XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
   From: cadman@sonic.net   
      
   rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > Leif Erikson wrote:   
   >> rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>> Leif Erikson wrote:   
   >>>> Mary Huber, the ultra-conformist lead-pipe-wielding union goon, lied:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> nop...@getitstraight.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad insisted:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:   
   >>>>>>>>> they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.   
   >>>>>>>>     We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all   
   >>>>>>>>     vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they   
   >>>>>>>>      kill unwanted pets:   
   >>>>>>> No they wouldn't.   
   >>>>>>    Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats,   
   >>>>> Who are "they"?   
   >>>> All those unthinking "aras" who support PeTA.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>  I'm an "ara"   
   >>>> You're also a lead-pipe-clubbing union goon, and a sluttish   
   >>>> carpet-muncher.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> they would kill livestock too.   
   >>>>> Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all   
   >>>>> existing animals   
   >>>> ...which *NO* "ara" does...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.  (Note   
   >>>>> This is why PETA's stand on feral cats is philosophically   
   >>>>> inconsistent.)   
   >>>> ALL of "ar" is philosophically inconsistent, you stupid twat.  See the   
   >>>> debate on collateral deaths.   
   >>> No, it's not.   
   >> Yes, it is.   
   >>   
   >>> We are obliged to cause no more harm than we need to   
   >>> survive.   
   >> That's an animal *welfare* position, not an animal rights position.   
   >   
   > I'd call it an animal rights position. It's the one Joan Dunayer takes   
   > in "Speciesism", for example. Nonhuman animals have a right to life,   
   > but we have a right to life too, and we are morally permitted to   
   > inflict harm on nonhuman animals when that's the only way for us to   
   > survive.   
   >   
   >> "ar" says that one ought cause NO harm to animals.  But it is blind to   
   >> the hidden harm caused by doing all sorts of things that don't set out   
   >> to kill animals.  As Rick Etter has pointed out, we're killing animals   
   >> just by participating in usenet:  some significant percentage of the   
   >> total electricity output is used to power the internet, and the bulk of   
   >> internet usage is not essential to anyone's survival.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> How far we are obliged to go out of our way not to financially   
   >>> support unnecessary harm is a different issue.   
   >   
   Fuck animal rights!  What about MY RIGHTS?!?!?!   
   George Dunbar once wrote, "If pets can deficate upon my very trousers, then   
   why is it that I, week   
   upon week, continue to drag those very same fecal trousers to the Cleaners?"   
   I agree with his statement.  I say, "Fuck you cats and dogs!"  If you want to   
   shit on my pants, then   
     I am going to have no option but to take a rank crap right in your food   
   dish!  Fuck you, Doggie!   
   Fuck You, kittie!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)