In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People

[Brother AJ]

A recently taken GALLUP poll determined the following:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Almost a third of Americans, 32%, believe animals should be given the same rights as people, while 62% say they deserve some protection but can still be used for the benefit of humans. The strong animal rights view is up from 2008 when 25% thought animals' rights should be on par with humans'.

While women and left leaning individuals lead the way in holding the titular belief, there has been a modest increase among men as well as the right since 2008. This is merely to illustrate that you don't necessarily have to be considered a "radical" to think that animals deserve the same protections and/or rights as people.

The fact that this percentage has reached such a plateau is truly interesting to me, but it also perplexes. Where is the outrage for this issue? Where are these people hiding? Do they lack passion? Do they not understand what this belief would really mean? Do they think this only meant cats and dogs for some reason?!

IMPORTANT: This doesn't mean that animals should be voting or owning guns, but rather they ought to receive rights that they actually have the capacity to benefit from. This topic gets sidetracked far too often with the nonsense notion of animals driving cars or what have you.

Let's think about some of the most basic rights that human beings hold such as the right to life and the right not to be treated as property. If we practiced this belief for animals there would be no conceivable way that things would be able to continue as they are now. Factory Farms, slaughterhouses, medical testing labs, fur farms, rodeos, zoos, etc. would all no longer be acceptable.

This is why this discussion needs to happen. This is why it needs to continue. People need to be introduced to what they truly believe in. The faster we do this the faster that this minority becomes the majority. Get enough public outrage about this issue and it's not going to go away. 32%?! We're sitting on a bomb just waiting to go off.

 

[oZzIIgk]

What we need to do is deprive humans of their rights.
In all seriousness, I think that our society is (as sad as it is,) too centered around the use of animals as property. An instant shift in the legal view on animals is nearly impossible. I mean, I'm in a room with wool carpet, most people eat their cereal with cow's milk, and a majority of the people that I know will settle at their table for dinner tomorrow with a meal centered around a dead animal. It's like replacing the current telephone and power lines across the country. It's not going to happen because it's too unethical for the change to occur. The result isn't the issue here, it's the transition.

 

[Brother AJ]

What we need to do is deprive humans of their rights.
In all seriousness, I think that our society is (as sad as it is,) too centered around the use of animals as property. An instant shift in the legal view on animals is nearly impossible. I mean, I'm in a room with wool carpet, most people eat their cereal with cow's milk, and a majority of the people that I know will settle at their table for dinner tomorrow with a meal centered around a dead animal. It's like replacing the current telephone and power lines across the country. It's not going to happen because it's too unethical for the change to occur. The result isn't the issue here, it's the transition.

What in the world are you talking about? What exactly is unethical about making this transition? Please don't mistake something being unethical with something being inconvenient. They aren't the same. In another time human slavery was an integral part of the economy, but this in itself is not justification for the continuation of the slave trade. You're appealing to consequences instead of addressing the actual arguments and reasons as to why animals shouldn't be property.

 

[oZzIIgk]

What exactly is unethical about making this transition?

I think that "unethical" was poor word choice on my part, honestly. Maybe impractical would have been better suited.

In another time human slavery was an integral part of the economy, but this in itself is not justification for the continuation of the slave trade.

As far as I know, a society without the use of animal products has literally never existed, while societies refusing to hold slaves did in fact exist before the end of slavery. I think that the only way a single society that refuses to use or own animals could exist would be by being an entirely irrelevant country to the rest of the world. If nobody cared about them as it was, then nobody would care about them after they outlawed animal ownership.

You're appealing to consequences instead of addressing the actual arguments and reasons as to why animals shouldn't be property.

Let's pretend nobody can own animals anymore in any country ever. New Zealand is now entirely irrelevant to human existence, and is a hellish death trap with no industry whatsoever.