Do what degree do you support "animal rights"?

[Ultra Requete]

Wales and dolphins are suposedlu inteligent species but did somenone realy talked to them? Can they be converted to monotheist religion?

No, but as creatures of a higher intelligence than all  others they are entitled to our protection and greater consideration than sheep & cattle.

Well We can live without food harvested from them; That's I'm sure.  

[Wayne Jude]

Funny ,I dreamed about cows and sheep and then I saw the pigs,not cute but disgusting!weird.I don't eat it anymore.Full of worms.Vile!

[Merkava]

Whats this post about??? Muslims should not have rights !!!!!!!!!!

[Wayne Jude]

I agree with your point.

[Kiwi]

Choice 3... otherwise we might join with PETA and begin to care more about animals than people!

We should care more about animals than SOME people. If I see a dog and an arab both drowning 100 yards apart, I'll save the dog and laugh at the arab.

arab is too nonspecific... how about an arab muslim nazi and a skunk?

Only about 2% of arabs are non-muslim and 1.5% of them are Jew-hating scum. A shark is more worth saving.

I like sharks.

[Kiwi]

Whats this post about??? Muslims should not have rights !!!!!!!!!!

What post?

[Wayne Jude]

I like candy.

[Yisrael]

Whats this post about??? Muslims should not have rights !!!!!!!!!!

What post?

Animal rights, get it (Muslims are animals....lol)?

[Ehud]

I believe that we have a duty to be as kind as possible to all animals and to prevent their suffering up to a reasonable point.  Harm should only be done to certain animals when the benefit derived from doing so is great and when the pain caused to the animal is minimal.  I have no problem with slaughtering some animals for food because the nourishment we get is so important to our health and happiness.  I don't have a problem with hunting certain types of animals, as long as it is for non-frivolous food and as long as the entire edible part of the animal is eaten.  This doesn't include any animal that has superstitious or supposed spiritual benefits like eating the brains of a monkey, or eating certain types of meat that are supposed to increase your sexual dynamism. 

Hunting creatures such as whales and dolphins is as much or more of a crime than killing a human being.  The way the Chinese eat dogs and cats and use animals for their fur, ripping their skin off of them alive and allowing their naked corpses to die a slow death is on the level of mass atrocities.  Anyone who treats such a large amount of animals in such a way deserves to die himself.

I am opposed to all furs because they not only are very unattractive and gaudy, but they are completely unnecessary and the animals that are killed to make fur are killed and nothing is done with the body.  I don't have a problem with leather as long as the leather is from cows that were slaughtered for meat.     

[newman]

This doesn't include any animal that has superstitious or supposed spiritual benefits like eating the brains of a monkey, or eating certain types of meat that are supposed to increase your sexual dynamism. 

Hunting creatures such as whales and dolphins is as much or more of a crime than killing a human being.  The way the Chinese eat dogs and cats and use animals for their fur, ripping their skin off of them alive and allowing their naked corpses to die a slow death is on the level of mass atrocities.  Anyone who treats such a large amount of animals in such a way deserves to die himself.

Disgusting, little zipper-heads who kill endangered species just to get more sexual prowess ought to be killed. There's over a billion of the little monkies now, what's there sexual problem?

Killing highly intelligent, man-friendly creatures like whales, dogs and cats should be considered murder. Many scientists who study killer whales and dolphins have observed that their family/social structures are extremely close and complex. They also have such a highly diverse 'vocabulary' with their sonar calls that these scientists believe it constitutes a form of culture, not simple, instinctive animal behaviour. As such, they should be considered as a community, not just animals.

[Kiwi]

Whats this post about??? Muslims should not have rights !!!!!!!!!!

What post?

Animal rights, get it (Muslims are animals....lol)?

LOL sorry only two hours sleep 

[newman]

Animal rights, get it (Muslims are animals....lol)?

So are black widow spiders, rattlesnakes and scorpions!

[MassuhDGoodName]

The country which had the most "advanced" legislation for "animal rights" was Nazi Germany.

The Nazis were the most fanatic in their demand for "animal rights" to the extent that they created laws giving all animals the same "equal rights" as human beings...simultaneously while they created laws declaring a Jew to be a subhuman which had to be eliminated from the planet.

Anyone causing distress to an animal in Hitler's Germany was subject to the most severe punishment and prosecution, while anyone murdering and torturing Jews in Hitler's Germany was to receive the highest praise and rewards of good citizenship.

Surprised?

Perhaps you thought legislating "animal rights" was something "new", something reflective of our "advanced consciousness"?

Here's something I guarantee you can count on:

If and when a society declares animals to have the same "rights" as do humans (Germany legislated this just recently), that society and those like it will simultaneously reduce the Jew to sub-human and sub-animal status.

And, this has already happened and is playing out before your very eyes every day all across the globe...

Nazi Muslim drek murder and maim Jews every single day, and the same people "concerned" about "animal rights" turn a blind eye.

[Eliezer Ben Avraham]

Animal rights, get it (Muslims are animals....lol)?

So are black widow spiders, rattlesnakes and scorpions!

but I'd prefer being near one of those, to being near a muslim 

[newman]

The country which had the most "advanced" legislation for "animal rights" was Nazi Germany.

The Nazis were the most fanatic in their demand for "animal rights" to the extent that they created laws giving all animals the same "equal rights" as human beings...simultaneously while they created laws declaring a Jew to be a subhuman which had to be eliminated from the planet.

Anyone causing distress to an animal in Hitler's Germany was subject to the most severe punishment and prosecution, while anyone murdering and torturing Jews in Hitler's Germany was to receive the highest praise and rewards of good citizenship.

Surprised?

Perhaps you thought legislating "animal rights" was something "new", something reflective of our "advanced consciousness"?

Here's something I guarantee you can count on:

If and when a society declares animals to have the same "rights" as do humans (Germany legislated this just recently), that society and those like it will simultaneously reduce the Jew to sub-human and sub-animal status.

And, this has already happened and is playing out before your very eyes every day all across the globe...

Nazi Muslim drek murder and maim Jews every single day, and the same people "concerned" about "animal rights" turn a blind eye.

You can't make that link. It's like saying that the biggest beer drinkers in the USA are southern KKK rednecks, so beer consumption leads to anti-semitism.

The western concept of animal rights came to us via Judaism (like all our concepts of morallity/ kindness).

Nobody is saying we should accord animals equal status (who said they should own real estate or vote?). We are saying they have SOME rights. Children do NOT have equal rights! They are told where to live, where and when to attend school, get spanked, what to eat etc. You can do NONE of those things to an adult.They DO, however have protection under the law. Animals should be accorded similar consideration.

[newman]

There is no prohibition to non-Jews on the type of animals that they can eat.  Therefore dolphins and apes would be in the same category as lambs and cows.  The important part is the fact that they are dead before any part of them is removed for consumption.

The laws of Noah are a bare minimum, not the be all and end all.

Because there is no prohibition in the sheva mitvot on something, doesn't mean nations cannot prohibit something undesirable under secular law.

There is no prohibition under the Sheva Mitzvot on pornography, prostitution or sex with 13 year olds. Should we NOT the right to outlaw those things?

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "...You can't make that link..."

I can.

I did.

I can back it up with documentation.

And I stand behind every word in the post.

[newman]

There is no prohibition to non-Jews on the type of animals that they can eat.  Therefore dolphins and apes would be in the same category as lambs and cows.  The important part is the fact that they are dead before any part of them is removed for consumption.

The laws of Noah are a bare minimum, not the be all and end all.

Because there is no prohibition in the sheva mitvot on something, doesn't mean nations cannot prohibit something undesirable under secular law.

There is no prohibition under the Sheva Mitzvot on pornography, prostitution or sex with 13 year olds. Should we NOT the right to outlaw those things?

In eyes of Hashem, killing a cat or dog is not considered "murder" for a non-Jew any more than killing a kosher animal.  Yeah, it's possible to make more civil laws, but those would just be according to a particular nation's opinion and not necessarily affect the rest of the world.  Therefore a nation that just did the bare minimum would not be wrong.  And in my opinion, it's not right to kill people for eating monkey if the monkey was slaughtered properly, even if I personally would not eat monkey.  I also don't believe people should be killed for pornography or prostitution, which are "lewdness" but not a capital crime.  So when making general judgments like this that apply to the whole world, it's best to speak where the Halacha speaks and be silent where it is silent.

The 7 Laws are only a foundation. Rabbis have expressed the view that a whole raft of secular laws may be enacted by nations as adjuncts to the 7 laws. Treason is not a violation of the 7 Laws but it is still a capital crime (under secular law). Consentual sex with a 13 year old girl is NOT prohibited under the 7 laws but it is punnishable by very long prison terms.

Secondly, the book is NOT closed on Rabbinical interpretation of the Seven Laws. Look at the time, place and circumstances they were first written down. Those people had ZERO knowledge or understanding of any animals beyond their livestock, fish catches or the occasional lion. They had NO understanding of the nature of whales or great apes. They thought whales were fish! So there views on the eating of whales relative to the 7 Laws are null and void. They had no way of knowing a gorilla has 98% human DNA. If they did, they might have considered it cannibalism.

[newman]

In eyes of Hashem, killing a cat or dog is not considered "murder" for a non-Jew any more than killing a kosher animal

How do you know?

The commandment is "Though shalt not murder". There is no qualification on murder. If a Doctor operates on a patient while drunk, we don't consider it 'murder' in our courts but 'manslaughter' or some other term.. Religious law might. Similarly, a farmer/butcher is allowed to slaughter domestic animals for consumption. Doing the same to a cat or dog is 'agravated cruelty' and a criminal offense. My point is that 'agravated cruelty' or 'manslaughter' are just alternative terms for a different degree of murder.

[newman]

It's not rabbis with a limited knowledge who permitted man to kill any animal he wanted for consumption, but G-d himself, and this is the basis for the rabbis' interpretation:

Genesis 9: 2-5:
2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hands.
3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.
4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.
5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

This is the verse where G-d sticks it to PETA.  Bottom line, it's not the species that matters, but the method of killing that matters.

You are making the same mistake as christians. You are grabbing translted versus from Torah and attempting to interperate them yourself. Any Rabbi will tell you you CAN'T interperate Torah PROPERLY without Talmud.

Smoking was NOT prohibited (in Judaism) until recently because scienific evidence proved it's harm.

The scientific jury is still out on the nature of great apes and whales.

[Ulli]

I think we can enjoy them as long as we don't cause them needless pain and suffering.

I agree

[Wayne Jude]

But the Torah doesn't mention Crack or date rape drugs either!

[newman]

I'm not really doing what Christians do, because I'm taking the Tanach in context.  Christians' problem is that they read meanings into the text that aren't there.  I'm going by the plain meaning of the text, known as the p'shat.  If it says "every moving thing that lives" then we can be pretty sure that G-d doesn't consider it "murder" for non-Jews to kill any particular animal for consumption.  And the Talmud has not contradicted this.  Also, smoking wasn't explicitly stated by G-d as being permissible to people.

So you are in favour of pornography and prostitution for gentiles because they are NOT prohibited by the 7 Laws?

[Eliezer Ben Avraham]

I'm not really doing what Christians do, because I'm taking the Tanach in context.  Christians' problem is that they read meanings into the text that aren't there.  I'm going by the plain meaning of the text, known as the p'shat.  If it says "every moving thing that lives" then we can be pretty sure that G-d doesn't consider it "murder" for non-Jews to kill any particular animal for consumption.  And the Talmud has not contradicted this.  Also, smoking wasn't explicitly stated by G-d as being permissible to people.

So you are in favour of pornography and prostitution for gentiles because they are NOT prohibited by the 7 Laws?

It's not the place of Jews to force non-Jews to do any more than the 7 laws. After that it is up to individual non-Jews as to what they want to do. The reason that Jews are hated so much in the black community is that liberal Jews came in and explained to blacks that they deserve equality, so that after they attain it they can give up their individual culture and become "citizens of the world." Bottom line, beyond the 7 laws, Jews have no rights to tell non-Jews how to act.

[Wayne Jude]

ouch!