girl throws puppys in a river

[ade33uk 86]

Im glad my thread has gone quiet , theres some right twats writing on this one .

[tyson666 11]

i couldnt watch all of that video and found the little i did disgusting,but at the end of the day those pup's were just property,we should have the right to do with our property as we like.

i should be able to buy a bugatti veyron and smash it up with a hammer if i choose to,my property my choice,a bad choice but shouldn't be an illegal one.

you are f*****g mental

[andyfr1968 772]

i didnt say that cat didnt deserve to live but it doesnt have the right to as a human does,

 

animals cannot have rights and animal welfare legislation is the first step towards achieving animal right's

anyway as i said do some research, here's a link to set you off

 

http://jealousattention.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-animals-dont-have-rights.html

 

Are you trying to use this forum as some kind of study group? Are you doing a thesis or something??

 

You've clearly got some kind of agenda so come on, spill the beans, joke's over now.....

 

 

Its obvious he is a fooking ANTI looking for a rise

 

It would just be nice if one of these tw*ts (sorry, Dosser..) would be straight enough to ask a proper question instead of trying to run folks round the house's to further their own agenda....

 

How thick do they think we are???

 

I hope your research goes well, flump.... :wankerzo4:

[the flump 0]

im not doing any study lol im just blessed to be able to understand and even accept another's argument, unlike many on this thread.

i believe that we have to now choose whether animals will have right's or be property.

 

if you disagree that animals are property and should as sentient being's have right's, i'd respect that argument.

animal right's activist's are making big step's through animal welfare legislation,soon there will be compulsory inspection's needed from political animal right's organization's (R.S.P.C.A,PETA,LAC's etc etc) to own animal's and i believe eventually this will lead to them banning all domestic animal's (if they have right's a case could be made that they are slave's)

 

in my eyes the only positive that can come out of the the u.k's animal right's movement is it will show the rest of the world what happen's when animal's stop being property.

[6pack 60]

im not doing any study lol im just blessed to be able to understand and even accept another's argument, unlike many on this thread.

i believe that we have to now choose whether animals will have right's or be property.

 

if you disagree that animals are property and should as sentient being's have right's, i'd respect that argument.

animal right's activist's are making big step's through animal welfare legislation,soon there will be compulsory inspection's needed from political animal right's organization's (R.S.P.C.A,PETA,LAC's etc etc) to own animal's and i believe eventually this will lead to them banning all domestic animal's (if they have right's a case could be made that they are slave's)

 

in my eyes the only positive that can come out of the the u.k's animal right's movement is it will show the rest of the world what happen's when animal's stop being property.

 

Here lies the problem with your argument.

 

The problem with animal rights is that animals are incapable of recognizing and respecting reciprocal responsibility. If left completely free, animals would habitually engage in acts that would be criminal if performed by human beings

 

Do you want animals to behave like people or people to behave as animals?

This argument is based on the idea that an animal must have a sense of its self to 'deserve' rights and that simply isn't the case.

It is extremely pompous to think a wild animal loses it's rights simply because we believe it a 'lower' species.

Get down from your pedestal and slum it with us lower life forms!!

[the flump 0]

an animal cannot have right's because it cannot be responsible for the freedom's those right's permit.

[scothunter 12,609]

think i agree with some on here,there is defo something dodgy about you.

[6pack 60]

an animal cannot have right's because it cannot be responsible for the freedom's those right's permit.

 

Again, you put the assumption that an animal thinks like us, or rather, to have rights, it must follow the same laws and thinking we do. You are trying to place morals on an animal whose life is run, not by morals, but by simple requirements of survival.

The rights of an animal are imposed by us, are placed by our own morals - not the animals - and it lowers us as human beings to try to pretend that isn't the case.

Using the excuse that they do not understand their rights does not mean they are not entitled to them.

[the flump 0]

I know an animal doesnt think like us,so what you are saying is we should give animals right's and then pander to them and serve them because they cannot comprehend that they must be responsible for the freedom you want to give them?

 

so we should serve and have less right's than animals?

[danw 1,748]

im not doing any study lol im just blessed to be able to understand and even accept another's argument, unlike many on this thread.

i believe that we have to now choose whether animals will have right's or be property.

 

if you disagree that animals are property and should as sentient being's have right's, i'd respect that argument.

animal right's activist's are making big step's through animal welfare legislation,soon there will be compulsory inspection's needed from political animal right's organization's (R.S.P.C.A,PETA,LAC's etc etc) to own animal's and i believe eventually this will lead to them banning all domestic animal's (if they have right's a case could be made that they are slave's)

 

in my eyes the only positive that can come out of the the u.k's animal right's movement is it will show the rest of the world what happen's when animal's stop being property.

 

 

You really are deluded if you think that the government will grant charity's that kind of responsibility BUT YOUR POST SURE AS HELL SOUNDS LIKE A SPEECH FROM AN ANTI

[the flump 0]

i believe a man was recently questioned by the rspca in a police station while a police officer quietly over seen the interview.

you dont think they are gaining in power then? and if animal right's take a hold do you not think they will continue to gain yet more power?

[the flump 0]

don't worry though danw there's no need to think for yourself,im sure the government will look after you

["Earth!" 503]

You really are deluded if you think that the government will grant charity's that kind of responsibility BUT YOUR POST SURE AS HELL SOUNDS LIKE A SPEECH FROM AN ANTI

 

 

im with you on this one Dan.

[6pack 60]

I know an animal doesnt think like us,so what you are saying is we should give animals right's and then pander to them and serve them because they cannot comprehend that they must be responsible for the freedom you want to give them?

 

so we should serve and have less right's than animals?

 

Not at all.

What a huge leap to make!!

Respect is a simple right. Respect for the quarry is the same as respect for the life. Or how you take that life.

While those puppies were the property (hopefully) of that girl, and she has the right to dispose of them, cull them, and even drown them, if she sees fit. That is one huge leap to playing frisbee with them in a river.

 

You talk of charities or organisations being given high powers and responsibilities, but it is such acts of unnecessary cruelty that you appear to endorse that would make it so.

[the flump 0]

respect's definition is a matter of opinion, im talking about keeping moral attitudes concerning how you treat property down to the individual,not telling people how to think,feel etc.

 

then the animal right's activist's wouldnt have any room to push through hunting legislation,or be able to harass innocent people like they do.