|
Post by chica on Oct 2, 2005 16:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 2, 2005 18:29:13 GMT -5
No, but since my opinion is the one that doesn't involve restricting rights, then clearly it is the best thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by invinciblecarrot on Oct 10, 2005 23:06:49 GMT -5
you have been showing a general trend towards less animal rights, but I am wondering what your actual final opinion is here. if it matters im neutral on the topic as of right now
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 11, 2005 14:59:23 GMT -5
Well, there should be few animal rights laws. Basically you shouldn't be allowed to torture animals out of pure cruelty, but that's it.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Oct 11, 2005 17:41:16 GMT -5
if that's all we'd choose then i'd go with that but what about other rules for their survival? like in cases like the hurricanes, we also save the animals as well yeah we might not even have enough food for ourselves but at least the animals will die with their family and not just in a puddle somewhere
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 11, 2005 18:00:50 GMT -5
OMG you can't be serious. People first! Such madness. . .
NO! We don't save the animals from hurricanes. People save people, animals save animals. Of course if some people want to save animals, then by all means they can try. . . but we definitely wouldn't go around saying "everyone rescue one animal" or something like that.
No, I still say we just don't let people torture animals and then the rest is up to people to decide how they treat animals: With respect or without
|
|
|
Post by chica on Oct 11, 2005 18:02:56 GMT -5
well I agree with you on letting the people who want to save the animals and not FORCING the others to do so but we should at least have some back up for them too if we ever have back up for ourselves in the future
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 11, 2005 18:10:17 GMT -5
Naw, that takes time and money better spent on humans.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Oct 11, 2005 19:04:44 GMT -5
but the money spent goes to hurting the animals and taking away their habitats!
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 11, 2005 19:14:55 GMT -5
1. Not always
2. If it helps humans, then so be it.
3. Hurricane protection doesn't harm animals. . .
|
|
|
Post by chica on Oct 11, 2005 19:17:58 GMT -5
1.true but some of it does 2.yes but it should benefit both 3.yes but hurricanes do and the animals are living just as we are and should be helped
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 11, 2005 22:09:07 GMT -5
1. It's a small price to pay 2.that's an opinion (IMO it shouldn't) 3. Also an opinion, they can help themselves and as I recall they did.
|
|
|
Post by invinciblecarrot on Oct 11, 2005 22:30:14 GMT -5
both of you make good points here. I agree with formerly lobstrosity about not torture, but I think at least some small action can be taken. the rest should be choice
|
|
|
Post by chica on Oct 12, 2005 20:19:58 GMT -5
true I don't wanna force people to care about animals if they don't want to but I still think there should be at least some help available for those who think it does matter
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 12, 2005 20:21:50 GMT -5
Not sponsored by the government. The people who want to help should do so with their own money. People have non-profit organizations like that all the time, you know.
|
|