Now you think animals and corporations are somehow equivalent as well?

Animals don't have human rights for the reasons above and because they aren't even capable of claiming some sort of animal rights for themselves. Even if they could work out a philosophy of animal rights and then claim them, they could not claim human rights because they are not human.

A corporation, on the other hand, comprises many different individual humans. Because it is a human institution, created by humans, other groups of humans (gov't) grant corporations limited legal rights (not human rights) by the power of law because the benefits of doing so greatly outweigh the negatives. These are a different sort of rights, that exist solely by gov't fiat--but no corporation needs those rights to exist.

But as inanimate concepts, corporations do not have full human rights, any more than animals can. The two are not parallel, or even similar. If you want them to be the same you have a problem: the owner of a corporation can bleed it to death, can torture it to death. Can kill it on a whim, and yes, he can make it dance like a bear. The owner can do whatever he wants to it--because he owns it.

If your point is that animals are the same as corporations, then their owners can do those things to animals too.

Yeah, we know, you want to force everyone who doesn't think as you do to think as you do, that's inherent in the use of the verb "should be allowed."

While I would never own one, there are people that do own dancing bears. Looks like they are "allowed" regardless of what you happen to think.

Well there we have it. Rush will support the right for humans to treat animals cruelly. Nuff said.

Heh heh. This stuff is just classic.

Now you think animals and corporations are somehow equivalent as well?

No..your argument was that animals can't have rights because they cannot take moral responsibility for their actions. Corporations cannot take moral responsiblity for their actions either. So why do they have rights and animals don't?

Animals don't have human rights for the reasons above and because they aren't even capable of claiming some sort of animal rights for themselves. Even if they could work out a philosophy of animal rights and then claim them, they could not claim human rights because they are not human.

Neither is a corporation.

A corporation, on the other hand, comprises many different individual humans. Because it is a human institution, created by humans, other groups of humans (gov't) grant corporations limited legal rights (not human rights) by the power of law because the benefits of doing so greatly outweigh the negatives. These are a different sort of rights, that exist solely by gov't fiat--but no corporation needs those rights to exist.

An institution is not a human.

But as inanimate concepts, corporations do not have full human rights, any more than animals can. The two are not parallel, or even similar. If you want them to be the same you have a problem: the owner of a corporation can bleed it to death, can torture it to death. Can kill it on a whim, and yes, he can make it dance like a bear. The owner can do whatever he wants to it--because he owns it.

And they should not be allowed to torture animals anymore than they should be allowed to torture children.

If your point is that animals are the same as corporations, then their owners can do those things to animals too.

No..you were the one that claimed that because animals have no moral judgement then they should have no rights.

Heh heh. This stuff is just classic.

No..you are just ignorant. Bears are taught to dance through torture. You think that people should be allowed to torture animals that they own. I don't.

So should the modest culling of some human elements, where required by common sense............the kitties would have a field day here.........

Declawing of cats is illegal here in my country!

I just called my vet and asked, and the answer is NO, you can't get a cat declawed here, only for medical reasons and only the claw concerned will be surgically removed.

As for dogs, if one of the wolf claws gets injured, it can get surgically removed, again only for medical reasons.

[offtopic]
Is this the same as 'dew claws'? My yellow lab had his dew claws removed before I got him at 5 weeks old. In fact, I think most hunting dogs have them removed, as it poses a risk of injury when out in the field. Just wondering...
[ontopic]

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

I am going to get banned here, but I don't give _ ____. Rush, you've gone too far this time, way too far.

I'm not ignorant, I just don't agree with you that animals have rights

Perhaps you would like to copy that comment of yours to all the animal charities in the UK, a country of which I might remind you, you are currently a guest in.

I feel really sorry for you judging by the views you seem to hold.

You accuse me of being emotional. I'm proud to be a thinking, feeling, human being, which clearly is something you seem have no notion of.

Having pets, just like having children, is a responsibility as well as a privilege.

When you adopt a cat, you're adopting the negative as well as the positive aspects of the animal. Although a cat is not a human with fur and should not be treated as such, she has unique physical and psychological characteristics that must be nurtured, not destroyed.

If you're too busy to look after the best interests of a cat, or your own selfish desires take precedence over her health and safety, you have no business sharing your house with one.

Because I sez so.

Having pets, just like having children, is a responsibility as well as a privilege. When you adopt a cat, you're adopting the negative as well as the positive aspects of the animal. Although a cat is not a human with fur and should not be treated as such, she has unique physical and psychological characteristics that must be nurtured, not destroyed. If you're too busy to look after the best interests of a cat, or your own selfish desires take precedence over her health and safety, you have no business sharing your house with one.

..blah blah blah..

Animals aren't children, either. As I said before: are you trying to make the argument that animals are somehow the moral and intellectual equivalent of human beings, and therefore they should have equivalent rights? They do not. Children are human, animals are not, and they don't have rights because they cannot take moral responsibility for their actions.

That's the point. If cats have rights, so do mice, and therefore they have the right not to be tortured to death by cats, claws or no. How, exactly, do you propose enforcing such ban on behavior on cats when they are incapable of doing it for themselves?

...blah blah blah..

I'm not ignorant, I just don't agree with you that animals have rights. If you want to grant animals human rights, then you need to create a rational framework and a system of rights for doing so. Keeping in mind that there is a glaring and fundamental flaw in the idea that a human has to create a system of animal rights for beings that are incapable of doing so for themselves.

Would you ever declaw your cat?

No. Would you remove your spouses fingernails?

Ummm....I don't have a spouse....but there is an ex g/f I would GLADLY have had declawed!!!!

Rush. People are animals too...and children doubly so...and they certainly can't take responsibly for their actions. A chimpanzee for example is intellectually equivalent to a 2 year old human child.

That's the point. If cats have rights, so do mice, and therefore they have the right not to be tortured to death by cats, claws or no. How, exactly, do you propose enforcing such ban on behavior on cats when they are incapable of doing it for themselves?

The cat is acting within it's own moral framework. We should act within ours..that includes not inflicting needless suffering on other creatures. Their intellectual capacity should have absolutely nothing to do with it..otherwise you could argue that it is ok to inflict suffering on mentally disabled people or babies.

I'm not ignorant, I just don't agree with you that animals have rights. If you want to grant animals human rights, then you need to create a rational framework and a system of rights for doing so. Keeping in mind that there is a glaring and fundamental flaw in the idea that a human has to create a system of animal rights for beings that are incapable of doing so for themselves.

How is that inconsistent? If we are capable of exercising moral judgement why should that suddenly stop outside our own species? Either we are moral creatures or we are not.

This is a common mistake, dividing parts of being human as if one can separate a human from being human. Humans have rights because humans have created the framework for having rights and therefore humans qua humans have rights.

Without that, one could make the argument that sleeping people don't have rights because they have no intellectual capacity at all. Or babies. Or, like you noted above, a 2 year old human child. Sleepers, babies, children, the mentally disabled people you mention below, all have human rights because all of those things are part of being human, they are just different stages of being human.

A cat does not have a moral framework because it can neither create concepts, communicate them, nor claim some sort of animal rights. It cannot understand that a set of animal rights (were it to claim them) would also apply to the mouse that it is happily torturing to death. And to the gazelle that is being torn apart by a lion. Both animals have a right not to be tortured or slaughtered.

But I don't know who you mean by "we," as far as acting on ours. The type of person that would torture an animal, or otherwise deliberately make life for an animal miserable isn't interested in what you think, the law, or the morality of doing so--they do it because they want to, e.g. Michael Vick. It was already against the law, and he (and all the rest of them that are still doing it, every day) did it anyway.

Well, human rights aren't something created out of thin air--there's a reason, using principles, why they exist and why human beings have human rights. It's inconsistent that a human would have to create a system of animal rights for animals that are incapable of doing so for themselves because if they cannot understand the standards that it imposes on their behavior, and cannot change said behavior they cannot be held accountable. You cannot convince your cat not to torture a mouse to death, and you will not throw him into the kitty jail if he does. He cannot claim some sort of animal right for himself, while at the same time denying another animal that same right.

As far as morality, that is one of the concepts that humans have created as a way to define a code of conduct or an ideal code of conduct, except that humans don't always agree on what is moral and what is not. The rational ones certainly won't ever simply take your word for it on whether they happen to be moral or not, and neither should they. Using the collective "we" won't change that either.

This is a common mistake, dividing parts of being human as if one can separate a human from being human. Humans have rights because humans have created the framework for having rights and therefore humans qua humans have rights.

It wasn't a mistake. It was my intention to show you how ridiclous your argument is that because animals don't have a moral framework they don't have rights.

We can give them rights.

Without that, one could make the argument that sleeping people don't have rights because they have no intellectual capacity at all. Or babies. Or, like you noted above, a 2 year old human child. Sleepers, babies, children, the mentally disabled people you mention below, all have human rights because all of those things are part of being human, they are just different stages of being human.

You seem to think humans are somehow separate from all other life on this planet. We're not.

A cat does not have a moral framework because it can neither create concepts, communicate them, nor claim some sort of animal rights. It cannot understand that a set of animal rights (were it to claim them) would also apply to the mouse that it is happily torturing to death. And to the gazelle that is being torn apart by a lion. Both animals have a right not to be tortured or slaughtered.

I am not asking anyone to dictate the lions behaviour. I am talking about human behaviour. You can understand that simple concept can't you? Stop bringing how other animals treat each other into it. We are discussing how HUMANS (who are capable of having a moral framework that recognises suffering in other living things) treat animals.

But I don't know who you mean by "we," as far as acting on ours. The type of person that would torture an animal, or otherwise deliberately make life for an animal miserable isn't interested in what you think, the law, or the morality of doing so--they do it because they want to, e.g. Michael Vick. It was already against the law, and he (and all the rest of them that are still doing it, every day) did it anyway.

WTF are you on about?

Well, human rights aren't something created out of thin air--there's a reason, using principles, why they exist and why human beings have human rights. It's inconsistent that a human would have to create a system of animal rights for animals that are incapable of doing so for themselves because if they cannot understand the standards that it imposes on their behavior, and cannot change said behavior they cannot be held accountable. You cannot convince your cat not to torture a mouse to death, and you will not throw him into the kitty jail if he does. He cannot claim some sort of animal right for himself, while at the same time denying another animal that same right.

WTF does changing the behaviour of a cat got to do with human morals? Have you totally lost the plot?

As far as morality, that is one of the concepts that humans have created as a way to define a code of conduct or an ideal code of conduct, except that humans don't always agree on what is moral and what is not. The rational ones certainly won't ever simply take your word for it on whether they happen to be moral or not, and neither should they. Using the collective "we" won't change that either.

No we don't always agree..mainly because it is not convenient to recognise that what we are doing is wrong. i.e ..causing suffering in a cat for no other reason than 'it's a nuisance and my house wouldn't look pretty' can only be done if you come up with some personal justification that ignores the facts.

On a simply biological level declawing the cat cause suffering. Anything that causes an animal (or person) to live contrary to their nature causes suffering. Those are facts.

That is why so much money is now spent in zoos to make sure that the animal can behave in a natural way. Giving it opportunities to follow it's natural instinct as it would in the wild. Declawing a cat is unnecessary..and it causes suffering. I don't give a monkeys what the cat does to a mouse. We are talking about what people (who are capable of moral behaviour and empathy) do.

Having pets, just like having children, is a responsibility as well as a privilege. When you adopt a cat, you're adopting the negative as well as the positive aspects of the animal. Although a cat is not a human with fur and should not be treated as such, she has unique physical and psychological characteristics that must be nurtured, not destroyed. If you're too busy to look after the best interests of a cat, or your own selfish desires take precedence over her health and safety, you have no business sharing your house with one.

I'd agree with you there Dominique. I've shared a house, my house, with two cats for some 7 years now, ever since they were kittens. They have shredded my sofas, wallpaper, wooden furniture, my back when I've worn a thin T shirt as they jump up and play parrots with me, knocked things off my desk, disturb me when I'm trying to work on my PC, leave nasties on my carpets and bring in live and dead frogs and birds. But it's all part of the wear and tear of what I choose to accept into my life, and the joy and affection they give which more than makes up for that wear and tear and things like sofas that have to be replaced sometime anyway.

If anyone can't accept a cat for what it is, they shouldn't butcher it for their own convenience. Just don't have one and leave the adoption worries to those who do love cats and who don't wish to surgically remove their body parts.

Now about them kitty claws...........and my posting style.........

Hmmm.......LOL.......pauses in the train of thought...........

Now about them kitty claws...........and my posting style.........

Hmmm.......LOL.......pauses in the train of thought...........

PETA says pause for a cause.