Animal rights

Why should animals not have rights? 2. Why are animals property? 3. Do animals feel anything like us humans do? I will ad one more to make a fourth question 4. Can animals serve a purpose in today's society? But firstly I will be addressing some of the issues Pro brought up in their argument "These are "7 characteristics of life" according to biology and common sense, NOT just some lies invented by society" - Technically then every law and every legislation passed would be a common lie in society. This makes little to no sense because society has proven to be greater than the environment and even biology at times. We have controlled earth in a way that has allowed us to grow, yes at times the growth is unstable but we have the capacity to limit it. We also control the environment by only leaving specific portions for environmental stability. Without these lies invented by society the earth would be left with highly intelligent and destructive beings that would consume the earth. So the lies are the only things keeping the earth from destruction. So because the societal laws have become more important then these primitive biological laws then we must first obey the societal laws and since animals have no purpose in society they should not be granted any rights. Rights are granted on the basis that one contributed to society and in return is granted rights. So they are privileges that all humans are entitled to. But if a human goes against the laws then he/she is revoked these laws, the same goes for animals if animals do not contribute to society then they are going against humanities new purpose which is to create an advancing society. "Animals are aware of each other"s existence. " - You are attempting to humanize animals (when read in context). Yes they are aware of each other's existence but they are only aware because the other provides them something. They have no social reasoning skills like a common human and thus are not relatable. "They have souls, and they were created (by God, mother nature, science or whatever you believe in) " - They do not have souls since souls are a religious thing and God said in the bible - "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ". So now they do not have souls by a religious stand point (if you believe in science then nothing has a soul and yes they were created like us but they serve no purpose in society which is the new order of the planet). "it"s only up to our creators (God or Mother Nature) to decide their fate" - Please get your facts right no matter what you believe in then the earth was left to humans. 'Mother Nature' would have simply left the earth to the most dominant species since it is only the order of life. ""Animals are not conscious"" Can you really prove that? " - Yes when read in context it meant animals do not have the conscious ability that is humans have. Without these levels or even close to these levels of consciousness then it makes them not relatable to us and makes them useless in society. "If someone desperately needs something, he/she [humans] will do whatever it takes to get that thing, with no regards for others" - But if a human has an abundance would he/she give some to others well of course, animals would not unless the others could create a significant gain to them. Humans would do it anyways hence kindness. Let's take an example a Corgi. A Corgi is an animal that will eat their own food then carry on to eat the other dogs food without any regard for the other. "Again, can you really prove that animals don"t feel pain the way we do at all? " - Yes I can because animals do not have the intellectual or conscious levels we do then it is safe to assume that they can not feel things the same way as us. Intellectual and conscious levels change the way we feel things. In this way it is once again safe to assume that animals can not feel pain the way we do. I do not need to be put in an animals 'shoes' but I can use theory and science to determine that they have a different perspective of pain. This difference in pain perspective makes it so we can not actually relate to them. "Not only because it is cruel, It is also becoming expensive and unnecessary and not worth the money" - I agree animal testing should be viewed as how much it costs not by the 'morals' of it. If it costs too much then the company will simply not do it. Why can we say it is illegal to not conduct 'testing' even if it costs more than it produces. In that case we should also eliminate all forms of art since it provides no actually benefit. "Stealing an animal is equivalent to kidnapping someone" - No it is not under law kidnapping is defined as "The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force". Taking an animal would just be stealing under law I have already said that animals do not have any rights under society so yes it would just be stealing. "What"s the difference between an ordinary property [and an animal" Nothing under societal laws, under the obsolete biological laws there is some correlation but in the end the earth is left to the dominant species. "animals DO have problem solving skills and are able to solve primitive problems" - Solving primitive problems has no potential in society, remember we are arguing about animal rights, if they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way then they are useless and primitive problems is nothing. "Place either one in a small room, with a long container holding the water and floating food. The crow/ raven shouldn"t be able to reach the food. What they do is they either use displacement method so water level will rise with the food or uses a bent wire in order to grab the food. " - Place a human in the room and watch it kill the crow and raven then take the food, humans win. I fail to understand why doing this gives them rights "They [animals] are used as a food source, either a food producer or food itself, a pet for recreation and for understanding biology" - So should our food have rights in that case give it to tree too. Textbooks help us understand biology rights for them too, people keep trees as pets too. Now for my new argument - Can animals serve a purpose in today's society? - I have already partially explained this argument through my past positions but I will summarize by arguments here. Before the industrial revolution animals served a heavy purpose in society. They were used in many different areas that humans could not fulfil, they even worked extremely well until the industrial age hit and they were replaced by better more efficient machinery. Today animals serve almost no physical use in society because of the steady decrease in price for machines. - It is an obvious fact that no matter how many puzzles animals can solve they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way. Humans have evolved to the point where we are the only ones who can understand and use our machinery that we have created. We are the only ones fulfilling our true goal and no matter how much people like it we are in this all alone. Humans are the only ones who can relate to other humans, we are the only animal we can truly understand and for these reasons we should only look out for ourselves. Animals can not help us and we can not help them, if they would like to join us in advancing the world then they would, but the simply do not have the capacity, so on an evolutionary standpoint animals have been cut. - Let's say for argument's sake that animals were conscious and had the capacity for pain, would that change anything? No it would not animals would still be needed for research and food. Also it would not change the fact that animal serve a use in research and food. We have no relations to animals and animals have no relation to us, they serve no use in society and so break the most vital rule in humanities existence. Due to these reason animals serve no intellectual purpose in society and laws are related on an intellectual level, so animals are unable of receiving any laws or rights.