agreeed!!!
and my answer to all of this, people are *****.

Riiiight. You start arresting lions for killing zebras, bears for killing salmon and spiders for killing flies. We'll see how fast that catches on.

thats not the point. durr.

When I illustrate that particular point, it makes it easier to see that animals are not humans; and, therefore, not rights bearers like humans are. Doesn't mean that we humans are allowed to abuse animals. It just means that we don't elevate animals to our status. After that I will remind everyone that animals cannot ponder the results of their actions, reflect on existentialism or an meaning at all in general, they don't override their instincts like we do, etc. Yet another reason animals are not humans.

that is the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. have you forgotten ? humans are animals too.
you dont know what animals such as a dog or a cat think or what they feel.
every speices is differnt from another.
a monkey cannot spin a spider web, a whale dosent have nocturnal vision like an owl. however we all have one thing in common, we are living and we all have the right to life and freedom and we all share the same earth and live together.

when animals kill animalsn thats nature,but when we abuse our pets thats not nature do you see the DIFFERENCE?????

Whoa, lawrence. Re-read my post. I didn't say it was okay to abuse animals. However, they are not rights bearers. To make them so would mean we diminish our importance. Again, that's why I bring up the animal on animal predation subject. It's wrong for humans to kill humans, but not for animals to kill animals. One could make the argument that it's just nature for humans to kill other humans. But we don't. Why? Because we humans are subject to moral standards, not animals.

Let's do another illustration, lawrence. If animals have the same rights as humans do, then you should not expect to be saved in the event of a shark attack. After all, in keeping with that line of thinking, your right to live is no more important than the shark's right to eat and thus live. Do you see the difference?

Saroin420, once again you are blending lines on issues. Nobody is expecting one particular animal to take on the characteristics of another species. So, naturally, we don't expect animals to take on the characteristics of humans. They simply cannot make moral decisions, ponder their existence or supercede instincts, etc. That ultimately means we don't hold animals to the moral standards that humans are held to. The issue of being good stewards of the planet and its inhabitants is an issue separate and apart.

i agree lawrence!
YOU LIVE ON THIS PLANET MISSCHERIE RESPECT IT AND ITS LIVING ANIMALS. YOUR PATEHTIC SO CALLED VEIW ON THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE WHAT SO EVER TO NOT GIVE THEM RIGHTS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVEN SAY ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS And dont "bear" rights like we do!

go read your damn bible.

Wow! That statement there gives a lot of credit to the angry atheist notion, Saroin420. If skeptics are supposed to be the reasonable ones, then why the need to fly off the handle? I find it amusing that you said I have no right to even say animals have no rights. But you have a right to say I have no right? Hmmm....those double standards of yours seem to creep up in odd places. Remember all of this the next time you're surfing or hiking in the woods and you happen upon some large, hungry animal. Remember to offer yourself as lunch. Don't run away; that's depriving the predator of its right to a meal.

NOBODY has a right to say animals have no rights.
im flying off the handel because your aguments are tottaly blown out of porportion and they are rediculous.

Who are you to judge and say I have no right? You are implying that what you bring to the table is superior and therefore the correct decision. But how does one do that in a relative society? How can you definitively say anything is right or wrong? Oh, I get it. Anything that falls into the liberal category is the correct way of thinking and behaving. Again we have a double standard. Uh-oh. You just keep digging more holes deeper and deeper for yourself.

P.S. If animals have the exact same rights as you and I, then why does an animal have to ride in the cargo area of a plane, while humans ride in coach or first class? Why can't a dog and a regular person (not blind) sit at a table at a fancy restaurant -- or McDonald's? Finally, if an animal has the same rights as you do, then why wasn't that chimpanzee who mauled a woman's face put on trial for attempted murder?

N.O.B.O.D.Y HAS A RIGHT i didnt single out YOU only and said YOU dont have a right, im reffuring to ANYONE.

oh yeah and also why would you have a monkey in a human civilization in the first place and not in its natural habitat ?
good for that monkey, id be pisssed to if someone was screwing around with my natural habitat.
oh wait.. someone already is. and thats the government. so perhaps i should go and maul them as well.

Misscherie you have your what you think.thats fine,but think about it would you like getting abuse?

Ah, Larry, ye olde "If the conservative would only just 'think' about it" slogan. As you can see from my arguments, I have given this some serious thought -- as my posts are clearly coherent. I've also done independent study on this issue. The last part of your sentence again implies that humans and animals are no different, therefore crimes against each are at the same level. But if that were the case, why is it assault to abuse a human yet abuse of an animal doesn't rise to that level within our North American jurisprudence? You can go on and on about, 'Misscherie, you have what you think. that's fine.'; however, with that method of moral deliniation, you will be at the mercy of relativism. It leaves you in a tailspin when you highlight the need for universal standards for justice. You can't say, 'You do what works for you and I'll do what works for me' and then try to apply universal moral standards from there. The two concepts are directly opposed to one another.

k how bout this.
you can go on with all your little arguments and such but the reality on this subject is animals and all living beeings have the right to life.
and theres NO reason why people shoiuld be toutruing and abusing animals like they do.
its WRONG and theres NO reason why we should be doing it.
so you can present your 'evidence' and argue but the reality is theres no reason for this to happen and all living things deserve life.

The way i see it is the way you see it,but thats okay cause we all have different opinion

Now you've got to go to the next step. What do we do when two opinions are in direct opposition to one another, especially on a moral question such as this? Perhaps we need something other than human opinion to break the tie???? If all humans are equal in their value, then so are their opinions. This is no way to base a system of morals. Eventually you'll come up against this issue again. So what will you do the next time you hear of an animal being "abused"? With the door you've opened, one could easily say, "Your opinion of what abused means may not necessarily be the same as the next person's. So why should your personal definition be forced on someone else?"

Do you see the problem relatvism presents?

seriously misscherie, you need to stop taking everything so literally.
or atleast im hopeing your just presenting this type of thinking and its not actually your own.