Animal rights

For the third round I will be simply focusing on refuting your points made and then make closing arguments "Animal rights simply guarantees freedom from unnecessary exploitation and abuse." - This is true that animals rights is asking for this. My first point against this is that the term animals rights have been blurred and the entire term has been misused. Take battery caged hens as an example. Farmers use them in close quarters to make them much more profitable then free range hens. Yes they are forced into small cages, but in the end there is more money in his pocket, this is not greed since true greed would harm another human (yes I am including poaching since poaching hurts the ecosystem and thus the environment). This does not hurt another human and instead helps many humans, with battery caged hens it puts more money in the farmers pocket and allows him to spend more aiding more people. It is just conserving money, and it hurts no one. You are forgetting this is not just the farmer's money we are conserving it is everybody's money, and by everybody I do not mean the chickens'. "You wouldn't define a good, working and civilized society the one that keeps exploiting animals." - I wouldn't define a good working society as one that keeps spending money unnecessarily on animals when there are humans in need of assistance. Animals are not a priority here people what is is insuring that human race's advancement and survival. Humans can live on without animals having rights or being treated with respect, this is just slowing us down as a race. Every dollar spent on animal rights (thanks PETA) is a dollar wasted. It is equivalent to placing a ten dollar bill on the ground and lighting it on fire. Do lesser developed countries have advanced animal rights as us, no they typically have none. Why because they see the priority in life humans not animals, we have become distracted. Lesser developed countries are not always right with policies but in this case they are. I will ask this question because it seems to be relevant here: what does animal rights do for the economy? Until this question is answered I fear that animals will never be accepted or granted rights. All human beings are in some way forced to contribute to society (the economy) and push it forward. "Everything depends on each other, and without one of them, nature becomes unstable" - Tell me how the common household dog contribute to the ecosystem in a relevant way, I have already agreed that ecosystems are vital and deserve rights; however your statement of 'everything' is extremely broad and not correct. So if you were saying that only animals that help nature need rights then I agree but common animals do not support the ecosystem. "Humans do not always show kindness. Humans were always greedy and have been exploiting each other for thousand of years now. This is one perfect example of how humans are related to animals." - Yes humans do not always show kindness but we do show kindness sometimes. This is better than animals who never show kindness (definition - "Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others"). An animal will never go out of it's way to help another one if it know there is nothing it can do for it or it's race. "Greed is the reason for animal abuse." - Greed - An intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Selfish - a person lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. In this case others is defined as other humans not animals. If no human is getting hurt then by definition greed has nothing to do with animals. As long as the individual is not hurting an ecosystem then it is perfectly ok for them to kill, maim or exploit animals, it still will not be defined under greed. "Burn a painting, the painting won"t hesitate or feel anything. Burn an animal alive, it will feel pain. Both may not talk and both may be purchasable but animals suffer, and that"s what differentiates animals from ordinary properties." - False animals do not feel pain like we do, so it is correct to assume that they do not suffer since suffering would be a human definition and would only apply to humans. Pain is not universal it only applies to humans. Animals feel a primitive version of pain (if that) and so can not truly suffer like a human. "If animals can solve primitive problems, there will be a chance that they can solve complex problems." - False once again they can not solve any problem that society would not be able to answer by itself. We are smarter than animals and so we have no intellectual need for them. "If animals were conscious and can feel pain (that is they can), this means animals should be subjected to humane treatment and not to unnecessary exploitation." - You fail to explain your points using logic or economic reasons. Just because they can think doesn't give them a place in our laws or our governing, to have rights you need to prove you can do something in society (even minor rights). Killing them inhumanely is sometimes more economical and so should be done. By killing them this way we allow less money to be spent on entities and more to be spent on humans. "And also this is the 21st Century, technology advances to the point that animal testing is no longer necessary." - Animals are still heavily need in neurobiology (and a lot of other fields but this is an example). Since we can not yet program a brain or a rat's brain we need to test them using other methods that involve a live specimen (or dead). In this way they are still needed in experimentation. Also what about genetics, animals are usually used in tests that allow us to gain knowledge. I think you are under the impression that animals are just tortured in labs, no animals are used there to help humans. May I remind you that almost every medical breakthrough has involved animal testing. "Animal testing also has its flaws: 90% percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human trials due to their dangerous effects on humans" - But it works 10% or the time so it is good still. All we are doing here is exchanging animal lives for humans it is another necessary step used to protect human life. "Computer simulations and micro dosing; these methods combined proved to have more accurate findings than animal testing" - I agree that animal testing on vaccines may be a little more primitive but it is a necessary precaution we must take. Who are we to say no to animal testing if it aids human, remember we are talking about animal rights not ethics. If it aids human in any way then it will be used. "That is because animals are being exploited worldwide for unnecessary reasons, causing unnecessary and harsh suffering. Major examples include animal testing and harsh conditions in industrial-style animal farming. " - I see animal testing and industrial-style farming as a necessary reason for animal use. One of them provides us with scientific knowledge which is the most valued object in today's society. The other provides us with a stronger economy which is the second most valued thing on this planet. You are saying no to advancement and yes to wasteful spending. "Also because in a sense, animals are like humans. " - Yes they are but laws are part of society and if animals can not think like we do then they deserve none, simple reasoning. May I remind you that laws that we have put place are non existent without society which humans built they are not part of nature. "a couple share similar genes to humans" - Perfect example why we need animals in testing "All of them cannot talk, use machinery or do stuffs humans only can and they may have no purpose or potential in society or the same IQ and EQ capacity as humans but all these creatures need the love and respect humans receive." - Laws are hypothetical the universe does not follow the laws we create. We can not tell a tornado it is illegal to go over there. Laws were put in place for humans, if a being can not understand these hypothetical laws then they reject them. Laws were put in place as a reward. If one follows the law then one gets rights in return. If animals can not follow simple rules we put in place then they can not be rewarded with rights. Unless an object is necessary to human survival (ex an ecosystem) then it has not place in society and thus no place in law. Even if you believe animals are conscious and can feel pain similar to us (both of which would be false under context) then it does not matter in the eyes of the law. They are mere object if they reject society and objects do not need ethics, or rights.