[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: chicken prison.jpg (80 KB, 550x391)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
Should animals have rights?
So, what makes animals so special anyway? Like I can understand the need for human rights since we are humans and we need to treat each other ethically for our societies to function, but why extend this to animals? Is it literally just people feeling sorry for a bunch of miserable chickens born with no purpose other than to die and become part of a sandwich? Because that makes zero sense to me because no one intelligent enough to think that is a chicken so it can't be actual chickens doing this. So why sympathize with chickens? I don't get it? What makes chickens worthy?
>>
>>5765348
no /thread
>>
no lol
>>
>>5765353
Well, I can understand he "No" side of the arguments I simply can't wrap my head around "Yes". That's what I'm hoping someone will explain. Like why are Chickens so great? I don't understand at all.
>>
Do you really want to give a dog the right to vote? Who do you think sparky votes for?
>>
No, repeal the 14th amendment
>>
>>5765449
I don't think animals rights people want dogs and chickens to vote, they want them to do other shit like life and pursuit of happiness or some such nonsense, but I can't fathom why an animal should have such a right?

Most dogs don't make it to age 18 anyway, so it'd be retarded to let them vote in the first place.
>>
>>5765348
I believe any human that tortures animals for pleasure is a potential thrill killer and thus be tortured, therefore torture against animals shouldnt be allowed unless its for scientific products.
>>
Disliking battery farming doesnt mean you want to give mice freedom of speech, pandas the right to bear arms or frogs the right to vote
Also, low quality farming of low quality animals in low quality conditions produces fucking trash
American cattle is trash for example, fucking grain fed shit
Have any of you retards ever been on a farm?
>>
Humans don't have a devine puropse either and if we can torture and kill animals however we want, why can't we do the same thing with humans?
>>
>>5765348
hey i have to go so i won't be able to do followups but the arguments would go basically like this (and note i am going to be using certain terms very loosely, i'm not an academic in this field)
1. start with a morality that values life/lack-of-suffering/etc basic kind of stuff for living, conscious, beings
2. extend the assumption of consciousness to animals (see: cambridge declaration on consciousness)
3. it is now immoral to harm animals, thus, we as a society, should try to minimize that by extending certain rights to them
People's ethics are not necessarily based entirely on what is required for society to function without regard for the actual individuals in a vacuum. The ones that are entirely based on this tend to be a bit sociopathic. For instance, taking the anti-animal rights stance leads directly to support to throw out animal cruelty laws (essentially: i should be allowed to torture dogs to death if i want to), unless you get really wormy with it like "technically it's not wrong but it's weird and offputting so it should be illegal" and even then it probably leads to support for at least weakening the laws.
You can take it even further if your morality doesn't value individual life itself and justify things like torturing an orphan cancer kid to death. Without innate value to life itself you end up with some pretty shady results (though you can kinda worm yourself around them by introducing a billion qualifiers into your system), and with value to life itself you are led directly to valuing animal life (valuing life, but only human life, is, I think, a hard kind of axiom to defend since it's pretty arbitrary. you can also work with "intelligence" but that presents a whole host of issues, particularly since a lot of animals are considered to be more intelligent than the average person assumes)
anyway i gotta go but i will maybe check back later if anyone has thoughts on this
>>
>>5765494
Because if everyone was allowed torture each other no one would go to work or do their job because they'd be too busy capturing people to torture them for fun or too busy being tortured. Also, you'd probably be against human torture the moment someone decides to torture you. Like I can totally get human rights, I just can't comprehend extending it to animals. At all. Humans and animals aren't equal. They never will be. Humans are inherently better because we're humans, so we get special treatment.

Humans can speak the local language, can comprehend and follow all the laws, follow all the rules of society like paying taxes and so-forth. Animals can't do any of that shit. If you gave a chicken a job it would probably just peck at a bug all day. If you told a cat to pay taxes based on its income it would just lick its balls. If you slathered a child in gravy and told a pit bull not to assault it, the dog wouldn't listen and assault the child because dogs have almost no fucking impulse control, while pretty much any human, when encountering a child slathered in gravy would be like "Kid, you need to take a fucking bath, that's gross".

So if animals are too stupid or shitty to participate in human society why would they ever deserve rights?
>>
>>5765527
Yes, I can understand trying to minimize human suffering, but why would any suffering other than human suffering matter? You shouldn't torture orphans with cancer because they're people. Animals aren't people.
>>
>>5765449
I trust my dog more than the majority of voters
>>
>>5765348
>'DOG CUTE, THEREFORE DOG GOOD, MUH FEELS'
literally only bugbrained retards think animal life matters
>>
>>5765348
I'll give it a shot.

We know animals are capable of suffering in a very similar way to humans, in terms of being in pain and distress, in some cases depression.

It's unethical to cause unnecessary suffering.

Therefor we should raise and kill animals in as humane a way as possible. We can still eat them because animals don't really have existential goals and aspirations, so being well fed, having a decent amount of space, being able to bread, and then being killed quickly and painlessly is a blissful existence for them, howver, we should eat less of them because at our current rate of consumption it's quite hard to raise them ethically.

I love all the brainlets on this thread just saying no because animal rights has been a liberal agenda item in the last decade, when Hitler gave Nazi germany some of the most progressive animal right protections in the world at the time.
>>
>>5766703
fuck off retard
>>
File: tiresome.png (141 KB, 499x457)
141 KB
141 KB PNG
>>5765458
you're on the wrong board, anon
>>
The Irish were the first to come up with proper animal rights, at least in the "modern" world. But by animal rights they basically meant "not torturing them"
>>
>>5767120

I agree with this. While I'm not against people eating meat, I'm a vegetarian since I'm against the incredibly cruel way we treat animals.

Animals can feel suffering, however they cannot vocalize it. I believe that if more people were aware of the extent of the suffering felt by animals then more people would be vegetarian.

We're moving that way anyway
>>
>>5765348
Some, animals should be allowed a humane killing
(Bullet to the skull)
>>
>>5767120
This is it really.
>>
>>5767833
Carbon monoxide.
>>
>>5765348
Individual rights? No. Laws that ensure humane treatment, like not torturing them in the process of slaughter, protecting engendered species are necessary though, and those technically aren't rights.
>>
>>5765559
The reason you don't torture people is because they have the capacity to reflect on that suffering and view it in relation to a self, which is what's called "metacognitive awareness". All vertebrates have this to a degree, largely due to thalamcortical loops, so it makes sense not to torture them either.
>>
>>5765348
I think that chickens are probably sentient and can feel pain, hence I don't want to harm them. Ability to feel pain is what is important, not intelligence. If a person is severely mentally retarded, in my judgment that doesn't make it ok to cause them pain. Same for chickens.
>>
Giving animals rights is foolish, and a slippery slope. However, There definitely needs to be reform and stricter guidelines on how feeder animals can and can't be treated/housed.

Also I'm not a vegetarian, hippy, or liberal but I wanted to point out most farm animals (especially chickens and pigs) are very intelligent, experience sadness/pain/grief, and each individual animal has its own personality.

Cows on the other hand are dumber than a box of rocks.
>>
Animals shouldn't have rights and suffering doesn't matter ethically, except if the animal that's suffering is better off alive to you than dead and the signal that its suffering sends causes you to help it survive, or if the physiological effects of the suffering causes the animal to hurt you and ameliorating that suffering would prevent that.

Also if your indifference to suffering causes other people to think sufficiently worse of you it's ethical to ameliorate that suffering to preserve other people's opinion of you.
>>
It's called the food chain, we don't just abuse animals for the heck of it. Animals are valuable as food,tools and for the products made from and by them. Also it's not like the nephilim didn't do the same with us up until 40.000 BC
>>
File: 1401355655123.jpg (108 KB, 760x797)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
>>5769685
>nephilim
>>
>>5765348
No
>>
>>5765348
Animals should have animal rights, separate and lesser than human rights but rights to a degree.
>>
>>5765348
Another question:
If aliens come to earth being much more intelligent and more "conscious" and they want to farm and eat humans and find it funny to torture them, would it be ok for them doing so if they say" hey those filthy humans dont have the right to get basic alien rights, because they are either way born with no purpose other than being here for our amusement"?
if you answer this with yes, it is ok then to deny animals any rightds
>>
>>5765348
Yes, because if I imagine myself in the place of an animal I wouldn't want myself to be tortured and to suffer.
>>
>>5765348
Most normally adjusted human beings typically sympathies with any animal capable of displaying pain. Industrial animal agriculture has also been a fucking disaster for us. Rampant diseases in high density feed lots, its environmentally degrading, its driven down prices and exploded consumption, leading to more health problems for the general population, and its set the stage for a epidemic that might rival the Spanish flu or worse thanks to mass antibiotic use and being the biggest contributing factor to resistant-bacteria. If all those problems could be solved, or at least alleviated, by giving animals "rights" then all the more reason for it.
>>
Animals should have more rights than ordinary people due to their physical and mental handicap.
>>
>>5770925

those problems could be solved by killing off the animals and limiting production
>>
>>5765348
>Like I can understand the need for human rights since we are humans and we need to treat each other ethically for our societies to function, but why extend this to animals?

Before, there was 2 ways to empathize with people
- tribalism(I only empathize with my kin)
- religionism(I only empathize with my brothers in Christ)

You understand? Ok, let's move on.

White men invented the concept of "universalism" around the 18th century. That is, that we should all have the same level of empathy for all humans because we are all humans.

As of now, empathy is limited to the group "human" instead of "tribe". This is universalism/humanism

Then, there are White women who started to empathize with animals, and claimed that we should empathize with animals the same way we empathize with all humans.

So yeah, your question doesn't make sense. Why do we have empathy? Why should empathy be limited to this specific group? All of that is subjective and influenced by culture and history.

When I was with the Kayapo of the Amazon forest, I was able to discuss with them for days thanks to a translator. I discovered that contrary to us White people who had an universal conception of humanity, they had a strong tribal divide and considered that the tribes from the Mountains wasn't human. They didn't "humanize" them, but instead, "dehumanized" them.
>>
>>5767120
>expecting edgy teenagers on 4chan to have empathy
youre wasting your time
>>
>>5765348
I'm pretty sure animal rights are a psy-op to distract from real problems
>>
>>5765348
Animals don't have souls because they have no sentience.
>>
>>5767120
>It is unethical to cause unnecessary suffering

Gonna need to see a source for that claim there, bud. You see, I think the fundamental turning point that the argument is being had over is quite simple. Some of us think that ALL unnecessary suffering is unethical, and some of us think that all unnecessary suffering is unethical -for humans-. I think you're going to find that its extremely hard to find any scientific or factual basis for such a moral argument. It pretty much entirely boils down to "Muh feels" and wild accusations about anyone not feeling the way you feel about it being a horrible person when that's not actually true. They feel differently about it than you do, and we have in fact argued over these sorts of things as long as humans have had language. That doesn't make you right, them wrong, or anybody evil for having a point of view that contrasts with your unwavering "Rightness".
>>
>>5770897
DON'T COMPAIR HUMANS TO ANIMALS YOU DIPSHIT
>>
>>5771062
You are right
>>
>>5771057
>> feeling empathy for inferior species
Fuck you
>>
>>5771285
I feel no empathy for humans.
>>
>>5771062
Pretty sure your "real problems" are a cronyist contrivance to keep people from putting the pressure on companies to be more ethical and come to parity with social advancements.
>>
>>5765348
no, but we should give better conditions of life to our future food, a well raised animal taste better
>>
Is this the furry dog rapist apologist thread?
>>
>>5765487
>pandas not having the right to bear arms

Do they get to keep their legs or do you wanna take them, too?
>>
>>5765470
1 dog year = 18 human years.
>>
File: 1532864722136.png (178 KB, 625x773)
178 KB
178 KB PNG
>>5765544
so it's okey to kill and torture retards?
>>
>>5765348
yes
As long as they dont, the human species are just the evil guys in bed times stories
>>
File: 1539121381683.png (15 KB, 225x227)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
Is this /his/'s stupid questions thread?
>hurr durr should animals have rights
Rights are not granted, they are earned. Call me when non-human animals unite and start fighting against humans for rights. Then we can discuss this question.
>>
>>5765348
no.
Animals are automatons of flesh and bone.
>>
>>5771103
stressed meat tasted like shit.
>>
>>5772424
No, but the mentally disabled do have less rights than normal humans - if you are disabled, your family or other guardian is your caretaker, not yourself, and you can be checked into an institution with no way to leave without your consent. Human fetuses and those in comas are also technically human, and receive more rights than animals do, but they definitely don't have the same rights that regular people do because they aren't sapient beings.
>>
>>5771341
No, I'm talking more about overpopulation and use of resources
>>
>29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

>30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
>>
>>5765348
They aren't sentient on human level(apes might be an exception) so no.
>>
>>5771327
So die already
>>
>>5765348
all (non human) animals are literally npcs, so no
>>
>>5765544
Nigga who cares about society if we are allowed to fuck up animals then we should be allowed to fuck up humans as well. Both is life if you think that humanity needs rights to keep things going then you need to give animals that as well from a moral perspective but if you throw morals out of the window then you shouldn't care about what happens to animals as well.
>>
>>5766703
Ooh the edge
>>
>>5771103
Literally every religion worth something says that causing unnecessary suffering is shit you edgy retard. There you have your source.
>>
>>5773534
You first.
>>
>>5774906
edge is when you say something disingenuous or exaggerated to present yourself in a way so to provoke a reaction. I merely expressed my honest thoughts, and you're a pussy.
>>
>>5765487
>doesnt mean you want to give mice freedom of speech
Man, if a mouse started talking we would give him all the freedom of speech he want
>>
>>5774912
Ad populum
>>
File: 1529806936829.jpg (161 KB, 600x779)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>5765544
>Humans are inherently better because we're humans, so we get special treatment.
But why? This is a perceptual distortion caused by the fact that you are a human yourself. Or do you think only humans feel pain and despair? We are animale like all' the others
>>
>>5767138
>>5774906
Why are you am*Ricans like this? He's right.
>>
>>5775008
A human should not care about the pain of species other than humans.
>>
>>5775017
Why? You litterally gave zero reason for this. As i said, it's nothing but perceptual bias.
>>
Veganism is the only moral easy to live. Everyone knows it too.
>>
>>5775040
Because there is no purpose to it. If you feel bad for it then it is your instincts malfunctioning, they are supposed to be applied to humans only but people also having empathy towards animals was not enough of a disadvantage to have it bred out.
>>
File: 1540695144893.png (115 KB, 500x468)
115 KB
115 KB PNG
>>5775096
>is your instincts malfunctioning, they are supposed to be applied to humans only
>>
>>5775096
why
>>
>>5765348
If it was on me I would give "honorary human" status to dolphins, elephants and apes.
>>
>>5775096
>Because there is no purpose to it.
Humans have empathetic reactions towards animals. Most humans receive mental benefits from treating animals with care, and mental negatives towards seeing cruelty towards animals.

You're honestly an autistic fuck-up on par with animals so by your own argument your subhuman opinion shouldn't be considered by real humans.
>>
>>5765487
>or frogs the right to vote

You’re right, the French are not people.
>>
>>5774925
Meet me in real life and I'll show you how much of a pussy I am you faggot. The majority determines what is normal or not and acting as if you shouldn't care with beings that have personalities and feelings is edgy as fuck.
>>
>>5765378
Well there are a couple reasons to be in favor of "animal rights" but I personally know more about vegetarianism so let me explain that. Slightly off topic but whatever.

I've lived and worked in a couple different countries and as an immigrant I've been involved in the international scene in one of them. Based on what I've seen, there are maybe four main categories of vegetarians.

#1 would be people who are vegetarian for religious reasons. I think this category has by far the most people in it. This includes people who are always vegetarian (mostly followers of Indian religions in my experience and some Buddhists) and people who are vegetarian for part of the year (Christians and Buddhists).

#2 would be people who don't eat meat because it's healthier. Personally I kinda feel like this category is mostly Americans and Europeans since the traditional diets in those countries contain an unhealthy amount of meat. In countries where people don't eat meat every day I think going vegetarian won't necessarily be healthier so less people will do it.

#3 is people who dislike factory farming and the current state of the meat production industry because it's bad for the environment. In order to create more cows (for example) you need to have land to raise them on and then you need to have land to grow the crops which will feed the cows until they're old enough to be slaughtered. So this leads to habitat destruction. Plus the fact that there's so much cheap meat on the market leads to people eating more than they should and thus point #2 (by the way I fall into category #3 and a little #4 so I that's why this one is a bit longer haha).

(1/2)
>>
>>5775282

#4 is people who believe in animal rights and who believe (in a secular sense) that eating formerly living flesh or raising animals just to kill them is immoral. All kinds of people fit into this category from hippies to angry atheists. IMO this is a sort of semi-spiritual thing and your personality is going to have a very big effect on whether you fall in this category.
Personally when I chose to become vegetarian I was ideological and sort of emotional/headstrong (being that I was a 13 year old teenager at the time). My thought then was that, being that everything evolved naturally that all forms of life are equally worthless. And based on this and my personal sense of justice at the time it seemed like I should either start eating people or stop eating meat. So I stopped eating meat. Obviously I wasn't actually considering eating meat but that was the sort of philosophical argument I had in mind at the time.
Over many years I grew up and rethought my decision. And I chose to continue being vegetarian for the reasons in category #3. I still believe some of the stuff I wrote above, but the world is so subjective that it's hard for me to hold (and especially defend) an ideological position like that anymore.
>>
>>5775217
>The majority determines what is normal or not
uhhhhh SUH-WEETY, the majority of people will be chinese soon :)
>beings that have personalities and feelings
don't be dumb, the extent of an animal's personality and feelings are:
>eat
>mate
>master
>pain
>reward
>>
>>5775302
not accurate.

China's pop. is shrinking but India's is growing so actually the world percentage of people who don't want you to eat meat is increasing.
>>
>>5775327
>reddit spacing
if there was an argument I would disregard it
>>
>>5775333
It wasn't really an argument so much as a statement anyways
>>
File: ganges bodies.jpg (50 KB, 800x572)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>5775327
>>5775336
also
>India's is growing
>actually the world percentage of people who don't want you to eat meat is increasing
>"""""""""""""""people""""""""""""""""""
>>
>>5775096
>, they are supposed to be applied to humans
Why has there, historically, been so many rituals and taboos surrounding the killing of animals?
>>
>>5775355
Have you considered that you may be white?
http://aryanism.net/culture/veganism/
>>
>>5775364
that's pretty interesting

for me it came off as alternately being a sly attempt to get Nazis to become vegetarian and a sly attempt to get vegetarians to become Nazis
>>
File: 1540607860377.jpg (39 KB, 750x497)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>5775282
>>5775299
Really good posts. Godspeed anon, you really seem a good person.
>>
>>5775378
It's very well documented that they were vegetarian for moral reasons. I became national socialist a few years ago, but have been fascist for most of my life. I had been a vegetarian prior and for a few years of fascist belief.
I started to get the whole Ragnar Redbeard idea into my head and started eating meat again as I believed that we were divinely ordained to do so. My wife became a vegetarian halfway through the year and I had been mulling over picking it back up again since becoming more of a follower of Hitler. My wife knows that I had been considering it for this reason and we had a long discussion and I felt that I had misapplied natural law.
I will say that I am entirely happy for non-whites and for leftists and centrists, even apolitical people, to adopt vegetarianism. I do feel healthier and more energetic, I have lost weight and my conscience is clear (not to get too preachy about it).
>>
>>5767120
Pretty much this.

Most folks who don't take this sort of stance are one of three things:
1. Unaware of the obscene conditions and effects of modern industrial animal husbandry and thus feel no motivation to change them.
2. Edgelords as seen in this thread (though this and #1. are not mutually exclusive)
3. Inflammatory hacks like Peter Singer who springboard off a relatively moderate and reasonable concept and turn it into an extreme, nonsense-spewing platform on which to advocate for shit like literal bestiality. Or adversarial, money-grubbing false philanthropists, like PETA and anyone dumb enough to give them the time of day.
>>
>>5775116
Why don't wolves form packs with sheep?
>>5775355
Humans have always had this error, people have only acted upon it more prominently in recent time because of the overabundance of resources.
>>
>>5772250
They can have arms just not the bear arms
>>
File: Dick Masterson.jpg (297 KB, 1024x685)
297 KB
297 KB JPG
>>5765348
>Should animals have rights?
No, neither should women.
>>
Outlawing industrial farming is honestly the only thing that needs to be done, at least today.
Reduce environmental danger, produce more food more effectively, improve people's diets by indirectly reducing meat consumption to normal levels and stop the most heinous ways of animal torture in favour of ethical farming
>>
>>5775721
>Outlawing industrial farming
Why? It's more efficient.
>>
>>5775762
Not more efficient than eating crops.
Also an environmental danger, a barbaric practice and a reflection of a society with unhealthy eating habits that cannot possibly be sustained as millions of asians enter a western lifestyle in the next few decades
>>
Cetaceans, primates, cephalopods, corvids, psittaforms and possibly hymenoptera should have some rights
>>
>>5765348
painless killing of animals doesn't sound immoral to me as long as you don't endanger nature balance
>>
>>5776120
Like killing predators
>>
>>5775008
But we are sentient,the lesser beings aren't
>>
>>5765348
>Should animals have rights?
1. Humans are animals
2. axiom : Humans should have right
3. conclusion : Animals should have rights
>>
>>5772314
>dogs live on a different planet and have a different year
glad i'm not this retarded
>>
I think this retard is a vegan...
>>
>>5777563
source?
>>
>>5767833
Captive bolt devices have been in use for over a century
>>
>>5777547
We are rational animals,that's the difference
>>
>>5777694
How so?
>>
>>5777547
You’ve only proven that the subset of Animals consisting of humans should have rights, not that animals in general should have rights.
>>
File: brainlettttt(2).jpg (41 KB, 800x450)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>5777746
>>
I don't believe that the real question is wether or not animals should have rights but more so is industrial farming bad.

Animals don't need rights and should not have them. They are not people and should not be treated as such. Animal abuse is not cool. Most animals feel stress, pain, and anxiety in a similar way to humans and if you wish or are ok with anything be it human or animal going through this when you yourself have experienced it, that shows a lot about who you are.

Also, we can't deny the environmental impact of industrial farming. Cow shit alone is one of the leading causes of green house gas simply because there is so much of it as a product of millions of cattle being produced more so than born and raised.

I believe the approach is wrong however. Most people advocating for such things tend to take a "you are genocing animals for your own selfish desire" approach which, naturally, would be met by defence by anyone who has been living that way ignorant or not.

I for one am in favor of no meat Monday as a start. If vegans and vegetarians want to make a change, which, for the health of the planet at least they should, they need to start small.
>>
>>5777903
>I don't believe that the real question is wether or not animals should have rights but more so is industrial farming bad.
You are being off topic. If you want to ask this, go to anothet thread.

Also, most of your arguments are ridiculous, and I will prove it by replacing animal with Negro.

>Animals don't need rights and should not have them. They are not people and should not be treated as such.
Negroes don't need rights and should not have them. They are not people and should not be treated as such.

>Animal abuse is not cool. Most animals feel stress, pain, and anxiety in a similar way to humans and if you wish or are ok with anything be it human or animal going through this when you yourself have experienced it, that shows a lot about who you are.
Slavery is not cool. But Negroes shouldn't have rights!

>Also, we can't deny the environmental impact of industrial farming. Cow shit alone is one of the leading causes of green house gas simply because there is so much of it as a product of millions of cattle being produced more so than born and raised.
Also, we can't deny the environmental impact of Negro reproduction. Negroes' criminal tendency alone is the leading problem causes of prison house overpopulation simply because they kill more than they reproduce.

>I believe the approach is wrong however. Most people advocating for such things tend to take a "you are genocing animals for your own selfish desire" approach which, naturally, would be met by defence by anyone who has been living that way ignorant or not.
True. We shouldn't tell people that they are oppressing Negroes, as it will be met with defence
>I for one am in favor of no meat Monday as a start. If vegans and vegetarians want to make a change, which, for the health of the planet at least they should, they need to start small.
I for one am in favor of no cotton-picking monday. If abolitionists want to make change, which, for human rights at least they should, they need to start small.
>>
>>5777903
Blows my mind that people like you seem to have just discovered that the chicken you eat is killed painfully. People have never had problems with this as a whole, you’re soft anon. It’s not something you can’t fix, I’m just alerting you to the problem. Please don’t take offense, there’s no nice way to put it.
>>
>>5777943
Yeah anon but black people are actually people, so your analogy is garbage. That is, unless you think black people aren’t people.
>>
>>5777953
Some people do. Infact, many people believed that Negroes were not human-beings at the time of slavery, just like we today consider chickens like nothing but chattel
>>
>>5765449
>Do you really want to give a dog the right to vote?
Why not? We already expanded the franchise to blacks and women, dogs as the next step seems only logical.
>>
>>5777953
We didn't consider Negroes as people back then.

They were, you know, "animals"
>>
>>5777961
Right, except chickens aren’t people but black people are. Anon you’re really betraying the fact that you see black people as less than human.
>>
>>5765353
>/threading yourself
What's it like being an intellectual manlet?
>>
>>5777971
Chickens will never be people, the very argument was that black people were animals. They aren’t, but chickens are.
>>
>>5777953
Race doesn't exist the same way species don't exist. We are all living beings created by God.

Pic related. The left pic is a bluepill, the right is a redpill
>>
>>5777988
I’m not religious so preach somewhere else.
>>
>>5777972
All of this is subjective. I consider chickens to be people personally.

Human/animal is a false dichotomy. Why are we excluding ourselces from who we are, that is, mammals animals?
>>
>>5777943
That is possibly the most rediculous response I've ever had to something I've posted on 4chan.

I would like respond to you further but I am fairly confident you are the Nazi that was posting here before.

>>5777947
Yes, I am soft. I don't believe in unnecessary cruelty. Perhaps I have a higher sense of empathy than yourself. Either way you can't deny the environmental impact that our diets have on the Earth. It is not sustainable. And yes I have recently walked into a lot of this knowledge. I don't plan to stop eating meat. I love meat. However, to deny such a global crisis as "well they are just fucking chickens" is both lazy and irresponsible. If you want to live in the woods and treat your chickens anyway way you want than go do it. Your impact is small, as is all of ours. But there is nothing wrong with acknowledging a common problem and offering solutions.
>>
>>5777972
What is your objective scientifical definition of "people"?

It's subjective isn't it?
>>
>>5777999
And there we go, the insanity that lies at the root.
Chicken are people everybody, this guy totally isn’t out of his mind
>>
File: pinky and the brain.jpg (93 KB, 1012x675)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>5774981
The real trick is getting him to STOP talking.
>>
>>5778001
Humans, Homo sapiens sapiens
>>
>>5778000
No anon you’re just soft. It’s a product of the times. Emotional to the point of not being able to eat food.
>>
>>5778009
I eat meat everyday my friend, except for Mondays. That doesn't mean I can't advocate for the common good of the earth.

You are cynical, it's a product of the times. Emotionless to the point that you can't see see the effects of your own actions.
>>
>>5778024
Anon you are getting emotional about eating poultry.
>>
>>5778009
No it's a product of reality, both you pro-mega farm and vegan onions boys are stoopid.
>>
>>5778032
Yeah people react to reality differently. Some emotionally can’t handle poultry, some are normal adult men.
>>
>>5778030
I have no guilt about eating chicken. I eat chicken often. It's delicious. That's not to say the way we go about producing chicken is not bad.
>>
>>5778044
It could be better.
>>
>>5778050
Agreed.
>>
>>5778053
Wanna make out
>>
>>5778056
Fuck yes. Come here.
>>
>>5778007
What scientific paper wrote "people" = "Homo S S"?

What about those "animals" who are more "humane" than certain "people"

Koko the Gorilla has an IQ higher than certain "people". He is also more peaceful and educated. I think gorillas like Koko are more "people" than certain "people", because he is more humane. And I think people who have a lower IQ than Koko the gorilla should not be considered "people", at all

See??? It's all subjective
>>
>>5778058
The definition of human is not subjective. It is a solid biological distinction. Humans are a species, and those are people.
>>
>>5778062
People : one's parents or relatives.

I believe Koko the gorilla is more humane than Mugabe...
>>
>>5778133
Too bad she wasn’t a human, objectively not a human.
>>
>>5778133
I believe what you're trying to say is that people can be animals at time. Very true. These people have very real and diagnosable mental disorders that can distort their sense of reality. Often times leading to "inhuman" behavior.
>>
>>5778002
What makes Negroes more humane than chickens? Do you realize that Negroes were considered on the level of chickens in the past? And that abolitionism was like veganism today.

How are Negroes more of a "people" than chickens and gorillas???
>>
>>5778162
How are whites more "people" than chickens or gorillas?

The same reason Negroes are.

Is a gorilla with a slightly darker shade of hair any less a gorilla than one born with a slightly lighter shade of hair?
>>
>>5778162
Because black people are humans anon, go back to /pol/
>>
File: GeneticsOfRace.jpg (71 KB, 572x532)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>5778182
Don't you find strange how nobody would have said that in the 18th century? Or how Negroes were basically considered cattles in the whole world before the 19th century? I think that the West has been brainwashed into thinking that these animals are the same as us in the 19th century by a lobby

Pic related.

Why are all humans close to each others on the right and Negroes are completely separated from the rest and on the left side? Are you sure that they are the same as us?

I'm just asking simple questions.
>>
>>5778177
>How are whites more "people" than chickens or gorillas?
Maybe the fact that you wouldn't have wrote this if white men didn't invent ARPANET
>The same reason Negroes are.
No
>Is a gorilla with a slightly darker shade of hair any less a gorilla than one born with a slightly lighter shade of hair?
It's not just about skin color. It's about genes, mentality, behaviour, taxonomy etc...
>>
File: race.jpg (48 KB, 500x436)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>5778217
Oh hey, here is a picture I found on Google image.

Though I doubt the creditability of that image and the source it came from, were do you believe chicken and gorillas are on that graph?
>>
>>5778239
Koko the Gorilla would be closer to us than to Negroes as proven by his IQ.
>>
>>5778233
>It's not just about skin color. It's about genes, mentality, behaviour, taxonomy etc...

Ok, a more specific example. Is a black lab less a dog than a white blood hound? Aren't they both wolves?
>>
>>5778261
Yes they are dogs. It's not really comparable to humans tho, as dogs are selectively/artificially bred by a human.
>>
>>5778275
Humans are, in way, selectively bred. A tall, white, upper class male is more likely to have "successful" offspring than a short, working-poor, black male.

Would you suggest that African genetics have been selectivly bred by white men to be low IQ and subservient?
>>
>>5778062
You know nothing about science. Chickens are people.

In population genetics, a "population" is defined in terms of mating propensity: breeding populations or demes, are defined as "a group of interbreeding individuals that exist together in time and space". So yes, chickens are people, idiot
>>
>>5778298
>>5778298
Today, as we know, the diversity of our species, a vague reflection of our palogeographic history and past evolution, is distributed in a fuzzy way, notably because of genetic flows and recombinations, which are geographically disparate and, unlike breeds like the dog, with a diversity of mosaic combinatorics, mainly located intragroup, with plural geographical ancestries whose traces are found in the genomes of individuals supposed to belong fully to a supposed race.

A good dog breeder would snicker, a good veterinarian and a good geneticist would sneer, a good bus controller would sneer just like a good doctor, and like anyone with good knowledge in this matter, about the processes of selection and creation of domestic breeds.

A breed of dog is thus obtained artificially, by "hand of man", and its characters are then maintained by a genetic isolation of the remainder of the stem species, just as artificially.

Our species does not breed in this selective and inbreeding manner, typical of breeding, so we are not comparable to dogs.
>>
>>5778007
You know nothing about science. Chickens are people.

In population genetics, a "population" is defined in terms of mating propensity: breeding populations or demes, are defined as "a group of interbreeding individuals that exist together in time and space". So yes, chickens are people, idiot
>>
>>5778329
So, on a genetic level, there is more varience between breeds of dogs than color of humans? Or race if human?
>>
>>5778398
Again, it's nlt abot color. Negroes aren't people but Aboriginals and Andaman Islanders are. It's not about color
>>
>>5778414
>>5778414
So what you're saying is the group of people you call Negroes evolved form a completely different and unrelated population group far further back in time than what a wolf would have wolf would have deviated genetically from a bear?
>>
>>5778469
Nit exactly, but it's close
>>
>>5778481
Could this problem be solved by killing all Negroe men and forcing their women to have offspring from purer Aryan genes.
>>
>>5765348
you're already killing them, I dont see how any of this other bullshit makes up for that
>>
Happy and healthy animals make better tasting, healthier food.

White people have empathy for animals, it's not really a trait found in other races though...
>>
>>5765348
Rights no
Protections yes
>>
>>5778319
We aren't avians you massive dumbass
>>
>>5777717
They don't think and move by instinct
>>
>>5778319
Chickens arent homo sapiens,so they aren't human
>>
>>5779916
Because white people are weak
>>
>>5765348

Basically, the argument goes that simply because a living thing is of a particular species should not exempt it from moral laws.

For example, suppose that, by a freak occurrence, there was born a hyper-intelligent horse which could talk. This horse could carry a conversation with you, and did it's fair share of work on the farm. Would you be able to look this living creature in the eye and say:

"I'm going to kill you because I am a human and you are a horse, and that is all the justification I need"

Imagine what the horse might say in reply. It might plead you to consider how it is a life-form with the same conscious experience and love of life as you, and that it deserves life in the same way you deserve life. What would you say in reply?

The point of the above scenario is that simply because that horse is a different SPECIES should not mean that it has no moral presence.

Of course, such horses do not exist. However, what exactly is the trait absent in animals, which, if it were absent in a human, would justify the slaughter of that human with no further justification?

For instance, if there were a particularly stupid human being, would you be justified in shooting and eating that human being for that reason alone? Is the suffering of that human being justified simply because it could not pass an IQ test?
>>
>>5778056
No
>>
>>5765458
/thread
>>
>>5765348
Allowing cruelty to animals in an industrial context is harmful for society as a whole because it results in the degradation of the society's moral code.
People want to excel in their field - if their field involves cruelty to animals, over time the worker's empathy diminishes and we're left with groups of workers who take pride in their own callousness. People in a society also like to feel as if they're righteous, every empire has religion which serves the purpose of reinforcing that sense of righteousness. People, infants even, recognize that animals are suffering when under trauma, and if the government allows something that is so clearly detrimental and immoral children are turned off and thus the government is seen as a malevolent body (obviously not something the government wants, or that's good for society.)
So basically chickens are worthy of respect ('respect' in the sense that they're not purposely harmed,) because if we allow industrial capitalization of animal cruelty we also acknowledge that it's okay to provoke cries of pain in the right setting, and we usher in a new wave of aggressive workers who need callousness to be able to perform their jobs. If you strip away the materialistic, overly-logical arguing style the west is known for and think intuitively, the plain answer is that we shouldn't allow cruelty animals because it's immoral and innately unpleasent in normal, sane people
>>
>>5780967
Your intellect is.
>>
>>5777943
BASED



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.