I think your taking it a bit to far. All I see are scientists that are taking a different approach to protect a spectacular species. Kudos to them for doing so.
Would you hunt rats to extinction? People only care about cute animals. They are hypocrites, the lot of them.
Is there a LINK to any of this? What is it with you guys and God (*)(*)(*)(*) sources!!! Is it so hard. Kindly place a link to a reputable website for your claims or we will just assume they are lies.
A friend and I were just talking about "what would be good to make extinct". We came up with maskitos. Waying the cost of some creatures being without the food source and all the humans and animals not dealing with the bites, disease and the spread of viruses. We concluded it would be a net positive to due away with them. We were drunk though...
What about the ones that claim that their IQ is so high, but in actually is dumber than a door knob? Yes as in have the right to live their lives in the ocean free of human intervention. You DO realize that we share this planet with other creatures right? How to you ever begin to refute such nonsense?
People only care about species they can enjoy or gain some use or benefit from, and I don't blame them. Should humans go out of their way to protect species we don't like? I'm glad we drove smallpox to extinction and I look forward to see that success repeated with numerous other viruses, bacteria, and parasites in the future.
Animals don't have rights. If they had rights, they would also have the responsibility not to violate the rights of others, which means we could fine a dolphin for damaging another dolphin's property.
No, they don't. If they had a right to live, they'd have a moral responsibility to respect the lives of others. Do you think dolphins should be arrested for murder?
What boils my blood is that people who want animals to have rights have no problem with cutting up human babies into pieces and throwing them in the garbage.
That's not what it says at all: Your article says they would be treated as NON HUMAN PERSONS. All it means is that it will put an end to whaling and using them in entertainment. Pretty far out idea and I don't think it will be accepted, but whaling needs to stop, for sure.
Yes, and twins with 'Twin to Twin Tranfusion Syndrome' should be monitered because if one twin steals all the blood and oxygen, causing the death of the other twin, the remaining twin must be charged with murder - as per your own argument: Change that to fetus and you can see how ridiculous it is.
As with every other issue involving the depletion of resources, the problem is the tragedy of the commons. The whales are commonly held. If a clever entrepreneur could find a way to privatize whales, they could be harvested. But right now, the state squats of most water rights. I don't know. I wasn't my idea.
I think what most people miss about corporate personhood isn't that corporations are now treated as humans, it's that humans are now treated as corporations under US law. You're natural rights went out the window with the 14th amendment which made you a US citizen, subject to the whims of Congress.
Because much of the statutory regulation you refer to as law is written to please various special interests. That includes those who put emotion ahead of logic and the sort of objectivity required to keep the law from becoming the tool of special interests. Regardless of how we feel about them, animals are property. If they have rights, then they must have the capacity to recognize rights.
No, unless it's someone else's property. They should be shunned and ostracized, though. Probably the great bulk of animal cruelty in our society today occurs in industrial farming, which is also partially the fault of the state, which protected and privileges those firms.
I disagree. I don't care what kind of animal it is (excluding spiders and bigs etc) or who owns it, you hurt it, you pay. Man over here few years ago hacked off a puppys ears and tail with a pair of scissors. The puppy didn't belong to anyone but his ears are all ragged and ruined from the damage done. You mean to say that someone who does that shouldn't face court?
Who's rights did he violate? Not the dog's, because dogs don't have rights. If they did, they'd have to stand in court when they mauled people as well. Nonetheless, like I said, I'm sure that individual's reputation is ruined in his community, so it's not like he'd be escaping worthy punishment for his cruelty. Shunning can be a very powerful punishment, especially so in a fully private society in which everything you do outside your own plot of ground requires free and open interaction with someone else.
The man in question was never publicly identified. IMO, anyone who does that to an animal should be jailed.