General Question

flo's avatar

Do some people say "Animal rights activists hate humans", if so what else do they say?

Asked by flo (12280points) 1 month ago

What else do they say about another subject, or other subjects.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

31 Answers

Yellowdog's avatar

I have never heard anyone say THAT, but I’ve heard animal rights activists say that their rights or any human’s rights, are no more important than that of a slug or amoeba,

Animals’ rights include their right to exist and to exist in suitable habitat.

Bears think they have a right to maul or kill you for a sandwich, or if you don’t have a sandwich, But bears are wrong. Covertly, animals don’t get a trial if they attack or kill someone.

Animal rights activists may push for veganism, but I think we have a right to eat animals, as all carnivors eat other species. But bears and big cats don’t have rights to eat us, the dominate species.

If Animal Righrs Activists think our rights are equal to animals, they usually mean we have no rights over their habitat for human development, like office parks and subdivisions, but will usually compromise with making spaces we take over more environmentally friendly, even for the animals.

flo's avatar

@Yellowdog Re. “I have never heard anyone say THAT,...”, I’m sure some googling would produce the quote in my title, as a comment in an article or something, because I’ve heard it more than once. As if if you love humans, if you’re gregarious, you can’t be a pro animal rights person. As for the rest of your post, I’m thinking about it.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Maybe that robots are the next slaves.

ragingloli's avatar

“You do not have to be an animal rights activist to hate humans.”

flo's avatar

@RedDeerGuy1 and @ragingloli those are the other things they say?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@flo I don’t know.

ragingloli's avatar

@flo
It is what I say.

flo's avatar

@ragingloli I asked because of the quote marks. And @RedDeerGuy1 I thought maybe you meant to use quote marks.

justinefoong1983's avatar

From a pragmatic standpoint, rights exists promote mutual benefit or avert mutual destruction. Rights are granted to “members of a group” who have value to on another, or could be potentially dangerous if provoked. This is particularly true if the parties in question are similar in terms of power, “militarily”, where “military” in this sense doesn’t necessarily refer specifically to “force of arms” but also the number of individuals and their will to reinforce their agenda. In the modern world (modern, as in, since the classical ages), more “rights” are generally granted to members who drive mutually beneficial economic growth, and fewer to those who don’t. If we follow this logic, then animals in general have no rights whatsoever.

However, humanity is also one of the only creatures on Earth to have evolved a “greater sense of compassion” which not only extends to humanity but anything we believe has a “conscience”. This is why we can feel sad watching an advert of an old lamp getting thrown out into the garbage and replaced by a new one. It is not even a traditionally overwhelming no thing and yet we feel that way.

Therefore, it is easy to understand why the wanton display of Darwinism by most of humanity would make those individuals hate their own species – and sometimes go overboard with this hate. To these types of people, anyone who disregards the lives of any living thing is no better than a psychopath (and I believe that most of us are psychopathic to an extent. Psychopathy can, for the most part, be classifIed as a condition where an individual fails to consider the feelings/benefit of others for his/her own selfish gain).

justinefoong1983's avatar

Sorry, I forgot to mention mutual safety and security and affection.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Well. “Rights” is a man made concept.
But having said that I would save a baby from a fire before I’d save a lizard.
OTOH if I had unlimited resources and unlimited passion I’d spend a hella lot of time rescuing a trapped whale.
But I don’t think that has anything to do with “rights.” It has to do with compassion….which is what “rights” are based on.
And now we’ve come a full circle.

Zaku's avatar

I’m sure some people have said that, and that I don’t much want to hear what else they might have to say.

ucme's avatar

Funny thing, those that hate humans are more often than not hated in turn because they’re awful, negative bastards.

kritiper's avatar

Happiness is a warm gun.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Well humans are the ones who are so incredibly cruel to animals, so I get that completely.

flo's avatar

What other statement comes to mind though similar to that “Animal lovers /activists must hate humans”

flo's avatar

@Zaku but what have you heard something already?
@kritiper Did you mean to put quote marks?
@KNOWITALL But I think they mean something worse.

Zaku's avatar

@flo I don’t remember, but next time I see something close to that, I’ll see what they say and let you know. Seems to me it is generally a way of deflecting/minimizing/avoiding having their entrenched attitudes and ideas about human behavior towards animals challenged.

One parallel sentiment I have heard that comes to mind is of the form “people who disagree with (various policies), must hate children”. Where the policy might be low speed limits (especially in school zones).

Or childless people hate children .

Of course, there are many people who actually say that they do “hate children” when really they tend to mean they are annoyed by various behaviors some children do, and would rather not have to be around them.

And this might or might not be the sort of thing you mean, but here is an article that’s an open letter to people who hate children that consists of various other statements about them.

Oh, I know another one, that I’ve seen in a few smartass articles, which is “people who complain about SUVs blocking their vision are bad drivers.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Zake Child free here, dont hate kids. I think some who choose to be child free tell themselves they hate kids, it is probably easier to process psychologically.

flo's avatar

@Zaku “people who disagree with (various policies), must hate children”. Where the policy might be low speed limits (especially in school zones).” I can’t even wrap my head around why anyone can’t see the need for slower speed limit. But they’re just what they call speed demons, or something.
@KNOWITALL my last post to you makes no sense now that I think of it.

But statements you hear about other people, is what I meant not about some people think about themselves.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I have never thought that people who didn’t have kid’s didn’t have kids because they hated them. I always assume it was a well thought out decision and bravo.
OTOH I sometimes see parents who are down right hateful and mean to their kids and I wonder why they had them when they obviously hate them. One I can understand but 5 or 6????

Zaku's avatar

@flo Maybe the limit should be 5 MPH everywhere within 1 mile of any child at any time, and people who don’t think so must be speed demons who also hate kids?

flo's avatar

Why did you pick 5 m/hr?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

He said it tongue in cheek @flo. He wasn’t serious.

Zaku's avatar

Yeah it was an exaggerated argument attempting to shed light on the logical disconnect in the previous example.

flo's avatar

@Zaku It’s your example.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

It was not an example of anything @flo. It was sarcasm.

Zaku's avatar

@flo By “previous example”, I meant when you wrote “I can’t even wrap my head around why anyone can’t see the need for slower speed limit. But they’re just what they call speed demons, or something.”

flo's avatar

@Zaku That’s not an example, but a comment as an aside, re. people who don’t want lower speed in school zones.
The OP asked for examples and you gave it in your 1st post. “I have heard that comes to mind is of the form “people who disagree with (various policies), must hate children”. Where the policy might be low speed limits (especially in school zones).”
What do you call being against lower speed limit in school zones?

Zaku's avatar

“What do you call being against lower speed limit in school zones?”
– I call it being conscious of the typical ineffectiveness and/or counter-productivity of strict 20 MPH school zone enforcement as an actual safety measure in practice, due to over-application and diverted attention to speedometers. And, being willing to mention disagreement in the face of adamant closed-minded overzealous safety nuts.

School zones should be: ALERT – SCHOOL ZONE! BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND SLOW AROUND ACTUAL CHILDREN AND PLACES THERE COULD BE UNSEEN CHILDREN MESSING AROUND. IF YOU ACTUALLY ENDANGER CHILDREN OR HURT ONE, YOU WILL PAY DEARLY.

They should not be: See this 35 mph arterial? Happens to suddenly become a school zone and there’s a camera that surprises 5% of all drivers and sends them an electric ticket if they go even 1 MPH over 20 at certain times of day.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I am dying here.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther