Animal Rights

I will refute your claims because the BoP is on you, because you are arguing the unknown, as of now I am arguing that same as the current standards, so you prove it to the audience, and I will attempt to disprove. "animals can feel pain, thus it is immoral to infringe upon their well-being."So do people dying, yet they it is still not considered murder if you pull the plug. Also if something feels pain is it a reason to give it rights? There are already laws helping domestic animals. They get almost = rights already, but since they feel pain then they get rights? Well when a lion kills an antelope then it would have to be arrested under your plan because if they get = rights then they would have to be jailed for murder. So giving them = rights would get them in trouble for surviving. Also an animal isn't a human, so dont they technically need diffrent rights, not = ones. They are not capable of human thought according to modern reasearch so they do not need our rights. I have gone hunting, and when you take down the animal you dont feel 'guilty' so your argument there is false, you only feel that way towards people or pets, not wild animals. Also pain is an emotional thing more than a pain nerve one. The International Association for the Study of Pain decreed that "The emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors in the body." O.K if you are dragged to a doctors office crying and saying you dont want a shot it will hurt less then doing it with normal mood. That is common knowlage because when you are freaking out your brain might overexagerate the pain. And animals dont have many moods to my knowlage, so they do feel pain, but on a lesser scale. They also have a higher pain tolerance. I am not advocating go hit a dog, but I am saying that just cause they can feel pain doesnt mean that they should have = rights." animal rights would not only benefit the animal world, but the human world as well. "This is false. If you geve them rights then a company would require more regulation which would raise costs and lower job growth. So it hurts human economics. Also it would make it a crime to trap, or kill pegions even if they are ruining your property. Even if they ruined a building killing them would result in murder, and trapping them would violate the 8th ammendment. So it would mess up everything in that sense. Also it would illegilise hunting, so even if you think that is bad then think again. That would ruin the sport that people enjoy, so it would hurt that realm, also hunting is enviromentally freindly. So it would make it one less enviroment benifit. So for those of you who disagree with the hunting thing I will digress a little to back up that point: Hunters are the most conservation-friendly people out there. They are good stewards of the environment," said Joe Hosmer, vice president of the Safari Club International, a foundation recognized as a worldwide leader in wildlife-conservation and education programs. And some environmentalists agree. [1] Overpopulation has detrimental effects that ripple through the entire ecosystem," explains Inkley. "Overgrazing by the white-tailed deer changes the entire plant species and composition of the forest. For instance, deer can eat all the red maple, so species that rely on the red maple dwindle." Another major problem with species overpopulation is that it increases interaction with humans, often in unfavorable ways. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that there are more than 1.5 million deer-vehicle collisions each year, and about 150 of those end up being fatal to humans [1] so hunting helps keep that from happening.http://www.foxnews.com...;[1] "What is derived from the rights of animals being respected, is humans may become more peaceful or respectful of each other. " I do not see how animal rights would make people more respectful. Please explain in a diffrent way next round. "The logical explanation for why humans find it moral to recognize animal's rights is because of the concern of their population, and the pity humans feel as a result of the killing and destruction of innocent inhabitants of the Earth."So now you blame overpopulated humans. Well stopping the growth could shatter the economy. Thats why China is changing the law to a 2 child policy so their population doesnt plumment, shrinking the workforce. So you are now advocating "save the world kill the humans". Obviously you dont mean that, but you say it indirectly in this sentence. " Many animals are affected by the pollution and industrialization humans bestow upon the Earth. If animal rights wouldn't be recognized, the whole earth may already be colonized by humans, only worsening the current issues humans have with the environment. "I'm going to use the ronald reagan quote: "there he goes again". In a debate with Jimmy carter :PSo you are still advocating enviromental hazards. We wont colinize the whole world because the goverments of the world would ban together before that happened. The UN may make colonies on the moon, the poles of mars because there is water there, and maybe a moon of jupiter ( the name has slipped out of my mind). All of these places have water (ICE) and the jupiter moon possibly has life under the ice. So the overpopulation thing is false."animal rights may also benefit the human world in subtle ways, such as children becoming interested in biology"Please explain in more depth because kids will get interested in it through school. Even if they didnt have school people get interested or they do not. People like me who are more history and politics leaning will probably not be interested by biology, no matter what. So it is not the enviroment that makes you interested, but you personally. No laws will change that. So to sum that up you either like it or you do not, laws are irrelavant. Since I have more space I will make an argument of my own so you have something to go against. Making animal rights would make it illegal to test animals. You think that is cruel, but it saves lives. Testing a ribbit with a new drug is a good thing, if the rabbit dies then no human lives will be lost, if it lives then it is probably safe. If made illegal then you may be taking expirimental drugs that would kill you, so animal testing is benificial. For more info read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk...So remember, I only advocate = rights towards domestic animals, not wild ones or in ones for scientific testings. So dont go hit a dog.