Do animals have rights?

I have kind of changed my opinion about animal rights/veganism, I'll try to make it short.

The role of a plant is to grow as abundantly as it can through reproduction. The method of reproduction for many plants requires intervention from some sort of herbivore. Without the cohabitation of plants and herbivores, plants overgrow into abundance and die from a lack of resources. Fruit-bearing plants are even less capable of reproducing without herbivores. When analyzing the relationship between plants and herbivores this way, it is not helpful to see them as counter-productive. One would not exist without the other's checks and balances yada yada.

There is a similar relationship one step up the food chain between predator and prey animals. I rarely see vegans standing up for rats in metropolitan areas. But honestly if you're not retarded you can very quickly rationalize the genocide of rats on a daily basis across the world, because you have an immediate visceral reaction to them. You KNOW the problems they csuse. Prey animals will eat and reproduce for as long as there is fermentable plant matter. Their population will almost always grow even under serious caloric constraints. Predators do not needlessly kill prey; it is a necessity for the good of all of the individuals in a food web for there to be some guy dismembering your deer cousin once in a while.

The common vegan solution to this is to continue raping vast stretches of land to grow mono-crop corn and soybeans, and then complain about cows and their greenhouse gasses. Vegans often fail to realize the opportunity cost of occupying huge stretches of land with non-food-chain-contributing indigestible plants. X number of prey animals are displaced by each acre of farmland, and those prey animals fail to feed feed X amount of predator animals. You haven't saved any of them, there are just fewer of them than there would be anyway. If you want to talk about animal rights let's start with the right to live in the first place.

So, there are a lot more Apex predators (humans) than there used to be. I don't think trying to feed them fucking soybeans is the master solution. Look up video of [insert prey animal here] eating animal flesh. You can feed animals pretty much whatever you want, but there's no reason to be retarded about it.

Cows are great prey animals. They are very efficient at fermenting grass into steak (unlike Apex predator humans), and they are obedient, and slow. They're good at not getting eaten by wild predator animals, and they're good at letting people murder them quickly and humanely. I don't see any reason to believe that a healthy grass-fed and finished cow doesn't live a fulfilled life by the time it gets mercy killed.

The solution that makes the most sense to me is to continue displacing other Apex predators with humans, to replace more prey animals with free-range livestock, and to end all farming. Thoughts?

 

If you rarely see vegans standing up for the killing of rats, that doesn't mean anything about veganism, but it means a lot about the vegans you know.

It's also possible to restrict population growth without killing.

How do you think livestock are fed? If everybody somehow followed a vegan diet, we'd need far less land to "rape".

I don't understand the issue. There's less prey animals being brutally killed by predators...is that a bad thing?

I remember in 9th grade (or year 3 for the Irish/Brits) learning about energy flow in an ecosystem. Every calorie that a cow eats is not converted directly into meat - in fact, most of it isn't.

Energy flow (ecology) - Wikipedia

They're good at that because we protect them, and I'm not sure why you say "mercy killed".

 

@Shredderbeam yah nice bait buddy everybody knows vegans are weird and smell bad

 

also to add to this thread since were expanding rights to animals i better not see any of u freaks stepping on grass, if u have grass and own a lawn mower u murdered millions of grass, literally shaking imagining it. fact is plants feel sensations therefore they have feelings and u need to treat them like people you a*sholes

 

Wow, great rebuttal. To anybody who reads this, if somebody responds like this, without any sort of rebuttal, they're a 3rd rate troll.

This is obviously satire. If anybody out there thinks it isn't, please PM me for an explanation of why plants don't have central nervous systems. It won't take long.

 

"There are ways of controlling rat infestation without killing"

Wrong, rats have yet to be controlled by any means including murder.

"How do you think livestock are fed"

Almost all cows eat almost only pasture grass which is almost entirely more eco-friendly than mono crops.

"Not living is better than living and dying"

No

"Calorie efficiency"

Who cares? How about the carbon and nitrogen cycles, and the general integrity of the soil. You can't endlessly grow the same fake plants forever without putting work back in. How about 11th grade physics u take that?

"They're only good at obeying because they're safer that way"

No, they're good at obeying because we programmed them that way. They're mercy killed because they have to die by starvation or by predator. I'm sure if you had to choose between those two and a guillotine you wouldn't take long deciding.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...eef-be-very-careful-with-your-statistics/amp/
Didn't read^

 

I am literally shaking right now to think people like this can actually exist, I am a plantkin, do I have feelings? Did you really assume all grass/plants were the same? you know, you kinda remind me of someone being cis-human and all.. oh yah nazis were cishuman.

 

Let's say I accept that. Do you think that there'd be less rats using several times more grains to feed the livestock that you eat?

Which is more efficient, using soil to feed beasts that we eat, or just eating the feed we grow? And...do you have any sources, maybe?

Would you care to expand upon that?

...Obviously you can do it endlessly if you put work back in, but my simple point is that it takes far more work to make meat sustainable than plants.

Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what I said along those lines. Can you remind me of my exact quote, please?

That particular Forbes article didn't really quote any replacement numbers, but let's say that they're right. Are you ignoring basic physics that it's impossible for an animal to consume 1000 calories, and convert that into 1000 calories with zero waste?

I'm not sure why you're making a "literally shaking" joke. It's really simple, if your nervous system is advanced enough, you can suffer. I thought that you lot were in favour of science?

 

I've noticed a pattern with you, where you blindly accept liberal agendas into your bucket, and then reject anything that goes against it by asking for links. Here's a quick recap and then some links.

"which is more efficient..."

You ignored me when I said almost all cows don't eat crops I assume because I didn't cite my sources here's something until I can get ahold of the global stat I read a few years back: FAO sets the record straight–86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans - CGIAR

"explain why living is good"

Don't have kids lmao!

"work"

The second you can reliably and sustainably make soil without animals let me know!

"1000 calories"

What does that cow do with 1000 calories? You seem to have it in your head that we're filling up the lawn mower or something. How many calories is the cow's shit that some rabbit or worm eats later? How much nitrogen is the cow putting into the soil? Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove to me that pasture cows are unsustainable? Liberal agenda = cut cows ask questions later and I'm not okay with it lmao

 

I don't under why it's unreasonable that I'd accept things that I already believe to be true, but ask for sources for something I don't. I'm also not sure how that has any bearing against the points that I've made.

I don't recall that, but apologies if I did.

After a good long bit of internet searching, I've been unable to find details of the studies that lead them to their conclusions. They might be right, and that would negate the efficiency argument, but the "causing suffering" argument would still stand.

This might be my memory issue, but when did I say that?

I'm still unsure why you're trying to make this into a "liberal" issue, but the idea is that you cannot produce 2000 calories without consuming more than 2000 calories, unless photosynthesis is used by chickens. Even in those mystical cases where it is, I'll still stand by my viewpoint where you're killing a sentient being.

 

They've basic rights. PETA shouldn't be taken seriously either given their history.

 

No. Humans have given animals they take to "rights" however in the grand scheme of things they do not

 

Why do you think that humans are the supreme granters of rights?

 

I dont think your argument "still stands". I have a lot of compassion for animals, and I think it's inhumane to suggest that we replace their species with fucking beans. You aren't doing them a favor at all imo they're perfectly happy if they're raised properly. That being said I do not agree with Monsanto cow concentration camps (for health and humane reasons).


You did nothing to touch on the other integral processes that go along with the cow eating 1000 calories of plants.

 

Because we are, are you suggesting a make believe god is?

 

I don't understand your viewpoint, then. Cows raised for meat are going to be slaughtered anyway - how is it less moral if we slaughter them and instead of raising more cows to be slaughtered, grow beans? Beans don't suffer, but a lot of slaughtered cows do.

I'm also not sure I understand your viewpoint here. If you're growing crops to feed to livestock, you have to deal with rabbits/worms/whatever. If you're growing crops to feed to humans, you still have to deal with rabbits/worms/whatever, except you're not wasting the bulk of the crops calories to sustain the livestock's metabolic processes.

Now to be fair, if you're talking about the areas where livestock graze that aren't suitable to human crop production, that's a separate argument.

Well that's a terrible argument. I asked you WHY. If you care to answer, the word WHY typically requires an explanation.

In this thread, and in my entire post history, I have never suggested anything of the sort. I have no idea why you would jump to that. I'm not telling you who the supreme granters of rights are, I'm asking WHY you think humans are.

 

There will never be a correct answer as it's all down to an individuals morality/justification.

Personally I have to say no, not in the sense that humans do, due to the fact I'm a meat eater/animal owner.
If you are either of those it'll be really hard to try and argue that animals have "rights".

 

Thanks for contributing.

Do you think that humans have rights?

 

no

 

Why not?