Animal Rights

I said it was unhealthy, and you convinced me it was in moderation, although I still am willing to bet you eat more than is healthy. That discussion is over. Intelligent-Pigs are as smart as 3 year olds, raven and crows use tools and solver problems, apes have been taught human sign language, elephants grieve for their dead, dolphins protect people from sharks, monkeys make moral decisions. Civilized-What is your definition? Ants and termites make civilizations. If you define it as having the characteristics of a human civilization, that is like claiming women shouldn't have rights because they are not the same as men. Character-How do you know animals don't? I have already proved they make moral decisions, why isn't that character? Capacity for wisdom? Con is making up random reasons to separate animals and humans. We might as well say that someone in a coma can be butchered and eaten because they have none of those traits, same with children or those with dementia. There is no single criteria to separate animals and humans. Animals can suffer, and feel pain, so deserve rights. That has actually been proved to be incorrect. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... In addition, most people have a desire to reproduce. That is an instinct you cannot control. One cannot decide to stop being that way because there are too many people on earth and reproducing is unethical. Humans are also instinctive in many ways. All of our traits have a genetic purpose. Research sociobiology. And again, since when did babies not have rights? They don't have a moral compass. Even if you are right, either we are allowed to butcher people in a coma, babies, and people with severe mental illness or animals get rights. No, those animals should never have existed. They are unnatural breeds. The cow is descended from the aurochs, which died off hundreds of years ago. Pigs are descended from wild boars. Tell me that those animals enjoyed being in cages. If a man is born into slavery, isn't it stupid to say that you shouldn't free him because that is what he is used to? I think all sheep, cows, and pigs should die off. There is no reason those species should even exist, except maybe in poor communities where grains will not grow. http://en.wikipedia.org... Let's see, being withstrained, watching other animals die, (And animals mourn their dead, it would affect them) http://news.yahoo.com...) seeing blood be spilt, sounds like suffering to me, not to mention the jarring transport in stuffed trailers. Because animals can still psychologically suffer during slaughter. Not to mention living conditions in factory farms. And I am willing to bet your "humane meat" isn't as good as you think it is. http://www.humanemyth.org... And animals have the right not to be treated as property, plus animals can reflect on their existence and fear death, which plants cannot. How does consumption of meat not feed the meat industry? Simple economics. Even in humane conditions, animals still suffer. I have proved that. That is ridiculous, dying is suffering. Because you obviously believe animals have the right not to be subjected to pain, yet you feed an industry that subjects them to pain and kills them. You can survive without meat. You can get anything in meat from plant products, except B12 which you can easily supplement or eat fortified foods. Yes it is. Animals can suffer psychological pain, like you and me. And being cramped and fed so much food you can't stand up is painful. Chickens develop horrible diseases from the excrement on their floors. And by your logic, it is ethical for a doctor to involuntarily euthanize patients because they don't feel pain. I could do the same. Killing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is painful. If I killed you in your sleep, that is ethical, right? You feel no pain. Livestock are not natural animals. There is no where on earth where cows, pigs, and chickens roam free. That is not an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org...