Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Sorry PETA supports Animal rights over humans rights. They believe owning animals as pets IS slavery. Do you believe owning a cat, dog, or fish is slavery?
Also if my house does burn. I will put my family first than my animals. I'm I an bad person putting my human family members first or I conducted animal slaughter because I purpsolly put my pets to suffer a horrible death?
More of the "false dilemma" choices. Did you see what I wrote about "false dilemma". Why do you keep using that? Who would I save if the house was burning? Both of them... You are interested in science but do not seem to be too interested in the correct usage of logic and reason. I don't understand that.
"Sorry PETA supports Animal rights over humans rights."
OK, that is your opinion, but it not factually true. But OK, you are free to believe whatever you want.
I was asking you. How far do you want animals to have rights? Do you want the PETA extreme that animals should have lawyers?
I am putting money and support the my local humane society than PETA.
That is usually what people interested in animal welfare do, which is very different from animal rights, and some people do both. Many people misunderstand the differences between animal welfare and animal rights and think they are the same thing, they are two very different views.
Clean air, clean water, etc., have their own lawyers. Why not animals too? This generally answers the first question:
"Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s. The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty, homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a vision of a “world house.” In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King’s world house is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn’t challenge the needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-called “enlightened” and “progressive” human beings extend nonviolence, equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.
The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons. Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our commonalities as subjects of a life."
Well B5C, you can have that view, but in my view I put ethics above science without question, and I'm a scientist !. Also as a Buddhist the scriptures connected with right livelihood (the fifth of the eight-fold path) that specifically mentions: trading in living beings, poison, slaughtering, fishing, and several other things, give us some insight into what Buddha may have thought about animal testing if it had happened in his day.
It's not the meat industry's fault. It's us. Us humans who need a demand for meat. Us humans can't get all our nutrients from feeding veggies. He have to have some meat or dairy products.
Actually, we can get all the nutrients we need without consuming meat. It's just a matter of transitioning as mindfully as possible to pick up proteins, iron, amino acids etc. in different food. It's clearly a choice for most people to eat meat, not survival.
How far do you want animals to have rights? Do you want the PETA extreme that animals should have lawyers?
I don't know. That depends if we see humans as somehow more "valuable" than other animals. Based on the human track record in relation to the planet, I'd say we aren't.
Sorry PETA supports Animal rights over humans rights. They believe owning animals as pets IS slavery. Do you believe owning a cat, dog, or fish is slavery?
But the PETA site says this:
We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus."
I think it's unfortunate that you are asserting that people who support PETA as having a stance that doesn't seem to exist, based on PETA's official statements on pets.
This site is about Buddhist practice, and what that involves in our daily lives. Propaganda runs counter to that, in my opinion. PETA may use propaganda, but so do certain groups that oppose PETA. Reality does not lie within either mindset.
I should say that doing a brief bit of research on PETA, I do actually think that the WSPA go about ensuring animal welfare a lot better than PETA do. But thats just my opinion.
Comments
Also if my house does burn. I will put my family first than my animals. I'm I an bad person putting my human family members first or I conducted animal slaughter because I purpsolly put my pets to suffer a horrible death?
"Sorry PETA supports Animal rights over humans rights."
OK, that is your opinion, but it not factually true. But OK, you are free to believe whatever you want.
I am putting money and support the my local humane society than PETA.
That is usually what people interested in animal welfare do, which is very different from animal rights, and some people do both. Many people misunderstand the differences between animal welfare and animal rights and think they are the same thing, they are two very different views.
Clean air, clean water, etc., have their own lawyers. Why not animals too? This generally answers the first question:
"Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s. The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty, homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a vision of a “world house.” In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King’s world house is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn’t challenge the needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-called “enlightened” and “progressive” human beings extend nonviolence, equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.
The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons. Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our commonalities as subjects of a life."
http://www.drstevebest.com/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm
Metta to all sentient beings
I think it's unfortunate that you are asserting that people who support PETA as having a stance that doesn't seem to exist, based on PETA's official statements on pets.
This site is about Buddhist practice, and what that involves in our daily lives. Propaganda runs counter to that, in my opinion. PETA may use propaganda, but so do certain groups that oppose PETA. Reality does not lie within either mindset.
Metta to all sentient beings