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:   
      
      
   >    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.   
      
   How do you figure that humans control all the pairings of animals? I think you   
   have   
   forgotten all those unwanted animals in shelters; results of natural selection   
   by intact   
   animals. Or the cross-breeding of poultry, such as ducks and geese in public   
   ponds. How do   
   you suppose humans have any control over these creatures? Obviously they exist   
   without the   
   "raising" by humans and they continue to reproduce. Feral hogs are an   
   excellent example of   
   domestic swine surviving without the intervention of people.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>Animal Rights Activists would have   
   >>guaranteed their existence by fostering their right to exist without   
   consequence.   
   >   
   >    That's another lie.   
      
   It is not a lie. It is the agenda of ARAs. Set everything free of human   
   bondage, or what   
   they believe to be human bondage, is a basic ARF principal. Eliminate the   
   consequences of   
   death by human hands and you set in motion an apocalyptic imbalance of nature.   
      
   >>   
   >>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.   
      
   You have been advocating a right to *experience* life. That is a right-to-life   
   argument.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   You get so hysterical and defensive when pressed to explain yourself.   
      
   >>>>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....   
      
   So? Answer the question, David. Or look like a word-weaseling moron. I just   
   re-explained   
   to you the difference between ARFs and AWs. I have asked you repeatedly to   
   explain *which*   
   agenda you ascribe to. Your response has been dodging the questions and   
   tossing ad   
   hominems. Now if you want to be understood and taken seriously you need to   
   explain your   
   agenda.   
      
      
      
   >>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.   
      
   They *WHO*?? ARFs or AWs?? Not a single AW here has said that it would be   
   better to   
   eliminate domestic animals than to provide them with decent lives. The   
   welfarist agenda is   
   just the opposite! You are so ready to tar anyone who disagrees with you with   
   the ARF   
   brush that you don't even read the comments by Dutch, Rudy and US correctly.   
   Now you want   
   to label me an ARA based solely upon your lack of comprehension. That's a   
   pretty weak   
   effort at honest debate. And, of course, a lie.   
      
   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)