XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:19:38 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:54:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:03:12 +0100, Derek  wrote:   
   >>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:04:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>    Why is it that you, who are pretending to oppose the   
   >>>>concept of rights for ines, have a problem with giving the   
   >>>>gross misnomer "Animal Rights" a more honest name?   
   >>>   
   >>>Only living beings can hold a right against moral agents,   
   >>>dummy.   
   >>   
   >>    That doesn't explain why you're opposed to giving "AR"   
   >>a more honest name in regards to the potential future animals   
   >>that you want to prevent from living.   
   >   
   >It does, because holding the view that non-existent   
   >beings hold a moral right against living moral agents   
   >such as myself would be absurd. Only living beings   
   >can hold a right against moral agents, dummy.   
      
       That has nothing to do with why you don't want "AR" to   
   be given a more honest name.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)