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 Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:56:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
      
      
      
   We are having a communication problem, David. So, in an effort to get back to   
   the original   
   debate let's review:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>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.   
      
   It was your sentence after "Yes" that made no sense, until I added "according   
   to ARAs".   
   So, in that context, explain how the right to freedom and the right not to be   
   killed by   
   humans would extinguish domestic animals.   
      
      
   >>>   
   >>>    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.   
   >   
    all the rest because, until you help to put this thought about freedom   
   into context   
   I think we will just be at an impasse of misunderstanding.   
      
   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)