Non-valid reasons for not taking animal rights seriously

False arguments for ignoring animal rights refuted
Granting rights to animals is treating animals equal to humans.
There is no principal difference between humans and animals. Animals have equal basic rights but would not want to be treated as humans. They have different needs.
Rights accrue only to creatures with the innate ability to be responsible for themselves.
This does not apply to fundamental rights. Animal rights are in fact human rights to limit other people's unjust behavior towards animals.
Animals in captivity are freer than in nature because there are no predators to kill them.
To fall prey to an natural enemy by a natural enemy is part of the course of nature. It is the other side of the right to be free and is undeniably linked to it.
The animal doesn't know better.
Through ignorance or impossibility not to know what animals exactly want, is no ground to deny rights to animals.
To fight injustice towards people is more important.
This doesn't make animal rights unimportant.
Animals do not have feelings like humans.
Not being able to express feelings like humans do is irrelevant to having rights.
Animals are inferior to humans.
Value and basic rights have nothing to do with each other.
Animals are there to serve man.
Servants have equal rights to masters.
Why should you grant rights to animals?
This question could also be aimed at people. Whoever denies another being (human or animal) rights, denies those rights to oneself as well.
Animals are different from humans.
If you grant animals their freedom, there is no need to look for (dis)similarities between humans and animals to base (a difference in) their rights upon.

See also: Why should we care about animal rights?; Freedom, not similarity, is the basis for animal rights.
Which fallacy is this? Play the game

Test yourself: which fallacy is this?

Ten statements about animals that you hear all the time. Can you spot the fallacy? After each answer you read why it does not hold.

Play the game →

This article is part of a series on fallacies and demagogy

Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid. That goes for pro and contra.

We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument.

Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in. Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general.

Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate.

So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent.

How do you respond to fallacies? Six tips

Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Start by assuming a misunderstanding, not deliberate deception. Even someone who keeps using fallacies may simply be badly informed or emotionally involved.

  • Mind the context. In a friendly conversation a gentle approach works better than in a formal debate. Adapt to your relationship with the other person and to the aim of the conversation.
  • Stay calm. Fallacies are often meant to stir up emotions. Keep your own emotions in check.
  • Identify the fallacy. Try to understand where the reasoning goes wrong. Do this for yourself, not to catch the other person out.
  • Answer the fallacy. Ask clarifying questions or explain why the argument does not convince you. Avoid technical terms.
  • Stay on topic. Bring the conversation back to what it is about and keep it on a rational level.
  • Be prepared. If you know you will talk to someone who often uses fallacies, gather some facts and arguments beforehand.

See also how to respond to animal-unfriendly behaviour of others.

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups