Animal Rights Bill - Tom Regan summing up

[welsh22princess3]

Species loyalty X-D hehehe a hilariously terrible phrase

[rongovrongov]

i'm looking for the whole debate for a project i'm doing. either on video or written transcript

[lukebeevers93]

Tom Regan beats the anti-animal rights people into a cocked hat. What the fuck is Germaine Greer doing in an animal rights debate anyway? There was me thinking she wasn't a philosopher but a playwright

[NEUHEITEN100]

Tom Regan is one of the most important thinkers of our time!

[Plushcat143]

Bravo Dr. Regan! You are a remarkable man and a true inspiration!

[Olivia2Oscar]

Yes, NorthernLight12, you are right: Tom is brave, and yes, we will get there.

Morality is the treatment of all other beings as we want to be treated. Immorality is the inability to see others through the same lens that we see ourselves. Tom Regan stomped his heel on immorality in his closing arguments. But the opposition didn't feel crushed, because they have not yet replaced their hubris with meekness. "Pride goeth before the fall."

[smokeybiut]

Rights is a human thing. Why do animals have to follow are way of life. Lets just respect them and leave them alone. They don't want rights, just peace and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning, leave them the hell alone or else.

[andycorreia]

(continued)

My position is that humans are a pretty unique and intelligent species but not superior. So, although not all legal human rights apply to other animals, at least the legal right to freedom and protection from easily avoidable harm done by humans should be granted.

Of course this implies that non human animals shouldn't be exploited in any way in a civilized society, including for eating, wearing or entertainment.

[andycorreia]

There are at least 2 meanings for the word rights.

Philosophical/ethical rights and legal rights.

Every country has different legal rights, but philosophical/ethical rights don't change from country to country. They may change from person to person or they may not change at all, it's a philosophical debate. My position is that humans are a pretty unique and intelligent species but not superior.

[kansinee]

Dr. Regan sum up beautifully. I admired that he stands for animal rights. I can't believe these opponents obtained PhD. They are so thoughtless.

[NorthernLight12]

Tom Reagan is a brave man, standing for what is right even though the majority tries to bring him down. Remember the three stages of truth: Ridicule, violent opposition and acceptance. Keep moving forward, and don't look back. We will get there.

[ScreamingChickenP]

OMG

Are these people philosophers, or highschool graduates?

Not to be mean or anything - but Dr.Regan was rightful to get angry at them...

It reminds me of Proffessor Gary Franciones Interview with Professor Jan Narveson. You would think that Jan had never read anything besides PETA literature on Animal Right Philosophy.

Anyway, does anyone know where you could obtain a copy of this for dvd or to download?

Thanks

[tomheppy]

narveson is a fine philosopher but desperately wrong on animals, probably because he was raised on a farm

[AntiBNPProEquality]

Tom Regan is great. I read his "The Case for Animal Rights" last year, and it is probably the most systematic and thought out book supporting the movement

[atentso]

Wow. I'm an animal rights guy, though I admit there are some challenging arguments against my position. They did not come from these people. Couldn't they have held the debate against legitimate philosophers and not idiots like Germane Greer?

[Rymana]

Criticizing the animal rights movement for not advocating the rights of viruses? A virus isn't even a living organism; that's akin to asking why the animal rights movement doesn't advocate the rights of rocks or tree stumps.

[Ischnitzelyou]

wow the britsh people there are horribly rude!!!! they could just shut the fuck up and listen

[Locrian08]

I love Tom Regan's response starting at 5:10. It's been 20 years since this was filmed and we still have people like Tibor Machan speaking as if he has never read most of the literature on the argument from marginal advanced by Peter Singer 35 years ago.

[Animalsangel888]

Seems to me that still, nobody is listening!

Animals deserve better in this world, who said 'we' are the superior anyway? If only people would realise just how much we as humans can learn from the Animal Kingdom by merely observing, instead of murdering, slaughtering, using and abusing, skinning and testing, eating and exploiting!!

I love TOM!!

[wwohlgem]

We accord humans natural rights because they are conscious and can suffer, and not for any other reason. Most other animals are conscious and can suffer, therefore they have also a natural right by the same reasoning. To say otherwise is to discriminate arbitrarily.

[carter20081985]

animals don't have rights fuck heads

[SteakMusic]

are you sure about that?

[carter20081985]

well i just blew deers head off this year

[PRSGingerKid]

this is still leaps and bounds better than what goes on in factory farms! at least you know what it took for that deer to go from the field to your freezer. now if you got a fawn, chained it up, put it in a cage with only inches on either side for "movement", and then slitting its throat and letting it "bleed out" that would be a different story. most fat fucks that drive thru KFC have no idea what it took for those processed meat strips to get from the drive thru to there man boobs.

[carter20081985]

i could care less how it is killed, i have to kill in order to grill it. i think i will go get some kfc right now

[PRSGingerKid]

hahaha okay. enjoy. you are truly a waste of life man. use your mind my friend and bring some meaning to your life. hahaha. truly pathetic! haha

[philotymology]

I somehow doubt children would have asked for the right to have sex with adults.

[lavender880]

philotymology,

Wasn't that a totally ridiculous point?

As if we know nothing about how to protect children or take responsibility for them!

That lady was out of her mind.

[hello030178]

this is typical higher education - pontification and competition of hubris with no practical application to speak to the masses responsible for change. bah!

[conn6m]

Well I consider myself one of the masses and I can understand them all ok. Perhaps you think all intellegent debate should be dumbed down. Hey why stop there, lets dumb down the Arts, Science etc. Everything to the level of the Sun 'newspaper' (or comic if you are from Liverpool)

People are all individuals, not sheep. If interested in something, they can learn and be rewarded by that learning.

[exponentu]

Too many people would have you believe that they know the truth(s) of this and other matters. They may not exist.

I adopt the only philosophical approach to this - as to all else - that I think is sensible, ie an axiomatic one. In particular here, if one is not certain about something (eg whether certain animals are distressed by certain human actions), then always err on the side of caution, and don't do it. I defy any - any - philosopher to come up with a good counter-argument.

[UseYourIllusions123]

tom regan is way better than the opposition.

[jodyrea]

Arrogance ........ what ever happened to just the plain old "right" to life. Give me a break species - speak for yourself ... proud to be a save a child, kill a cat have an abortion species indeed .... bunch of mixed up people make up your mind. Put kids in daycare ... our parents in old folk homes ... animals have higher "morals" "instincts" ... master species indeed ... is abortion natural selection?

[jodyrea]

That aside it is a hard line to walk - I love my countrymen our wildlife and environment when I express this I get called a hypocrite I do not see this issue as black and white. All needs of the living must be considered I believe - no book told me this my heart tells me this. I cry for the fishermen and the pups slaughtered - call it what you will that is all it is - "cull" "harvest" whitewash terms for an outdoor slaughterhouse. But what of the men's lives lost? Some say yeah - I say tears..

[jodyrea]

ALF is to the animals rescued from Huntington Life Science as the underground railway was to slaves - both deemed illegal. Man thought nothing of threatening man like we treat animals today during slavery. Speceism and the followers are the KKK of the Animal rights debate. KKK look at all the lynch mobs. KKK and Huntington Life are like partners in crime. Lets have a lynching. What beagle should we torture and hang today?

[conn6m]

Well, I must admit the view of your son calling 911 over a birthday present made me laugh. I don't think we are that liberal over here. In Britain we have two numbers one for immediate real emergency and one non emergency. I don't think we should consider Rights as cast in stone. The Americans (USA) has in its constitution the right for persons to carry Guns. The appalling consequences of this causes the death of thousands of U.S citizens every year. Perhaps some rights should be revoked.

[jodyrea]

conn6m it was no view. My son did call 911 - nothing to do with being any less or more liberal - once the 911 button has been hit - they must respond. They talked to me on the phone and while apologizing for the misunderstanding advised it is their inherent duty to come anyhow. My son did not mention the birthday present until they showed up. As for guns I thank our governments provincial and federal that guns are not part of Canadian "culture". You need a permit for a pea shooter in Canada.

[jodyrea]

This I can not keep my mouth shut on - MAN the arrogant beast he can be!!!!! Right now our on our Atlantic Coast 270,000 baby harp seal are being slaughtered as I type. Last year $105 a pelt this year $33 yet the bloodbath continues. I spent on and off two years collecting data off our own Fed's Website and with their own information could prove the lies they tell to us the World and the EU. I wrote letters demanding answers and got a response from the rhetoric robot - spit is al I say to that.

[jodyrea]

I did want to qualify something here as most people for whatever reason seem to think if you care for animals too much you must not like humans - not so. The money our Fed's spend on promoting their lies and that "hunt" (how can you hunt something that is a baby and barely moves) they should be investing the money in our Fine Canadian Fishermen - they have families to feed and are the straw men here being vilified while the world buys the fur.

[jodyrea]

This year some of these poor men have perished and one is still missing - those that say they deserve are nasty as can be to even wish harm like that.

[conn6m]

Now this is interesting! The first person who has mentioned concern for all the people who work in the Animal industry is an Animal Rights supporter. Does this not tell you something about the negative arguments from thoes against Animal rights. This would have been my main argument if I were them. In Britain the labour goverment has declared war on the farmers with the result that since they came to power 50% of all farms has gone out of existance.

[conn6m]

Yes 50%. These people have families and they themselves are an integral part of there comunities - just as the closing of the coal mines devestated mining comunities. In his book the case for Animal rights Tom Regan touches on this subject claiming that these people have themselves Rights that cannot be ignored. Think about all the people in the world whose living is made from Animal exploitation - and some of them cannot claim welfare if thrown out of work. We must take them into consideration.

[jodyrea]

If we do not stop polarizing issues I do not believe there will ever be a resolve - you can not beat a man into "true" submission. He will only act in kind out of fear or condition - we must negotiate. Like feminists in the West - some are borderline terrorists - inciting hate crimes against their own species - the war has essentially been won - we must stop kicking our oppenent - the cold war has gone on long enough - peace talks, conflict resolution talks are ling overdue - children suffer.

[jodyrea]

isms are illnesses I dare say.

[jodyrea]

Everything that has been created born which ever you prefer - should have the right room and respect to carry out its life. Animals kill animals and men kill men -..................

[jodyrea]

Mother dogs will accept another species and allow it to suckle. Does that mean they are not speceist and more moral if we compare these circumstances to a child being beaten by their parents, hence their own species. Speceism is very very arrogant and I would be ashamed to be one.

[jodyrea]

Children need guidance and protection not necessarily rights. Look what giving children rights to much has done in our society - phoning the police and their parents because they were not happy with their birthday present - my son called 911 on me over a birthday gift he did not get but had expected. They teach them in school to call 911. And children have become cheeky in some respects. I think therefore I am. I am alive so therefore let me live!!!!!

[jodyrea]

I am not a specieist. We could parallel humans at different cognitive levels all the way down the line to life support in comparison to cognition. How about a bill of wrongs - things that are not allowed to be done to the animal. Somewhat how the issue of reverse discrimination came about. One should not confine our thinking to all past practice and assume it will work - open and expand the box. I may love my fish more than you do your cat. Should my fish die first because it is a fish?

[xAnimalxRightsx]

Regan is the best philosopher of his generation, i truly belive that society will eventually change towards animal rights - and a lot of it will be done to his excellent literature - and a near infallible theory. I just hope the next generation of A.R theorists can help carry on his excellent work. Great video

[jodyrea]

Dear conn6m

I wholly apologize and certainly as you state do not want to conrtibute to polarization here. Under the guise of vulgarity at its roots is in all honesty grief - as of late the abuse going on all around I expect I am becoming so myself... I am truly sorry

[jodyrea]

You stupid hag how do you consult a fetus about to be aborted because it may interfere in a prestigious career. I certainly hope you do not teach your stupid belief system to others.

[conn6m]

Thanks for your passionate imput Jody. However, please watch your language. I don't want to see slanging matches between opposing views. Keep it clean. Thanks.

[jodyrea]

Dear conn6m

Too many years as a Teamster - I apologize. I certainly do not want to contribute to polarization of issues as serious as such - matter of the heart such as this cause severe knee jerk reaction to the insurmountable abuse against our non-human kin. What comes out as vulgarity is indeed unbelievable grief of the on going abuse of the sanctity of life.... I am sorry....

[jodyrea]

Dear conn6m

I am terribly sorry. Too many years as a Teamster and as of late I have exposed myself to too much wanton abuse of our non-human kin. The vulgarity in truth is a guise to cover grief. I do not want to polarize issues and wholly apologize.

[jodyrea]

conn6m

I apologize for the repeated apologies as they were not posting and I though due to my vulgarity I had been blocked so kept trying.

[jodyrea]

As for Baroness Wornock and the other dippy idiot broad spewing illogical garbage kiss my lily white Canadian ass you arrogant hags. You narrow down your own limitations to suit your arrogant beliefs. Life is life and precious.

[jodyrea]

Laws are not just with morons like George W Bush altering The Endangered Species Act and passing bills such as HR1955 - domestic terrorism acts. We have elitist that could give a fuck about what is right but rather what suits themselves - hence Cheney's excursion on one of the over 500 canned reserves in Texas. Jailing people for saving animals from labs where experiments carried out by zoo-sadists and psychopaths at the expense of the tax payer. Those sick fucks are the terrorists I dare say.

[jodyrea]

As humans we are presumably endowed with more intelligence, logic, knowledge and emotion than those less then ourselves I do not believe that should put us above the wrung but rather below - a crying baby not yet endowed needs for us to place their needs first in order for them to thrive. As I am not speciesist I believe the same "moral" application should be applied to the animal kingdom. From a non-religious aspect I believe it is our duty and obligation to use our endowments for the good.

[uppitybug]

Legality is not morality, I've heard it said and I agree. The law is constantly evolving, just because a law has not been written doesn't mean it can't be. Regan is a genius. That woman totally misses the point. At one point there was no formalization of the legal principle of freedom and that situation sure as hell didn't function very well to justify slavery now did it?

[jodyrea]

In the case of George Bush the laws are not evolving they are regressing back to the dark ages. He should be brought back there and burned at the stake. With the lives and devastation his flick of a pen causes. If that is not an example of the pen being mightier than the sword I do not know what is? Amends the law for his drunk comrades can shoot caged animals and endangered species - and those that risk life for these innocents are called terrorists. Humans indeed! I would rather be a snake.

[ChicBandG33k]

I think animals should be treated as humans. They feel pain, the have emotions, and for some of us, they are our companions. If animals are going to be treated less then us, I think we should be treated the same.

[ghw14]

i seem to rember a show on the bbc that debated the importance off animal testing the entire argument was destroyed when a man stood up and said that his life had been saved by a drug that had been developed through animal testing. and would the man who had been advocating removal of animal testing place his life (the man who had been saved) above that of the lifes of the animals who had been used to find a cure. the man said no. ie animals more important than humans atleast to that guy

[conn6m]

Do you think we should test on mentally handicaped people. They would give us better results than Animals.

[ghw14]

im sorry are you implyning that the mentally handicapped are less important that animal

[conn6m]

1. No. Are you? The fact is that many Animals have higher cognitive ablities (particulary primates) then many handicapped people. We find it disgusting that people (Nazis)experimented on these people. Logically then we should be equally disgusted if other beings with the same or superior awareness are harmed.

[conn6m]

2. To say otherwise would be to make racism, sexism, ageism and all other prejudices morally justifiable. The person who didn't want Animals harmed was not anti Human. The Whole point is to find alternatives to Animal testing. Our country has been one of the first to lay down new guidelines in the treatment of Animals for testing - which shows we know its wrong.

[ghw14]

look mate i didnt bring up the mentally handicapped you did. and what the hell he said that he wouldt advocate animal testing even when it was proven to save lives. does that sound anti human to you. in answer to your question i would place human life above animal every time. by your standards any one who is hanicapped is on the samelevel as a monkey. oh and you are saying that animals are more important than humans.

[conn6m]

Ghw14 please tell me your justification for giving human value. This is not a trick question. If I follow your reasoning which is purely subjective we could test on black people because they look different. Remember they were considerd sub humans less than 200 years ago.

[conn6m]

2. You say you would put a human life above an animals every time. Yes, well so would I. I would put my families life above yours because I am prejudice that way. There is nothing wrong with being prejudice towards our own species/nationality/race etc its natural within our subjective framwork.

[conn6m]

3.Subjective reasoning though may be ok on a desert Island where we could make up our own moral rules to survive. However, in social society we must give respect to other individuals. I cannot simply have you killed because my girl friend needs your liver. You have a right to your own life.

[conn6m]

4. The same is true with Animals. It is unreasonabe to kill something that has a richer life than many Human beings simply for utility.

Im as prejudice as you in this respect - everyone would be 'Kill the animal and save the human' This is why I say 'Research into Non animal testing and alternatives is the answer'. People should look after their own health more as well -stop eating junk food, exercise more etc.

[airsoftdude8675309]

BRAVO TOM

[byzantine2794]

funny thign about the first opposer: VIRUSES ARE NOT ALIVE, that enough said right there.

[iscistim]

why are steven rose and germaine greer cut off - when they are starting to say interesting things - and tom reagan given far more time, when he clearly doesn't understand the points that the other speakers are making? "it takes my moral breath away".

[conn6m]

I simply put on the parts of their speech that Regan was replying to. Thats all. I do not have permission to put on their entire speech, sorry. If I do I will put it on for you. I think you should read Regans book - he does know what hes talking about.

[waterdropprod]

Regan is a quack....With rights come responsibilities.....who is going to translate these responsibilities to the animals? When these responsibilities are ignored as they will obviously be and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law....what then? Jail for animals? What happens when someone hits a deer, for example, with their car...are they to be charged with animal slaughter? Animal rights is a ridiculous ideal while animal welfare is not only practical but realistic.

[jerrysproehlich]

By saying what you have just said is essentially admitting to being completely naive to Animal Rights philosophy. No, we won't send other animals to jail; You cannot be serious in thinking that is what we desire. Other animals aren't in the position to debate the morality of their actions. Humans Can-And Should.

[waterdropprod]

Animal rights philosophy is quite simple....do not kill animals...right? Pretty straight forward to me...now of course I don't dress it up with a bunch of mental masturbation but just cut to the chase.

[jerrysproehlich]

It's moreover about not killing animals because it's entirely unnecessary and preventable. It's Needless violence. Needless suffering.

[byzantine2794]

exactly.

[waterdropprod]

Instead of working toward rights for animals we should be working toward the most efficient and painless killing methods possible. Work toward the best treatment possible for domesticated animals rather than the annihilation of them. As the HSUS puts it, "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

[jerrysproehlich]

annihilation? Ha! give me a break. We're letting species that wouldn't survive in the wild do as they naturally would and go extinct. The most painless deaths? Why not no deaths at all? We don't want bigger cages; we want NO cages. Their best treatment is to go extinct because they die by the millions yearly since people don't neuter them. That's part of the reason we want them out of here.

[jerrysproehlich]

"What happens when someone hits a deer, for example, with their car...are they to be charged with animal slaughter?" Why would they be? Do we charge humans for intentional homocide if they were to accidentally hit another human? Animal Rights is about avoiding unnecessary suffering as much as realistically possible.

[waterdropprod]

Actually they would be charged with man slaughter for striking another individual with a car and unintentionally killing them.

[jerrysproehlich]

"Animal rights is a ridiculous ideal..." Certainly the slave owners said similar words to the abolitionists. -How is avoiding unnecessary killing at all ridiculous? Please; tell me.

[waterdropprod]

How can it be unnecessary killing? what is the great animal rights plan for controlling animal populations? Oh thats right...there isn't one..hence...totally ridiculous.

[jerrysproehlich]

Oh that's right, there is plans; you just don't know them. Ever heard of TNR? What about birth control vaccines that have been used in New Jersey and NY? And the farmed animals would go down in number gradually, because the amount of vegetarians will increase gradually. So we introduce 5 new species into the environment.

[waterdropprod]

In other words you wish to control the decision of what people eat. maybe you need to think about how you would like it if the meat eating majority forced vegetarians to eat meat.

[jerrysproehlich]

No we're not forcing anyone to become vegetarian. That doesn't make sense if you just stop to think about it. One can't force another to be vegetarian if it's not even mandated by law. And I can assure you the people would never make animal killing illegal unless the vast majority of them deemed it necessary.

[waterdropprod]

Animal rights groups do not fight to make farming of animals better they fight to end it, thus forcing options out of peoples diet. In essence this is telling people hat they can not eat.

[jerrysproehlich]

If you seriously think 2% of the population have complete control over who is deserving of rights and who is not, in American society, you are seriously confused about the animal rights movement. Only if society voluntarily agrees on who deserves rights and who does not will it be made legal or illegal to exploit them.

[waterdropprod]

If you plan to give animals birth control vaccines then are you not messing with the natural order which you strive so hard to attain? Have there been studies as to how such action might impact the species socially?

[jerrysproehlich]

I would be very happy if these animals were able to roam freely with their companions on land that was untouched by humans. Unfortunately this is not the case. Overpopulation is a problem we need to address. The "natural order" is almost laughable in our society. Humans have destroyed the majority of forests on the planet and I'm sure most the forests in this country. Looking at even the system of slaughtering animals by the billions-that is not natural to say the least.

[waterdropprod]

Of course natural order is laughable in our society. In general people strive to distance themselves from all things natural. In fact,I believe people who hunt and live off the land are more in tune with nature than nay urbanite banner waving nut job could ever be.

[jerrysproehlich]

Well of course keeping in touch with nature- that is to say, if we were to act as our ancestors did naturally as feral beings, there would be some really awful consequences aside from being a little thinner and learning how to throw a spear.

[waterdropprod]

Your taking what I said to the extreme, this is not how it was meant.

[waterdropprod]

With all this considered, to believe our society could ever live "naturally" is a pipe dream in my opinion and completely ridiculous. About as ridiculous as someone believing they have the right to tell me what I can and can not eat because they are too sensitive to deal with it.

[jerrysproehlich]

It isn't ridiculous to believe non-human animals are deserving of rights. You really want to accuse Pythagoras, Plato, Jeremy Bentham and Gandhi of being overly sensitive or emotional--to be so asinine? I am not particularity sensitive myself; I am no more bothered by the slaughter of cows than I am the slaughter of humans.

[waterdropprod]

I would have to differ, I do not look at a cow on the same level as a human. I believe animals should have rights....the right to be killed in the most humane way possible when they are to be killed. Domestic animals also have the right to be kept as humanely as possible.

[jerrysproehlich]

As far as impacting them socially I think we can all agree the less that are killed the better. And more would be killed if not regulated by our comparably peaceful method because our culture generally answers overpopulation with killing the animals to lower their numbers. Even though this can backfire with exclusively hunting male deer for example.

[waterdropprod]

Unlike yourself, I see nothing wrong with killing. In fact, as a tax payer I would much rather have hunters paying to control animal populations than me paying for animal birth control. That being said, I do not agree with sport hunting. Hunting organizations in the US are responsible for saving more species than any animal rights organizations. Not only do they create a multi-billion dollar industry they save species.

[jerrysproehlich]

You'd have to be very educated in that field to make such an accusation. Vegetarians in general save the lives of more species simply by boycotting the most environmentally harmful system existing today. 30% of the land surface of this planet is in some way used for farmed animals. Read the U.N. report "Livestock's Long Shadow" if you care to learn more on that topic. And besides, do you really have any idea how many species hunters have exterminated illegally?

[waterdropprod]

I would not call those who hunt illegally hunters...they are just idiots with guns. Hunters are classified as hunters because they acquire the necessary documentation to do so. You are referencing poachers who will rarely get a permit to shot anything.

[waterdropprod]

What would one have to be educated in? Are you referencing my claim that hunters save species. I would have thought this was common knowledge as hunters set up and run organizations like ducks unlimited and many others. These organizations do not just preserve the existence of said animals but also their environment. I have seen the stats out there as to the exact number they have effectively saved but do not have that number at hand.

[jerrysproehlich]

If nothing more the animal rights movement does protect animals by boycotting the system of factory farming. Many species are being eliminated because they aren't as... 'productive'-- such as only the cows that produce the most milk will survive or selection process and the same is true for sheep and hair and chickens and eggs and goats with milk. The U.N. [Livestock's Long Shadow] estimates 1 per month is lost.

[waterdropprod]

Sorry but how is a species being eliminated if low producing animals are being removed from production of domesticated animals?

[jerrysproehlich]

I explained in the paragraph you replied to. For example, of course there's generally going to be found that only one species of cows will produce the most milk and that one other produces the most beef for the cheapest price. So we only breed these two breeds because they are the most economic breeds essentially. This is happening for many other species because we generally find that some animals are just less or more effecient than other in terms of their utility to us.

[waterdropprod]

And.......This is their purpose. The utilization and promotion of key traits in animals is essentially one of the main building blocks which has allowed our civilization to progress to the point it has. I don't see how this relates to animal rights track record in saving animals.

[jerrysproehlich]

"their purpose".... That is an indefensible position that you've taken. Is the purpose of women to serve men? Is the purpose of blacks to serve whites? Human or non-human, it's unjust to revoke their rights to serve our own mild interests. We save animals by boycotting a system that kills off species because it satisfies the interests of humans.

[waterdropprod]

Yes...their purpose. This is what they were bred for...At first it was mainly for the "purpose" of helping increase production through, carrying, hauling, pulling, etc. Shortly there after their "purpose" broadened to include being a food source. Sorry but I don't think one can compare humans to other animals in the way you have.

[jerrysproehlich]

If you aren't prepared to compare humans to non-humans than how can you expect to understand the notion of animal rights?

[waterdropprod]

In regards to domesticated animals, a dog is quite happy in its existence as a pet and does not understand there could be something better. The same is true for any domesticated animals but a human does. That is the difference.....

[jodyrea]

Point in case there is a news video here on YOU-TUBE where American Marines were stationed in Iraq and for some reason this dog and this marine just hit it off. He had been stationed for 4 months and a relationship grew between him and the dog - the owner was an Iraqi civilian. The marine was re-stationed he had to say goodbye. Guess who tracked him 70 miles across harsh conditions. This dog shows up at the new station. Now that dog showed he clearly preferred circumstances in his own existence.

[waterdropprod]

Ultimately animal rights groups attempt to look all warm and fuzzy by saying they are trying to improve conditions for farm animals. In reality they are trying to put an end to it all together and it is not for the animals themselves that they do this. The HSUS, one of the forefront fighters of animal farming, has stated that they would like to see all domesticated animals whipped out, they view them as a human creation rather than a viable species....nice.

[jerrysproehlich]

Not all animal rights activists agree to what is right and what is wrong in terms of how we treat the other animals. We don't all agree on what animal rights means in its entirety. You seriously need to be more educated before making these accuasations about the animal rights movement. If you continue to make comments like this I will prevent you from making them.

[jerrysproehlich]

I don't know why i said i'd prevent you from making them. I was switching between replying from one video to the next and appearantly i was thinking this one was mine. Oops. Insomnia sucks.

[waterdropprod]

This is another thing I find ridiculous about animal rights...maybe you guys need to sub-divide it into categories because each person I come across has a different view of what it is and some can't tell the difference between it and animal welfare..truly funny stuff. Hence, why I refer to animal rights in its purest form.

[jerrysproehlich]

It's common to debate human rights and who deserves them. A simple example is abortion. Or how we should treat the insane or the imprisoned or the mentally handicapped etc. etc. It's not rediculious to debate the degrees of animal rights or human rights because lives are on the line.

[waterdropprod]

By the way, have you seen a documentary called Monkeys, Rats and Me? At the end of it Peter Singer, father of the animal rights movement,agrees with animal testing....truly brilliant.

[jerrysproehlich]

In case you didn't know he's a proponent of utilitarianism. He'd do the same to humans in extreme circumstances. Look at Tom Regan's view if you want to get a more common viewpoint among the animal rights activists.

[waterdropprod]

Well Jerry...I am about all talked out in relation to our 500 character limit conversation. We will have to agree to disagree. Ultimately my view is to treat animals a well and without cruelty and to preserve a degree of habitat for every species to ensure its existence but I also agree with killing animals. I am a firm believer in animal welfare and believe that killing can be achieved without cruelty. Nice talking to you.

[jerrysproehlich]

Well of course enforcing animal welfare would be a good start at the least although I think it may interfere with giving them as much protection as my people believe they are entitled to. I think we can both agree they deserve better than what we commonly see today. Nice talking to you as well.

[divine604]

He is not the father of the animal rights movement but the father of the animal liberation movement...his moral aproach is based on utilitarianism, he doesnt believe in rights

[tippitappitee]

well said! I'm a vegan and I totally agree with Mr. Regan

[jerrysproehlich]

just as some of the omnivores are proud of their domination over animals; The ruler of slaves was proud of his domination over another for his own gain, and his gain alone.

[LiveVegan]

Even the question : Does the animal kingdom need a bill of rights, reminds me of questions like "Should homosexuals be allowed to be married or have children?" Racism, homophobia, sexisim, speciesism - It all the same stroke of the brush. It all causes violence toward that particular group. Speciesism will end. Go vegan.

[conn6m]

Well said.

[LiveVegan]

Thank goodness there was one non-speciesist person in the room who wasn't the walking unconscious like all others PhDs attending. It just shows that intelligence has little to do with justice and ethics. Thank you to Dr Regan for compassionate & ethical breath of fresh air.

[gyrate4]

Tom ask "where are these people living?" They're living in denial.

[CarolX2]

Yeah, what was up with their weak arguments? The opposition were literally reciting lines that I would hear from some random fool on the street. Very, very weak arguments. It's pretty hard to make a good argument that's pro-killing/torture anyway.

[veldsla]

I cant understand the reasoning for being against animal rights. What is there to debate against. Like Dr Tom Regan said, the arguments against were vapid and flawed. I guess Germaine Greer was angry at the way women were perceived to be lower than men and that's why she advocates (in a flawed way) Feminism yet she hypocritical is against rights for animals? animals which are perceived to be lower than humans for no valid reasons?

[veldsla]

Its sickening to think that there are people who believe that animals have no rights in this world. Animals may not be able to communicate with humans in an way we can understand fully (and vice versa) but animals, like humans are capable of expressing emotions which is more than enough reason to give them rights. They may not ask for rights but they certainly do not ask to be taken advantage of!

[veldsla]

I respect Dr Tom Regans conclusion. I wish there were more proponents of Animal Rights like him who take on a rational approach to advocate and defend Animal Rights rather than take a violent and malicious approach which only causes animals to suffer more.

[TTSinPA]

Veldsla: "Like Dr Tom Regan said, the arguments against were vapid and flawed."

Hey Veldsla, I have bad news for you. The "vapid & flawed" arguments he mentioned were those FOR animal rights. He's not a 'proponent of animal rights', he just destroyed the pro animal rights debaters. You'd better watch the video again. How did his "We are the master species" and "We have rights, it's the rest of creation that doesn't" ever come across to you as being for animal rights.

[jerrysproehlich]

TTSinPA, are you seriously proposing that Regan's last words there were expressing a personal speciesist philosophy?

[jerrysproehlich]

He was imitating the speciesists around him in presenting their view. Their view is that only humans deserve rights. Obviously Regan doesn't agree with that philosophy. You must be confused if you're really proposing Regan is a speciesist.

[TTSinPA]

Veldsla: "I guess Germaine Greer was angry at the way women were perceived to be lower than men and that's why she advocates (in a flawed way) Feminism yet she hypocritical is against rights for animals? animals which are perceived to be lower than humans for no valid reasons?

I'd have to watch again to be sure, but I think Germaine Greer was FOR animal rights. One of us totally missed the boat on this video. Lets watch again and see which one of us it was!

[conn6m]

Can some American out there tell me what soft more means.

[dimoshka8]

I'm not American, but I'll tell you -- it isn't soft mores, but sophomores, that is second-year college or high school students!

[conn6m]

Thank you very much. Interesting term.