XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits
XPost: rec.pets.birds
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:49:15 -0600, Leslie wrote:
>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.
Okay, that's a lie. I should have seen this coming, and did wonder if you'd
just end up being someone else to help the gonads with their lying.
>With that immortality
>they "will no longer exist". How exactly does that make any sense?
What in the hell are you talking about?
>You wrote it;
I didn't write any shit about anything providing immortality.
>now try
>to explain it.
You said: "Clearly the violation of this right has not resulted in the
extinction of the human population. Your logic is flawed." I told you
there were two completely different situations. Domestic animals are
completely dependant on us for the pairing of sperm and egg which
begin their particular lives. Those particular animals only exist because
humans raise them, and if they were set free so humans no longer
had such infuence the same animals would not be born. The human
situation is different because humans are already free.
>>>> "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.
That's a lie.
>Animal Rights Activists would have
>guaranteed their existence by fostering their right to exist without
consequence.
That's another lie.
>>>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.
You're not able to present an example of me advocating any right to life.
You're lying about it.
>Do you have some
>reason at this point to call me a liar?
LOL!!! You know it! At least three in this one post! You must be very
proud.
>>>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.
Then I guess humans would have to stop farming....
>ALL animals, no exceptions.
....and building roads and buildings...
>They would, in fact,
>infringe on the established rights of humans
....and cutting timber, and mining, and generating electricity...
>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.
What they have so far failed to do, is explain why it would be better to
eliminate
domestic animals than to provide them with decent lives. So far all of you have
failed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
