You may reblog with reasons why, links to good articles, good YouTube videos, podcast episodes, debate VODS from twitch, tweets, posts, memes, etc.

debate VODS, twitch channels, and podcast episodes are preferred. Especially if I can access the podcast episodes on Spotify or youtube, or somewhere else for free.

If you DON'T think Trump is a fascist or proto-fascist, please don't reblog this to tell me why, because you'll inflate my numbers. Feel free to write your own post and link mine, or reply below. I've heard a LOT of the arguments for why he's NOT a fascist, and I think they're weak arguments.

If you really must prove me, an internet stranger, wrong, go ahead and have fun but I'm not here to debate right now, at this very moment, I'm here to gather info from people who have that info. Thanks for understanding.

People who will submit info: I will try to check asks and messages but reblogging and liking is best! Thanks!

The example that I always use to frame the difference is when PETA took David Slater to court. He’s the wildlife photographer famous for the ‘monkey selfie’ of the black crested macaque:

[Image ID: a picture of a crested macaque from the shoulders up, against a background of green foliage. The macaque has short black fur, and a long face. It it facing the camera and showing its teeth in what looks like a smile. End ID]

PETA’s claim was that the photo was the macaque’s intellectual property, so David Slater should not have copyright. Thankfully, they didn’t win their case, but Slater went broke thanks to the legal proceedings. He had spent days in the jungle in Sulawesi in order to gain the macaques’ trust so that he could document them and raise awareness for an endangered species. But PETA thought that a macaque owning intellectual property was more important, as if a monkey even knows what copyright is. (source)

This post was never about giving animals the same rights as humans that would be ridiculous to think so, we’re talking about beings here who deserve to live a natural lifespan without human directed purposes.

Animal rights is the least you can do in any action if you truly cared about animals anything else is just for show, point in case animal welfare which was created so that humans can feel better about the choices they make, to regulate animal abuse not stop it, to regulate animal exploitation not stop it…

All you had to do was literally google “animal rights” and you would know that what you wrote isn’t accurate and is missing the full picture. 

Animal rights is a HUGE subject, and your comments misrepresent it wildly. For one thing, most vegan animal rights activists completely disagree with and dislike PETA, so using them as an example against animal rights means nothing because those of us calling for animal rights do not in any way associate with or condone PETA. Your claim that welfare is supported by scientists and people who know animals best (source??) is silly. Whether or not animals deserve rights is a subject that is based in philosophy (ethical theories) and law. You don’t need to be a scientist to decide whether animals deserve the basic right to life. However, the scientific community agrees that non-human animals suffer, feel pain, and are sentient. Regardless, you talked about a dumb thing PETA did and then said “that’s the difference” between welfarism and rights and that’s not the difference at all. Simply put: welfarist want bigger cages while those seeking animal rights want no cages at all. What we want is total animal liberation, abolition. It’s the difference between treating slaves nicer and freeing those slaves. 

Here’s what’s on the animal rights wikipedia page: “Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.

Its advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other.[4] They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden.[5] Multiple cultural traditions around the world such as Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Animism also espouse some forms of animal rights.”

The page mentions lots of scholars and their differing opinion on the matter.

There’s Peter Singer, a philosopher and professor of bioethics at Princeton University, who wrote Animal Liberation in 1975. “Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species.” … “The central argument of the book is an expansion of the utilitarian concept that “the greatest good of the greatest number” is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour, and Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals” 

“His position is that there is no reason not to give equal consideration to the interests of human and nonhumans, though his principle of equality does not require identical treatment. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being kicked, and there are no moral or logical grounds for failing to accord those interests equal weight. Interests are predicated on the ability to suffer, nothing more, and once it is established that a being has interests, those interests must be given equal consideration.[130] Singer quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900): “The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view … of the Universe, than the good of any other.”[81]”

There’s Tom Regan, a philosopher: “In The Case for Animal Rights, (written in 1983), Regan argued that non-human animals bear moral rights. Regan points out that we routinely ascribe inherent value, and thus the right to be treated with respect, to humans who are not rational, including infants and the severely mentally impaired. The crucial attribute that all humans have in common, he argues, is not rationality, but the fact that each of us has a life that matters to us; in other words, what happens to us matters to us, regardless of whether it matters to anyone else. In Regan’s terminology, we each experience being the “subject-of-a-life.” If this is the true basis for ascribing inherent value to individuals, to be consistent we must ascribe inherent value, and hence moral rights, to all subjects-of-a-life, whether human or non-human. The basic right that all who possess inherent value have, he argues, is the right never to be treated merely as a means to the ends of others. In Regan’s view, not to be used as a means entails the right to be treated with respect, which includes the right not to be harmed.”

There’s Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers Law School in Newark, “is a leading abolitionist writer, arguing that animals need only one right, the right not to be owned. Francione’s Animals, Property, and the Law (1995) was the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights. In it, Francione compares the situation of animals to the treatment of slaves in the United States, where legislation existed that appeared to protect them, while the courts ignored that the institution of slavery itself rendered the protection unenforceable.[138] He offers as an example the United States Animal Welfare Act, which he describes as an example of symbolic legislation, intended to assuage public concern about the treatment of animals, but difficult to implement.[139] He argues that a focus on animal welfare, rather than animal rights, may worsen the position of animals by making the public feel comfortable about using them and entrenching the view of them as property. He calls animal rights groups who pursue animal welfare issues, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the “new welfarists”, arguing that they have more in common with 19th-century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement;” 

I could go on and on but you can read the wiki yourself. People asking for animal rights are NOT asking for all animals to be given the same exact rights as humans and to be expected to follow the law. We know that non-human animals are NOT moral agents, as we are, but believe they’re still moral patients. A moral agent is someone who is able to discern from right and wrong and therefor is held accountable for their actions. Most humans are considered moral agents, however, some are not such as infants and some who are severely mentally impaired. A baby has no moral agency but deserves moral consideration. A baby can’t understand or follow laws but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve rights.

TLDR: The ONLY rights we want for non-human animals is the right to life and the right to not be harmed. Dogs basically already have these rights in places where it’s illegal to abuse them and/or have dog fights. Certainly you wouldn’t argue that : dogs don’t deserve the right to not be abused because they don’t understand the law. Right? 

Here’s a comprehensive article on the subject of welfarism vs rights.

I’m sorry, what?

Of course scientists know animals best. They’re the ones who‘ve studied animal science. Spent their whole lives trying to understand animals & what makes them tick. Established that animals can feel pain & all that. I really hope you don’t actually think they don’t know animals best. Otherwise, I don’t know what to say.

As for animals being sentient, that depends on the species. You can’t say that muscles & clams for example, are on the same level as a cow. They don’t even have a brain.

Whether something can suffer is irrelevant with regards as to whether they deserve rights. Why should an animal have rights just because it can suffer?

You keep mentioning babies & mentally disabled people. I won’t go into how offensive it is to compare these vulnerable groups of people to animals, but I will say this. Comparing babies & disabled people to animals isn’t an accurate comparison. Not even close. With babies, they may not be on the same level as an adult, but the fact that they will be is enough to grant them rights from the get go. As for mentally disabled people, the vast majority are more mentally competent than an animal, and those who aren’t are such a minority that it’s not worth splitting hairs about.

You also forget that with rights come laws. You are required to follow the law in order to uphold rights. Animals are not capable of doing that, which is why they’re not granted rights.

Going back to babies & disabled people for a second, we talk about them having rights, but let’s face it, they don’t enjoy the same rights as an adult, or someone who isn’t disabled. There’s a reason we don’t grant children the right to vote, or punish a mentally disabled person the same way we would a non disabled person with the full extent of the law. Insanity pleas exist for a reason.

What I’m saying is, I don’t agree that animals are moral patients in the same way a baby is. A baby will eventually be able to tell right from wrong, & the vast majority of mentally disabled people have basic understanding of right & wrong. Animals don’t, & never will. Morality is a human concept and it would be unfair to ascribe it to animals in any way as it inevitably leads to anthropomorphism, which leads to treating them & thinking of them as human.

It’s also not possible for an animal to avoid all suffering, even under human care. Animals have to be restrained sometimes to perform certain care duties to them. This can distress the animal and cause it to suffer in the short term, but if there is no other way, then it must be done. That’s what animal welfare supporters like myself are talking about when we discuss the difference between necessary & unnecessary suffering.

It’s interesting that you bring up dogs as an example of animals having rights, when in reality they actually have none at all. Just because they’re considered companions in the West, doesn’t mean they have rights such as the right to life.

That being said, Welfare laws already protect animals from unnecessary harm, such as dog fighting and animal cruelty. The fact that you have a much more broad definition of cruelty doesn’t negate that. Which isn’t to say that animal welfare laws are perfect. But the solution is to update them, not throw them away to replace them with something that could have unforeseen negative consequences.

It is a real concern of mine that animal rights could infringe upon & negativity affect human rights. As they have already done with various indigenous peoples in North America & Canada, & have attempted to do with Disabled people who require service dogs.

“Why should an animal have rights just because it can suffer?” I already explained that in my post. We as moral agents have the responsibility to do the right thing and stopping unnecessary suffering where we can is one of those responsibilities. We make it illegal to abuse dogs because we want to stop other moral agents: humans, from hurting innocent moral patients: dogs. Giving animals the basic right to life protects them from other humans hurting them. That’s all. (Richard Ryder, a psychologist who first coined the term speciesism in 1970, argues that all beings who feel pain deserve rights.)

There are adult human beings alive that cannot understand morality and they are still given rights. You keep saying they understand morals more than animals but there ARE people who DO NOT and NEVER will. Don’t they deserve the right not to be killed? Even if you think these people don’t exist, (they do), if they did wouldn’t they deserve the basic right to life? A human who does not understand morals, they’re severely mentally impaired and cannot comprehend laws, should they have rights? If they should, why shouldn’t animals? What separates non-human animals from these individuals that makes one deserving of rights and not the other? 

“Morality is a human concept and it would be unfair to ascribe it to animals in any way as it inevitably leads to anthropomorphism, which leads to treating them & thinking of them as human.” So you’re arguing “slippery slope”? WE make the laws, there’s no reason why making one law has to lead to another and it’s not a good argument against doing something just because you think it MIGHT lead to something else. As I already said, giving animals the basic right to life does not require those animals to understand or follow any human laws. Why would it ever go there? None of those philosophers I mentioned think animals can or should follow human laws. That would be completely ridiculous and seeing as we can barely get laws to protect animals as it is, I can never see a court EVER implementing anything so stupid and pointless. Giving animals the right not to be exploited and killed for profit by humans isn’t ascribing morality to animals, it’s humans making laws that protect them from other humans. Which is what welfare laws are SUPPOSED to do, but they fall short.

“It’s interesting that you bring up dogs as an example of animals having rights, when in reality they actually have none at all.” First, source? Second, I said “basically already have these rights in places where it’s illegal...” Basically is used here to imply that it’s not full rights but almost. It’s the closest example. The treatment of dogs even in the west is not perfect, there’s more work to do. I mentioned it because most people in the west agree that dogs and cats shouldn’t be abused which is why laws protecting them exist in the first place yet no one argues that dogs can understand right from wrong or follow laws. No one thinks that a law that says it’s illegal to hurt dogs is anthropomorphizing them. Why should there be laws protecting dogs from being killed but not pigs? What's the difference between dogs and pigs that makes one deserving of protection and not the other?

No one said anything about avoiding ALL suffering. I said UNNECESSARY suffering. Life is full of suffering, if we can help stop even a little bit of it we should. Just because we can’t do something 100% doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Other humans are the ones causing the suffering to non-human animals. The suffering that they intentionally or accidentally cause while exploiting animals for profit is what we want to end. “Animals have to be restrained sometimes to perform certain care duties to them.” <- NO ONE is talking about something like this. I don’t know why you brought it up as it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. 

Plain and simple we want total animal liberation. As I already explained, welfare is making cages bigger while rights is about freeing them from those cages. My concern with welfare is that it makes consumers feel good about buying animal products and therefor makes animal liberation further away. I’m worried that seeking welfare may actually harm our cause of ending animal exploitation and oppression. Also, as you can read in the articles I already linked, welfare hasn’t worked very well after decades of trying. 

“It is a real concern of mine that animal rights could infringe upon & negativity affect human rights. As they have already done with various indigenous peoples in North America & Canada, & have attempted to do with Disabled people who require service dogs.” Again, source? While we’re on the subject, animal agriculture is actually really harmful to humans in a TON of different ways.