What rights should domestic animals have?

I've read quite a few people on here before say that dogs and cats deserve to be treated differently because people in the western world predominantly treat them as pets.

That being the case, exactly what protections should they have?

That's pretty vague to define though.

I pretty much agree, but what is "lawful" killing?

For instance, if I had a dog that attacked a child unprovoked, I know I could take that dog down to the vet and legally have it put to sleep. I'm not so sure that I could legally take the dog out in the country and shoot it in the head. What's the difference between the two?

It depends. How tasty are they?

There are plenty of people who think your average cat or dog is mighty tasty.

The right not to be boiled by Glenn Close

Well, I've never had cat, but I don't find dog very tasty at all. Texture similar to chicken, but it was greasy and kinda slimey and tasted bad.

'course, maybe it just wasn't prepared right.

Dan specializes in 'vague' when it comes to this sort of thing, but his heart is always in the right place.

Shoes, you're not supposed to eat 3-day-old roadkill, how many times I gotta tell ya?

Side trip to Mexico?

Animals shouldn't have any rights at all. Fundamentally, they can't have rights, which would require the ability to choose to exercise those rights.

Animal "rights" are nothing of the sort. The more proper question is whether pet owners and nonowners alike should have their power to make certain decisions with respect to their pets and other animals they encounter circumscribed. That's not a question of animal rights, but of people's rights.

Should people have the right to engage in animal cruelty or torture? No. With respect to other people's animals, that has a clear basis in owner's rights; with respect to an owner's animals, that has a basis in both the ability of such behavior to translate to interactions with people and--less clearly but arguably so--in the possible propriety of legislating compassion when there's no significant right at stake; no one is substantively harmed by being forced to choose between treating a pet well and not having a pet in the first place.

This is a tough one.

I know I want my own dog treated as well as any human, and I'd kill anybody who hurts her.

But that asshole up the street with the out-of-control boxer that runs loose and barks all the time - that dog needs to be put out of my misery.

Yes, I am king of the double-standard.

Interesting question. Here in Phoenix just within the last week we had on the news that a guy was charged with animal cruelty for feeding a puppy to his snake.

Well, people also keep rabbits as pets, but you can't get charged for feeding a rabbit to a snake by virtue of the fact that they sell rabbits as snake food!

Granted, I think it's sick that a puppy was fed to a snake, but I know that this is not a rational argument but an emotional one because I happen to be fond of dogs and don't give a piss about rabbits.

Doesn't work, if you need to be able to vocalise or communicate in some kind of language to exercise your rights then babies have no rights.

A chimp should have the right not to make teabag commercials.

Well obviously cats should have more rights than the other animals because they are cats after all.

Cats just THINK they have more rights.

I can't think of any rights other than those of owner's property.

See post #4.

It's more a matter of what we agree is acceptable treatment of other animals. Pet or not I'd like to think most of us would frown upon torturing any animal.

There was a thread about a year ago where a surprising number of people on this board said they didn't see anything wrong with torturing animals.

Indeed babies have no rights, and quite obviously so. A right is simply the exclusive power to make a decision; there is no right without the power to make a decision.

Just because babies have no rights doesn't mean they can't reasonably be protected, of course. But that's a matter of limiting other people's rights and power, not of babies having rights themselves.

Cats need less rights, not more. They already own everything that's ours ffs. Why not roll out the red carpet and get out the bunting and elect them as their already perceived title of Feline Overlords.

Well, the precidence is that I can take the dog to the vet to have it put down, even afterwards when no one is in immediate danger. My sister-in-law has done it. She'd had her dalmation for ten years, and was a wonderful dog...then one day she mauled her son. He probably did something to provoke it, but the damage was done. This dog might never have harmed anything again, but it couldn't be trusted around children. She took it to the vet and had it put down....so I know for a fact that that is legal.

Yes.

ETA: I'm allergic to cats, and believe in their ultimate erradication.

I like cats, but I prefer pussies.


Ba doom boom.