Monday, June 25, 2012

Rights, Privileges and Powers. Oh, My!


Do animals have rights?  More specifically, are the rights of animals protected under the United States Constitution?


I’ve watched that video about 10 times and I still LOL every time!

Hey PETA:  Animals do NOT have rights.  To hold a right, one must:
1)      Understand what that right is.  I.E. right to express yourself, vote, etc…
2)      Understand what RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS that right will bear.
3)      Be able to lay claim to that right.
4)      Exercise that right with care and concern for others.

Animals are able to do none of those things that I am aware of.  PETA is suing various organizations on “behalf” of various animals.   Has ANY non-human EVER filed a law suit entirely on their own?  No, they have not therefore they do NOT have a right to sue!   I believe that the PETA people have no clue what a “right” is.

Now, you may be able to argue against the treatment of various animals from an animal WELFARE standpoint.  Rights and Welfare are not the same thing. 

On the other end of the “spectrum” from PETA are the Owners “rights” people.   You can get a good idea of their “position” at this website:  http://www.pet-law.com/foreword

The owner’s “rights” people are likewise foolish.  I submit that the owners “rights” movement is the root cause behind the barking and biting epidemic.  They see even the most marginal restriction of their behavior as a violation of their “Rights”.  Pursuant to my Overton, Hoist, and a few other essays, I submit that the owners “rights” movement is really an owners POWER movement… they use their animals to assert POWER and control over others.   They assert that, not only can they own that dog, they can do anything with it or to it and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

Let us say for the sake of argument that keeping a dog in a human city IS a protected civil right (and I am not ceding that it is).  Consider that rights have limits.  You do not have a right to strip the rights of others.   My right to swing my fist ends BEFORE your nose begins.  The right TO a thing means there is a right FROM that thing.  If you like to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, you have a right to do that BUT you do NOT have a right to project that noise into the homes of others.  If you abuse a right, you very well may LOSE it.

The owners “rightists” imply that they do not merely have a right, they have a POWER.   They do not take responsibility and often pursue their “interest” with a complete disregard for others, and sometimes harbor intent to bring harm.  If the owners “rights” people genuinely believed they held a right, they WOULD agree to a few limits on their behavior.  However, a right is not what they are asserting so they continue to use their pets to manufacture problems.

Down with them ALL.

What is truly needed is an organization that advocates for the human victims of these animal related disasters, and places public health and safety above the narrowly focused special interests of self-important fools and extremist political nutjobs.

1 comment:

  1. I disagree with your definition of rights. I think animals (and human children! which your definition would also exclude) do have rights, just simply because they are living, feeling creatures. I think sane adult humans should use their power more wisely, avoiding gratuitous cruelty to the less powerful (who nevertheless have some rights).

    That said, you're right that the so-called Animal Rights movement is one of the big guilty parties re the dangerous dogs and barking dogs problems (though PeTA has at least come out in favor of extinction of the pit-bull type dog). The Owners Rights document you linked to was, if anything, even more disgusting as far as this goes. And of course there's the crazy No-Kill movement that has nothing to do with animal or human rights or welfare.

    All this extremist stuff isn't helping anyone, least of all animals. As we've both observed here before, the chronically barking dog is miserable. If I suddenly died, I'd rather have my dogs put down than re-homed to spend their days alone as a lawn ornament, chronically barking because so unhappy. I think these lawn ornament dogs should be confiscated both on the grounds of your rights and on the grounds of animal welfare laws.

    As far as dangerous dogs go, they don't have human rights (you know, like to a trial after their first mauling or murder, then reprieve and a chance to kill again). I'd like to see the ones that are inherently, genetically dangerous die out (not get a chance to maul or kill first). And I think any other type of dog that seriously bites a human or another animal also should be put down. Because of human rights, but also to protect other animals from the psychopathic dog (and from the highly bred dog that is, due to some non-pit kind of artificial selection, not fit to be kept as a pet in close quarters with us and other dogs, animals).

    Your posts about 'privilege' actually gave the answer to all of it. If it's a privilege to have a dog, then you'd you have to be watching for the welfare of both your neighbors and the dog, and the health and safety of all other living things your dog might affect.

    ReplyDelete