Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you believe it's ethical to rescue a dog trapped in a hot car who is clearly in distress and would die if left in the vehicle?
The reason I ask is because there's a big legal battle going on right now, between people who believe there is an ethical right to rescue animals (in general, not just dogs) from extremely abusive situations.... and those who oppose that type of rescue, on the grounds that animals are their "property." The latter group is big industries that rely on ag-gag laws to continue getting away with the worst possible animal abuse.
I know that this idea is very controversial for a number of reasons. First, most people have been conditioned to love and respect dogs, cats, and other pets... and to not care about farm animals or other animals that people eat.
Another reason why 'the right to rescue' is controversial is because it involves breaking and entering into someone's place of business, where the animals are trapped.
Here's the thing, though. There are already some laws on the books against animal cruelty. So if a business is clearly and demonstrably violating those laws.... how can they claim they're the innocent victim....and the rescuer - who is saving the animal from something both illegal and immoral - is the criminal?
If the breaking and entering and "stealing" an animal makes the rescuer a criminal... then what about breaking and entering into someone's car to rescue a dog who is visibly suffering and about to die?
Isn't that dog also "property" of the owner, who can do whatever he wants to his dog, including leaving him to die in a hot car?
What are your thoughts on 'the right to rescue'..... should it be acceptable, when it's a case of clearly saving an animal from the worst possible abuse which every sane person knows is wrong? Or should it be treated as a crime, and should those who rescue animals from those types of situations be put in jail for a long time, as they almost did to Wayne Hsiung , who saved three beagles from Ridglan Farms?
All this will end when the evil Age of Man comes to its end. That is what I firmly believe. Hopefully it'll be sooner rather than laterMr. H. is a true hero.
He must now let a jury decide his fate.
I am a lifelong coward, so I would never dare break into a lab where dogs are essentially being tortured.
One precious memory of my beloved brother was the time some other student at his college covered a dog's head with a bag. My brother immediately took the bag off. The offender silently left the scene like the coward he was.
Mr. H. is a true hero.
He must now let a jury decide his fate.
I am a lifelong coward, so I would never dare break into a lab where dogs are essentially being tortured.
One precious memory of my beloved brother was the time some other student at his college covered a dog's head with a bag. My brother immediately took the bag off. The offender silently left the scene like the coward he was.
Do you think that's WHY it would be dismissed? Keeping this stuff out of the light?But he actually said that from his perspective it's not good that the case got dismissed.... because the legal issues that he wanted to present in court will now not be addressed
Do you think that's WHY it would be dismissed? Keeping this stuff out of the light?
This is a perfect example of what "it" means, "but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil"I think so. Companies like that definitely want to keep this stuff out of the light, because they must KNOW that if the public could see what goes on, they'd eventually go out of business.
What does it mean to be sentient?
the ability to have feelings
Simply put, sentient means the ability to have feelings. It's the capacity for a creature to experience sensations and emotions.Apr 26, 2022
That isn't what sentient means.
Alright I'm getting back to this point like I said I would, because I wanted to post a few parts of a blog post I wrote a few years ago on ^ this very claim. Here it is:
Basically, anthropomorphize is just a fancy word for humanize.So what exactly do the naysayers mean by humanize or “anthropomorphize”? I’m assuming that what they’re saying is that vegans ascribe qualities like intelligence, emotions and personalities to animals, in order to justify our position that people shouldn’t eat or exploit animals.There are two points I want to make about this claim.The first point is that we don’t have to falsely ascribe emotions or intelligence to animals, because it is an observable fact that many animals indeed do have emotions, intelligence, and sentience. Anyone who has owned a dog or cat knows this. Perhaps average people aren’t aware that farm animals are also sentient, intelligent and have their own individual personalities, like our cats and dogs. In fact, pigs are ranked as even smarter than dogs, and tests have shown that they outsmart even human toddlers.................The second point gets back to my original comment that this claim shows a big misunderstanding. Here’s why.By assuming that attributes like intelligence, emotions and personalities are inherently human, the non-vegan who is making this claim is showing an anthropocentric worldview. In other words, he is making human beings central in this universe. Human beings are not central.Here’s the reality. Qualities like intelligence, emotions and personalities are not “human” qualities, they are qualities that humans possess, but not only humans.These qualities come from God. GOD is the one who gave us intelligence, emotions and personalities, but God also gave those qualities to many animals as well. So they are not human qualities, they are qualities that are rooted in God’s nature, and He chose to give not only humans but also animals a certain amount of intelligence, personalities and emotions.
The full post is here.
And man oh man, I spent a little too much time here today.I have some things I gotta do, but I'll be back later if anyone responds to what I just said about the false claim of anthropomorphizing.
(1) The OP refers to the rescue of any animal.
(2) So I wanted to pass along this sickening report.
(3) Recently, 19,000 live cattle were shipped from Brazil to Iraq.
(4) The ship stopped to resupply at Cape Town, South Africa.
(5) The live cattle suffered from "heat, dehydration, filth, overcrowding, and motion sickness."
(6) The conditions were so bad that a "putrid stench wafted over the city."
(7) An editorial in a South African newspaper called for a stop to such voyages.
(8) I was wondering how activists could have rescued the cattle before the ship had set sail.
Source: The Week (print edition), March 15, 2024, page 15.
www.theguardian.com
Any person has the "right" to do what he thinks is the correct thing to do. He must be willing to accept the consequences.
An anecdote; I once came out of a big discount store to find that a kitten was panting and suffering in a closed car sitting in the sun. I went back inside and told the people at the customer service desk the car's license number, what I saw in the car, and that in five minutes I was going to smash the window. They immediately made a loud and clear message for the owner to come immediately to the desk. I was waiting beside the vehicle, ready to do as I'd said, when the person came out. They started to make some sort of apology or something, but I didn't want to hear it or to even speak to them. I just put the big object I had ready to do the deed back in my car and drove away.
Notice the date of the definition. Again changed by the animal rights types to bolster their argument.
Until I see animal cities and animal industry, they aren't sentient.
You're still not backing yourself up.
And you're still ignoring that the root of the word 'sentient' comes from the Latin word sentiens meaning "feeling," present participle of sentire "to feel."
If you go to any etymology site, you'll see that its first known use was in the early 1600's, meaning "capable of feeling, having the power of or characterized by the exercise of sense-perception."
Maybe you're confusing the word sentience with sapience.
But all that said....as I already pointed out before (which you ignored) even if your claim was true, it's still a ridiculous non-argument.
Going by what you've been saying on this thread, your view is that highly advanced intelligence is the criteria for moral consideration. By that asinine logic, it would be perfectly fine to torture or do literally anything at all to dogs, cats, puppies, kittens, babies, people with Down's syndrome, even just people with lesser intelligence. That's an evil philosophy, by any sane person's standard.
But hey, take heart, I'm sure you would make Josef Mengele proud with that utilitarian philosophy.
They are to a point but not to the point where we are. Like they can be happy, sad, or angry, but their awareness that they're about to die (like in the slaughterhouse) or zoo animals (hope with big enclosures) being aware that they're captive isn't possible. They don't have the same kind of intelligence we do when it comes to things like that.
Perhaps; however, who get's to determine what animal cruelty is? If taken to the extreme, some people would use the premise of the OP to rescue animals from farms that are being raised for human consumption. Note: After rereading the OP written by Buttercup, the OP does seem to be approaching this extreme.The thread is about animal cruelty. Not veganism.
