Dolphins and Human Rights - a possible reality?

[Adam Jensen]

Actually humans are naturally herbivores so they are at the bottom of the food chain. They aren't even omnivores based on the teeth and stomach and other anatomical facts. Humans just started eating meat at some point because their tools allowed it (spears, rocks for hunting, knives and other stuff for processing).

But OT, I'm all for it. I hope they give the same right to apes, monkeys and some other intelligent species in the future if it passes. Well, any mammal above vermins really.

No, being on the top of the food chain has to do with who eats who, not what type of food we are "meant" to eat.

We now eat meat. We hunt animals. Whether we are anatomically meant to eat meat is irrelevant. Most other animals fear us, hence being on the top of the food chain.

And I'd really like to see an explanation for my canines.

[Deleted]

As in reality, nobody really gives a crap about anybody, the last century alone has showed us this; while dolphins may play with food, we round up members of our own species and execute them en-mass for reasons they otherwise cannot control.

Eco-systems are incredibly delicate, whilst it inevitably will not be possible to 100% safeguard them, minimising the damage is fairly significant due to the ripple effects that effect countless other factors. Extermination of predators in certain parts of the world has led to an unsustainable number of grazers for example, which have in turn over harvested the land and caused damage to both the people, and the other wildlife.

Just because we can't shove an animal in an enclosure and breed them en-mass for food doesn't mean they're not important.



The argument in this instance is regarding slavery, many animal rights group liken the captivity of animals to holding them against their will, hence slavery or the denial of freedom.

Where do you draw the line? What percentage of pets do you think are held against their will?

[Deleted]

Where do you draw the line? What percentage of pets do you think are held against their will?

I have no idea, I'm personally not in favour of it. Quite frankly my own opinion is that due to massive human influence a great deal of species will be unable to survive for a great deal longer and it's probably best we get them in captivity where at least they stand a chance of surviving, if only until we are able to recreate / produce more of their habitat in which to re-release them.

But that's a fair question, where would you draw the line? As quite frankly the line is non existent for me, it's our own discretion.

[Jdman]

Anyone see that episode of the simpsons when the dolphins take over springfield?

Thats whats gonna happen if we keep oppressing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4n-4...eature=related

[Deleted]

I have no idea, I'm personally not in favour of it. Quite frankly my own opinion is that due to massive human influence a great deal of species will be unable to survive for a great deal longer and it's probably best we get them in captivity where at least they stand a chance of surviving, if only until we are able to recreate / produce more of their habitat in which to re-release them.

But that's a fair question, where would you draw the line? As quite frankly the line is non existent for me, it's our own discretion.

I wouldn't. The 'Rights for Dolphin' movement is ill-thought out and if successful holds precedents for potentially removing all working animals as well as some pets as like dolphins, they would be deemed to be held against their will.

I mean is stopping a dog just let off the lead from storming across a field deemed unlawful under this?

[BatteredRose]

I dunno, I want equal rights for people first.

[Logonov]

our species has already held convention on robot ethics.... its proving to be quite silly the lengths were taking this.

[Sivick]

unless they can write it themselves they'll be happy to be on the protected species list and that'll be that.

[Olthur]

I'm sorry but animals are not people. when people no longer suffer and starve and die of disease because they don't have clean water. then we can worry about animals. until then, to hell with them in my opinion.

[Deleted]

As clever as they might be they won't have an understanding of a concept such as freedom, however they probably do have a pretty solid grasp of happiness. If a dolphin is happy at Seaworld what's the big deal?

[ccsabathia]

A human in the middle of the ocean alone is at the bottom of the food chain. Just sayin~

And some people die to spider bites.

I'd still take my chances as a human when rolling a new character on the game Earth. Some idiot dropping himself where he shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

[Sunseeker]

I still don't see the issue.

How do you propose we protect the property rights of creatures who we don't know if they own property?
How do you protect against violence, against them, from each other? What constitutes a dolphin assaulting another dolphin?
Why is it a HUMAN moral code applied to them? They're not simply a minor racial variant, they're an entirely different species.
If they are covered by human rights, are they constrained by human law? Do they need passports to enter non-Canadian waters?
What about their right to a trial by a jury of their peers? What if they don't believe in trials?
How do we even communicate with them? The only dolphins that understand humans are the ones who've been captured and trained, which under the new laws would be a violation.

On paper, every human being does have the same rights. The willingness of states and individuals to respect said rights to the required level however, is probably unobtainable.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand your point and agree. But I don't see human tyranny or oppression ever being a factor that is absent from our world.

I don't either, but the level to which is exists now is a tad overwhelming IMO. When we can reduce that to a more reasonable number, then we can give rights to dolphins or monkeys.

[Metallikiddd]

dolphins are smarter than most people ive met

[Deleted]

I'm sorry but animals are not people. when people no longer suffer and starve and die of disease because they don't have clean water. then we can worry about animals. until then, to hell with them in my opinion.

Because they are mutually exclusive right?

It wouldn't hurt to use that grey matter once in a while buddy...

[bayushisan]

NO. Just no. An Animal is not the same as a human. While they should not be treated with cruelty they also should not have the same rights as as human being.

[MechaMoose]

Did you know Dolphins will try to have sex with people without their consent? that's right Dolphin rape...

[Deleted]

Dolphins are Dolphins, Humans are Humans. I remain wary of these "animal rights" movements, since parts of them in their zeal to extend human rights to some groups of animals, are attacking human rights for certain groups of humans, and hold views of social darwinism and eugenics. See Peter Singer, who argued that killing newborn babies is not murder since they are not yet intelligent, and also denies human rights for disabled people.

[Sedryn]

Did you know Dolphins will try to have sex with people without their consent? that's right Dolphin rape...

[Extrazero8]

When an animal is able to ask for rights we might consider it.

Until then its the grill, the oven, or the pan and they don't get to pick.

[Deleted]

When an animal is able to ask for rights we might consider it.

Until then its the grill, the oven, or the pan and they don't get to pick.

Already there are plenty of animals you are not allowed to eat, so I'm afraid your post is pretty dim-witted.