Constitutional rights for whales

Constitutional rights for whales (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Iamsemisweet -> Constitutional rights for whales (10/27/2011 9:31:52 PM)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/9539-peta-sues-seaworld-for-enslaving-killer-whales Those dumb asses at PETA have outdone themselves this time. While this suit will undoubtedly be unsuccessful, PETA will continue to chip away at the rights of animal owners

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/27/2011 10:38:35 PM)
I am trying to decide if that is utter genius or lunacy, since being a subject-citizen is in fact in america "bond" slavery.

FirstQuaker -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/27/2011 11:11:22 PM)
I woudl be leaving those animals alone, the more intelligent marine mammals have always been pretty friendly to us, those blackfish are the lions of the ocean (thought they fish much like wolves hunt, and legends and myths have it they are descended from wolves) around here, and they are intelligent enough to communicate with each other and even us on occasion. If they ever decide humans are a problem . . . the way they treat sharks who go anywhere near their young is illustrative of what you can expect, (if you ever see a 5 meter shark tossed meters up on the rocks or laying broken atop the driftwood on a beach, that was a blackfish's handiwork) I doubt any vessel smaller then 20 meters could survive a serious attack by even one of them, never mind winding up a whole clan. They can kill a walrus that weighs half a ton as easily as you can a rabbit. We don't bother them and they don't bother us, it has been that way for many thousands of years

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 3:14:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/9539-peta-sues-seaworld-for-enslaving-killer-whales Those dumb asses at PETA have outdone themselves this time. While this suit will undoubtedly be unsuccessful, PETA will continue to chip away at the rights of animal owners I quote the spokesman in the article: quote: By any definition, these orcas are slaves http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave quote: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another Nope.

kalikshama -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 6:15:30 AM)
While touting PETA’s lawsuit as a promising catalyst for "national reflection and deliberation" on animal rights, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe — who has suggested enacting legal rights for chimpanzees — expressed doubt that the courts were ready to extend such constitutional benefits to animals. However, Professor Tribe was anything but discouraged, as he wrote in an e-mail, "People may well look back at this lawsuit and see in it a perceptive glimpse into a future of greater compassion for species other than our own."

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 6:58:42 AM)
The Animal rights groups will not be satisfied until legal rights are conferred to animals. It is insane.

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:05:49 AM)
quote: Those dumb asses at PETA have outdone themselves this time. While this suit will undoubtedly be unsuccessful, PETA will continue to chip away at the rights of animal owners We, (responsible breeders), fight them constantly. This is another of their ploys, like the battle to change "ownership" to "guardianship", thereby giving pets the same rights as children. People jump on the bandwagon and think this is great, after all they love their pets, why not give them rights? Whats next, having cows sign permission slips so we may continue to produce milk? PETA won't be happy until there are no pets, no animals being slaughtered, or used in food production of any kind. This newest headline, is just another step in their crusade.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:08:47 AM)
Exactly Lisa. I don't think most of the people who send donations to these revolting organizations have any idea what their true agenda is.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:36:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Exactly Lisa. I don't think most of the people who send donations to these revolting organizations have any idea what their true agenda is. Wasn't it "showing naked models"? Damnit!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:44:53 AM)
I dunno. I actually favor giving Chimps, some of the other primates and dolphins more protection than simply that of animals, even if not complete "personhood". Firm

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:50:09 AM)
"protection" is the ESA, Marine Mammals Act, and various other laws designed to protect habitat. Do you favor that? Because that is what primates and dolphins need for their survival. I am in favor of all those laws and more, to protect wildlife habitat. Legal rights,the goal of the animal rights types, are something else, altogether. It goes far beyond protection from cruelty and extinction.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 7:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet "protection" is the ESA, Marine Mammals Act, and various other laws designed to protect habitat. Do you favor that? Because that is what primates and dolphins need for their survival. I am in favor of all those laws and more, to protect wildlife habitat. Legal rights,the goal of the animal rights types, are something else, altogether. It goes far beyond protection from cruelty and extinction. I think that certain animals should not be considered "property". In this, I agree with Tribe and PETA (neither of which I agree with on just about anything else). Firm

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 8:06:49 AM)
Astounding. If they aren't property, what are they?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 8:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Astounding. If they aren't property, what are they? They are a community of living beings, who deserve respect. Like the bacteria. Stop taking antibiotica, you MASS MURDERER!!

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 9:14:12 AM)
quote: I think that certain animals should not be considered "property". In this, I agree with Tribe and PETA (neither of which I agree with on just about anything else). Think about this long and hard...if they are no longer property, and afforded equal rights as children under "guardianship"...you, or anyone else will have limited say in the upbringing or care. It's just one step closer for PETA to achieve their goal. By changing the status from "property", it opens up an entire new aspect. Breeding, selling or even using dogs in police work, could be construed as slavery, if animals are afforded constitutional rights. Where does it end? I don't think this is what our founding fathers had in mind. I personally would love to see an end to wild animals being used to entertain, but I am not in favor PETA's crusade. Go after the laws that allow wild animals to be captured or bred for such venues, but lets be careful how things are worded, because words can later be used against us, more then for us.

MstrPBK -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 9:15:10 AM)
Whales ... by known understanding ... are their own intelligent and enlightened species. We as humans can not extended any given constitution to them. We can instead extend to them the respect and dignity of another intelligent species. MstrPBK St. Paul, MN USA

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 10:12:48 AM)
It is also fairly nonsensical to extend "right" to animals, and then do little or nothing to protect their habitat and ability to survive. Or would "semi personhood" convey some right to live? That, of course, would require steps to stop polluting and stripping the oceans, in the case of whales. And, no offshore drilling if it might affect these "semi people". While these are laudable, it defies logic to think you can extend some animals enhanced status WITHOUT going to the expense and sacrifice of protecting them. Somehow, I don't think that is going to happen. The more practical and humane goal is insuring that animals in captivity, including farm animals, are raised and treated humanely.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 11:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa quote: I think that certain animals should not be considered "property". In this, I agree with Tribe and PETA (neither of which I agree with on just about anything else). Think about this long and hard...if they are no longer property, and afforded equal rights as children under "guardianship"...you, or anyone else will have limited say in the upbringing or care. It's just one step closer for PETA to achieve their goal. By changing the status from "property", it opens up an entire new aspect. Breeding, selling or even using dogs in police work, could be construed as slavery, if animals are afforded constitutional rights. Where does it end? I don't think this is what our founding fathers had in mind. I personally would love to see an end to wild animals being used to entertain, but I am not in favor PETA's crusade. Go after the laws that allow wild animals to be captured or bred for such venues, but lets be careful how things are worded, because words can later be used against us, more then for us. I'm not talking about dogs. Chimps can communicate. They have been taught ASL, and show amazing levels of intelligence, emotions and social behavior. I don't think that they are "animals" without intelligence and emotions. I do think that they are intelligent beings that deserve more respect and consideration than cows, dogs, sheep, amoeba or even birds. I think dolphins may be at that point as well. The question becomes how do we treat them differently, than we do "animals"? (We are all "animals" in the biological sense). No, we can't integrate them into our societies, and give them the right to sue, to vote, etc. Perhaps it is nothing more than a higher level of protection as to habitat and how they are treated when they are under the control of human society. But continuing to classify them as animals in the respect that we can slaughter them for food or sport and entertainment, buy and sell them as "objects" doesn't seem to me to be a moral choice that I wish to continue to support. Firm

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 12:10:39 PM)
Hmm. Well, Firm, if not dogs, than what about pigs? Intelligence research was done with pigs in the 1990s. One of the experiments was to train the pigs to move the cursor on a video screen with their snouts. When the pigs used the cursors again, they were able to distinguish between the scribbles they already knew, and the scribbles they were seeing for the first time. The pigs learned this skill as fast as the chimpanzees.All species of pig are smarter than dogs, and capable of abstract representation. “They can hold an icon in their mind, and remember it at a later date,” says Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University, who discovered that pigs dominate at video games with joy sticks. Curtis goes on to say, “Pigs are able to focus with an intensity I have never seen in a chimp.” Read more at Suite101: The Intelligent Pig: The Smartest Domestic Animal in The World \| Suite101.com http://chris-mclaughlin.suite101.com/the-intelligent-pig-a84448#ixzz1c6Ydp2AB So, would pigs get the "special treatment" you are talking about? They are widely considered to be nearly as smart, if not as smart, as primates? Close, but no cigar, in your opinion? If intelligence is your criteria, then pigs are certainly deserving. Smarter than dogs, after all. They are also among the most mistreated of factory farm animals. I won't even gross you out with the details. I certainly am for anything that stops the mistreatment of animals, and the destruction of habitat, but PETA's approach is misguided and doomed to failure. I have met a lot of animal rights people in my career, including PETA's primary attorney. Nice people, but they seem to lack even a basic understanding of animals.

FirstQuaker -> RE: Constitutional rights for whales (10/28/2011 12:12:57 PM)
I would rather not force the issue with the blackfish. Humans are better leaving them alone then forcing them to take what rights they think they have. The ocean is their element. Life would get really interesting (for anyone not aboard a large vessel) on the world's oceans if the blackfish started seeing people as enemies.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02