But... I wanted to eat dolphin someday (it was banned in my country) -_-

Wait, if they get rights, don't that mean they also get duties? Like for every ten fishes eaten they have to catch two for tax purposes. And let's not forget mandatory military duty. Those underwater mines won't disable themselves you know.

"A number of captive dolphins were rewarded with fish in return for tidying up their tank. One of them ripped up a large paper bag, hid away the pieces, and presented them one at a time to get multiple rewards."

Obviously someone needs to go to dolphin jail for fraud!

Well, if you really want a serious answer, I guess we'd treat dolphins like we (ought to) treat uncontacted peoples. I don't think anyone ever collected taxes from such tribes.

Though I guess military service isn't off the table.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/61945/detail/

'nuff said.

My honest opinion: Because most people can't bring themselves to see a potential meal with the same kindness they would afford their own fellow humans, at least not yet. We couldn't expect Caucasian peoples to see others as people until the 20th century (some still can't, unfortunately) and we probably won't get people to see certain animals as our equal co-habitants of earth, at least not this early in the animal rights movement.

This site is very diverse but most focused on gaming and gamers rights. Although we do have a large diversity of topics that our community posts, I personally would like to see more people questioning animal rights and the application of human rights.

They are eugenics lobby in 21st century,target has changed to sea animals from human ethnic.

I don't recall their proposal having anything to do with eugenics, or any of the proponents having any association with any eugenics movement.

Take your straw man somewhere else.

So what kind of rights should dolphins be granted apart from being protected against animal cruelty?

I understand that dolphins suffer from deprivation of libery in zoos, but to be honest at least they're a popular kind of animal and gets a lot more interaction and distractions than most other animals in a zoo. As far as i'm concerned all zoos should be closed since they're the equivalent of an severely overpopulated prison for most species. But i don't see why dolphins should get an extra treatment just because they're a tad smarter than other animals.

Religious freedom and the right to bear arms.

It sounds like the proposal is to (1) recognize certain "rights", and (2) refrain from human activity that abridges those "rights". The specific "rights" mentioned are I think these would run to prohibitions on keeping cetaceans in captivity (whether for scientific, military, or entertainment purposes) and on activities that kill cetaceans or disrupt their social units (whaling, fishing in ways that tend to trap and drown dolphins, use of high-powered sonar).

The canards that these "rights" could be extended to, say, chickens or ants are merely attempts to discredit discussion, not real concerns, and I disregard them other than to call them what they are.
I don't think you made a mistake at all. You meant to discredit the people who advanced this proposal by unfounded name-calling. Provide a foundation for your statement or retract it.

I never thought I would be at the receiving end of a racist remark...

Imma downrep you one >:D

[i]The scientific racism movement of the mid-nineteenth century provided a number of important legacies to the eugenics movement. American scientific racism was primarily preoccupied with the attempt to establish that blacks, Orientals, and other races were in fact entirely different species of "man," which the scientific racists claimed should be seen as a genus, rather than a species. The theory that the integrity of the human species derived from the creation of one Adam and one Eve was called monogenism or specific unity; monogenists believed that the races arose as a result of the degeneration of human beings since creation. The separate races were essentially the same human material, but different races had degenerated to different extents. Polygenists, by contrast, believed that the races were created separately in a series of different creations. The separate races were entirely different animals. The mid-century theory of polygenism, or specific diversity, was one of the first scientific theories largely developed in the US and was approvingly called "the American School of anthropology" by European scientists.

Harvard Professor Louis Agassiz, a prominent natural historian of the 19th-century, was the most important promoter of polygenism. Agassiz, an abolitionist, insisted that his adoption of polygenism was dictated by objective scientific investigation. [/i]

The Roots of the I.Q. Debate Eugenics and Social Control

...Which wouldn't really be that hard when you think about other anti-cruelty measures, so I don't see what the problem is. Also this.

You have posted nothing that shows any connection between "scientific racism" as you accurately defined it, and proponents of this proposal.

I still say you are posting only to advance ad hominem attacks on the proposal and its proponents, not to offer any insight into its validity or lack thereof, or their motives. All you are doing is calling names.

I think the novelty here is the proposition that because other species are sentient and self-aware, they should derive "rights" from this condition, rather than just the recognition that being cruel to animals is despicable and degrades us. It's different from other proposals against animal cruelty in that sense, and that difference is in itself worthy of discussion.

I think the proponents also envision the possibility of similar declarations on behalf of great apes (and I would add elephants), but at this point nothing beyond that.