XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
   From: heirlair@fone.net   
      
   Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:45:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:56:19 -0600, Leslie  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:40:43 -0400, dh@.   
   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:35:41 -0600, Leslie  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:28:21 -0400, dh@.   
   wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:26:35 -0400, +-  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>An aquaintance recently pointed me to a link to yet another wonderful   
   idea   
   >>>>>>brought to us by our benefactors of PETA. It's a very simple idea, that   
   we   
   >>>>>>should ban all owning of pets and release all these animals into the   
   wild.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>Is your political position   
   >>>>more in line with animal welfare rather than any rights?   
   >>>   
   >>>    Yes. If animals are given the right to freedom and the right not to be   
   >>>killed by humans, then domestic animals will no longer exist.   
   >>   
   >>Well now, there is a human right to not be killed by another human, but I   
   can't see that   
   >>this right is respected universally. War, genocides, random acts of   
   murder... Clearly the   
   >>violation of this right has not resulted in the extinction of the human   
   population. Your   
   >>logic is flawed.   
   >   
   >    Can you seriously not understand that they are completely different   
   situations, so   
   >what I pointed out would not have the same outcome in both situations? If you   
   can   
   >understand it then I'd like to see you explain why. But sadly I doubt you   
   can. Here's   
   >a hint though: freedom.   
      
   OIC. With "freedom" animals would be exempted from death altogether. With that   
   immortality   
   they "will no longer exist". How exactly does that make any sense? You wrote   
   it; now try   
   to explain it.   
      
   >>> "ARAs"   
   >>>don't want to provide domestic animals with rights or anything else,   
   >>>but they manage to bring in millions of dollars a year using their gross   
   >>>misnomer.   
   >>   
   >>Actually, ARAs *do* want to give animals rights. With "rights" they would   
   have legally   
   >>defined protections.   
   >   
   >    Domestic animals would not exist so would not have rights.   
      
   But they would be immortal and therefore *would* exist. Animal Rights   
   Activists would have   
   guaranteed their existence by fostering their right to exist without   
   consequence.   
      
   >>Presumably, that would be the right not to be eaten, ridden, milked,   
   >>petted, or kept as a "slave" to human emotions. That such legal protections   
   are ludicrous   
   >>doesn't seem to matter to the ARAs.   
   >>   
   >>>    People who are in favor of decent animal welfare should be very   
   >>>much opposed to "AR".   
   >>   
   >>In general, we are.   
   >>   
   >>>>Just trying to be polite and fair.   
   >>>   
   >>>    That's an unusual thing around here! In fact, it may very well   
   >>>be a first in my experience. I've certainly had more people lie to   
   >>>me and others about what I believe, than have asked what it is.   
   >>   
   >>I cannot know *what* you believe until I have read it. However, I am still   
   puzzled. I have   
   >>noticed that you advocate a sort of right-to-life philosophy be applied to   
   animals,   
   >   
   >    No I don't. The idea is stupid imo. Goo and co. certainly feel it's   
   necessary to   
   >lie and say that I do, and it looks like you're going to join them, but it   
   will still be   
   >nothing but a lie regardless of how many of you tell it.   
      
   I am only reflecting back what I have read in some of your earlier posts. Do   
   you have some   
   reason at this point to call me a liar?   
      
   >>and   
   >>that makes for a confusing position. Animal welfarisits don't generally   
   accept that *all*   
   >>animals have a right to life. That would be an AR position. So which is it?   
   >   
   >    I can't even figure out what you're talking about.   
      
   Welfarists take the position that animals do not have an inherent or   
   undisputed right to   
   life. However, humans have a duty to protect animals from cruelty, abuse and   
   neglect. That   
   duty has taken form in our laws. Our laws govern our social behavior, and our   
   species has   
   accepted the mandated duty to protect animals from what we define as cruelty,   
   abuse and   
   neglect. The key is in *who* creates that definition. Welfare is concerned   
   with a   
   "quality" of life.   
      
   Animal Rights Activists are looking for absolute rights for animals to a life   
   that has no   
   interference or interaction with humans. ALL animals, no exceptions. They   
   would, in fact,   
   infringe on the established rights of humans to such things as medical   
   treatment, since an   
   animal with rights would have to give consent to be a subject of an animal   
   medical model   
   in research. ARA's would insist that animals give their informed consent to   
   being eaten.   
   ARA's are NOT concerned with the quality of animal life; just the fact that   
   animals become   
   self-determining.   
      
   Cheers 2 U,   
      
   Leslie   
   "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.   
   And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)