Categorii
Filmeamatori

Animalele non-umane au drepturi?

  • Animalele nu au drepturi, pana nu spun acest lucru.

    Pana cand animalele nu isi spun drepturile, ele nu le au. Simt ca omul are responsabilitatea de a avea grija de animalele de pe planeta. Dumnezeu a dat omului drepturile omului. Cred ca omul le-a acordat doar aceste drepturi. Animalele nu trebuie sa fie abuzate de barbat. Animalele nu au puterea de a rationa, prin urmare nu au drepturi ale omului.

  • Iisus Hristos a murit pentru oameni

    Cauta-l caut-o. Isus a murit pentru UMANI. Dumnezeu ne-a dat stapanire asupra tuturor animalelor. De aceea, Adam si Eva au fost lasati sa-i numeasca cu Dumnezeu. Nu exista nimic in Biblie despre un caine sau o vaca care se afla la acelasi nivel cu un om. Animal si pamant drept este o inselatorie!

  • pentru ca nu

    In primul rand, trebuie sa definim ce intelegem prin „drepturile animalelor”. Cei mai multi sustinatori nu au cu adevarat o intelegere ferma dincolo de o vaga idee ca animalele trebuie respectate asa cum sunt oamenii. Desi exista unii care considera ca cimpanzeii ar trebui sa aiba drepturi de vot (in ciuda incapacitatii lor de a citi un buletin de vot) si de tot felul de alte notiuni nebunesti, majoritatea activistilor pentru drepturile animalelor raman la ideea ca animalele ar trebui sa fie libere sa faca asa cum doresc. In aceasta privinta, animalele ar trebui sa fie la fel de libere ca oamenii sa cutreiera si sa faca lucrurile lor animale nemodificate si restranse de oameni. La urma urmei, animalele sunt creaturi organice la fel ca oamenii si, prin urmare, ar trebui sa se bucure de aceleasi drepturi …

  • Diz Kid_Alan

    Daca un caine mare ataca un pisoi, un caine nu ar fi fost trimis in judecata ca un om, daca omul ar face ceva daunator altui om. Animalele nu sunt considerate a avea conceptul de gandire mai profunda de care oamenii se bucura si nu au acelasi nivel de drepturi de care se bucura oamenii. Canibalismul (consumul de oameni) este o crima teribila, dar consumul de carne de la animale este modul in care oamenii au supravietuit pentru totdeauna.

  • Animalele nu au drepturi

    Nu sunt agenti morale si, deci, nu au facilitatile asa cum fac oamenii. Astfel de facilitati includ rationalitatea, limbajul si inteligenta. Din aceasta cauza, animalele nu au drepturi. Cu toate ca, va fi crud sa spunem ca nu sunt simtitori, deoarece sunt capabili sa simta placere sau durere, dar asta nu inseamna ca au drepturi. Tot ce putem face este sa urmarim cum le tratam in special in industriile de procesare a animalelor de ferma si similare.

  • Suntem varful lantului alimentar.

    Populatia noastra continua sa creasca, iar proviziile alimentare se diminueaza. Terenurile arabile devin tot mai rare. Nu este suficienta vegetatie pentru a sprijini o populatie mondiala de vegetarieni. Cand se termina? In prezent, cea mai populata sursa de alimente si proteine ​​sunt insectele, dar in trei sferturi din lume nu le mananca. Nu pot si nu voi atribui animalelor atribute umane.

  • Natura nu este facuta din drepturi

    Animalul nu vrea drepturile noastre. Nu au nevoie si nu stiu ce sa faca cu ei. Drepturile sunt unele conventii intre oameni, pentru a oferi o sansa tuturor oamenilor de a primi un tratament corect. Dar natura nu este corecta. Leul nu va respecta dreptul cerbului de a trai. Lupul nu va respecta dreptul iepurelui de a trai. Aceasta inseamna ca toate carnivorele nu vor respecta aceste drepturi si vor trebui eliminate din natura.

    Unii pot sustine ca, din moment ce animalele nu se gandesc, nu pot fi responsabili pentru drepturile altora, la fel cum nu se asteapta ca un copil sa aiba gandirea morala necesara pentru a respecta drepturile. Dar, asta inseamna ca noi (oamenii) trebuie sa le impunem sa respectam aceste drepturi. Adica, trebuie sa separam carnivorele si ierbivorele. Acest lucru va duce foarte repede la animale disparute.

    Imediat dupa ce vom decide sa acordam animalelor aceleasi drepturi ca si sa le oferim oamenilor, vom distruge echilibrul naturii.

  • In primul rand, trebuie sa definim ce intelegem prin „drepturile animalelor”.

    Most proponents don’t really have a firm grasp on this beyond a vague notion that animals should be respected as people are. While there are some that think that chimps should have voting rights (in spite of their inability to read a ballot) and all sorts of other insane notions, most animal rights activists stick to an idea that animals should be free to do as they please. In this view the animals should be as free as people to roam about and do their animal things unmolested and restrained by humans. After all, animals are organic creatures just like people and should therefore enjoy the same rights… The problem here is that rights are not based on biology. If they were, we’d have to apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to every petri dish full of virus cultures. After all, they are based on DNA just as we are, so they must have the same right to go about their viral business. This is on its face rather ridiculous; a virus is nothing but a protein coat surrounding a DNA core. It can’t even reproduce without forcefully taking over the machinery of a host cell. I have coined a term to describe what rights truly are based on, which is „reciprocal responsibility.” What does that mean? Reciprocal responsibility means that you, as a holder of a particular right, are held responsible for respecting the similar and equal rights of others. You have a right to free speech, but you must respect both another’s right to free speech, and must not misuse your right of free speech against another (in slander, for example). You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you must not infringe on another’s right to bear arms, nor shall you use your arms in unjustified force against another. This is reciprocal responsibility. A violation of reciprocal responsibility opens you to criminal and civil liability. No right exists without this attending responsibility. 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. Bears and cougars would attack (assault) people. Dogs would defecate on (vandalize) people’s lawns. A million other „criminal acts” would be perpetrated by animals, in violation of others’ rights. This leads to one of two outcomes: 1) Humans and animals would necessarily have to have different standards of behavior. Acts against persons or property that would be criminal for humans, would be allowed for animals. In other words, animals would have superior rights to humans. We’d be constantly cleaning up after the criminality of animals, and would effectively be enslaved to creatures that didn’t have a second thought to us and our rights (which undoubtably do exist). This is backward, to put it mildly. 2) To protect us from the criminal acts of animals, we’d have to imprison animals that „break the law.” Since animals don’t have the reasoning ability to make rational choices, most animals would eventually end up imprisoned for breaking the law. So we’d be locking up all these „freed” animals…how exactly does that respect their „rights?” The concept of „animal rights” is an enviro-fantasy based on a misguided and ill-considered desire for animals to be happy. We have a responsibility to animals, not to mistreat them or cause them undue pain or suffering. There are, and should be, laws against animal cruelty. But to ascribe „rights” to animals goes against the concept of reciprocal responsibility which is inherent in the very definition of rights. Those who cannot respect rights cannot hold them…ergo, no rights for animals.

  • Yolo

    If they had rights, hunters wouldnt be able to hunt. It’s not right to kill animals for their fur. I’m just saying it’s ok to hunt somethimg like a deer or elk, but if you just kill it to kill it then that’s messed up and I agree that we should not torture or hurt animals for fun.

  • Why Animals Don’t Have Rights

    First off, we have to define what we mean by „animal rights.” Most proponents don’t really have a firm grasp on this beyond a vague notion that animals should be respected as people are. While there are some that think that chimps should have voting rights (in spite of their inability to read a ballot) and all sorts of other insane notions, most animal rights activists stick to an idea that animals should be free to do as they please. In this view the animals should be as free as people to roam about and do their animal things unmolested and restrained by humans. After all, animals are organic creatures just like people and should therefore enjoy the same rights…

    The problem here is that rights are not based on biology. If they were, we’d have to apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to every petri dish full of virus cultures. After all, they are based on DNA just as we are, so they must have the same right to go about their viral business. This is on its face rather ridiculous; a virus is nothing but a protein coat surrounding a DNA core. It can’t even reproduce without forcefully taking over the machinery of a host cell.

    I have coined a term to describe what rights truly are based on, which is „reciprocal responsibility.” What does that mean? Reciprocal responsibility means that you, as a holder of a particular right, are held responsible for respecting the similar and equal rights of others. You have a right to free speech, but you must respect both another’s right to free speech, and must not misuse your right of free speech against another (in slander, for example). You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you must not infringe on another’s right to bear arms, nor shall you use your arms in unjustified force against another. This is reciprocal responsibility.

    romance porno http://blancarosaroca.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/
    filme porno traduse an romana http://foxmelo.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/filme-porno/amatori
    filme porno cu matre grase http://drexelathleticclub.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/filme-porno/anal
    profesoara porno http://netsunlimited.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/filme-porno/asiatice
    porno selena gomez http://centerforhearingexcellence.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/filme-porno/beeg
    filme porno mama fiu http://bidvestsecurityfinance.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/filme-porno/blonde
    w porno gratis online http://palmer-snyder.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/fututa-salbatic-pe-o-suma-de-bani
    poze cu fete porno http://hitfind.org/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/o-gagica-minora-e-fututa-in-spatele-blocului-de-un-barbat-pervers
    filme porno 18 http://montanalandman.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/milf-bunaciune-e-surprinsa-cand-se-masturbeaza
    magyar porno sztarok http://ptouchtapes.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/sex-in-aer-liber-cu-o-panarama-fututa-pe-bani-de-un-tip
    porno tata fica http://passat-driver.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/asiatica-cu-corp-extraordinar-e-fututa-in-toate-gaurile
    porno free tube http://shredclean.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/orgie-pe-o-canapea-cu-doua-cupluri-care-fac-sex-cu-perversiuni
    zoofili porno http://axa-fs.biz/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/o-milf-curva-se-fute-cu-trei-indivizi-care-o-fac-posta
    filme porno cu gey http://cliftonlarsonallenhealthcare.net/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/sex-anal-dis-de-dimineata-cu-doi-amatori-in-calduri
    casting porno http://newenglandpetpartners.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/secretara-buna-si-seful-dotat-fac-sex-cu-perversiuni-pe-birou
    porno scarbos http://downtheshoreevents.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/o-curva-cu-tate-mari-e-facuta-sandwich-de-doi-indivizi
    cosmina pasarin porno http://stabilisedbromine.info/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/mama-vitrega-buna-e-fututa-de-fiul-adolescenta
    porno artistic http://megacognetics.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/blonda-milf-suge-pula-in-timp-ce-e-fututa-in-stil-doggy
    filme porno cu masaj si ejaculare http://jobtester.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/ii-trage-blondei-blugii-de-pe-ea-si-ii-penetreaza-pizda-cu-putere
    csaladi porno http://pencio.com/__media__/js/netsoltrademark.php?d=filmeamatori.com/angajata-fututa-in-toate-felurile-de-patronul-ei

    A violation of reciprocal responsibility opens you to criminal and civil liability. No right exists without this attending responsibility.

    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. Bears and cougars would attack (assault) people. Dogs would defecate on (vandalize) people’s lawns. A million other „criminal acts” would be perpetrated by animals, in violation of others’ rights. This leads to one of two outcomes:

    1) Humans and animals would necessarily have to have different standards of behavior. Acts against persons or property that would be criminal for humans, would be allowed for animals. In other words, animals would have superior rights to humans. We’d be constantly cleaning up after the criminality of animals, and would effectively be enslaved to creatures that didn’t have a second thought to us and our rights (which undoubtably do exist). This is backward, to put it mildly.

    2) To protect us from the criminal acts of animals, we’d have to imprison animals that „break the law.” Since animals don’t have the reasoning ability to make rational choices, most animals would eventually end up imprisoned for breaking the law. So we’d be locking up all these „freed” animals…how exactly does that respect their „rights?”

    The concept of „animal rights” is an enviro-fantasy based on a misguided and ill-considered desire for animals to be happy. We have a responsibility to animals, not to mistreat them or cause them undue pain or suffering. There are, and should be, laws against animal cruelty. But to ascribe „rights” to animals goes against the concept of reciprocal responsibility which is inherent in the very definition of rights. Those who cannot respect rights cannot hold them…ergo, no rights for animals.