War Crimes by Jpatokal, CC BY-SA 1.0
Democide, Public Domain
Genocide, Public Domain
Infanticide by Rachastock
Gendercide by NIGHTRAINstock
Terrorism by UpstateNYer, CC BY-SA 2.0
Torture, Public Domain
Slavery by WC-Stock
Denial of Rights by Ludovic Bertron, CC BY 2.0
Invasion of Privacy, Public Domain
Religious Persecution by Bnspyrd
Political Repression by Hamed Saber, CC BY 2.0
Group-Specific Violence, Public Domain
Involuntary Human Experiments by Mykhal, CC BY-SA 3.0
"To demand that man defer to the rights of other species
is to deprive man himself of the right to life"
There was a time when people were above animals. Not any longer. For years, "the elites" have been making every possible effort to erase the boundaries between species, only with the purpose of diminishing the human being.
People are animals, but non-human animals are not people, and should not be afforded the same rights, as they would only continue to infringe upon the already overwhelming struggle for humans to become equal amongst themselves.
Excerpt by Whiskey and Gunpowder's Jim Amrhein: Animal Rights vs. Human Rights
...Animals HAVE NO RIGHTS. Not naturally, anyway.
Now, before you dismiss me as a heartless barbarian, know this: I have always believed that relationships between people and animals — whether based on companionship, work, or simple nutrition — are some of life's most rewarding and character-building interactions. I also believe that pet ownership is a wonderful institution for both man and beast…
But for anyone to believe that animals have inherent rights is to show an alarming degree of ignorance as to what that term really means.
Here's the crux of the issue: No rights of ANY TYPE exist naturally, by virtue of birth alone. In the natural world, all that any creature — man included — has a "right" to are those things it can take by force or forcibly defend from being taken (for more on this, read Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"). That includes life itself. Brutal, but true.
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: Rights of the Human Animal
Being accustomed to the concept of"unalienable rights" so artfully articulated in our own Declaration of Independence, a lot of Americans are programmed to believe that simply because we're of the genus and species Homo sapiens, we're issued rights as original equipment. Sadly, this is not true. Despots and tyrants through the ages have crushed the notion of "human rights" under chariot wheel, mace, and tank tread time and again. One need only to look at Rwanda, China, and other places for vivid modern-day proof.
Clearly, though, some human beings have rights. Americans and the citizens of other democracies enjoy them in abundance. How did we get these rights, if they aren't naturally ours? Via a simple contract — one we never signed, yet are automatically both bound to and protected by as part of our citizenship (read Rousseau's "Social Contract"). This contract is the root of all laws protecting you from harm and protecting others from harm at your hands. In other words, rights.
The price of these rights under this "contract" is certain types of freedom. Basically, we forfeit our natural freedom to kill or pillage our weaker neighbors in exchange for a guarantee against similar brutality at the hands of our stronger ones. To whom do we forfeit our most basic freedoms to and bask in the protection of? A sovereign state — in our case, the U.S. of A. I say again: It is our citizenship, not simply our humanity, that guarantees rights. That's why most of them stay at the border when we enter other countries.
What's this have to do with animals? Bear with me (no pun intended)…
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights: Contractual Obfuscation
Regardless of what PETA and the rest of the animal rights crowd says (more on this in a minute), no critter from aardvark to zebra is capable of understanding and honoring such contracts as the ones that guarantee citizens of democratic republics their rights. Even the intricate societies of some apes, as advanced and social as they can be, are fundamentally based on the only natural law there is: The law of force and dominance.
The only true "rights" enjoyed by any animals are those extended to them by people. Pets, work beasts, zoo creatures, and the like are granted protections by humans from the perils of the state of nature (the elements, predation, starvation, disease) in exchange for their ability and willingness to be trained to serve our needs. This is a rudimentary contract. Such is the case even for livestock, which are bred, fed, medicated, and cared for until such time as we, the grantors of their rights, decide the contract has expired.
But animal rights activists (an almost exclusively liberal province, by the way) perceive that simply by virtue of birth, every organism, everywhere, is endowed with the same rights as citizens of the most progressive democracy. They naively rewrite the rules of nature, glossing over the fact that animals grant no rights at all to each other. Among animals, might makes right — there are no such things as privacy, equality, due process, equal protection under the law, property boundaries, or anything resembling the complex structures we reasoning humans have put into place to safeguard our rights. This fact alone proves that animals are incapable of honoring the basic contract necessary for the existence of rights.
How's that for irony: Those that champion animal rights in the name of humanity are themselves quite animal-like — in that they can't comprehend the nature of what makes rights possible!
Regardless, their viewpoint has continued to gain traction over the last 20 years in the mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic. Whether it's the "Guiltless Grill" section of a major chain restaurant's menu, the "cruelty-free" label on cosmetics, the "I’d rather go naked than wear fur" nude supermodel poster campaign (not entirely without its merits, I must say), or the recent British ban on traditional fox hunting, the "plight" of our four-legged friends is everywhere these days…
How does all this affect you and YOUR rights and freedoms?
Well, if the most extreme agenda of the militant animal rights fringe got its way — and I don’t mean the local cat club here…I'm talking about PETA, The Fund for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States (not the same folks that run your local animal shelter, by the way), and others — the following things would be illegal:
— Eating meat of any kind
— Keeping pets of any species
— Hunting, fishing, and falconry
— Animal testing and experimentation
— Removal or extermination of pest animals
— Zoos, wildlife theme parks, and animal shows
— Killing or relocation of dangerous/nuisance animals
— Horseback riding, racing, rodeos, polo, and other equine sports
— Using animals for work or service - including Seeing Eye dogs.
Quite an impact on our lives, huh? This isn't even considering the negative ramifications a meatless lifestyle would have on our health, life span, and economy. And you thought the animal rights crowd was only worried about spaying and neutering pets (true animal-rightists would forbid it, in fact)…
But that's not the case at all. Despite the mainstream's (starting with leftist Hollywood) consistently sympathetic portrayal of them, hard-core animal rights advocates would not hesitate to strip you of your REAL rights to convey them to beasts that cannot possibly comprehend them.
Animal "Rights" versus Human Rights, an essay written by Edwin A. Locke, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland, College Park, 2005
Human life versus animal life. This fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of research on animals, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has just launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research lab in Vienna, Va., that uses animals for drug testing.
It is an indisputable fact that many thousands of lives are saved by medical research on animals. But animal rightists don't care. PETA makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Such is the "humanitarianism" of animal rights activists.
How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single -- invalid -- syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty -- which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men -- free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.
None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.
Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves -- a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them -- at our expense.
The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.
The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.
There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
Click each link for more information about the various human rights issues mentioned in this stamp:
Democide - Only one nation on Earth has enacted legislation in regards to Democide, and has, unfortunately, come out in favor of it: The United States (National Defense Authorization Act of 2012) allows the government to kill any number of its citizens under the guise of "national security."
Denial of Rights - The denial of basic human rights, perpetrated by either individuals or governments, often on the basis of discrimination, creating inequality. Modern historical examples would include Women’s Suffrage for the right to vote, as well as the Civil Rights Movement of 1960's for equal treatment under the law for blacks, and indeed all groups. The most prevalent modern example would be the denial of the right of homosexual couples to marry, or the right to even live as a homosexual man or woman.
Invasion of Privacy - In the technological world, Big Brother is becoming more and more vigilant, and creeping ever-further into our personal lives under the guise of "national security," or just denying us any reasonable expectation of privacy outright. Spy drones, unwarranted wire taps and e-mail tracking are just a few of the ways governments are trying to keep tabs on you without your consent. Using our fear of terrorism, violence, and death, government intends to trade your essential liberties for "safety."
Group-Specific Violence - Acts of violence committed against groups of people because they are within that group, executed on a mass scale, though not necessarily by governing powers. We see this every day, all around the world. Below are but a few examples:
Violence Against Men
Violence Against Women
Involuntary Human Experimentation
The owner of this deviation has disabled comments.