"Heinrich Himmler once asked his doctor, who was a hunter, "How can you find pleasure, Herr Kerstein, in shooting from behind at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood...It is really murder.""
"One law passed in 1936 showed “particular solicitude” (Waite1947, 41) about the suffering of lobsters and crabs, stipulating that restaurants were to kill crabs, lobsters, and other crustaceans by throwing them one at a time into rapidly boiling water (Giese and Kahler1944). Several “high officials” had debated the question of the most humane death for lobsters before this regulation was passed, and two officials in the Interior Ministry had prepared a scholarly treatise on the subject (Waite 1977)"
"Hitler once told a female companion who ordered sausage while they were on a date, "I didn't think you wanted to devour a dead corpse...the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!" Hitler claimed that meat-eating was a major factor in the decline of civilization and that vegetarianism could rejuvenate society. His henchman Goebbels wrote in his diary, "The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any series basis. They are totally unanswerable."
Mate, if you don't see the difference between assisted suicide for terminal illness and being shot in the head with a boltgun because people want to eat you then i don't know what to tell you
So? Language, social mores, intersubjectivity are don't mean humans deserve more rights. Does not logically follow at all. What is your logical, moral, philosophical whatever reason for why humans are more deserving of rights.
it follows logically because animals do not use human logic, they use animal logic. and in protecting their own young, they will harm humans. so, in feeding our kind, we will inevitably harm animals... hopefully less than is necessary, so that we harm humans less
the "sacred cow" argument doesn't hold up in the light of so much human suffering that needs to be attended to before other more lofty concerns
we can call animals people. in fact, many already have nonhuman personhood. it's an awesome concept. https://wearesonar.org/dolphin-and-whale-nonhuman-personhood/
in fact, india even gave personhood to rivers https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nation-world/hc-says-ganga-yamuna-are-living-persons/believe-it-or-not/slideshow/57754739.cms
Also - btw, i don't know who's downvoting you. it's not me.
how? the river law is specifically made because giving them personhood means harming the rivers is akin to harming a human. that is done to counter the rampant pollution and waste that is killing all who depend on it for survival (humans and animals). that actively improves the lives of the most worst-off humans.
i mean, the point was to counter your argument about "legal personhood". and it's not dehumanising. humans don't aren't harmed by expanding the definition of personhood. just like white people are not harmed by ending racism. or men harmed by ending patriarchy.
firstly, our discussion veered off from "shaming people for their dietary habits" long ago. other people were more inclined to argue you on that. this line of discussion started because i wanted to understand what drives you to say humans deserve more rights than animals.
then, animals should absolutely be considered citizens given they live within the geographic territory. how we should enact and enforce that is different, but legally, they should. and no one, as of yet, has given animals citizenship anyways. the concept of nonhuman personhood is different.
i don't think it harms people to focus on the immorality of animal mistreatment. it altogether leads to a better way forward for all. no where would i advocate that people who eat animals are bad. i don't think i've ever said that since becoming a leftist. but that's different from the ethics and morality of animal consumption.
animals can only be considered human if humans were to be downgraded
we are talking about legal personhood, because that is the nexus through which human legal rights & social responsibility come into play
animals are protected legally in several ways from human acts of abuse, so I am not sure what we're discussing other than expanding legal codified language to include our personal preferences
okay, animals aren't considered humans. they're considered nonhuman people.
Human is a short way of saying Homo Sapiens. That is a specific species of hominids, which is a subsection of Mammalia, which is in Animalia, with is in Multicellular Organisms etc etc etc.
This is an important distinction because it re-frames the question. It is on the same spectrum of whether citizens and residents should be given the same rights, or whether white people and non-white people should be given the same rights. You may think animals aren't people, but others disagree. There is no reason to not consider animals people. Intelligence or brain size or whatever else is arbitrary.
What rights belong exclusively to humans and what rights belong exclusively to people and whether the two should be separate is an important ethical question.
No mate, we don't
yes, we do
No, we don't
You don't think animals should have rights, we get it
deleted by creator
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279392787011638
I think priorities can be weighed, and humans deserve these supposed rights long before farm animals…
Please go outside, lmfao.
"In 1933, Hermann Göring announced he would "commit to concentration camps those who still think they can treat animals as property."
And? 😎👉👉
"Heinrich Himmler once asked his doctor, who was a hunter, "How can you find pleasure, Herr Kerstein, in shooting from behind at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood...It is really murder.""
I'm begging you to go outside and take a breath of fresh air.
"One law passed in 1936 showed “particular solicitude” (Waite1947, 41) about the suffering of lobsters and crabs, stipulating that restaurants were to kill crabs, lobsters, and other crustaceans by throwing them one at a time into rapidly boiling water (Giese and Kahler1944). Several “high officials” had debated the question of the most humane death for lobsters before this regulation was passed, and two officials in the Interior Ministry had prepared a scholarly treatise on the subject (Waite 1977)"
log off
"Hitler once told a female companion who ordered sausage while they were on a date, "I didn't think you wanted to devour a dead corpse...the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!" Hitler claimed that meat-eating was a major factor in the decline of civilization and that vegetarianism could rejuvenate society. His henchman Goebbels wrote in his diary, "The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any series basis. They are totally unanswerable."
hog out or log out
isn't that speciesist?
Dunno where you live mate, but humans generally already have the right to not be murdered and raped
but in many places, humans do not have the right to euthanasia or assisted suicide
do humans have business ending animal suffering in those ways?
Yes and they should
If necessary to end extreme suffering, same as it should be with people
so humans killing animals is okay as long as you think it's okay
Nah mate, we should just leave people and animals in excruciating pain with no chance of recovery to exist for as long as possible
nah mate, as long as we get your personal approval first, anything can potentially be allowed
Mate, if you don't see the difference between assisted suicide for terminal illness and being shot in the head with a boltgun because people want to eat you then i don't know what to tell you
so it's permissible to eat the animal if the animal was in bad health?
is it the killing or the eating that's most reprehensible?
You know this isn't a plant based diet comm right? This is a leftist vegan space
It's animal rights all the way down
yes, so no more antibiotics or use of petrochemicals
....why are humans more deserving of rights than animals?
because humans have language & social mores & intersubjectivity between one another in a way that animals & humans do not and never have
we're talking about dogma more than anything
So? Language, social mores, intersubjectivity are don't mean humans deserve more rights. Does not logically follow at all. What is your logical, moral, philosophical whatever reason for why humans are more deserving of rights.
yes, those things do mean that
it follows logically because animals do not use human logic, they use animal logic. and in protecting their own young, they will harm humans. so, in feeding our kind, we will inevitably harm animals... hopefully less than is necessary, so that we harm humans less
the "sacred cow" argument doesn't hold up in the light of so much human suffering that needs to be attended to before other more lofty concerns
you're using animal logic to justify human logic there bud.
and either way, this is an arbitrary distinction using specie-ism in place of past distinctions (like racism, sexism) etc.
humans are personified, and animals are not... pretty simple
what? humans are frequently "animalized" to justify their abuse. that doesn't mean animal abuse is justified?
abuse isn't justified, whether it's abuse against animals or humans
but animals don't have legal personhood... that's literally the distinction
laws can be made better, but we can't make animals into persons without displacing the lowest humans
we can call animals people. in fact, many already have nonhuman personhood. it's an awesome concept. https://wearesonar.org/dolphin-and-whale-nonhuman-personhood/
in fact, india even gave personhood to rivers https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nation-world/hc-says-ganga-yamuna-are-living-persons/believe-it-or-not/slideshow/57754739.cms
Also - btw, i don't know who's downvoting you. it's not me.
it's not "awesome" it's just dehumanizing for those at the bottom of social consideration
how? the river law is specifically made because giving them personhood means harming the rivers is akin to harming a human. that is done to counter the rampant pollution and waste that is killing all who depend on it for survival (humans and animals). that actively improves the lives of the most worst-off humans.
i mean, the point was to counter your argument about "legal personhood". and it's not dehumanising. humans don't aren't harmed by expanding the definition of personhood. just like white people are not harmed by ending racism. or men harmed by ending patriarchy.
ecological concerns in larger & larger webs of consideration are far different than shaming people for their dietary habits & strictures
and it's far different than issuing citizenship to individual animals
it harms people to focus more on the "immorality" animals raised for human consumption than about humans themselves
okay, you're confusing a few terms here.
firstly, our discussion veered off from "shaming people for their dietary habits" long ago. other people were more inclined to argue you on that. this line of discussion started because i wanted to understand what drives you to say humans deserve more rights than animals.
then, animals should absolutely be considered citizens given they live within the geographic territory. how we should enact and enforce that is different, but legally, they should. and no one, as of yet, has given animals citizenship anyways. the concept of nonhuman personhood is different.
i don't think it harms people to focus on the immorality of animal mistreatment. it altogether leads to a better way forward for all. no where would i advocate that people who eat animals are bad. i don't think i've ever said that since becoming a leftist. but that's different from the ethics and morality of animal consumption.
animals can only be considered human if humans were to be downgraded
we are talking about legal personhood, because that is the nexus through which human legal rights & social responsibility come into play
animals are protected legally in several ways from human acts of abuse, so I am not sure what we're discussing other than expanding legal codified language to include our personal preferences
okay, animals aren't considered humans. they're considered nonhuman people.
Human is a short way of saying Homo Sapiens. That is a specific species of hominids, which is a subsection of Mammalia, which is in Animalia, with is in Multicellular Organisms etc etc etc.
This is an important distinction because it re-frames the question. It is on the same spectrum of whether citizens and residents should be given the same rights, or whether white people and non-white people should be given the same rights. You may think animals aren't people, but others disagree. There is no reason to not consider animals people. Intelligence or brain size or whatever else is arbitrary.
What rights belong exclusively to humans and what rights belong exclusively to people and whether the two should be separate is an important ethical question.