Zoo's good or bad?

[big soft moose]

Only if you see a line between human animals and non human animals which I don't.

So where do you draw the line.. does a flea have a right to life ? , how about a microbe ? or a bacteria ? or virus ? - I take it you don't drink chlorinated water because of the 'rights' of the microbes in the natural water table not to be killed , and that when you get sick you don't take antibiotics because germs have rights too ?

Or if you just in fact mean mammals , birds, and fish , why have you drawn the line at that point ?

 

[viv1969]

Actually, you said

....even as long as I've been alive, animals have gained more rights.

And I have pointed out that you are wrong.
They haven't; not a single one.

 

[big soft moose]

That's not what I believe. Lions will continue to kill antelope etc. as that's nature. But I'm sure you'll agree that we've risen above nature and evolution and we have the brain capacity to make an ethical choice. It comes down to where each person draws the line as to what is ethical or not.

so hang about there is a difference between Human animals and non human animal then ?

end of the day you can't have it both ways

If there's no difference - then we are just doing what comes naturally to us , while if there is a difference then its a fallacy that everything is equal

 

[Cobra]

it IS about avoiding all animal products and it always has been.

Which you'd already admitted is impossible

As for the plywood/paint thing. I never claimed to be a perfect vegan who has zero impact on any living animal,

So why not be a vegetarian instead and just go the extra mile.

As for slavery
From the Vegan Societies website

Thousands of vegans have companion animals, or care for rescued cats or dogs.

As I said you either stick to the courage of your convictions ( that's all vegans)
or re-think your strategy / lifestyle.
You can't just pick out the bits that suit "you" at any given time.

 

[BillN_33]

Animal rights - all down to religion - as most things are, (were)

 

[htid]

There's clearly a difference on the intelligence scale. As I said we have the ability to make compassionate decisions and think about ethics and morals, whereas non human animals don't. But I believe our rights not to be killed should be equal to non human animals. Just because we're different in one aspect doesn't mean the whole argument is flawed though and that we should have more rights.

With regards to the microbes, bacteria and viruses, they don't have a CNS. That's generally where the line is drawn.

@viv1969 Yes they have. Laws are in place to make sure animals are treated humanely that didn't exist before. Many types of hunting are now illegal which is giving the animal a right to life. What you've said is flat out incorrect.

 

[htid]

Which you'd already admitted is impossible

So why not be a vegetarian instead and just go the extra mile.

As for slavery
From the Vegan Societies website

As I said you either stick to the courage of your convictions ( that's all vegans)
or re-think your strategy / lifestyle.
You can't just pick out the bits that suit "you" at any given time.

Because vegetarianism exploits chickens and cows. Even if it's impossible to avoid everything, why would I chose to cause pain to more rather than less animals?

I don't have pets. I don't agree with pets really. If they have a good life I can just about accept it, but vegans generally have rescue animals which already exist. They don't support breeders contribute to the creation of new life. There's a difference between caring for something because it already exists and bringing something into the world for your pleasure.

 

[viv1969]

@viv1969 Yes they have. Laws are in place to make sure animals are treated humanely that didn't exist before. Many types of hunting are now illegal which is giving the animal a right to life. What you've said is flat out incorrect.

Those are laws applying to humans, not animals.
The laws on hunting prevent animals being killed in a certain fashion, whilst they can still be killen in different, and legal, ways, so no right to life at all.

Even those who think like you can see the facts.

According to NhRP, nonhuman animals are still considered property in the eyes of the law. Even those animals that we know possess feelings, emotions and higher forms of intelligence—great apes, elephants, dolphins, whales—have no more legal standing than a shoe, a table or a car.

http://earthtalk.org/do-animals-have-legal-rights/

Feel free to have a read

What you wish to be true, and the actual facts, are quite distant from one another.

There is a doctrine of animal rights, but there are no actual rights.

 

[big soft moose]

I don't have pets. I don't agree with pets really. If they have a good life I can just about accept it, but vegans generally have rescue animals which already exist. They don't support breeders contribute to the creation of new life. There's a difference between caring for something because it already exists and bringing something into the world for your pleasure.

so you believe in the right to life of everything with a CNS, but you don't believe anything that people might eat or derive any pleasure from should continue to exist once the existing animals die - so in order to protect their right to life you are going to have an extinction of horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, llamas and alpacas (except in the wild), dogs, cats, domesticated rodents and cage birds.

However at the same time you are going to continue to live in a house and drive a car (and all the other trappings of modern life) despite the impact that has on wildlife habitats.

To be honest that is so illogical it isn't worth arguing with

 

[Cobra]

I don't have pets. I don't agree with pets really.

Again that's fair enough and I admire the courage of your convictions.

but vegans generally have rescue animals which already exist

So do many other people. I've had 3, I've also owned a HPR breed, that "earned" her keep by working, does that make me a bad person,?

BTW, She loved every minute of it, you only had to watch her enthusiasm as she dived into brambles to flush.
The only training that she had was obedience, I never taught her to hunt that was instinct.

BUT as you said before animal ownership is slavery. You are again moving the goalposts to support fellow vegans, who actually have different views to you.

 

[htid]

Those are laws applying to humans, not animals.
The laws on hunting prevent animals being killed in a certain fashion, whilst they can still be killen in different, and legal, ways, so no right to life at all.

Even those who think like you can see the facts.

According to NhRP, nonhuman animals are still considered property in the eyes of the law. Even those animals that we know possess feelings, emotions and higher forms of intelligence—great apes, elephants, dolphins, whales—have no more legal standing than a shoe, a table or a car.

http://earthtalk.org/do-animals-have-legal-rights/

Feel free to have a read

What you wish to be true, and the actual facts, are quite distant from one another.

There is a doctrine of animal rights, but there are no actual rights.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean right to life, I meant rights full stop.

 

[viv1969]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean right to life, I meant rights full stop.

It matters not....there are none.

 

[htid]

so you believe in the right to life of everything with a CNS, but you don't believe anything that people might eat or derive any pleasure from should continue to exist once the existing animals die - so in order to protect their right to life you are going to have an extinction of horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, llamas and alpacas (except in the wild), dogs, cats, domesticated rodents and cage birds.

However at the same time you are going to continue to live in a house and drive a car (and all the other trappings of modern life) despite the impact that has on wildlife habitats.

To be honest that is so illogical it isn't worth arguing with

What's the problem with those animals becoming extinct? Yes I agree with what you said (the bit I've made bold)

Yes I'll continue doing those things while I'm alive (although I don't drive for this very reason, I have 100% green electricity etc. so I do try and live in a way that impacts these things as minimally as possible). I could kill myself but that would achieve nothing. Now, if I could kill myself and it made a dramatic difference, then we'd be talking.

@Cobra I haven't moved the goalposts. I can't control what morals other vegans have.

 

[htid]

It matters not....there are none.

Why else has fox hunting been banned except to give the foxes rights? I understand that they can be killed in other ways, but whatever your point, the law was introduced to stop a barbaric act and that is saying "the fox has a right not to be hunted" therefore you're wrong.

 

[big soft moose]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean right to life, I meant rights full stop.

Ruth is right (and that isnt something i say often) , Animals themselves don't have rights .. All the so called animal rights legislation is actually human law by humans for humans governing the treatment of animals. A cow doesn't know what legal protections it as and it doesn't care , it doesn't know anything about "law" or even have a concept of what it is

This is where the anthroporphism falls down , because animals aren't human and by your own admission don't have the same intellect etc ... its like the inherent double standard that AI is "Rape" but that sterilisation is okay ... surely if AI is rape, sterilisation is genital mutilation or eugenics ..

Essentially you are saying that everything that is done to animals by humans because we know best is wrong, except for what you want done because you know best... which isnt a logically coerent stance

 

[viv1969]

Why else has fox hunting been banned except to give the foxes rights? I understand that they can be killed in other ways, but whatever your point, the law was introduced to stop a barbaric act and that is saying "the fox has a right not to be hunted" therefore you're wrong.

Point me to a law awarding direct rights to animals.
Not rhetoric...actual rights.
What you speak of prevents humans acting in a certain manner. The result of that is a few animals possibly living a little longer, but by (possible) circumstance, not by right.

 

[big soft moose]

What's the problem with those animals becoming extinct? Yes I agree with what you said (the bit I've made bold)

Don't they have a "right" to exist and if not who makes that decison ? ( I'm not sure they do, but then I don't say they have a right to life either), if all animals human and non human have the same rights (clearly they don't in my view but that's what you say) then what gives the human animal the right to eradicate the others ?

And if you say our higher intellect why does it give us the right to eradicate them but not to eat them ?

Incidentally if we were dealing in the anthoporphism you like to engage in where AI is Rape and owning a pet is slavery, choosing to eradicate a whole species is the equivalent of genocide which isn't generally considered a good thing

 

[big soft moose]

Why else has fox hunting been banned except to give the foxes rights? I understand that they can be killed in other ways, but whatever your point, the law was introduced to stop a barbaric act and that is saying "the fox has a right not to be hunted" therefore you're wrong.

Fox hunting has been banned because people consider it wrong, its another law by people for people governing how people are allowed to act - the fox itself has no more rights than it had before

Even something that gives full legal protection (like for example the legal protection of say peregrine falcons) doesnt man that those birds have rights , or indeed the ability to insist on them ..it just means that people have the right to stop other people persecuting them

Likewise if you got you "everyone must be a vegan" act through parliment it would only be a human law for humans governing how humans act, the actual animals wouldn't have any more rights than they have now

 

[Cobra]

Point me to a law awarding direct rights to animals.

I suspect he's referring to this.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/2
Animal welfare act 2006, which is the up to date version of the 1876 animals act that was originally bought in as guidelines for us barbarians that were involved in animal research.
The act later morphed to encompass all animals, not just those under experimentation.

 

[htid]

As we all know, this will just yo-yo back and forth forever. There really is no point in continuing and I'm not sure why I started replying again (more the fool me). All it does is make me feel like crap, so I'm out.

 

[BillN_33]

As we all know, this will just yo-yo back and forth forever. There really is no point in continuing and I'm not sure why I started replying again (more the fool me). All it does is make me feel like crap, so I'm out.

well done Chris - post a couple of bird or wildlife images and you'll feel better

Country file will be on soon!!!

 

[big soft moose]

I suspect he's referring to this.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/2
Animal welfare act 2006, which is the up to date version of the 1876 animals act that was originally bought in as guidelines for us barbarians that were involved in animal research.
The act later morphed to encompass all animals, not just those under experimentation.

But again that is a human law for humans - there isnt any law for animals bcause animals don't (as far as we know) have any such concept.... anyway I'm off to walk my slave, shes demanding her right to exercise and food

 

[viv1969]

I suspect he's referring to this.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/2
Animal welfare act 2006, which is the up to date version of the 1876 animals act that was originally bought in as guidelines for us barbarians that were involved in animal research.
The act later morphed to encompass all animals, not just those under experimentation.

No doubt, and I'm familiar with it.
However once again it legislates for the treatment of animals by humans; it doesn't affort direct rights to the animals themselves.

 

[htid]

well done Chris - post a couple of bird or wildlife images and you'll feel better

Country file will be on soon!!!

I actually was going through some shots before I got into this!! Only ones from beginning of this year mind, weather has been too rubbish to take the 500mm out and I still need to get something to carry it in (yes, I'll make sure it's a vegan bag And the lens was second hand so very little contribution to animal suffering!)

 

[Cobra]

But again that is a human law for humans -

Agreed, I wasn't arguing the point, just helping him find what he was looking for

anyway I'm off to walk my slave,

Make sure the collar is nice and tight, I'd hate her to run off pretending to be William Wallace

 

[Cobra]

However once again it legislates for the treatment of animals by humans; it doesn't affort direct rights to the animals themselves.

As per my response to Moose

 

[htid]

Agreed, I wasn't arguing the point, just helping him find what he was looking for


Make sure the collar is nice and tight, I'd hate her to run off pretending to be William Wallace

...or use a harness, collars are barbaric I know you don't anthrophomorphise but would you put a collar round a child's neck and then pull it? Contrarty to popular belief, just because something has been done for ages doesn't mean it doesn't cause damage/pain.

 

[Cobra]

I actually was going through some shots before I got into this!! Only ones from beginning of this year mind, weather has been too rubbish to take the 500mm out and I still need to get something to carry it in (yes, I'll make sure it's a vegan bag And the lens was second hand so very little contribution to animal suffering!)

If you go to one of the many zoo's that are around, you won't need such a long lens
( sorry couldn't resist, )

Great discussion, from both sides, without getting personal, which is a rarity these days

 

[big soft moose]

Make sure the collar is nice and tight, I'd hate her to run off pretending to be William Wallace

more clear proof that dogs are better than women ... you can put a collar and leash on them without them calling you a pervert

 

[big soft moose]

...or use a harness, collars are barbaric I know you don't anthrophomorphise but would you put a collar round a child's neck and then pull it? Contrarty to popular belief, just because something has been done for ages doesn't mean it doesn't cause damage/pain.

Joking aside , shes got a body harness for the lead - the collar is solely to hold the ID tags ... Also I don't pull her by the lead much anyway (why would I , its not, contrary to some expectations, a master and slave relationship).... the purpose of the leash is to stop her running off and hurting her self/getting run over/ chasing live stock etc not to pull her around on

I know its difficult to grasp but most of us that have pets care about them (obviously there are a few idiots who let the side down), the relationship is impossible to explain to someone who hasn't been there but its more similar to parent and child or big brother and younger sibling than it is to any insulting cobblers about slavery

 

[Cobra]

.or use a harness, collars are barbaric

Name tags are a necessity, they need to hang from something

Personally I'd prefer a Halti type, for "unruly dogs", initially, but when a dog is well trained it doesn't need pulling it walks happily by your side.

 

[Cobra]

more clear proof that dogs are better than women ... you can put a collar and leash on them without them calling you a pervert

Oh I dunno

I prefer the other "mans best friend test.

Lock them both in the garage while you go down the pub, for a couple of hours,
when you let them out, see which one is pleased to see you

 

[big soft moose]

yeah but mine comes to the pub with me, I clearly couldn't lock her in the garage (the dog that is...)

 

[viv1969]

Leads for kids?
I'd be all for it!!

 

[Cobra]

Leads for kids?
I'd be all for it!!

Both mine had a harness and reins, as the Mrs got annoyed everytime I tried to fit a choke chain for some reason best known to her self

 

[dan_yell]

@htid i bought a really nice small shoulder bag that just happened to be vegan and it came with a shopper tote bag, that is the BEST resuable bag i own, its thin so folds up easily but i can fit SO much stuff in it! it got it from groupon in the US, no idea why i got it, i hardly use the shoulder bag, but the shopper is so great!

ok so thats not about zoos, but you mentioned vegan bags and im just a saddo who loves my resusable bag

 

[big soft moose]

Both mine had a harness and reins, the Mrs got annoyed everytime I tried to fit a choke chain for some reason best known to her self

should have just got an elecrtro shock collar

 

[Cobra]

should have just got an elecrtro shock collar

I had to quit using that as they enjoyed it too much

 

[big soft moose]

@htid i bought a really nice small shoulder bag that just happened to be vegan and it came with a shopper tote bag, that is the BEST resuable bag i own, its thin so folds up easily but i can fit SO much stuff in it! it got it from groupon in the US, no idea why i got it, i hardly use the shoulder bag, but the shopper is so great!

ok so thats not about zoos, but you mentioned vegan bags and im just a saddo who loves my resusable bag

I'd suspect most camera bags are vegan compliant arent they (excepting the billingham leather ones) they seem to mostly made of nylon or other artificial fibres ( a harder question is are they made with child,political prisoner, or otherwise exploited labor in sweatshops and so on)

 

[big soft moose]

Great discussion, from both sides, without getting personal, which is a rarity these days

yep most unlike TP ... its almost as if we are all adults and realise people can honorably have differing opinions... don't worry it won't last