Talk:Animal rights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks Remarcsd. Reads much better now. Researcher 22:04, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Animal Welfare

As a wiki that puts forward a rational view, I reckon it's worth adding a quick distinction between animal "rights" (which they categorically don't have) and animal "welfare" (which every sane individual should support). They're two very different things and currently the article reads as if anyone who is against "animal rights" is some nasty, neo-con twat. ArmondikoVsshole 09:28, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, right now, Spain is giving rights to great apes (which are still considered animals) due to the fact that they are, functionally, as intelligent and capable as 4 or 5 year old children. Researcher 10:58, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Amazing what you can learn on RationalWiki. I live in Spain and this was the the first I'd heard of it - but our old friend Google confirms the info. I can't honestly say that I would have expected Spain to be the first country in the world to do this - what with its bullfighting and goats thrown our of watchtowers - but it's a country of contradictions so there you are.--Bobbing up 13:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] animals with near human intelligence

Shouldn't animals with near human intelligence(such as cetaceans and chimpanzees) be granted human rights?--Thedoctor80 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Near human? How near?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Intelligence that is comparable to a young human child P.S They could be given the rights of a child, not an adult's rights e.g The right to vote--Thedoctor80 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah right, no right to vote then but the right to universal state-paid education?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No offence to anybody, but it's stuff like this that just makes the animal rights movement look wacky. They do harm to their own cause. DalekEXTERMINATE 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Intelligence is far too difficult to quantify for that to be meaningful way of issuing rights. If animals had the intelligence of a small child, then they - in principle - should be able to be taught and lean the same way as a small child. Alas experiment doesn't bear this out. If you attempt to raise a chimpanzee exactly the same way as a human you get... a chimpanzee. Whereas some indicators may show that younger children have a lower degree of sentience than some animals (do recall that we're all born considerably premature, though) but humans have the ability to grow beyond this - other animals just don't. Scarlet A.pngsshole 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of these:[1][2]--Thedoctor80 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to animal rights. The problem is that calling them "human rights" is absurd. Humans have many rights by virtue of being ... well .. human. Voting, the right to run for office, (in the US) the right to bear arms, the right to religious freedom and so on. Giving these rights to animals would be clearly be absurd. I am quite aware on the Great Ape Project and their declaration [here] seems quite reasonable - though no doubt some will say it goes too far. But they don't call it "human rights".--BobSpring is sprung! 13:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
fair enough.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights is fundamentally irrational

Why aren't we shitkicking these emotionalist hippies and their stupid nonsense? --66.233.55.145 (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because "shitkicking these emotionalist hippies and their stupid nonsense" is your supposed irrefutable proof that they're irrational. ADK...I'll regurgitate your poodle! 14:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Aren't animals... less than human? Isn't "dehumanizing" considered offensive? Isn't caring about cute animals because they're cute irrational? (with all scientific evidence pointing towards their objective inferiority) I get environmentalism, I don't get this stupid crap. Do you even have a rational argument that Animal Rights is rational?

--66.233.55.145 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rational argument: animals have feelings. animals suffer. Suffering is bad if it can be lessened or eradicated. Humans are not the be all end all in the world, just cause we make big weapons. Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Apes fling shit at each other. We've made The X-Factor and The Jeremy Kyle Show. I really don't think you can argue objective inferiority of non homo sapiens. ADK...I'll complement your teabag! 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's your argument:
  • Premise: Non-human animals are inferior to humans.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, non-human animals don't have any rights.
Your conclusion would be a non sequitur assertion if we don't add the hidden 2nd premise "No rights should be ascribed to beings that are inferior to other beings." Now look at the argument I can construct with this premise:
  • Premise 1: No rights should be ascribed to beings that are inferior to other beings.
  • Premise 2: Not all humans are equally superior.
  • Premise 3: Humans are the most superior kind of being in existence. (This premise is likely false, but let's go with it for now.)
  • Conclusion: Therefore, only the most superior human(s) can be said to have any rights.
Congratulations, you're a Nazi. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It clearly depends on how you frame the construction of rights, and thus can either be irrational or rational depending on your a priori assumptions and some of the a postiori observations and how they feed back into those assumption. Saying "X is irrational" only holds if one of the following is true:
  1. It's contradictory to itself.
  2. It contradicts widely understood evidence.
Otherwise you're just projecting rationality onto what you personally believe. Sheesh. Ikanreed (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are we arguing with a BoN who drove by four years ago? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Language test?

Is that even a serious mark of consciousness, let alone one of the "strongest" arguments against animal consciousness? Says who? 68.187.218.86 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I find that pretty odd too. And exactly how broad or narrow a sense of 'language' are we speaking of anyway? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. Language relies on far too many factors to be physically feasible for most animals. The case which I think makes this most questionable would be octopi. They are very intelligent but notably reclusive so they were unlikely to evolve language-their ability to use tools and problem solve indicates a great deal of sentience and purposeful action. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

http://33.media.tumblr.com/5abefea769b6b8a58e14eb5db67a71cc/tumblr_njk6mxEqpO1tyncywo1_250.gif

Take this gif for example. Would it make the cats any more intelligent or sentient if they were using the suggested human language to illustrate their sentiments? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support