Should animals have rights?

Should animals have rights?

Other urls found in this thread:

conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/silent_weapons_quiet_wars.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The question is why not? the lawmakers can protect even the sand in my vagina if they wanted to.

Animals are property. Property doesn't have rights, that's stupid.

Only the good looking ones senpai

As a white man,
If it were not for the laws of my land i would slaughter the man who did this to doggo.

Only certain types of dogs should have rights.

Then why women have rights?

All animals except pit bulls.

Absolutely not. I love animals more than people but the notion of giving then "rights" is the most retarded example of nu male modernist morality I could think of. If our ancestors heard we did this they'd die again of laughter

Jews.

Yes

this. unnecessary cruelty to animals is a subhuman nigger behavior.

Humans are animals, unless that's what you're implying Mr. Stalin

Human >Pets, but needless cruelty should be punished

I only want there to be laws to reduce suffering as much as ethically possible.

no.

If niggers get rights, animals get rights.

Oh yeah, hitler loved animals

There should be two classifications for animal rights.

[Pets]

[Livestock]

When you buy a pet, and acknowledge it is a pet, and everyone else acknowledges it is a pet, it should be given rights against harm etc the normal rules.

When you buy an animal for livestock or breeding purposes, it should be considered property and your right to kill it at whim however you still have to follow food regulations for instance so you can't poison a cow and then still feed people.

An animal that is neither livestock nor pet should have no rights. Humans are beyond animals, there is not a single creature on the world that even comes close to us.

Even a fully grown gorilla, the smartest animal, capable of learning sign language and communicating with humans, is incapable of even passing tests that teenage niggers in the hood can pass while high.

Not to mention the obvious hypocrisy behind animal protectionists.

"Oh hurting animals is bad! I want to cut the hands off of whoever did this to this poor animal!" They don't realize they are advocating for slaughtering a human for slaughtering an animal. Do we main and torture people for doing crime? No. What sane person would?

I'm talking about you, and people like you.

The strong are judged by how they treat the weak.

If you pretend to have a shred of morality in your body then humane treatment f animals should be at the top of your priorities right next to women and children.

They have the right to be tasty and clothing

>not progressing as a civilization because your ancestors would have thought badly of you

Cuck

We stupidly let them . Womens rights is stulid a concept as animal rights. Cunts won't have rights too much longer, things will go back to being right.
I obviously meant non-human animals, dipshit.

the rights protect them from the stupidity of humans

that's all it means

if a subhuman or brokenbrain decides to short circuit on a defenseless animal, he should be held responsible

>being different than our ancestors is automatically "progress"

Cuck

We should afford them as much decency as possible without negatively affecting our own living standards. E.g. if there's a better alternative to factory farming with the current human population without impeding the market, then we should implement that.

I know what it means. It shouldn't exist is my argument, not that I don't understand them. The law extending to animals is retarded.

le it's 2:30 time to be edgy

Should people?

FUCK dogs

No but there should be standards of care and consumption.

>respecting your ancestors is edgy
You'd be more at home on redit user.

>my life sucks so i want animals lives to suck too
le Sup Forums is 4 hardened edgelords only

Cruelty to doggos should be punished by firing squad.

Nice proxy leaf.

Should the Chinese be allowed to use the dogs that our ancestors bread to be loyal companions for livestock?

Slaughtering an animal is fine
But people who torture animals for fun are mentally defective and should at the very least be sterilized

>They don't realize they are advocating for slaughtering a human for slaughtering an animal. Do we main and torture people for doing crime?
>implying we shouldn't maim and torture humans that maim and torture other humans
desu senpai we don't need a lot of psychopaths around.

My dog deserves more rights than the subhuman noggers and illegal spics living off of govt. gibsmedats.

At least a dog understands friendship, loyalty, and how to comfort/protect people.

Breeded*

Probably not, but that pic is clearly the work of a nigger.

>torture and maim someone for torturing and maiming someone
>the person giving the torture and maiming as punishment is somehow less psychotic than the person being tortured???

If rape makes someone a bad person, raping them doesn't make you a good person.

Animals are living beings. People who mistreat animals are broken inside and will also torture or kill people.

No.

animal cruelty is degenracy. Mass murderers have often tortured animals in their youth.

Black people have rights, it's only fair.

Its not about making yourself a good person. The best way to make someone stop doing something is to do it to them.

...

No. They shouldn't.
Humans ought to be kind enough that animals would have no need for rights nor would there be any need for someone to enforce them.
But we must have them by necessity because people can be evil.

Animals have the right to be tasty

Eye for an eye is jewish. Turn the other cheek is Christian

So I guess if someone drops a hot drink on me in McDonalds I should set them on fire so they get burned too?

If you think torture is good if you torture bad people, you're a hypocrite plain and simple. Being a hypocrite is fine and dandy, but don't pretend you're a paragon of virtue.

>turn the other cheek goyim, let me keep raping your wife and dog!!
k

t. chang

To an extent yes, but not as much as people.
Intentionally mutilating an animal
Or killing an animal without a good reason to do so (food, protection of life or property)
Should be punished

>implying I am pretending to be a paragon of any sort
There are limits to it obviously, you fucking autist.

Retard, the life of a violent and cruel nog who will never change his ways and continue ruining societg is easily worth less than that of an innocent pupper. Easiest choice of my life.

MODS
We have an underage faggot here

Legally, only people can have rights, it makes zero sense to talk about "animal rights".

They should obviously be legally protected from mistreatment, though.

Not an argument

They already do
see: black people

Oh so we should only main and torture them 50% of what they did to someone else?

You stab me and I get a knife half as big and stab you, right?

Make an actual worded law explaining how you would set this system up or accept that you're a psycho who just wishes to see people suffer, while pretending it's for "Justice".

Not all criminals are niggers sorry to break it to you.

I'm an atheist so I have no morals at all. A life for an eye for all I care

Uh.. technically..uh Nah

Right, so i guess i have to teach you how to be villians

*Saxophone riff*

Hey!
We are number one!

Listen closely

Of course, and they do. But don't confuse this with strict veganism.

If you mean strict laws against cruelty, then yes.
I'd kill him even if it is against the law.
One thing I'll give the kikes props for is the kosher requirement of humane slaughter. Farm animals shouldn't be subjected to unnecessary suffering if it is within our power to feasibly avoid it.

The entire concept of 'rights' is a meme. There are only actions and consequences. That being said, hurting animals for any reason other than sustenance should have consequences.

No. Unless you are an over sensitive faggot.

>I'm an atheist
>so I have no morals

That is in no way a valid excuse. Go read some Nietzsche.

People who get their jollies from hurting living beings who cannot defend themselves (or even those that can) should not be allowed to roam free in our society. That is to say that I don't want people who take pleasure in causing other beings undue pain to be free, contributing members of our society. I'd feel better knowing that those kinds of people are either locked up, deported, or killed, depending on the severity of their actions and the possibility of rehabilitation.

I care about efficiency more than anything.

Of course torturing a cow is stupid and inefficient, and therefore shouldn't be done if it's going to be marketed. But there are people out there who wish to kill people because they might want to shoot a cow. Is a cow really worth a human life? That's the point I'm making. Animals don't deserve rights because they don't have sentience or consciousness anywhere near a level that their life even matters.

No

...

Semi-sentient animals should

dogs, dolphins/whales, chimps, etc.

Other animals don't matter.

I think they it should be left as property as far down as county level at least, honestly
morality is a vague concept at best, the idea of what is cruelty changes often, the idea of what should and should not be "food" is dependent entirely on culture religion, living conditions, and projecting your feelings on other things with eyes
just doesn't strike me as the government's business, unless your government is a religion, by which I mean Islam
Food quality standards are a completely separate thing

These arguments from people, ones like
>you killed X animal, u r mr badguy I keel u
and
>x animal is worth more [to me] than x person, so animal should have person rights
not only have little to do with the idea of the law having a hand in issuing punishment for this clearly cultural idea of a crime, but also is quite obviously based on weak emotional ideas of idealism and the idea of broad equality
It's often hypocritical, quite obviously based on personal beliefs of x and y organisms being more worthy than w and z or certain treatments, clearly based on religious ideas, reminiscent of the baseless liberal beliefs that Sup Forums otherwise does not care for, and frankly I don't buy it.

Note for bawwwwwwfags: I care very much for lots of sorts of life, that isn't part of the question

I have no religious morals. I have secular ethics

Nah, you're just taking it too far because you're an autist.
>muh u want ppl to suffer
You are a huge faggot.
Atheists are like women on the internet. They always let you know what they are.

>not being vegan in 2016 almost 2017

God, you guys suck

Most people that say they are women on the internet are usually guys

Let me help you with that

>i have no morals at all ( )
>i have no religious morals

Two different things. Very nice damage control though.

Yes, except animals used in religious rituals.

Okay so you have no actual idea for a law and you just have feelings based opinions on a topic you know nothing about.

is this what is known as the "it doesn't count if jews do it" phenomenon?
seems like you guys aren't really consistently in favor of anyone's rights

The day halal and kosher meats are banned is the day that we are finally civilized

I would trade a worthless human for a cow any day, but that;s probably not what you were getting at. Efficiency is fine, at any rate, but some exceptions need to be made.

For example, in industrial chicken-hatching operations, most male chicks are deemed as useless and 'mascerated,' i.e. put into a grinder that leaves them half-dead in a bin. That is massively fucked up, even if it is efficient. Same thing with mechanized slaughterhouses.

Have some of you guys actually never been loved by a dog who would protect you with his life? How can you believe in patriotism and nationalism if you don't even value Loyalty. People who hurt dogs are traitors to their loyal friends, and rats like that cannot be trusted.

Morals has always been a religious word to me. I don't think I have a soul either because I don't believe in souls, not because I think I'm a demon

Only those who believe in fighting for their rights, or become powerful enough to grant other beings rights are worthy of actually having rights

>Morals has always been a religious word to me.
>i have my own version of reality that you should account for when reading my post

Sounds awfully religious of you.

Not all criminals are niggers,
But all niggers are criminals.

"A nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent." - Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

Allegedly in 1986 an IBM office style copier was purchased at a surplus sale which had previously belonged to a CIA office. The last set of documents which had been copied was still in its memory, and that document was called "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" dated 1979.

According to the document, the "international elite" (most likely secret society members) decided in 1954 to wage a "quiet war" against the American people with the goal of shifting wealth from "the irresponsible many" into the hands of the "responsible and worthy few."

To achieve such conformity, the "family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of government operated daycare centers for the occupationally orphaned children."

Even if the documents are fake, isn't this kind of whats happening in the world today?

Full text here:
conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/silent_weapons_quiet_wars.htm

I go to the gym religiously

Do you think chickens even understand what happened to them? Do you think their suffering is even something they can consider? No. When they get hurt, they scream and move because it's a reflex. They do not think about why they got hurt or how to fix it. They just wobble around until they die. Do you worry about every ant you step on but don't fully kill? Leaving it to slowly lay on the ground and suffer? No.

Funny meme but also incorrect.

Why the fuck are they killing dogs??

Please go back, you're incapable of any discussion.

Wait, Pajeets don't eat them? The only kin of yours that we locally have - gyppos - sure do like them though...

Feral dogs and cats are massive problems in every country because retards feed them and allow them to live and breed causing more and more.

Killing them is discouraged in western countries because it's "mean and cruel :(((" but rabid pets/livestock is a serious problem.

There's nothing wrong with being religious

The chickens feel pain, pain is bad
Ants are autistic, and don't feel pain the same way chickens do

I should also mention that this doesn't discount other animals that may face sadistic methods of torture; killing, or harming animals for things like scientific research or factory farming is okay in my eyes.