Thread: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Originally Posted by Makedde

The man in question was never publicly identified. IMO, anyone who does that to an animal should be jailed.

Well, if he was never publicly identified, he can't be jailed anymore than he can be shunned, so I don't see how your preferred form of punishment is superior in that regard.

Do you think that dogs should be tried and imprisoned if they mutilate humans' ears?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Well, if he was never publicly identified, he can't be jailed anymore than he can be shunned, so I don't see how your preferred form of punishment is superior in that regard.

Do you think that dogs should be tried and imprisoned if they mutilate humans' ears?

Dogs - or other animals - that attack humans are often seized and destroyed.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Dogs - or other animals - that attack humans are often seized and destroyed.

But why aren't they made to compensate their victims in civil court? And why aren't they entitled the rights of the accused?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

But why aren't they made to compensate their victims in civil court? And why aren't they entitled the rights of the accused?

Because they are animals? Just because an amimal can't speak for itself doesn't mean it shouldn't be 'punished' when it harms a human.

And as to the OP, just because a dolphin can't speak for itself doesnt mean it shuld be treated like garbage.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Because they are animals? Just because an amimal can't speak for itself doesn't mean it shouldn't be 'punished' when it harms a human.

And as to the OP, just because a dolphin can't speak for itself doesnt mean it shuld be treated like garbage.

First of all, we're not dealing with "should." The law isn't about sloppy "shoulds," it's about ensuring that rights violations are as fully recompensed as possible.

Secondly, what's with this double standard? If the dog species has a right to life like a human, it should also have the rights of the accused. Which means dogs shouldn't be summarily destroyed, but tried by juries of their peers with access to attorneys. It sounds like your building your philosophy not on any kind of consistent intellectual principle, but based on what "feels right" to you.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

First of all, we're not dealing with "should." The law isn't about sloppy "shoulds," it's about ensuring that rights violations are as fully recompensed as possible.

Secondly, what's with this double standard? If the dog species has a right to life like a human, it should also have the rights of the accused. Which means dogs shouldn't be summarily destroyed, but tried by juries of their peers with access to attorneys. It sounds like your building your philosophy not on any kind of consistent intellectual principle, but based on what "feels right" to you.

A dog is not a person. Obiously it doesn't have the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rights as a person who is fully aware of what they are doing.

I can't believe I am having this conversation.

Originally Posted by Makedde

A dog is not a person. Obiously it doesn't have the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rights as a person who is fully aware of what they are doing.

I can't believe I am having this conversation.

It doesn't have any rights whatsoever as far as I can see. It has no free will. It is not able to take moral responsibility for its actions. You have not supplied any argument whence the rights of a dog derive, other than your personal feelings. A right is an individual's just claim to something. You haven't explained how or why a dog has a just claim to anything.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

It doesn't have any rights whatsoever as far as I can see. It has no free will. It is not able to take moral responsibility for its actions. You have not supplied any argument whence the rights of a dog derive, other than your personal feelings. A right is an individual's just claim to something. You haven't explained how or why a dog has a just claim to anything.

I am not the one who believes it is okay to mistreat an animal and get away with it. Kicking, hitting, burning, cutting, an animal, be it a dog, cat, or dolphin, is WRONG. It doesn't matter if the animal has no free will or cannot take moral responsibility.

A newborn has no freewill either, is it okay to bash a baby and get away with it? Of course not, because despite the fact it can't speak for itself, it still has rights. Just like an animal.

Originally Posted by Makedde

I am not the one who believes it is okay to mistreat an animal and get away with it. Kicking, hitting, burning, cutting, an animal, be it a dog, cat, or dolphin, is WRONG. It doesn't matter if the animal has no free will or cannot take moral responsibility.

A newborn has no freewill either, is it okay to bash a baby and get away with it? Of course not, because despite the fact it can't speak for itself, it still has rights. Just like an animal.

Who said it's okay? Again, you conflate things. Just because something's not okay doesn't mean it's a rights violation.

The difference between a baby and a dog is that the babies lack of mental faculty is merely a transient state, akin to being asleep, whereas a dog's lack of mental faculty is part of its nature as a dog. It is not in the nature of dogs to have will or reason; therefore, it is not in their nature to have rights.

I'd rather give dolphins more rights than humans. Humans are mostly a$$holes.