3 ms·

I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on. Despite the many similarities we shar

I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on. Despite the many similarities we share with animals and regardless of your opinion of how bad and destructive humans are, we always will be qualitatively different from animals in a way that gives us rights that animals should not have. If we grant dogs the right of personhood, then they should be able to vote, marry, go to school... reductio ad absurdum. I'm a dog lover myself, but this (American) societal tendency to blur the delineation between humans and animals is a slippery slope to absurdity.

ScottFree 7y ago
> I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on. We really are mimicking the fall of the Roman Empire. Next step: animals can vote. If they have the same rights as humans, then why not? After that comes being able to vote them into congress. I know people who think voting for a Beagle would be a better alternative than their local congressman.
- siphon22 7y ago
  We already do that. Aren't there some towns in some states that have a dog as their mayor or some shit? It's pretty amusing to me.
michaelhoney 7y ago
The right to not be killed for food is a long way from being able to vote, go to school or be married. No-one is suggesting that, you're straw-manning.
- theonething 7y ago
  > “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."
wenderen 7y ago
The article quoted by TFA suggests a limited personhood for animals as one possible response to the study. This is not the same as elevating their rights to that of a person.
- theonething 7y ago
  > “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."
whack 7y ago
The linked articles are suggesting that animals should be given similar protections as infants, since the two are of similar cognitive capacity. This eliminates any right to vote/marry etc etc, and voids your reductio-ad-absurdum objection

ScottFree 7y ago

> I'm all for protecting dogs and other animals from cruelty, etc, but elevating their rights to that of a person? Come on. We really are mimicking the fall of the Roman Empire. Next step: animals can vote. If they have the same rights as humans, then why not? After that comes being able to vote them into congress. I know people who think voting for a Beagle would be a better alternative than their local congressman.

siphon22 7y ago
We already do that. Aren't there some towns in some states that have a dog as their mayor or some shit? It's pretty amusing to me.

michaelhoney 7y ago

The right to not be killed for food is a long way from being able to vote, go to school or be married. No-one is suggesting that, you're straw-manning.

theonething 7y ago
> “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."

wenderen 7y ago

The article quoted by TFA suggests a limited personhood for animals as one possible response to the study. This is not the same as elevating their rights to that of a person.

theonething 7y ago
> “If we went a step further and granted dogs rights of personhood, they would be afforded additional protection against exploitation."

whack 7y ago

The linked articles are suggesting that animals should be given similar protections as infants, since the two are of similar cognitive capacity. This eliminates any right to vote/marry etc etc, and voids your reductio-ad-absurdum objection