. 45 minutes of running, that's all it is (if you're fit) can you do it? Are you fit? 'Survival of the fittest' is said by people who just buy meat in nice little packets from a store, guilt free.

                                            We shouldn't look at ourselves the same way we look at animals. So survival of the fittest means nothing.

                                            Especially when the term is being used incorrectly.

                                            Survival of the fittest is truly about adaptation to your environment, not the ability to kill.

                                            We have the ability to live without hurting them. It's even healthier for us. This has been proven many times. All the lies you have been told about proteins and dairy by the meat industry. Is just that, lies.

                                            I've been fully vegan for over a year now, I was a vegetarian for around two years before that. I am fitter, stronger and healthier than I've ever been before.

                                            It only took me one week to adjust to a vegetarian diet. When I finally committed to doing it. It was easy.

                                            The food tastes nice, no animals get hurt and it's good for you. So why don't people try it?

                                            Because of cognitive dissidence. You don't want to change because you are in the wrong. Deep down, you know it, killing things is bad. Even a child knows that. So you tell yourself it must be the only way. But the fact remains, it is not.

                                            80% of all the food we make on earth goes to feeding the animals that we end up killing to feed ourselves. Why don't we just cut out the middle man and eat that food ourselves? We could easily feed everybody on earth with that food.

                                            Feeding everybody on earth. Adapting to the environment. Limited farmland being utilised for more efficient preservation of the species. That sounds like true 'survival of the fittest' to me.

                                            We should not consider ourselves part of the food chain, we have advanced beyond that. We can create any kind of food without the need for bloodshed and pain. We are not competing with animals for food. Our rule is absolute, we are not comparable to animals in this way.

                                            In my belief we should separate ourselves from animals. Just allow them to exist on their own. We don't need them to survive.

                                            Unless you are under attack, or you are protecting someone else, there is no need to take a life.

                                            Life is precious. We should all have a chance to live it.

                                            Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

                                            Edit: I neglected to answer your initial observation. But yes I believe that after a transitional period animals that do not display naturally aggressive tendencies towards humans, should have protective rights with more serious punishments enforced.

                                            For example, right now I could go and kill my neighbours cat in the most gruesome way imaginable and I would only get a maximum of 2 years in prison.

                                            That is not ok.

                                            But equally, equal rights between humans and animals will not be possible because our natures are so inherently different.

                                            A dog does not need a bus-pass once it becomes a senior citizen for example.

                                            But I do believe things like cruelty, abuse, murder should all be crimes that can be fairly levied against humans who seek to harm and kill animals.

                                            But again, does a cat know to stop and wait for traffic? It does not. If a cat dashes out into fast moving traffic, can a car driver fairly be sent to prison for cat-slaughter in that situation? Probably not.

                                            People would take crimes against animals much more seriously but the actual practicality would be an issue. It would require a lot of new legislation.

                                            But I definitely think it is something we should work towards as a species.

                                            I also think you heart is in the right place. Don't let the haters get you down.

                                            LopingWolf

                                                Necroghan Small nitpick - you do realise that you made the entire list of conversational arguments that are void and manipulative by their essence? To name the few:
                                                - Ad populum
                                                - Straw Man argument
                                                - Pettito Principi
                                                - Thought dichotomy
                                                and lastly - thought hastening.

                                                The make it simpler, few logical flaws in your post above:
                                                - I'm on vegan diet and I feel better.
                                                - (Response) and I had a friend that was vegan too but he died. By a car crash, but according to your logic above, I can now blame all forms of veganism for the currently occurring car accidents.

                                                And one general point that you made about survival of the fittest.

                                                Tell me, can any animal randomly kill you on the street? No, for the overwhelming majority, it can't. Why is that? Because humans created an einvoriment that is safe for them. Not by using their power alone, but by using their brains.

                                                Do you know what caused one of the most deadliest events in human history (outside of those done by a human hand that is?) Rats. Actually, the story is a lot longer here, but rats alone killed off a third of Europe's population during the widespread outbreak of black death pandemic. Did they do it willingly? Not. They were just living as they used to since ages ago. Did they cause the black death? Yes.

                                                Humans as the most intelligent species on the planet isn't outside of the influence of the survival of the fittest (which has been proved to be a complete bullocks over and over again). It's just that our intelligence as a species (because that's how this topic should be argued about, with species not individuals in mind) gave us such an overwhelming edge that continued to profit over ages, that no other species could compete with us.

                                                It's that simple.

                                                Also, for the main topic:
                                                For as long as the animals won't reach human level of intelligence, they will be always inferior to humans. Animals are abused, that's a fact. Animals are loved, that's also a fact. By giving them rights above what they have already (not my fault its not properly enforced), you made them equal to humans. And in general, in nature, one's possibilities always were dictated by his contribution. For as long as animals won't work day and night shifts, won't develop science and won't send their own to the moon, they won't be equal.

                                                    LopingWolf Also, saying:

                                                    "If you don't like the topic then don't speak about it" is idiotic. Imagine yourself living barely 80 years ago and meeting a nazi soldier who would tell the same thing to your face. "If you don't like jews being killed then don't bring this topic up in the first place."

                                                    Don't bar others from the discussion only because they are not thinking alike. By just a tiny stretch, its exactly what the tyrans across the world are doing. How does it feel to act like the group of people scorned by the entire civilised society all the while trying to appear as the 'good person' by tackling the morally hard problem?

                                                        MotivatedSloth

                                                        Well you're certainly forcing the map to fit the ground.

                                                        And not actually saying anything in the process.

                                                        You're trying to justify (something, not clear what) by suggesting that the black death killed people and was passed around by rats.

                                                        It was, well done.

                                                        My main focus was from a today-onwards, stand point.

                                                        I thought I made that clear when I said:

                                                        Necroghan We should not consider ourselves part of the food chain, we have advanced beyond that.

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

                                                        With hygiene and medicine where it is right now?

                                                        Does your point hold any water?

                                                        No, we have advanced beyond that point in history.

                                                        I actually don't understand what your point is. Because you've failed to actually make one. You just spewed up a word-salad.

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

                                                        As for your sharp right turn in logic on veganism, I did not make any leaps at all like that.

                                                        I stipulated that research had been done. There was conclusive evidence (plenty of documentaries on netflix you can watch for yourself). When I tried it for myself, I did feel better.

                                                        Necroghan We have the ability to live without hurting them. It's even healthier for us. This has been proven many times. All the lies you have been told about proteins and dairy by the meat industry. Is just that, lies.

                                                        I just presented some facts, not some crazy theory.

                                                        All my points are valid. They are not misleading. They are things I have experienced myself. I can only assume you dislike them because you somehow feel offended.

                                                        Or maybe it's cognitive dissidence. Who knows?

                                                                Also the OP has every right to have a 'be nice or leave' policy.

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

                                                                OP posed a simple question, people here are being insulting, childish and dismissive.

                                                                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.

                                                                No need for it in this setting.

                                                                  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.

                                                                      Web Novel Novel Ask