It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animal rights out weigh human?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Klingons said it best in star trek,.

The very name "human rights", is racist.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Humans should have no more rights than other sentient animals. The whole idea of "human" rights is no better than racism, nothing more.

That said, one can argue this was killing in self-defense, and thus justified, because the bear is potentialy dangerous animal, and it was in close proximity to the man and his multiple children.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Humans should have no more rights than other sentient animals. The whole idea of "human" rights is no better than racism, nothing more.

That said, one can argue this was killing in self-defense, and thus justified, because the bear is potentialy dangerous animal, and it was in close proximity to the man and his multiple children.


Did you just contradict yourself?

Would the father have the right to shoot a human mother and her two children if he felt they were a threat?

If humans have no more rights than animals then you're implying this would be acceptable if they were human instead of bears.

Humans have more rights, period.
edit on 25-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 





Would the father have the right to shoot a human mother and her two children if he felt they were a threat?


Sure. If they were as physically powerful as a bear, and as mentally deficient and aggresive, then it could be argued as self-defense.




Humans have more rights, period.


They have in our current deeply racist and imperfect society. But they should have not, in an ideal world.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Genesis 1:26 New International Version
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,"

Don't see God mentioning equal rights for animals in there.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


So do you think for yourself, or do you let some old book do the thinking for you? Can you argue your opinion yourself, or is "because god said so" your answer?

reply to post by 547000
 


Yep, I would.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I already gave my own opinion on it so re-read the thread if you would like to see it.

The Bible quote is just further evidence that i'm correct.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I'm not going to argue the fact that humans have more intelligence than most animals and therefore have the right to use their intelligence toward a destructive end, that is a moral decision. What I would put forward here is that there is no such thing as a timid woodland creature, they would all kick your butt if they thought they could. Also, every living thing on planet earth would take over the planet if it could. Either through reproduction or other means, every plant and animal would fill the world to capacity if they could do so.

The real issue in my mind is that the animal is working on instinct and cannot make a moral decision, the human on the other hand has intelligence that allows him to think through a situation. The bear has no problem stealing pigs, pig slop, or even running off with a helpless child or two, unless it knows that the humans are a deadly threat. Chances are that the grisly bear won't learn and must be handled in certain ways. One of those ways is to eliminate the bear.

Black bears are wary of humans and are rarely seen, the grisly and brown bears are not very frightened of people and would kill you without any remorse. That is an instinct they have that doesn't help in their survival, but actually contributes to their extinction. Therefore it is merely natural selection when a human kills an animal that threatens their survival.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by xxcalbier
 




Not sure Did this guy even try calling a ranger first? They will trap and move a nusience animal. The bears going after pigs??? says who? Bears rarly kill ((hunt ))) Welll these bears lol poler are different.
another thing Bears DEFINITELY don't teach hunting to there cubs .
More then likly the bears were attracted to the FEED TROUGH not the pigs.
So this is how it should work bear comes on property is NO emeadit threat to any one. ...


Your Astonishing amount of ignorance is showing.

This was not a BLACK Bear it was a GRIZZLY BEAR you know the ones who can cross breed with Polar bears.

The Blasted things EAT MEAT!!! Yes the bear was after the PIGS.


In the Canadian Rockies, brown (grizzly) bears are quite carnivorous, hunting mountain sheep and goats, elk and moose, and even Ursus americanus - American black bear. (B147) wildpro.twycrosszoo.org...


The smaller black bear is quite capable of ripping a door off a house and the door off a refrigerator as a friend with a cabin in Maine found out much to his dismay.

The grizzly is also astonishingly fast so yes I would certainly kill the bear. If you just scare it off then it can return at a later date and all you will find is blood and not your children. Locking them in the house is no guarantee the bear will not go through the door to get them.

As far as the "Authorities" are concerned... Get real. I gave the cops the name drivers licence, home address, girl friends address... of the guy who stole my semi and reffer and was running drugs from Florida to NYC and Stolen cars from NYC to the south according to his ex-wife. They STILL took four years to find him. (I located him three times and called it in but the cops were too "Busy" )

As far as trapping predators... well I am still waiting five years later for them to trap the coyote/dogs that killed my sheep.

edit on 25-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)


Edit to add. I have a black bear who hangs around my farm and I consider that no problem because they are shy of people and generally leave the livestock alone.
edit on 25-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I should add. At least in my state, an animal caught in the act of attacking livestock can be destroyed on sight. I checked out the law when I was having my sheep killed.

This type of law only makes sense because it keeps resentment from building up in the farming community and unleashing indiscriminate slaughter of non-problem predators from poison or night hunting.

You lose your entire years calf production to a coyote pack as a few of my neighbors did recently and you can forget "Animal Rights" or the law. They are going to take steps to protect their property.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Genesis 1:26 New International Version
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,"

Don't see God mentioning equal rights for animals in there.



Diidn't your God create animals surely he/she loves all of his creation and wants them to be treated equally? Or at least with respect.

Maybe in the animal bible God never mentioned equal right for humans.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
What always mystifies me is that very few see the trap in "Animal Rights"

Just in reading this thread you can see how people now are thinking of human rights and animal rights as being equal.

Now follow that line of reasoning. If ANIMALS have the same rights as humans then THAT MAKES HUMANS NOTHING MORE THAN CATTLE.


...Ultimately, cattle is the same word as chattel (13th c.), and when it first entered English it had the same meaning, ‘property’....Its ultimate source is medieval Latin capitāle ‘property’, which came to English via Old French chatel as chattel and via Anglo-Norman catel as cattle. Capitāle itself goes back to classical Latin capitālis (from caput ‘head’), from which English gets capital. www.word-origins.com...


I am sure the elite are laughing their rears off at the naive "Animal Rights" activists who are so diligently campaigning to move humans back into the category of slave.

If you don't have the right to own property,you are property!



Too bad that simple concept never seems to make it into peoples heads.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
What always mystifies me is that very few see the trap in "Animal Rights"

Just in reading this thread you can see how people now are thinking of human rights and animal rights as being equal.

Now follow that line of reasoning. If ANIMALS have the same rights as humans then THAT MAKES HUMANS NOTHING MORE THAN CATTLE.


...Ultimately, cattle is the same word as chattel (13th c.), and when it first entered English it had the same meaning, ‘property’....Its ultimate source is medieval Latin capitāle ‘property’, which came to English via Old French chatel as chattel and via Anglo-Norman catel as cattle. Capitāle itself goes back to classical Latin capitālis (from caput ‘head’), from which English gets capital. www.word-origins.com...


I am sure the elite are laughing their rears off at the naive "Animal Rights" activists who are so diligently campaigning to move humans back into the category of slave.

If you don't have the right to own property,you are property!



Too bad that simple concept never seems to make it into peoples heads.


I know, right?

I think too many people are distracted from reality to properly understand the implications of their 'just" ideals.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



I know, right?

I think too many people are distracted from reality to properly understand the implications of their 'just" ideals.


The progression over the last century is really quite fascinating to follow. The elite really do think in terms of family dynasties and very long range goals. Some lasting centuries.

Just after WWII the Committee for Economic Development was formed. One of its stated goals was to wipe out US farmers. 'CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs"

Once a large number of farmers were bankrupted and forced into city factories the second stage was initiated.

City folk guided by the banker news media started making fun of farm folk calling them “hayseed,” “bumpkin,” “yokel,” “hick,” “peasant,” and “rube,” with caricatures drawings and political cartoons to help the image along. This gave us a country divided, the rural conservative vs the city "Super market" predators.

The idea of farmers being uneducated Neanderthals became so deeply embedded that the USDA actually advises its agents to address farmers at the sixth grade level. They do not even rate Junior high status!


By the seventies and eighties the distance between the typical American and his farming roots was far enough removed so that the "Super market" predators were ripe for the next step in divorcing them from their food source. "Animal Rights" and its corollary Vegan and Vegetarianism started popping up as the new activist focus. Now as can be seen it is considered main stream and is even in our government schools.

This was the goal. Americans no longer are willing to even give a passing though as to where their food comes from except to berate those "CRUEL" farmers for their "inhuman" practices.


The Passage of the 2010 "Food Safety Modernization Act" transferring complete control of the US food supply to the Ag Cartel (World Trade Organization) was made with hardly a whisper. The WTO regulations written in conjunction with the OIE and FAO of the United Nations are impossible for anyone but corporations to adhere to. Portugal lost 60% of her farmers and it wasn't even in a recession! Meanwhile George Soros [is already] Selling Gold and Buying Farmland


...A Nebraska farm girl who went on to a globetrotting career as a derivatives trader for Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and then as a hedge fund executive in London, Warner, 45, is back on the farm pursuing what she believes is a huge moneymaking opportunity. Two years ago Warner launched an investment firm, called Chess Ag Full Harvest Partners, with a fairly simple underlying strategy: Buy undervalued farmland in the U.S. and profit from the coming global agriculture boom.

Last June she closed her first fund with $30 million from wealthy individuals and institutional investors such as the pension fund of Dow Chemical (DOW, Fortune 500). (See correction, below.) She says her ultimate goal is to take the company public as the first farmland-only real estate investment trust in the U.S. "The returns in agriculture haven't looked sexy for a long time, but I think that's about to change," she says...


Seems "Animal Rights Activists" are BIG AG's secret weapon.

edit on 25-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Personal Disclosure: [sarcasm mode on] ...

This is freaking awesome... I have been claiming I am not human and that I am a monster for years!

Finally I can now show that my dangerous violent nature should be legally preserved and protected and that no borders or walls should be allowed to stop me doing my thing anywhere I want ...all completely legally endorsed!

WOOTNESS!
[sarcasm mode off] ...

COMPLETE AND UTTER INSANITY!


P.S Dear God... please remind OL that the average IQ of the world is 84 points and so using common sense is literally DUMB!

Repeat after me please...


I must use uncommon sense from now on!

I must use uncommon sense from now on!

I must use uncommon sense from now on!


Thank You!



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
people are just animals and when 2 animals compete for territory the loser retreats or dies. we just use our advanced brains to build and use advanced tools to win. its all natural lol



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
the concept that animals are deserving of common decency and respectful treatment by virtue of the fact that they are alive, involves a certain amount of intellectual honesty . It also involves a lot of observation of animals(something I am super experienced at)
Read the post that speaks about factory farms again

the more we demean and humiliate animals the more we as workers are demeaned and humiliated The two things are are part of a continuum, think of it as things like microbes on one end an.d maybe GOD on the other the more you sacrifice in the name of IT"S JUST BUSINESS the more you end up taking from the voiceless and eventually you find you are just another chicken,to BIG BUSINESS.

It isn't right to sell prepubescent girls to commercial brothels and hold them prisoner and sexualy defile them until they are no longer sellable and then dispose of them,but some people think it is,it's a continuum ....see.
Simply deluding oneself into believing being human means you have the right and duty to torture anything that cannot stop you, doesn't answer the question of why you would want too ,and how does that translate too superiority.?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 


thats one way to look at it i suppose, but i aint gunna stop eating meat anytime soon



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
If I was that guy, I would have shot and killed the bear as well. If I got arrested and spent some time in jail, and another bear later came on my property doing the same thing, well, I'd be a repeat offender. I'm sure the bear would have done the same thing to me if I encroached upon it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join