₦airaland Forum

armadeo:
Oh but they do in thier own way. The only reason this is up for discourse is because as apex of the food chain you get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

The rights as we speak of doesn't change a thing for the animal.because it doesn't operate on the same level as you.

It's a kill or be killed world for them. They live they have the right to live, when they die they have lost the right to live.

It still is a kill or be killed world for us if we are intergrated into the wilds with other wild beasts - our only advantage lies in our intellect.

armadeo:
I disagree. Awhile you cannot hold a certifiably insane man responsible for his actions the activities of a python would should not be classified as mad or concienceless.

Example a python enters a hen house and swallows some chickens. The python does not recognise ownership of the hen house or chickens. It is governed by the simple rule of when i am hungry, I eat.

The same cannot be said of a thief who knows the hen belongs to someone else and still takes it.

I believe that the right of an animal so to speak from the human community is to recognise that the set of laws governing them are different from ours.

That been said what really is animal right. How to kill a goat? When to kill a goat? Why kill a goat?

The goat has to die to feed me that's not cruelty it nature just as a lion would equally eat me if it had the chance.

You have some good points - so we could say in terms of the "Food web" every specie is caught in that cruel net but aside that we should have considerations towards every specie?

HCpaul:
Right has been defined as the ethical principles of freedom or entitlement is not a natural agent but an artificial one.

Right was artificially made by man due to their views on life and the meaning they gave to it. Animals will start having right only when they too start creating it artificially or by simply been entitled to one by human extension.

Right to me is unnatural and man-made.

If you study about a chimpanzee society or even Lion prides, Wolf parks you will see that in some sense they exist ethical behaviours and order exhibited in such setting that can be likened to our construct of rights [not necessary legal charters as that of humans] but of considerations

900warriorz:
don't misquote the bible for people and start making people leave churches headed by women. They can be godly women too...just like we have godly me heading the church..



John 1 vs 10 - 13 says and i quote
''10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him(remember the world was created by the word and that word was christ), and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own(christ who is the word, was spoken into mary and she concieved and the word came in human flesh), and his own recieved him not.
12. But as many as recieved him(male and female, black or white, christian, muslim etc), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believes on his name:
13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.''


study that scripture well and you'd understand better! It's john the beloved speaking here...your quote was that of paul. If you read paul's history, he will tell you his own side and tell you God's word itself! It left to you to choose but if you choose his and he's wrong, he'd deny you that day coz it is stated in the bible that he speaks of himself....and gave you the truth as well to make your decision!

My explanations are the ones in parenthesis! I've got alot to say but make i looks comments too


God help us all...

If you cannot explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough - if you believe the part of the scripture you want and dismiss others then it's not the scripture you believe but yourself.

It seems you are not comfortable with the obvious misogyny shown in these verses.

Rajosh:
that's the part of paul's teachings I don't agree with. If it were so, why did God empower women to preach the gospel. Women like Maria Woodworth-Etter, Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman etc.

Hhmmm are you in any way suggesting Paul was not inspired by the Holy spirit, God or Jesus - he only gave his opinion?

If so then this voids the belief that the bible is the word of God or breathed inspiration by the Holy ghost.

osita456:
this was written to alleviate extremisms in the church. If she is the one with the call, then she should be the overseer of her call. Or are you saying God does not call women?

The quoted scripture was explicit enough

jeff1993:
..... do u hold ur meeting in Lagos

Enugu

rhektor:
[/b]"i do not permit "[b] not God do not permit

How about Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28-29?
No part of the Bible can be understood I'm isolation. We are all the same in Christ.

Meaning the bible passages are just opinions of the writers [whom ever they were] not any Holy spirit.

cyrielo:
so to be clear are you really asking why do humans have the right to live and animals don't?

Nope nature kills us all with or without rights and we also kill ourselves - so not about our rights to live.

It's about rights to basic considerations and treatments.

plaetton:
Rights don't exist in a vacuum.
There is a constant feedback loop existing between rights and RESPONSIBILITIES.

From birth , we start molding our children after ourselves, our norms ethics. We start assigning tiny incremental responsibilities to them as they grow and mature.
Even todlers are held to certain degrees of responsibilities.

We could say this in some basic sense towards some domesticated animals like Dogs.

And of course, our children are far from being our food source.

Far, we are chauvnistic about our own kind, most animals are - most mammals do not eat their offsprings or their own kind

I totally agree that we should be more aware of our negative influence in the survival of other species, and should take proactive legislative actions to preserve and protect wildlife from environmental threats and possible extinction.
If that is what you mean by "rights", then yes, it is commonsensical.

Is there any more to the definition of basic rights baba?

cyrielo:
@bolded In reality neither humans nor other species have right naturally. As already stated above right is a concept by humans to control our actions, maintain sanity, orderliness etc. As we (humans) have been able to maintain those behaviors to a great extent we then say we have established rights for ourselves. As regards other species we believe they don't have right because they do not exhibit those behaviors to a great extent.

Ok so basically "Right" is limited to behaviourial abilities and not by virtue of existence?

plaetton:
Without even thinking too much it, I would say animals should not have tights, for the simple reason that " legal , social and ethical" mean nothing whatsoever in the animal behavior or kingdom.

Going as far would greatly undermine and distort the great importance of animals in our food chain.

Logically, to say that animals deserve our definition of legal rights would be tantamount to saying that we should also hold animals accountable according to our legal, social and ethical norms.

What animals deserve is more compassion. We should not kill animals for sport. We should be careful and considerate when we encroach upon their habitats.

very good argument you have presented sir - permit me to approach this from a very subtle angle.

Children

Our Children have rights at least basic rights even though we cannot subject them to our legal jurisdiction on several matters regarding ethics and norms.

So can't one per say argue that just like we accord our children these basic rights like right to live, freedom, religion, thoughts and so on, can't we also accord other animals the basic rights within the reach of their behaviourial potential or existential needs - as we know humans threaten their very existence.

something like rights to freedom [the zoos are to be taken down]

right to live [except their is need for consumption the natural order takes it course]

right to protection from sexual exploitation

etc.

HardMirror:
Exactly. Even towards each other as humans, we discuss and negotiate rights and privileges. We create rights. Rights don't exist naturally.

Even "Good and bad" "ethics" are all human concepts - does this mean they cease to be effective?

raphieMontella:
@johnydon22...it depends to the extent..
Social and animals in a pack live by rules of their ''society''..
Well i think animals should be accorded basic rights..like in killing of animals..except those animals are disturbing our existence(survival advantages) then they shouldnt be killed...
The major issue is that their ''habitat'' increasingly differs from ours....

I'm inclined to ask what you mean by "Disturbing our existence"?

HardMirror:
Exactly
I never agreed that humans have rights. Humans don't have rights. Where is the rights? There are only agreed rights.
We create rights for ourselves.

So "Right" must be a mutual agreement before it is effective?

bqlekan:
we humans can choose to be bad or good, animals can't, we have conscience, animals don't. You won't charge a python to court, will you?

for you to say this - i believe you never intimately studied chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, dolphins - many other species show a very high degree of moral steer even more than most humans do.

animals behaviour is exactly like that of a mad man, you can't hold him responsible for his actions.

Ok since a mad man cannot be held responsible for his action - do you by any chance means that excludes him from the idea of basic "Human rights?"

HardMirror:
Yes humans don't have rights. We created them because of what we stand to gain from our unity. Makes us all sleep with our two eyes closed.

which means since we created the concept of "Rights" it means the limits it goes is exactly the limits we set for it?

Therefore why then would you agree we humans have rights and other species don't or shouldn't?

bqlekan:
well, I will try make this as simple as possible. let me start with this question.

Are animals intellectually inclined enough to be aware of human rights?



The case of grasscutters invading your cornfield comes to mind. How about a goat invading your pot of food? or a lion attacking a human.

If a python could come to my home and swallow two of my livestock, can it not swallow my 8 year old daughter?
I say 'NO' they are not aware of human rights. They can't distinguish between right and wrong.

I'll rather say we humans should treat them with respect. And when the dangerous ones get too close, we retire them.

Even humans can also exhibit the behaviours you listed above, vandalizing each other belongings, territorial encroachment or being mortal threats to each other - so?

HardMirror:
Rights are man made. There is nothing like rights in nature.

Meaning naturally even humans don't have rights.

A lion will kill another lion if he sees the lion as a challenge to his pride (a group of lion is called "pride",

Almost every specie is territorial, humans more so - i mean check we even shared the planet among ourselves guarding our boarders jealously.

a lion will kill and eat other animals that are palatable to it's palate it won't kill an elephant not because the elephant has rights but because it can't.

This is a basic natural setting - competition, survival of the fittest even in a human society where there are rules and orders, this still thrives.

Volcanos, earthquakes, tonadoes, lightening, wild fires, flood, don't operate by rights. Rights simply does not exist in nature.
The so called animal rights we humans chant and fight for are because of the benefits we derive from the animals not because they have rights. It is all about what we want or need.

You argue because there is nothing like right as a natural agent therefore animals don't have it - this also means humans don't.

But since it is a human concept we therefore are extending the concept to all inhabitants of the planet, the nature argument not only takes away animal right, it takes away a human's as well.

HardMirror:
No they dont

Why do you think they don't?

bqlekan:
check!

First seat huh brother? welcome lets hear your idea on it.. Do they, should they or Not?

On thursday 14/09/2016 i went for the usual Thinker's pub discussion hosted every two weeks by our very own MrAnony1, it was fun as usual..

Going straight to the topic of discussion as you may have well deducted from the heading of the thread.

Do animals have rights?

Let me define what Right is Going by the definition on Wikipedia encyclopedia we may define right as

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

Now the floor is open, it is an open discussion unrestricted to all.

Do you think animals should have or have rights?

If yes bring your reason and points - if no also bring your points

Let's discuss them

[N.B: You may present your argument from every angle whether scientific, philosophical, religious - all premises are welcome, these diverse pool of tapping ideas will make it more interesting and challenging.]

Let us also deal with each other more kindly as we engage in a free and peaceful battle of ideas using our words as Ammo.

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox, Hahn, Plaetton, Joshthefirst, Joseph1038 ..

Good thread !!!

LOL

Destined2win:
He was never a pastor

If it was a muslim Imam would you have said same for him? "he was never an imam.

I think the name "Christianity" should be change to Hypocrisianity.

Jesus preached fought against hypocrites, ended up getting the worst hypocrites the planet has seen as followers.

honourhim:
.. Wikipedia is where i will read and learn? Abeg leave tory for Tobias.
Wikipedia is not a reliable research site biko. Ask good researchers to confirm.
Jesus is not original yet you jumped your so called original and have been discussing Jesus and comparing him with copycats.
How come your original is not as popular as Jesus since he started before him?

Always the defence tactics - i think Gotquestions and answeringgenesis would have been reliable if hardmirror provided their links.

I believe Wikipedia is a world leading encyclooedia and they also provide reference links, stop the dodge, read the article then come back and provide yours.

taymeesan:
Hahaha....u must be a pathological liar.

No sir i humbly feel you should leave that for my superiors like Lai Muhammed.

maxibrainz02:
Bro you really need jesus

Naaaah i'm not gay... i need freecocoa instead!!!

raphieMontella:
u dey mind them?
They have run awta ideas...
Americans say holy batman!
Therefore according to nairaland theists batman exists fights criminals and always saves gotham city!
Really amazing!

On the movie Mr Bones the prince shouted "Holy shit"

and Bones replied " My prince The shit is not holy not even from the prince"

Nl thiest logic101 since the prince exclaimed "holy shit" therefore the shit is holy

NZAGHA:
who cares if u do??

Nobody boss!!!

PoeticJazco:
Grandson of Lai Mohammed.. see as you just arrange that lie

My grand pa is a LieGend naa.

NZAGHA:
i guess u will be among the 90% that will believe.? Coz ur write up itself is coming from a vacant brain.

SMH....

abi ooo .. no i will likely be among the 10% that's going to hell