German Shepherds Forum banner

Animal rights= arrogance and scary and extreme

20K views 290 replies 52 participants last post by  Wetdog 
#1 ·
Top 8 Arguments Against Animal Rights

I am so scared for animals in the future. No more breeding causes extinction for a consequence for our beloved animals. If they really cared they would let animals live on. Our dogs are happy to be with humans even animals that are not dogs. The other thing animal rights activists say people do not see the consequences for their actions. Well, black and white as AR people their actions will be a consequence to regret if our worse nightmare does happen. Can't live without animals on the planet interacting with humans. They think all humans are nasty and hate animals. So much extreme black and white. If you ever beat them in arguments "dogs are not given consent to do work, breed to be used whatever". Lol the AR ppl are not giving dogs their consent either.
 
#2 ·
There are an estimated 164 million pets owned in the US.

Not that I agree with the AR folks, but they are a vast minority.
 
#3 ·
I would alweays vote against changing original nature of GSD through breedig for the purpose of producing so called "friendly" dog genetically. With the loss of a potential to become agressive GSD loses his intellect. Something happens to dogs bred for being innocuous to humans, and there is a lot of evidence to it: American Cocker Spanial and many other sub-breeds. But, do people need intellectual dogs? No, they don't. Proper raising your puppy, controlling yourself first of all ( GSD grows agressive in families living in conflict, nervous and agressive themselves people) and educating him requires a considerable effort. The majority of dogs' owners are happy to have a beautiful vegetable on the lead instead of bothering themselves and paying money to trainers. People like not the dog, but his shape, which is a replica of their old enemy - the wolf. That is where the idea springs from: to have a living toy deprived of claws and teeth. Crowds of dolphin admirers prefer to see them in the circus, not in the wild, some even say that it is the only way to save them - todeprive from freedom. Changing that which was preserved throughout so many centures, GSD temperament and other natural qualities have to be lost to breeding programms, and it terrifies me much more than depriving cats from claws surgically, or chopping off dogs' ears and tails for cosmetic reasons. But, the wish to adjust other living beings and make them more convenient for modern life and future survival of one type of species - that is us, the humans - is above the humans. There is one in a few million can live a single day like Jesus, or be a fraction that much sacrificial like Him. Jesus teachings weren't about animals, but they were and are for many a sound of a true nature of love to life in general. Humans are not the gods, they simply uncapable of being sorry with factory chickens who do not and will not have any rights ever, because it is more convenient to think they have "chicken brains".
 
#4 ·
I'm a firm supporter of animal welfare being improved, but giving animals "rights" is a whole different can of worms.

This is a pretty political subject, and I have to wonder if this discussion is best left on other boards, except perhaps in regards to dog ownership and laws.
 
#5 ·
The "lunatic fringe" is only supported by the actions of those who fail to live up to their responsibilities.

The vast majority of pet owners are considerate, caring and conscientious. As always, too much legislation and "rule" is enacted and supported because the minority ( in this case, the antithesis of the aforementioned majority) gives the entire class a bad name.

Sad situation but perhaps a mirror of the times.


SuperG
 
#9 ·
The vast majority of pet owners are considerate, caring and conscientious.
I'm not sure if I agree with that. I see pet owners every day, and a lot of them really shouldn't own pets... it's not that they are horrible people, it's that the dog is an afterthought, a prop, a toy for the children, or a status symbol. Often bought on a whim and then ignored. Most people really don't have enough knowledge of animal behavior to understand a pet's true needs, and behavior problems are often a result. And these are the people that actually care enough to have their pets professionally groomed!

However, the AR agenda is wrongheaded and extreme. Just because SOME people shouldn't own animals doesn't mean it's wrong for ANYONE to own animals.
 
#11 ·
I always thought it made sense for dogs to have similar rights to children. We can't have them calling all the shots but they should have the right to not be abused, to receive adequate medical care, to not be mutilated for aesthetic reasons. Working dogs should be similar to people signing their kids up for soccer and youth symphony. :D

I support the right to freedom from captivity for chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants and such. And the right to remain with their natural families. Except in the case of conservation programs, keeping these animals is exploitation. We now have the technology that we don't need chimps for medical research.

Most of the extremist AR people I've talked to are not good enough with people to have their message taken seriously. Change will be gradual, not extreme.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 
#16 ·
People shouldn't own wild animals. They're too dangerous even for experienced owners.

That said, I'm against the animal rights' extremists anti-pet ideology. They claim to love animals but they hate people who care for and love them.

I'm on record as believing animals deserve to be treated humanely but the notion non-sentient beings are entitled to any kind of rights is both illogical and absurd!
 
#20 ·
Agreed, I don't know how many times I've brought this up. Wild animals should remain in the wild where they belong. Not only would they be too dangerous for the average pet owner but they might not be getting what they would get naturally in their own environment and taking them out of that can disrupt their survival. It's bad enough we are slowly kicking them out of every possible habitat and have nothing left for themselves. Hunting is fine as long as the animal is not pointlessly shot nor at alarming rates e.g. our endangered species.

I will always believe in animal welfare because every animal deserves to receive the proper care they need and be treated accordingly. Animals rights is just pure hypocritical nonsense. Those that follow it don't make any sense.
 
#18 ·
I find trophy/sport hunting abhorrent. An animal's life should not be taken to further someone's prestige or for fun! That's not right and its cruelty in the extreme.

There are only two valid reasons to kill an animal: for food and clothing and to protect human life.

Responsible hunters and conservationists know this and while we're permitted to exploit nature for our benefit, it doesn't follow we have license to abuse it to the detriment of living things and ourselves that share the earth with us.
 
#21 ·
Norman, I would agree with you with the addition to control populations that don't have an appropriate level of predation to sustain healthy populations E.g., deer. And I do believe we should take all the feral hogs we can! They are extremely destructive of the environment and are not native species.
 
#23 ·
Key quote from the article I linked to, one that I think it is important for the OP and other folks to keep in mind when they read the remainder of the paper. Remember that the animal welfare/animal rights community is comprised of a spectrum. This quote lays out where I fall on that spectrum.

"A premise of this Article is that it is ethically acceptable to continue to have animals within a property status. This premise is contrary to the beliefs
of a number of individuals in the field of animal rights, particularly those who self-identify as abolitionists. Among these writers, the first order of business is the elimination of the property status of animals, and then making animals (or some subset of animals, such as primates) legal persons. This author rejects this path forward. The key ethical question upon which the basis of this Article diverges from the abolitionists is whether it is acceptable for humans to keep, possess, and use animals. Their answer is ―no, and at least some members of this school of thought push the non-use analysis to the point of asserting that humans should not keep, own, and use pets. This author rejects their ethical position upon the belief that positive human communities can include animals that are owned and used by humans."
 
#24 ·
Another quote that represents my thinking...

"This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals"
 
#27 ·
#29 ·
Here's a dilemma for many of you.....this is from 2011 and may still be the law.

I'm certain other states have the same laws on the books.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Dogs caught chasing deer may be killed by a person other than a peace or conservation officer, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Between Jan. 1 and July 14, a person other than a peace or conservation officer may kill a dog that has pursued, wounded or killed a big game animal.





So, is this justifiable in the minds of the uber animal rights activists? I'd be curious to hear some opinions. My opinion would be....I wouldn't shoot the dog and rather let the dog run down and kill the innocent deer. It's one or the other..........


SuperG
 
#30 ·
---------"
What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beasts also happens to man. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the children of the earth."-------------
Chief Seattle - Suqwamish & Duwamish
 
#34 ·
I think there's a fine line between animal rights and animal welfare. Some animal rights activists are absolutely insane and scary for sure. Animal welfare laws pretty much protect the bare minimum.

For one, I'm personally sick of activists attacks on breeders while they ignore the people who actually dumped their dog at the shelter to begin with. Just because I bought my purebred dogs from reputable breeders, does not mean my dogs killed two shelter dogs.

Mean while the family who surrendered the pooch did it because they realized dogs bark, poop and pee


And who gets the bad rap? Reputable breeders -_-


Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 
#36 ·
Now this is something I actually agree with you on. I think a lot of AR people are well intentioned, misguided, bleeding hearts on a soap box. Others have an agenda. I don't like it. I care about animals greatly and feel they should be treated well but giving animals human-style-rights is just plain ridiculous. If anything, the penalty for animal cruelty currently just needs to be increased and people need greater knowledge/understanding of animal psychology and pet care.
 
#37 ·
Well rights where animals get liberation everywhere! Not rights like humans but want it where animals existence are no longer ignored. Existence ignored is one of the most painful things in the world. So ignored they get killed without proper burials deaths are mocked too.
 
#48 ·
Your jumping to conclusions. I am being deep and educating myself. Dogs are right in front of us we can think for ourselves not be closed or mindless about anything. We have our own unique minds that dont have tobthink ordinary. You are not wrong I'm not wrong have my own philosophy. I won't be someone else because somebody tells me. My dog being disguised as property isn't him. Don't care what anybody says.
 
#47 ·
Personally, I feel that treating my dog like a cuddly baby teddy bear IS disrespectful to my dog. For the purpose of this post I will talk about my dog Nikon, he is 5 years old, very accomplished and has over 20 titles, his breed survey, and several health clearances above and beyond the normal hips/elbows. He is a very noble animal. He's not a cute, cuddly teddy bear that I walk around on a leash so people can ooo and aaaaah and love on him. He would protect me with his own life and has demonstrated his willingness and ability to do it. I treat him like a partner, not like a "furbaby". He has earned MY trust and respect just as I have earned his. He's also not some fragile glass ornament that needs constant protection and living in a bubble; he's a very strong, discerning, courageous animal fully capable of fending for himself if it came to it. I have certain expectations of him and will hold him to them and I'm sure he has the same of me.
 
#50 ·
You can argue linguistics until you are blue in the face, but assuming you live in the U.S. your dog IS your property, assuming you own them and it isn't your parents or friends dog. It has nothing to do with spirituality or how you see your dog as a friend, it has nothing to do with kindness, respect or being a tool etc, it is a legal issue. I don't understand the need to put all these special definitions to the word, in the U.S. animals have owners making them property.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top