PETA Attempts To Make Fish More Adorable

[ryguyfi]

It was the original intention to have animals be food for us. I see no problem with eating a fish I catch, having a burger, or a nice Pittsburgh chicken salad with fries, eggs, and a heaping serving of ranch dressing. All are food and all should be eaten. That is why amimals are here. I will probably never eat a dog or a cat, but that is just the preference in this country. I bet almost every animal put on this earth has been eaten at one point in time. I agree that animals don't have rights, and to review what Dave said earlier... they don't have rights because what we call "animals rights" is how we as humans treat them, not how they personally have rights. We as humans have rights to treat animals ethically. I believe all humans to be treated equally, same as animals. I will eat what I want, but treat everything with respect. All creation is here for us as humans, whether to consume by mouth, ease the eye, or help us get through our daily activities, we are all truely blessed. Respect is all it deserves.

 

[trouthunting]

jayL wrote:
I've heard a good bit of evidence that fish don't feel pain, primarily due to an underdeveloped nervous system.

Also, while it may not be valid due to their lack of reasoning ability, I am unconvinced that they feel pain because they freaking pull hard when you hook them. If you hook me in the cheek, I'd follow you through hell.

My girlfriend once tried to teach me about the fish nervous system (she's a biochemist). Honestly, I just zoned out and thought about what I'd eat for dinner about five minutes into the conversation.

Anyway, I think the point was they feel "pain," but it triggers differently than the way we feel pain. Either way, they've got it pretty good...especially when we put them back alive (coulda been worse, right?)

Have to agree with Dave on this thread. Animals are not equals...they don't have rights. Owned animals just have the protection we give them.

PETA is nuts.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I agree Jack explained it to a T.

Id like to see a response to that statement.

 

[tomgamber]

I get what reds is saying...don;t necessarily agree with it but I understand...he's talking about a moral right...But I also don;t think it applies to legal sport.

If hunting and fishing were morally wrong our society would have set up laws to prohibit those sports...dog fighting (since he brought it up) is morally wrong and therefore illegal.

But I guess that why they call themselves animal "rights" advocates. There are advocates for everything and THEY have the right to speak their piece. What they don't have is the right to apply their views upon us. We have a system for that.

 

[jayL]

I'll agree that animals have no rights within our system.

That said, our system also puts in place the moral responsibilities mentioned earlier.

We're all animals. Survival of the fittest I say, and we've evolved to be on top. I don't feel bad about killing an animal. Due to the morals that society has given me, I tend to try not to do so unless I've got a good reason.

 

[JackM]

I think the advocates of animal rights actually want animals to have rights. Hopefully, they will remain on the margins of reasonable discourse and those who don't belong on the margins will abandon the misnomer of referring to the ethical responsibilities of humans toward animals as "animal rights."

 

[spectorfly]

Most animals have the right to taste good.

 

[FarmerDave]

spectorfly wrote:
Most animals have the right to taste good.

Maybe so, but if your wife is cooking it, then it is only a privelege. :-D

 

[ian_brown]

I don't know. Obviously animals don't have rights equal to those enjoyed by humans. Then again, many people do not enjoy the rights that we enjoy as Americans, and historically many classes of Americans did not enjoy equal rights (some groups IMHO still don't, but that's a flame for another day).

Legally animals are property, and property by definition doesn't have rights. If someone intentionally kills you dog, you're generally only able to sue for the dog's monetary value, just like if they destroy your car or fence. But at the same time, we all understand that there's a very big difference between burning a chair and burning a dog. We disapprove of cruelty to animals in a way that we do not of cruelty to chattel. We don't have People for the Ethical Treatment of Refrigerators or the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Chairs.

I eat non-human animals; they should not have the same rights as people. And legally I agree with Jack's analysis. At the same time, to me it just doesn't sound that ridiculous to describe restrictions on cruelty to animals as "animal rights." After all, aren't all rights really just restrictions on what someone else, often the state, can do to us?

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Both amendments are protect our rights to free speech, religious choice, etc by limiting the actions of government. Similarly, it could be argued that animal cruelty laws protect the rights of animals by limiting the actions of owners.

I don't have a problem with calling animal cruelty laws "animal rights", so long as it is always clear that

1. "Animal rights" are not the same as "Human Rights," and

2. All animals are not equal and do not enjoy equal rights. Dogs in our country have the right not to be intentionally burned alive. Hornets do not.

 

[JackM]

Ian, I appreciate your sentiments, but addressing your analogy of human civil rights being in essence a restriction on what others do to us, this is different than so-called "animal rights." Humans established the restrictions on government interference, in essence, claiming the right to be left alone in certain spheres.

Animals are incapable of claiming rights, nor in restricting human behavior toward them. So-called "animal rights" do not represent a sphere of non-interference carved out by animals and enforced against humans; rather, they are restrictions established by humans regarding the behavior that will be tolerated of other humans with respect to animals.

In this regard, they are no different than laws restricting damage to other non-animate parts of the natural world, such as pollution laws, harvest restriction on, say, endangered plants or animals, etc. No one would speak of the rights of trees, shrubs, wildflowers when discussing these restrictions. Nor would they speak of the right of the atmosphere to be free of particulates or the right of the river or stream to be protected from noxious discharges.

So, all of that said, isn't this all semantics? Yes, but more than mere semantics --- it is about rhetoric and propaganda. In order to enhance the appeal of their agenda, animal advocates insist on use of the term "animal rights" because if they get the population to accept the terminology, they have won half the battle to getting them to accept their notions about what restriction should be placed on humans with respect to animals. Once we start thinking in terms of rights, we have elevated the status of animals to that of humans, and will find it an untenable position to distinguish tolerated behavior toward animals from that tolerated toward humans.

 

[tomgamber]

ian_brown wrote:


2. All animals are not equal and do not enjoy equal rights. Dogs in our country have the right not to be intentionally burned alive. Hornets do not.

Crap...there goes my fishing cruelty argument...I just say I'm out protecting the mayflies from those mean fish...

 

[reds]

Dave,

 

[pcray1231]

ian,

Kill another persons dog: Can be sued for the monetary value of the pet. Can be charged with a misdeamenor offense with a fine of not less than $500 and possible jail time.

Kill your own dog: Perfectly legal.

Kill your own dog by burning: If a judge found it as unnecessary abuse, you could be charged with a summary offense and fined from $50-$75.

As far as the law is concerned, there is no such thing as animal rights. Cruelty laws are on the books to protect people. Neglected, mistreated, and/or abandoned animals can be mean, threatening to others, dangerous to wildlife, and vectors of disease. Dogfighters often breed animals to be particularly mean, and these animals ending up in the pet trade are a major safety problem. Further, a person who mistreats his own animals is seen by the law as potentially violent to other people as well, and punishment is supposed to be a corrective factor much like a traffic ticket is supposed to protect other drivers. Whether it works or not is a whole other debate I'd rather not get into.

The point is, animal cruelty laws are not about animal "rights" at all, they are not meant to protect the animals. They are about protecting people.

 

[reds]

Dave,

Is that more to your liking? I thought by stating your name and the fact that I thought you were wrong should have been enough. My personal opinion is this is a matter of semantics, if you don't have the right to abuse something: then it has the right to be free of abuse from you. To answer your questions no I do not eat shrimp from Thailand or any other farm raised seafood. As for chickens i buy them or recieve them locally, unless in a pinch, but I do know what goes on in chicken houses, I lived on the Eastern Shore of Maryland for three summers. Never did I state that animals enjoy the same rights as humans. Unfortunately, I have work to do and i am apoor typist so i am getting back to work, if I have the oppurtunity I will finish this response in due time. As for pcray, if you feel there was nothing morally wrong with Michael Vick fighting dogs you are crazy.

 

[reds]

Actually, I do have one more thing to say. If animal cruelty laws are only on the books for the safety of humans why are dog kennels repeatedly being shut down in Pennsylvania? It is the health of the animals which is brought into question when this occurs, not the kennel owners.

 

[reds]

This is the Pennsylvania cruelty to animals law, I have included the statute number. While this does not state the animal has these rights, it does imply them.
18 PA Cons. Stat. 5511

Cruelty to animals is defined as: “wantonly or cruelly illtreats, overloads, beats, otherwise abuses any animal, or neglects any animal as to which he has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise, or abandons any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry.” This is a summary offense with a fine of $50-750 and/or imprisonment up to 90 days

 

[tomgamber]

well, I guess PETA is doing its job because it has you guys debating and thinking about this way more than before you made your little fishies... :-o

 

[RLeeP]

>>Cruelty laws are on the books to protect people. >>

I think not. Although I do understand what you're saying.

In fact, its a pretty simple notion to dispel.

There has been no shortage of people who have been charged under cruelty statutes for misuse of their own animals.

 

[pcray1231]

http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cruelty_laws.html

Reds,

Yes, the laws do have the effect of protecting animals. But again, that is not their purpose.

Kennels are often shut down because they broke the law. The law is there because abused animals are often dangerous animals in many different ways. So in essence, their owner is indeed a dangerous person because he is keeping potentially dangerous animals, or is making previously safe animals more dangerous.

In the case of Vick, I would consider what he was doing immoral, but not because I feel badly for the way the dogs are treated. I consider it immoral because he the practice of dogfighting has caused a lot of harm to people in this country. Pit Bulls account for a large percentage of dog attacks, and an even larger percentage of those that result in serious injury (over a third). They are one of the most common dogs in shelters due to the dogfighting "industry", many of them were bred as mean fighters, and when they get old or turn out not to be good fighters they are abandoned, and families end up taking them home. Unfortunately, as a breed, they are often very fine dogs, but when they snap they really snap. Vick was keeping as many of 50 of them, in poor conditions, and specifically trying to teach and breed his dogs to be especially mean.

Animals do not have rights, they have protections, and the protection is all about people. The level of protection has nothing to do with the type of animal, and everything to do with who owns it and what its for, and who would be harmed with breaking the law. Thats the reason the punishments are set up this way.

Killing your own animal: Perfectly legal

Unnecessarily abusing your own animal: Summary offense, you are possibly creating a dangerous animal, or an unsanitary condition, etc.

Abusing or killing someone else's animal: Misdemeanor, you've now harmed someone else.

Poisoning of zoo animals, dogfighting, etc.: Felony. You have quite possibly negatively affected many people.

By the way, I love animals, and have pets and believe in treating them right because I care about them and am emotionally attached. But under the law, they do not have rights. They have protections, even from me, that are meant for the good of mankind, not of animal kind.

 

[chstrcntyfish]

"hooking a sea kitten through the mouth and dragging her through the water is the same as hooking a kitten through the mouth and dragging her behind your car." Do you see the similarity? I don't...
What goes on in these people's minds....It's sad that they actually believe this stuff.