Oct 26, 2009 12:17:28 AM cite

its true it is hypocritical to destroy nature and condemn people for eating meat. i strongly disagree with the mistreatment of animals( this is widespread and documented in the meat industry) but it is the natural cycle of life. i have the power to chose and i chose not to eat meat. besides a healthy body complements a healthy mind.

by lice

Sep 21, 2007 12:03:08 AM cite

animals are just humans too. or: humans are just animals. that means, on biological view humans are nothing else but animals. That means, that animal rights are definitely a basic of a civilization. It is the SAME thing as with slavery, blacks or women. we have to take care about animals, too! .schatten

by .schatten

Sep 18, 2007 10:43:25 PM cite

"A person can only be ethical if he or she holds nature as sacred." Albert Schweitzer "Animal rights" is in itself an anomaly to the human condition. Most humans already have no respect for animals, let alone any empathy for any suffering we inflict on them. By Schweitzer's estimate of ethics (above), humans themselves are no longer in any meaningful way a part of the nature which animals still inhabit. As alienated and unnatural beings, most humans no longer hold anything in nature sacred. Therefore, ethics are not ours to possess simply because we happen to wish to declare something to be "ethical". Ethics are not a "feel good" issue. You either have them or you do not. Animal rights would not even be up for discussion if, in fact, we WERE a "civilisation". What is civilisation? Humans world wide seem to think it "civil" to torture, maim, eat, use as beasts of burden, and otherwise horrifically abuse animals. Then a certain number choose to protest what the rest see as "normal" or "natural". We have long ago lost the instinct to only take what we need from nature and to treat it with gratitude and reverence. Only animals any longer operate on such healthy instincts as to take only what is needed. We have become inferior to animals in every way which truly matters. Entrusted with the sacred trust of "dominion" over the earth, we have destroyed its inhabitants and their habitat, all in the name of dominance and so called superiority.

by Mia Nony

Sep 6, 2007 11:37:58 PM cite

we should not view animals as mere suppliants of foodstuff, workforce or parts to dismantle for clothing, tools etc. if we want to strive for a bright future for human civilization. the reasons for this argument are too many to mention here, but just an example to illustrate my point: the us base in okinawa is being expanded. the resident dugongs and 3 sea turtle species will perish because of that. how is that for animal rights? (btw, you CAN make a change by just participating in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed airbase site. goto: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/gmaps/take-action-save-the-dugongs?utm_source=gpi-cyberactivist-list&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sept06 =

by aea

Sep 2, 2007 1:58:14 PM cite

yes

by pabloperez

Aug 23, 2007 5:51:45 PM cite

I'm a clever monkey. I can draw pictures, create new tools, invent new words, create new life and teach it my knowledge. However, within creation destruction must co-exist, by drawing pictures I alter the enviroment in which they exist, to create a new tool I must take resources from nature, to invent new words I must abuse the alphabet and language in which it exists. There is not right answer, just a healthy balance. For light to exist, darkness must also be present. Or else it's all just grey - nature will not tolerate greyness. In summary, it's an irrelevant conversation to attempt to save creatures when we can't guarantee that effort will be spread universally. We're still allowing thousands to live in poverty and without medicines, we still farm animals by the thousands and test our chemicals upon them, destroy habitats and ravage the earth. Nature will resolve itself, if 'she' deems that we are a problem, we will be dealt with swiftly and with venom, without justice or predujice. Vegetarian or carnivore we shall all meet the same fate. Nature is universal, we must learn from her lead or suffer her cruel hand.

by nabu

Aug 21, 2007 1:02:36 PM cite

We have gotten to involved trying to survive amongst our own fellow humans that we have forgotten that animals are are part of this world too. I think everyone just gets caught up in the way society tells us we should be living, instead of actually respecting our fellows friends of other species and actually living together on this planet, contributing as a whole. it seems it isn't a circle of life, but yet a triangle, with us humans on top draining all beneath us. I encourage everyone who has a friend who has not stepped outside of a city to appreciate the beauty in nature, or even the happy lives of well taken care of domestic animals, to show them about how we can all live on this planet together and benefit from each other. We as humans don't need to murder animals to survive, we just mass produce them for cheap food and fashion.

by MYR

Aug 20, 2007 3:55:07 PM cite

Animal rights could never be more under rated. I think in our ancestral history is deeply rooted in the rights and respect of the animals that inhabit our earth. If we totally loose the capability to protect and preserve animal’s rights then there is no hope for civilization. I feel that animal rights have become less and less important within each generation. As the global society grows it must incorporate the needs of all life, not just humans. Yes, Animal Rights are indispensable to basic and advanced civilization.

by jnthnbush