Animal rights

[ZephyrPhantom]

I don't want to debate, but I'll just voice my opinion. I don't care much for Animal rights because, after all, they are animals. We eat them. We keep them as pets. We put them in cages and people come look at them for fun. They aren't at all like human beings, so why should we treat them like humans?

And we torture them with experiments. Humans used to be eaten.  Humans used to be and some are still slaves. Humans go to jail.  People used to see humans fight for fun.  Humans were experimented on.  Humans even had their burial sites desecrated. 

I'm not saying you are heartless or anything, but your argument is invalid.

[Legit]

Now you are talking about human rights, which wasn't the issue. The issue was animal rights. Regardless of how humans interacted in the past and all the horrible things humans do to each other, animals =/= humans.

Maybe I am heartless. But animals do not deserve to be treated the same as humans.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Now you are talking about human rights, which wasn't the issue. The issue was animal rights. Regardless of how humans interacted in the past and all the horrible things humans do to each other, animals =/= humans.

Maybe I am heartless. But animals do not deserve to be treated the same as humans.

I am simply diproving your argument of how animals are not similar to humans in terms in terms of rights. Note the similarities of my examples to yours.  Yes, animals are similar to humans in terms of rights.  There are some things humans have that animals don't, but those are called privileges.

[Legit]

Like I said before, I didn't want to debate, so this will be my last post.

I understand that animals and humans do have some similar rights, and a lack thereof, but my point is that animals are not humans and they should not have the same rights as humans, regardless of the rights that humans and animals actually have.

[Drobbit]

Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you said that you don't care if animals are tortured or not.
Now you say that animals have some rights. You better fix your thoughts.

I'm not talking about to give the right to vote to an animal. I'm talking about the right to live a painless life. I'm talking about the humans that think they have the right to torture an animal because they think that humans are the rulers of the planet over other spices: they can destroy anything they want just because they are stronger. That's not a right, it's a supreme arrogance.

If you agree with torture of any kind to any kind of life form, you have a sensitivity problem. If you see a mutilated dog, a guy pulling of the fur of a fox that is still alive while doing that to it, an elephant being punched in a zoo just to make it learn some tricks, and you don't feel pain... maybe you have to question your ethics.

[SeddyRocky]

Drobbit.

Your avatar is a pirate flag. Pirates (unlike in the movies) mostly stole whatever was shipped, usually different types of food, clothes and spices.

 

I'm talking about the humans that think they have the right to torture an animal because they think that humans are the rulers of the planet over other spices

/offtopic

While I do not condone torture in any form, I am wondering if you stand by that animal rights has any relevance to Elements the game? Creatures, (except in pure spell/shield/weapon decks) do fight each other. Some are more realistic (like the abomination, which look surprisingly much like a certain amphibian) and some less (Armagio for example). But not only is it fantasy, but it's also a game. We have games where humans kill humans, where humans kill animals and where animals kills humans. If you want to see a cute monkey terrorizing hundreds, I recommend Black and White 2.

[7wavemaster]

According to what i can tell from Legit's logic if a superior alien species came to earth their allowed to completely kill and dominate us and torture us just because they're stronger?

[ZephyrPhantom]

According to what i can tell from Legit's logic if a superior alien species came to earth their allowed to completely kill and dominate us and torture us just because they're stronger?

Yeah, that's pretty much what he implies.  Just forget about it.

[EvaRia]

What's disallowing them? If a superior race decided to come and murder all of us, they can.

Anyways, although I do agree that torturing animals is a form of cruelty, this is a game. The things in them game, while they do reflect reality, do not reflect the way we would actually act or anything like that.

In that sense, Legit has a valid point, just not in a particularly nice tone.

Just because we infect animals in a game does not mean we do so in real life.

In short, I support animal rights to an extent, but I see no reason to support imaginary animal rights. Just like although I do not support murder, I see no wrong in killing in a game and in fact many games have a degree of violence in them.

[7wavemaster]

With YOUR reasoning Eva that means all superior races are violent people.

[Pineapple]

I basically agree with Legit's first post in this thread.
According to Drobbit, we should take out all forms of violence from this game because sacrificing a creature for 9 is animal cruelty.
I've done far worse things in other games, and I just find Drobbit's standpoint on not being able to create cards that reflect cruelty as humorous (I find his standpoint humorous), because it's just a game.

Completely independent from the point above, I personally do not believe that animals have rights. Call me specieist or egotistical, but I definitely value humans above other species. If there is a baby rat in one burning building, a baby human in another burning building, and I could only save one of them, I would no doubt save the baby human. 7wavemaster, if a superior alien race comes and terrorizes us, we can fight back to the best of our ability, just as animals fight against us. From our perspective, they're not "allowed" to terrorize us, but to transfer this perspective onto humans and animals would be assuming that there is equality in the rights distributed throughout species, but I think it's obvious that you have not proven that because that is the exact topic of this Animal Rights debate.

Wow, who knew preparing for eighth grade animal testing debates would actually be useful in my life?

[Nepycros]

Humans have grown to a point where we not only create large ambitions, but are filled with the determination and ability to achieve such large ambitions. That is what separates us from animals in terms of rights. We can realize our goals, and they cannot. For the sake of the betterment of our species, and to realize our individual and group efforts, we will continue, throughout the course of humanity, to not only torture, but to simply force animals to stay at the level they are in the world.

In order for one creature to survive, another must die for the benefit of the survivor. Carrying capacity, disease, and now, human intervention shape the overall economies of the animals around us.

To summarize:

1. The torturing of animals for amusement is wrong, simply because we are depriving a life of the right to pursue a life without pain, despite the contradictions to this right, without using it for the benefit of any individual or species. A life wasted is no life at all.

2. Torturing of animals for medical research shall continue for the ever-growing quest to obtain all knowledge, the backbone of human development.

3. The torturing of animals as the basis for the testing or creation of a leisurely object can be argued about validity based on the product in question. In short, I do not have the means to argue on this point's behalf.

4. I do not enjoy torture, I do not wish to support it, but when necessities become apparant, not much can be done to correct a system that has been firmly established.