Animal Rights vs. Human Rights

[PHXConx]

Not disputing any of that.  Sounds like building blocks to me.  
 
The question seemed to be one of what rules what.  Humans with their cognitive ability seem to be on the top of that pyramid.  We are the apex predator.

the building blocks are things that make life, bacteria IS life.  
 
being the top preditor doesnt make us the top life form. if we were gone bacteria and all the other life forms would still be here... 
 
but without bacteria none of them would...  that makes them the leader.  
 
are we smarter than bacteria, that remains to be proven, but it seems that way.. that doesnt make us the top dog when it comes to life.  you have to affect things by your not being here.   

 

[signals]

Yea, lots of them
 
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
 
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
 
20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
 
20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.  (when did a natural human cycle become a sickness?
 
The bible does not apply to US law.  If it did the above would also apply.  And the stuff above is just plain stupid.

You know how big of a fool one that does not know what they are talking about looks?

The laws of the Bible don't apply to US law, but the COTUS is WRITTEN in a similar fashion in the sense that they are a book of law. Unlike today that every form of perversion and disease run amok, Genesis was written because the human race needed to multiply.

The stuff above is stupid to the idiot that they don't apply to, and Genesis does not apply to modern times other than an enlightenment.

You really should keep out of God and Government affairs that don't apply to you!

 

[signals]

I disagree. Computer modeling is limited by human understanding. The more we understand the more accurate it becomes. At the very minimum it can be used to lessen exposure of testing to those "lower on the food chain.  You think people rule this world when in reality it is bacteria. Believe it or don't.
 
Humans have said that exact same thing about other humans in the past (and present). I do not consider any life "expendable". 
 
I don't think that is quite right. 
 
You mean they gave the patient a CHOICE.

Again, technology can't measure pain. Your bacteria discussion is bogus. Humans are humans and animals have NO RIGHTS. Putting emphasis on animal's suffering proves that certain humans need to join the human race. Pam Anderson proved that she would rather have someone suffer with ALS rather than harm a vermin(read original article).

Of course the humans are given a choice. They are HUMAN BEINGS. ANIMALS live in life death situations their entire like. If you and your pooch were starving, you might die worrying about your pooch, but as soon as your dead, your pooch has you as food. Me? Bye-bye pooch!

 

[signals]

World must be jacked up.  I actually agree with 90% of what La la said. 
 
The only thing I take issue wit is that bacteria do not rule the world.  At least no in the manner that 'rule' is typically associate it.  Numeric superiority does not equal a ruling power.  S Africa apartheid is a good example.

That's because he is for a moronic cause, and you have proven that that is what you live by on these forums! We're talking about Animal vs. Humans and your discussing apartheid. BRILLIANT!

 

[CactusPilot1]

You aware Cass Sunstein wanted to get law cut to give animals legal rights?

I have the legal right to Kill them and Grill them. Ron White says he did not climb the food chain to eat carrots. I agree. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/scou2d/comedy-central-presents-vegetarians

 

[Ms Tree]

Sustenance is one thing. Experimentation for the sake of vanity is a different matter. Using a imams for entertainment is a different matter. Killing animals for sport is a different matter.

 

[CactusPilot1]

Sustenance is one thing. Experimentation for the sake of vanity is a different matter. Using a imams for entertainment is a different matter. Killing animals for sport is a different matter.

I don't think some people care if others don't like hunting. Let them go haywire.

Sadistic Animal Activists Go Haywire On Cheerleading Hunter Kendall Jones

http://downtrend.com/vsaxena/sadistic-animal-activists-go-haywire-on-cheerleading-hunter-kendall-jones/

Jones did not break the law. In fact, she's getting a TV show thanks to the controversy. Good for her.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Your bacteria discussion is bogus. 

I was speaking from a position of that which dominates it's environment. Nothing on this Earth dominates its environment as much as bacteria. 
 

Humans are humans and animals have NO RIGHTS. 

Beat an animal in front of a police station. Kick a police dog. You will find out just how many "rights" they have.
 

Putting emphasis on animal's suffering proves that certain humans need to join the human race. 

Well we agree on that part at least. Though I doubt for the same reasons.
 

That's because he is for a moronic cause, and you have proven that that is what you live by on these forums! We're talking about Animal vs. Humans and your discussing apartheid. BRILLIANT!

You are the only one talking about animals vs humans. I am talking about seeking alternatives through technology, which you obviously do not support. 
 

I have the legal right to Kill them and Grill them. Ron White says he did not climb the food chain to eat carrots. I agree. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/scou2d/comedy-central-presents-vegetarians

He does not eat mice either, or at least one would hope.

 

[PHXConx]

Sustenance is one thing. Experimentation for the sake of vanity is a different matter. Using a imams for entertainment is a different matter. Killing animals for sport is a different matter.

if an animal is under hunted and overpopulating an area and is and is hurting an ecosystem... and needs to be hunted to be brought back into balance... what do you care if the person that kills one of those animals did it for sport or not?  

 

[Kev3188]

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

if an animal is under hunted and overpopulating an area and is and is hurting an ecosystem... and needs to be hunted to be brought back into balance... what do you care if the person that kills one of those animals did it for sport or not?  

Hunters have been selling that lie for years.
 
Ecosystems tend to balance themselves out just fine.
 
They don't need our help unless we are the one that caused the problem to begin with, by hunting their predators for instance or polluting their environment, or deforestation.

 

[PHXConx]

Hunters have been selling that lie for years.
 
Ecosystems tend to balance themselves out just fine.
 
They don't need your help unless you are the one that caused the problem to begin with, by hunting their predators for instance or polluting their environment, or deforestation.

 
 
oh so hunters issue hunting licenses now... interesting 
 
hmmm
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html
 


Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says







John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2007
Trophy hunting can play an essential role in the conservation of African wildlife, according to a growing number of biologists.
Now some experts are calling for a program to regulate Africa's sport-hunting industry to ensure its conservation benefits.
 
According to a recent study, in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting, 18,500 tourists pay over $200 million (U.S.) a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs,water buffalo, impala, and rhinos.
Private hunting operations in these countries control more than 540,000 square miles (1.4 million square kilometers) of land, the study also found. That's 22 percent more land than is protected by national parks.
As demand for land increases with swelling human populations, some conservationists are arguing that they can garner more effective results by working with hunters and taking a hand in regulating the industry.
Sport hunting can be sustainable if carefully managed, said Peter Lindsey, a conservation biologist with the University of Zimbabwe in Harare, who led the recent study.
"Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas," he said.
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

 

[Ms Tree]

Not talking about culling a heard.  Talking about killing for the sake of killing.  Auctioning off an endangered rhino comes to mind.  Killing a lion comes to mind.

 

[Ms Tree]

Because a country uses hunting to support conservation does not mean that the hunting taking place is beneficial.  In some cases it is in others not.
 
La la pointed out (geez I need to stop doing that) nature left to it's own devices will balance it's self out.  Mans growth and encroachment have screwed up that balance and culling is needed. 
 
Fishing for sharks, sail fish (I don't think people eat them do they) does not help the ecosystem. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
 
 
oh so hunters issue hunting licenses now... interesting 
 
hmmm
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html
 
Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says



John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2007
Trophy hunting can play an essential role in the conservation of African wildlife, according to a growing number of biologists.
Now some experts are calling for a program to regulate Africa's sport-hunting industry to ensure its conservation benefits.
 
According to a recent study, in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting, 18,500 tourists pay over $200 million (U.S.) a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs,water buffalo, impala, and rhinos.
Private hunting operations in these countries control more than 540,000 square miles (1.4 million square kilometers) of land, the study also found. That's 22 percent more land than is protected by national parks.
As demand for land increases with swelling human populations, some conservationists are arguing that they can garner more effective results by working with hunters and taking a hand in regulating the industry.
Sport hunting can be sustainable if carefully managed, said Peter Lindsey, a conservation biologist with the University of Zimbabwe in Harare, who led the recent study.
"Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas," he said.
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html