The only reason you have any rights is because the government promised them to you. Without society you have no more rights than any animals, so if that same government declares that blowing a rabbits head off it a violation of its rights, shut up and accept the rabbit's right to not have a smouldering neck.

For me, it would really depend on how my life is atm. At present, I have a girlfriend that I love and care for very much and 10% chance of not being able to be with her anymore is too much. My family seems like more of a hassel to me than anything else so I'm not sure I'd take them into consideration. I'm also going to college atm and like to think I have something going for me later in life that I wouldn't want to miss out on. So I'm going to say no. But If I had no one to love and really didn't have anything going for them then why the hell not? That's when I would look at it, as someone else said, as a win win situation.

It IS massive animal abuse, but it was scientists that did the experimenting the phenomenan. And the rights of the rabbit to not have a smouldering neck is true. So counting the odds and adding the chances, would even want to risk seeing yourself fall to the ground having massive pain in your head? Even though its a second, thats enough time to see your family devestated.

I take my opinion back about the 100 trillion. I wouldn't try at all.

Even in an Anarchist society, humans have rights.. The ones they give themselves

So still; Animals have no rights.

And I say so cause they're not sentient beings, they run on instinct.

Animals have rights/animals have no rights is all true. The basic instictual animal has no thought process like us, so we do have the higher priority then they do when it comes to life. At the same time, we should not abuse our higher rights and exterminate every animal thats dumber than humans. But we preserve our right to study and experiment on animals, no matter what the cost on that one animal. Over use our right and it becomes pointless.

Exactly. I don't have anything against using animals instead of humans for tests and the sort.

I also don't have anything against those who hunt animals for food, and keep them as a trophy.

What I do have a problem with though, is Trophy hunters who kill, take the head and skin and that's all. Its such a waste of life...

Trophy Hunters are the main reason some of the northern and southern, asian, african, south american species of animals is dieing out. Extensive hunting is causing the death and waste of animal lives. Animals can't reproduce as fast as we kill them. Hence the endangered species list... Although some animals (like the polar bear) are dieing out because of global warming.

Lol, I know this.. I'm not some 14, or 15 year old here on SeN, I have some life experience... I'm just simply implying that PETA and individuals who think like that have a screw loose...

If a lion eats the shit out of my family and I kill it, why am I the 'bad person'? PETA just pisses me off with their hysterical and mundane whining.

PETA would frame you with 'animal slaughter' or some crazy shit like that. They need an excuse to get fundings from their supporters and to make themselves look like they're doing the right thing. They don't understand.

What kind of conscious state would one be in, with a bullet through the head? Logic deserts me when I'm just half-asleep; I'm not certain I'd know to care that I just lost if my brain's mostly destroyed.
I'm failing to see the relevance of "rights" to "abuse".

The conscious state of an observer. And its hard to explain for me.. you just need to understand what rights things have in life and what abuse they will come to. I'll let someone else explain better because I really can't.

They both tie in closely together if you really think about it.

I seriously doubt any conclusions you could possibly draw about the conscious state of a person right before death based on killing rabbits as if you knew what rabbits thought about in the first place.

Also, rights are things humans created. Just as how we can arbitrarily come up with what rights there are we can also arbitrarily assign them to people and other living things.

I am assuming that existence precedes essence though.

I didn't draw them out, the guys down at M.I.T. did

We (I'm guessing) base rights of living things on their intelligence level. A dolphin, for example, might have more rights to life than a cockroach. Its a large stereotype in the human world, but people don't care about it as much as we may think. Rights define what we can do to animals and when. Hence 'Open Season'.

That's my evaluation on things right now.

I question your validity as a source.

Rights define what we ought to do to animals and when, if we choose to follow the rights we have defined.

But people don't follow the rights we have put in place, thats why illegal poaching is a problem. Rights protect animals as well, not only say what we can do to them in forms of hunting.

The protection that rights offer is only based on the right itself saying what we should do and then us respecting that right.

And of course people don't follow the rights we have put into place. There's no inherent reason to unless you choose to or unless you believe in a god.

Exactly why people don't choose to follow our most basic of rights.

Figure out which has the bullet via taking the magazine out (or open up revolver thingy mabobber) it to figure it out, then place one of the ones w/o bullets to my head and shoot, and take the $1 million home with me.

Can't look you say? The one with the bullets will weigh more.

Can't touch you say? Pick one up and put it to the other persons head (there has to be another person with the $1 million) and tell him to unload the rest of them to see which has the bullets. If all of the others don't have bullets, I shoot him and leave with the money anyway

I win

A gun loaded with a bullet relatively doesn't weigh much more than the gun that doesn't.

Unless if you're incredibly sensitive, you probably won't be able to tell.