XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits
XPost: rec.pets.birds
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:48:10 -0600, Leslie wrote:
>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?
By influencing their lives.
>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?
By influencing their lives.
>Obviously they exist without the
>"raising" by humans and they continue to reproduce. Feral hogs are an
excellent example of
>domestic swine
That's a lie. They are no longer domestic animals.
>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 know that. You most likely snipped the part that made it a lie, and if
so you're just
proving yourself to be that much more dishonest.
>>>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
That's a lie.
>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
That's a lie.
>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
Yes.
>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
Provide an example, or we'll know it's just another lie.
> 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)
|
