Noticing a lot of bias and un-objective "stacked decks" here. Not sure why we use human criteria (example, an animal can not go to court in order to defend itself) to judge the rights of an animal. Human frailty and irregularities in human nature have led to the development of a court system to help nudge pitiful human actions back in a direction where many of us would hope their actions would have gone in the first place, without courts. Courts are proof of human inferiority and cheating. To create a NEED for courts and the then say an animal does not have the intelligence to defend itself in court, is not wrong, it is borderline insanity.
This is not aimed at any one specific commenter but at a composite of comments I have read.
How well would an unarmed, unclothed human do in a jungle or in Antarctica? And if he were to carry weapons those weapons would undoubtedly have been created by a superior human mind or collusive minds, but almost never created by the person using them. So weak minded humans use the tools created by strong minded humans to cause harm. The strong minded humans, those that could wipe out countries with their minds (think atomic bomb) are the ones that are the least likely to want to use these weapons. And many of you think you are clever because someone else did the work and you now stand on their shoulders. Many if not most of the greatest survival giving gadgets were invented by people that would absolutely respect animals way beyond what I am reading here in this forum, I will not comment on how inventive scientists would feel about animal rights but I routinely read about how LIBERAL scientists are so I’m guessing many would very much lean towards protecting Animals.
In addition to debating whether a very intelligent animal (Border collie, Poodle) that can save thousands of lives (cancer detection, finding bodies in rubble, need I go on?) should have more rights or at least equal rights to mass murderers and psychopaths (Humans) I would like to hear positions on intent. What if the animal is just a damn good citizen by whatever means he/she came to be that way through nature or training or awareness and a human is not? And how many humans are not? Professional dog handlers had to place live humans in the rubble at the WTC bombing because the Animals were depressed (that is the term used by the professionals) as they were finding dead bodies and needed to find a live one to perk them up.
NEXT, regarding the humans are in charge argument I read earlier; so humans determine survival, isn’t that a physical force argument? So then what Ayn Rand herself ran from you are saying was justifiable in harming or attempting to kill her because they were more powerful? Why are you in this forum? In effect, we can defeat the animals in battle so we win. How about stating the obvious a few more times? So if some bright scientist could rally the animals through chemical means or gas the rest of us and hand the country to the animals then they would be right by your standards? You do not sound like an objectivist to me.
Finally, intelligence, IQ, honesty, it is hard to say what we should use to determine a hierarchy of who should be here. There are other forces in nature that count as well. I’m guessing some Nome who can’t get a date and sits here writing that only intelligence (by his definition) should count towards survival, will use HIS strengths as the ultimate criteria for human survival and devalue anything in which he is not proficient. But there are other criteria you are neglecting.
EXAMPLE:
Do you think you will get the same reaction form a police officer, a marine, a professional boxer (all probable tough guys) if you were to back into his car and dent it as opposed to running over his dog? In which scenario do you think those guys are more likely to beat your face to a pulp? And what will you say; that his dog is property, I will pay you the mechanical value for this property and all is well?
Animals have huge value because we like them, and you are likely to have force used on you in your life travels if you don’t start realizing this. It is every bit as valuable as the value of human intelligence. To the INDIVIDUAL mind who cares about society AND his animals no difference is noticed. If people love their animals then they provide a value to that person and by connection to society at large equal to or greater then intelligence.
