Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
nop...@getitstraight.com
>in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
>"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
>animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
>on.
They're the enemies of the livestock group(s), Goob. Just as
something that wants to deliberately eliminate the human race
could be thought of as an enemy of humans, "aras" who want
to deliberately eliminate domestic animals can be thought of as
an enemy of domestic animals.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
There's more to it than that, but if you can't get that far then
considering details would be of no use to you. For anyone who can
understand though, it's good to keep in mind the huge difference
between decent Animal Welfare and the gross misnomer "animal
rights".
People who are in favor of decent AW for any--and especially
for all--domestic animals should be *very much* opposed to the
"ar" objective to eliminate them. That much everyone should be
able to understand.
>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:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
they would kill livestock as well:
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.
A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.
''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Try to get it straight.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
nop...@getitstraight.com wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad wondered:
>
> >in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
> >"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
> >animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
> >on.
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s), Goob. Just as
> something that wants to deliberately eliminate the human race
> could be thought of as an enemy of humans, "aras" who want
> to deliberately eliminate domestic animals can be thought of as
> an enemy of domestic animals.
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
> [...]
> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
> University
>
> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>
> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
> _________________________________________________________
> AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
>
> Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
> animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
> prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
> necessary, humane euthanasia.
>
> Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
> statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
> are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
> promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
> endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
> when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
> purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
> benefit of both humans and animals.
>
> http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
> There's more to it than that, but if you can't get that far then
> considering details would be of no use to you. For anyone who can
> understand though, it's good to keep in mind the huge difference
> between decent Animal Welfare and the gross misnomer "animal
> rights".
>
> People who are in favor of decent AW for any--and especially
> for all--domestic animals should be *very much* opposed to the
> "ar" objective to eliminate them. That much everyone should be
> able to understand.
>
> >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. They're just opposed to exploiting them.
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
> government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
> of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
> those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
> [...]
> http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> _________________________________________________________
> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
> the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
> no sign of changing.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> they would kill livestock as well:
> _________________________________________________________
> Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
> State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
> [...]
> On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
> of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
> in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
> existence and the slaughterhouse.
>
> A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
> the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
> livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>
> [...]
> In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
> hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
> U.S. shores.
>
> ''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
> if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>
> People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
> ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
> means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
> start to finish.''
> [...]
> http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>
>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, they would kill livestock
too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
sane.
>They're just opposed to exploiting them.
Yeah, and I'm sure they're opposed to exploiting dogs and cats
too, but that doesn't stop them from killing dogs and cats just as they
would kill livestock.
Leif Erikson
tried to evade:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson tied Fuckwit David Harrison up in knots:
>
> >in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
> >"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
> >animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
> >on.
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s),
No, Fuckwit. Let's review:
1. They don't wish to inflict any harm on existing livestock animals.
2. Animals that don't exist cannot have any enemies.
Try again, Fuckwit: in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
the "enemies" of livestock animals? To which specific animals are they
doing anything injurious? Hint for Fuckwit: it has nothing to do with
any non-existent animals. Now see if you can answer without saying
something absurd.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
dh@. wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >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, they would kill livestock
> too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
> mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
> missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
> enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
> cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
> sane.
>
I'm not sure exactly what PETA's position on euthanasia is - I could
try and find out for you. Animal rights activists do support euthanasia
for animals who are so sick that their lives will be utterly miserable.
I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.
Leif Erikson
cracker, stupidly tried to evade:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson beat hell out of Fuckwit David Harrison:
>
>
>>Fuckwit, in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
>>"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
>>animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
>>on.
>
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s),
You're merely repeating your false claim, Fuckwit. I
asked you IN WHAT WAY they are "enemies", Fuckwit.
Only *existing* entities can have "enemies", Fuckwit.
Keep that in mind in trying to answer next time.
> People who are in favor of decent AW
That excludes *you*, Fuckwit:
...but I would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison
Message-ID: <384211a6....@news.mindspring.com>
You don't care about "decent 'aw'", Fuckwit, and you
never did.
>>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, not all
> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock
False. In fact, not just false - a deliberate lie.
Try again, Fuckwit: In what way are "aras" the
"enemies" of livestock, Fuckwit, GIVEN that:
- "aras" do not wish to harm existing livestock in
any way
- non-existent entities cannot have enemies
Try to make some sense this time, Fuckwit.
Leif Erikson
cracker, lied:
> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-fucking cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>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, they would kill livestock
> too.
Prove it. You're lying, of course.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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, they would kill livestock
>> too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
>> mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
>> missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
>> enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
>> cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
>> sane.
>>
>
>I'm not sure exactly what PETA's position on euthanasia is - I could
>try and find out for you. Animal rights activists do support euthanasia
>for animals who are so sick that their lives will be utterly miserable.
It seems anyone in favor of doing so for animals who can't decide
one way or the other, should at least be in favor of it for humans who
can decide what they want.
>I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
>did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
>consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
>animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.
As yet there is only reason to believe they would. If you can provide
reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
deal with them along with your example(s).
dh
>dh pointed out:
>> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
>> too.
>
>Prove it.
LOL!
_________________________________________________________
"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it
people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the
animals somehow mitigates the harm.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat]
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world. - Goo
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.
A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.
''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Leif Erikson
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
>
> >> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
> >> too.
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> LOL!
Of course you couldn't do it. We knew that.
frl...@flash.net
>> 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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
animals
unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
> > they would kill livestock too.
Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
existing animals
and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals. (Note
to Meatwad
Ball: This is why PETA's stand on feral cats is philosophically
inconsistent.)
frl...@flash.net
>> 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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
animals
unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
> > they would kill livestock too.
Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
Leif Erikson
> >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.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Yes. People who are in favour of genuine euthanasia for animals are
usually also in favour of assisted suicide for humans.
> >I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
> >did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
> >consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
> >animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.
>
> As yet there is only reason to believe they would.
Nonsense. There is no such reason whatsoever.
> If you can provide
> reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
> deal with them along with your example(s).
My reason to believe they would not is that it's inconsistent with
their principles. Simple.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
No, it's not. We are obliged to cause no more harm than we need to
survive. How far we are obliged to go out of our way not to financially
support unnecessary harm is a different issue.
Leif Erikson
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.
"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.
Leif Erikson
> On 30 Mar 2006 23:12:43 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
> >> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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, they would kill livestock
> >> too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
> >> mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
> >> missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
> >> enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
> >> cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
> >> sane.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure exactly what PETA's position on euthanasia is - I could
> >try and find out for you. Animal rights activists do support euthanasia
> >for animals who are so sick that their lives will be utterly miserable.
>
> It seems [snip bullshit]
>
> >I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
> >did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
> >consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
> >animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.
>
> As yet there is only reason to believe they would.
False.
frl...@flash.net
> >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.
You include a qualifier that dh did not. PETA does, indeed, kill dogs,
cats and other animals
in their Norfolk shelter. They have an 86% kill rate which ranks them
as one of the worst
of the worst. They also, apparently, kill a good number of dogs and
cats in the back of vans
parked in shopping malls and freeway rest stops.
This means PETA policies and PETA employees do not respect the rights
of animals to hold possession of their own lives.
It says nothing about the validity of animal rights as a philosophy.
> >I'm an "ara"
>You're also a lead-pipe-clubbing union goon, and a sluttish
>carpet-muncher
No and yes, on occasion.
> Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
> existing animals
> ...which *NO* "ara" does...
All aras have _the duty_ to protect existing animals. The success or
failure to fulfill that
dutiy varies with individuals.
Naturally, I can't be there to shoo the mice away from the gluetrap in
every restaurant kitchen or stop traffic for
every turtle crossing a road ithrough the Everglades. I can, however,
support financially and legislatively all humane
measures to protect wildlife and to preserve and extend wildlife
habitat. I can control the quality of
food sources and shelter for wildlife on property I own and I can
remove hazards to wildlife wherever I find them.
Damn gopher traps!
> ALL of "ar" is philosophically inconsistent, you stupid twat. See the
> debate on collateral deaths.
Collateral deaths in agriculture are accidental. Buying products from
farmers who use ecologically sound
practices, (high crop residue, spiral pattern combining, increased
field margin, etc.) vastly decreases these
unintended deaths.
Poisoning deaths in agriculture are not accidents and should be the
target of animal welfarist
and animal rightist opposition. A quick look at most state
agricultural websites for pest control shows
that some inroads have been made. Exclusion is almost always offered
as the first and best line of
defense.
frl...@flash.net
> >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.
You include a qualifier that dh did not. PETA does, indeed, kill dogs,
cats and other animals
in their Norfolk shelter. They have an 86% kill rate which ranks them
as one of the worst
of the worst. They also, apparently, kill a good number of dogs and
cats in the back of vans
parked in shopping malls and freeway rest stops.
This means PETA policies and PETA employees do not respect the rights
of animals to hold possession of their own lives.
It says nothing about the validity of animal rights as a philosophy.
> >I'm an "ara"
>You're also a lead-pipe-clubbing union goon, and a sluttish
>carpet-muncher
No and yes, on occasion.
> Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
> existing animals
> ...which *NO* "ara" does...
All aras have _the duty_ to protect existing animals. The success or
failure to fulfill that
dutiy varies with individuals.
Naturally, I can't be there to shoo the mice away from the gluetrap in
every restaurant kitchen or stop traffic for
every turtle crossing a road ithrough the Everglades. I can, however,
support financially and legislatively all humane
measures to protect wildlife and to preserve and extend wildlife
habitat. I can control the quality of
food sources and shelter for wildlife on property I own and I can
remove hazards to wildlife wherever I find them.
Damn gopher traps!
> ALL of "ar" is philosophically inconsistent, you stupid twat. See the
> debate on collateral deaths.
Collateral deaths in agriculture are accidental. Buying products from
Leif Erikson
> > >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.
>
> You include a qualifier that dh did not. PETA does, indeed, kill dogs,
> cats and other animals
> in their Norfolk shelter. They have an 86% kill rate which ranks them
> as one of the worst
> of the worst. They also, apparently, kill a good number of dogs and
> cats in the back of vans
> parked in shopping malls and freeway rest stops.
>
> This means PETA policies and PETA employees do not respect the rights
> of animals to hold possession of their own lives.
> It says nothing about the validity of animal rights as a philosophy.
Sure it does - they claim to be the proponents of the philosophy.
The "philosophy" is based on no principles whatever. It is based on
silly rules.
>
> > >I'm an "ara"
>
> >You're also a lead-pipe-clubbing union goon, and a sluttish
> >carpet-muncher
>
> No and yes, on occasion.
yes and yes, all the time.
> > Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
> > existing animals
>
> > ...which *NO* "ara" does...
>
> All aras have _the duty_ to protect existing animals. The success or
> failure to fulfill that dutiy varies with individuals.
There is only failure.
>
> Naturally, I can't be there to shoo the mice away from the gluetrap in
> every restaurant kitchen or stop traffic for
> every turtle crossing a road ithrough the Everglades. I can, however,
> support financially and legislatively all humane
> measures to protect wildlife and to preserve and extend wildlife
> habitat. I can control the quality of
> food sources and shelter for wildlife on property I own and I can
> remove hazards to wildlife wherever I find them.
> Damn gopher traps!
You also can, and do, pursue a highly self indulgent "lifestyle" that
causes the wanton slaughter of animals.
>
> > ALL of "ar" is philosophically inconsistent, you stupid twat. See the
> > debate on collateral deaths.
>
> Collateral deaths in agriculture are accidental.
They aren't. They aren't accidental at all. Farmers know they chop
and shred animals all the time, even if they might later claim they
don't "want" to do it. Your side has been through this before, and
lost utterly. The best example was John Mercer's. If you drive your
car at 45 miles per hour through a school playground as a shortcut, you
may not "want" to strike and kill any children, but the likelihood is
that you will, and it will not be an "accident": You know when you
enter the schoolyard, just as surely as the farmer knows whenever he
enters a field, that the result will be death.
> Buying products from
> farmers who use ecologically sound
> practices, (high crop residue, spiral pattern combining, increased
> field margin, etc.) vastly decreases these
> unintended deaths.
It does not. Stop the bullshit, Mary. In any case, you lying
carpet-munching asshole, you don't systematically make it a point to
investigate the farming practices of the farmers. You don't buy from
farmers.
> Poisoning deaths in agriculture are not accidents and should be the
> target of animal welfarist
> and animal rightist opposition.
But they aren't, apart from the mealy-mouthed lip service (empty
blabbering) you give here.
> A quick look at most state
> agricultural websites
...something you haven't done...
rupertm...@yahoo.com
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.
Cadman
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!
pearl
> Naturally, I can't be there to shoo the mice away from the gluetrap
Heya Feral. LTNS. Worth knowing about:
How to catch a mouse without a mousetrap
http://glass.typepad.com/journal/2005/09/how_to_catch_a_.html
Cadman
upon week, continue to drag those very same fecal-encrusted trousers to the Cleaners?"
dh
>>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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
>animals
>unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
How do you kill them when they do?
>> > they would kill livestock too.
>
>Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
>existing animals
>and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.
One of your heros--who speaks for all of you--thinks that animals
would "benefit" from foot-and-mouth disease!
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.
A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.
''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You think people with that type of belief, who kill hundreds (thousands
more likely) of dogs and cats, would be opposed to doing the same to
livestock? LOL! They sure have you fooled. But how did they fool you?
What could they have said or done to get you to believe they would
somehow be sure that all livestock got to live out a long life, and who do
you think would pay for it, donate the land to keep them on, and do the
actual work of caring for them? How would you/"they" justify maintaining
the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for
wildlife instead?
dh
Newkirk's insane insistence that hoof and mouth disease would
benefit US cattle, is all the reason anyone needs to understand that
"aras" would kill off livestock if they could.
For the sake of amusement, what do you think "aras" would do
with unwanted livestock if you don't believe they would kill them?
>> If you can provide
>> reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
>> deal with them along with your example(s).
>
>My reason to believe they would not is that it's inconsistent with
>their principles.
No it's not, since their main objective is to eliminate domestic animals.
>Simple.
Here are more reasons to believe they would kill unwanted livestock:
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
June 17, 2005
PETA Kills Animals -- And It's A Felony
Authorities in Ahoskie, North Carolina dropped a disturbing bombshell
yesterday with the news that they had charged two employees of People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with 31 felony counts of
animal cruelty. PETA's Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle were arrested late
Wednesday night after police saw them dump bags containing seven
dead puppies and 11 other dead animals in a grocery store's dumpster.
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs ...
beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."
Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
WKTR-TV reported today that Cook and Hinkle are out on bond, "thanks
to the President of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
In a story that eerily resembles the current charges facing PETA's employees,
the Associated Press reported on April 8 that an additional 150 euthanized
dogs were found in rural Virginia, apparently dumped in trash bags near a
riverbank. The Scott County, Virginia Sheriff is investigating.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2006 13:48:36 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
>
> >>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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
> >animals
> >unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
>
> How do you kill them when they do?
>
> >> > they would kill livestock too.
> >
> >Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
> >existing animals
> >and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.
>
> One of your heros--who speaks for all of you--
Newkirk does not represent all vegans. She presents her
own opinions and frl... is free to agree or disagree as
(s)he chooses.
Do you think most ARAs accept your premise that land rightfully
belongs to humans in the first place?
> to keep them on, and do the
> actual work of caring for them?
All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other
"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat
and they can look after themselves.
> How would you/"they" justify maintaining
> the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for
> wildlife instead?
As soon as the "livestock" stop being farmed, they become "wildlife"
by definition.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
No, it's not.
> For the sake of amusement, what do you think "aras" would do
> with unwanted livestock if you don't believe they would kill them?
>
Free them where possible, arranged for them to be cared for where not.
> >> If you can provide
> >> reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
> >> deal with them along with your example(s).
> >
> >My reason to believe they would not is that it's inconsistent with
> >their principles.
>
> No it's not, since their main objective is to eliminate domestic animals.
>
Yes it is. Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
> >Simple.
>
> Here are more reasons to believe they would kill unwanted livestock:
> _________________________________________________________
> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
> the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
> no sign of changing.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Here you would need to investigate how many of these were genuine cases
of euthanasia. They say their euthanasia rates are high because they go
looking for the problem cases. It should also be taken into account
that most of these animals would have been taken from shelters where
they would have been killed anyway (which of course doesn't necessarily
excuse the killing).
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
> in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
> took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
> Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
> local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
> "put down."
> [...]
> http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2006 13:48:36 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>> >>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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
>> >animals
>> >unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
>>
>> How do you kill them when they do?
>>
>> >> > they would kill livestock too.
>> >
>> >Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
>> >existing animals
>> >and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.
>>
>> One of your heros--who speaks for all of you--
>
>Newkirk does not represent all vegans.
She represents more of them than you do.
>She presents her
>own opinions and frl... is free to agree or disagree as
>(s)he chooses.
She does a lot more than just present her own opinions.
I haven't discussed it with any, but imagine that most of them would say
their land belongs to them. How they twist it around that someone else's
land doesn't belong to him, I'm interested to see.
>> to keep them on, and do the
>> actual work of caring for them?
>
>All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other
>"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat
>and they can look after themselves.
I won't take your word for it, and don't believe it would be ethically
superior to humans raising them.
>> How would you/"they" justify maintaining
>> the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for
>> wildlife instead?
>
>As soon as the "livestock" stop being farmed, they become "wildlife"
>by definition.
Not the ones who die.
dh
Yes it is. On top of that, I believe "aras" have started outbreaks in
Europe.
>> For the sake of amusement, what do you think "aras" would do
>> with unwanted livestock if you don't believe they would kill them?
>>
>
>Free them where possible,
It's never a good idea, which is why we never hear of it being done.
"aras" would already be doing it if it were a good idea, but it's not, so
they don't. Duh.
>arranged for them to be cared for where not.
You have provided nothing at all. As yet, there is no reason at all
to believe the livestock would not be killed.
>> >> If you can provide
>> >> reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
>> >> deal with them along with your example(s).
>> >
>> >My reason to believe they would not is that it's inconsistent with
>> >their principles.
>>
>> No it's not, since their main objective is to eliminate domestic animals.
>>
>
>Yes it is. Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> On 5 Apr 2006 16:52:19 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 3 Apr 2006 13:48:36 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>nop...@getitstraight.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
>>>>animals
>>>>unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
>>>
>>> How do you kill them when they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>they would kill livestock too.
>>>>
>>>>Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
>>>>existing animals
>>>>and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.
>>>
>>> One of your heros--who speaks for all of you--
>>
>>Newkirk does not represent all vegans.
>
>
> She represents more of them than you do.
You have no idea, Fuckwit. You have no legitimate idea
about anything.
>>She presents her
>>own opinions and frl... is free to agree or disagree as
>>(s)he chooses.
>
>
> She does a lot more than just present her own opinions.
Not that you can demonstrate...
Right! You invent shit.
>>>to keep them on, and do the
>>>actual work of caring for them?
>>
>>All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other
>>"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat
>>and they can look after themselves.
>
>
> I won't take your word for it, and don't believe it would be ethically
> superior to humans raising them.
You are wholly unqualified to discuss ethics.
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 3 Apr 2006 15:42:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>On 30 Mar 2006 23:12:43 -0800, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>>>
No, it isn't.
> On top of that, I believe "aras" have started outbreaks in
> Europe.
You have no basis for that belief. It's irrational.
>>> For the sake of amusement, what do you think "aras" would do
>>>with unwanted livestock if you don't believe they would kill them?
>>>
>>
>>Free them where possible,
>
>
> It's never a good idea,
You're not qualified to say.
dh
>dh pointed out:
>> She does a lot more than just present her own opinions.
>
>Not that you can demonstrate...
_________________________________________________________
"I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the
animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through other workers
abusing the animals. I must have killed thousands of them, sometimes dozens
everyday."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The New Yorker, April 14, 2003
"We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we
do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for.
Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no
one wants."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Newkirk gives interviews to ALF’s publications, supports the legal defense
efforts of ALF criminals (with PETA’s money), has been subpoenaed in
regard to her ALF connections, and has even been accused in court
documents of participation in the ALF arson of a Michigan State University
research lab.
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/456
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
you can download a PDF file of Peta's 2001 Form 990 tax return. On page 28,
you will find an entry indicating that PeTA made a $1,500 contribution to the
North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF).
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/02/petas_terrorist.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.
"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.
PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:
-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;
-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;
-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive
http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)
"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)
ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
Intersting PeTA facts
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.
http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the manager
of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet cemetery. "They
just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs ... beautiful cats. I saw a
[dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last week it was 23 or 24 dogs ...
it's happened to us nine times ... they drove straight from there, straight here,
and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."
Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more than
70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA. WKTR-TV
reported today that Cook and Hinkle are out on bond, "thanks to the President
of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
In a story that eerily resembles the current charges facing PETA's employees,
the Associated Press reported on April 8 that an additional 150 euthanized dogs
were found in rural Virginia, apparently dumped in trash bags near a riverbank.
The Scott County, Virginia Sheriff is investigating.
http://petakillsanimals.com/news_detail.cfm?ID=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>dh pointed out:
The proof is in the fact that none of you do it, Goo.
Leif Erikson
and despised, blabbered:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >
> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>Free them where possible,
> >>
> >>
> >> It's never a good idea,
> >
> >You're not qualified to say.
>
> The proof is in
The proof is in your lack of education and your inability to express
any coherent thought at all, Fuckwit:
"I admit that I'm very weak in the area of presenting
my ideas...I have as much 'right' to post my spew as
everyone else does."
Fuckwit David Harrison
Message-ID: <38444e56.6000...@news.mindspring.com>
You're a stupid, uneducated cracker, Fuckwit. I sometimes think you
can't be as stupid as you come across, but the evidence is pretty
clear. You are illogical, you're a liar, you're uneducated - you have
all the ingredients of a stupid, behind-everyone-else cracker.
Leif Erikson
and despised, blabbered:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson claimed:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, blabbered:
>
> >> She does a lot more than just present her own opinions.
> >
> >Not that you can demonstrate...
> _________________________________________________________
> "I would go to work early,
She doesn't present anyone's opinions but her own, Fuckwit.
I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Absolute nonsense.
> On top of that, I believe "aras" have started outbreaks in
> Europe.
>
What is your evidence?
> >> For the sake of amusement, what do you think "aras" would do
> >> with unwanted livestock if you don't believe they would kill them?
> >>
> >
> >Free them where possible,
>
> It's never a good idea, which is why we never hear of it being done.
> "aras" would already be doing it if it were a good idea, but it's not, so
> they don't. Duh.
>
Obviously there are practical problems with doing it at the moment.
> >arranged for them to be cared for where not.
>
> You have provided nothing at all. As yet, there is no reason at all
> to believe the livestock would not be killed.
>
There's no reason to believe livestock would be killed.
> >> >> If you can provide
> >> >> reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
> >> >> deal with them along with your example(s).
> >> >
> >> >My reason to believe they would not is that it's inconsistent with
> >> >their principles.
> >>
> >> No it's not, since their main objective is to eliminate domestic animals.
> >>
> >
> >Yes it is. Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
> >to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>
> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
dh
That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
very opposed to "ar"!
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>>>>to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>>>
>>> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
>>
>>They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
>>side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
>
>
> That's not a side effect.
Yes, Fuckwit, it is. It's not the goal. The goal for
them is to stop what they see as the immoral
exploitation of animals. Getting rid of the animals by
preventing them from existing is just one means of
achieving the goal.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
they stopped exploiting and killing them.
dh
dh
>
>Getting rid of the animals by preventing them from existing is just
>one means of achieving the goal.
They want to eliminate animals raised for food Goo.
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 16:52:19 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 3 Apr 2006 13:48:36 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >>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"? I'm an "ara" and I don't kill dogs, cats or any other
> >> >animals
> >> >unless they suffer from painful, untreatable illnesses or injuries.
> >>
> >> How do you kill them when they do?
> >>
> >> >> > they would kill livestock too.
> >> >
> >> >Fundamental to a belief in animal rights is the duty to protect all
> >> >existing animals
> >> >and to give the best possible care to existing domestic animals.
> >>
> >> One of your heros--who speaks for all of you--
> >
> >Newkirk does not represent all vegans.
>
> She represents more of them than you do.
That's true. She represents one (herself). I represent none.
Name one factor that it is (a) necessary for their survival and (b)
can be provided only by humans.
> and don't believe it would be ethically
> superior to humans raising them.
>
> >> How would you/"they" justify maintaining
> >> the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for
> >> wildlife instead?
> >
> >As soon as the "livestock" stop being farmed, they become "wildlife"
> >by definition.
>
> Not the ones who die.
The point is there is no difference between the inherent properties of
wildlife animals and livestock animals. The terms simply describe their
relationship to humans.
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>>>>>>to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
>>>>
>>>>They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
>>>>side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
>>>
>>> That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
>>>opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
>>>very opposed to "ar"!
>>
>>No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
>>for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
>>they stopped exploiting and killing them.
>
>
> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
No, Fuckwit. That's what will happen, but it's not
their goal. It's their means to an end.
What difference does it make, Fuckwit? What difference
does it make to any animals?
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Getting rid of the animals by preventing them from existing is just
>>one means of achieving the goal.
>
>
> They want to eliminate animals raised for food Leif.
They want to prevent the exploitation of animals, Fuckwit.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
They want us to stop exploiting and killing them.
dh
People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>> >All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other
>> >"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat
>> >and they can look after themselves.
>>
>> I won't take your word for it,
>
>Name one factor that it is (a) necessary for their survival and (b)
>can be provided only by humans.
In the case of chickens, food and protection from predators in
most cases. I've never heard of long term populations of domestic
chickens surviving anywhere, and feel quite confident that you
can't provide examples of any. And even if you can--which is
very unlikely--you would need to explain *WHY?* we should try
to create the same sort of situation anywhere that people are
currently raising chickens, which is something else you're unable
to do.
>> and don't believe it would be ethically
>> superior to humans raising them.
>>
>> >> How would you/"they" justify maintaining
>> >> the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for
>> >> wildlife instead?
>> >
>> >As soon as the "livestock" stop being farmed, they become "wildlife"
>> >by definition.
>>
>> Not the ones who die.
>
>The point is there is no difference between the inherent properties of
>wildlife animals and livestock animals. The terms simply describe their
>
>relationship to humans.
As I point out: you're still not capable of considering whether or
not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food, and most likely you
never will be.
dh
>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
>and despised, blabbered:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>> >
>> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>Free them where possible,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's never a good idea,
>> >
>> >You're not qualified to say.
>>
>> The proof is in the fact that none of you do it, Goo.
>
>The proof is in your lack of education
Then why don't you explain why none of you
do it, Goober?
Answer:
Because even as obviously a stupid idea as
it is, Goob can't understand that and therefore
remains bewildered and confused, ignorantly
wondering why it "really" is that none of them
free domestic animals.
To go on and consider why they in fact catch
domestic animals who have gotten free and *kill*
them, is beyond the mental abilities of our poor
inept Goober, so he hides in a shell remaining
oblivious to the fact that "aras" in reality catch
and kill domestic animals who have gotten free
.....oblivious to the fact that "aras" do *not!*
"free them".
Leif Erikson
and despised, blabbered:
> On 7 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
> >and despised, blabbered:
> >
> >> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>Free them where possible,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's never a good idea,
> >> >
> >> >You're not qualified to say.
> >>
> >> The proof is in the fact that none of you do it, Goo.
> >
> >The proof is in your lack of education
>
> Then why don't you explain why none of you
> do it, Leif?
>
> Answer:
> Because
No. The answer is a) I have never suggested it be done, and b) some
"aras" DO it.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
> >> >> >to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
> >> >>
> >> >> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
> >> >
> >> >They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
> >> >side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
> >>
> >> That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
> >> opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
> >> very opposed to "ar"!
> >
> >No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
> >for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
> >they stopped exploiting and killing them.
>
> People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!
>
So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation
and killing of animals?
What on earth is the point of this quote supposed to be?
Leif Erikson
Mercer, Martin Martens and too many others to count ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:
> On 9 Apr 2006 09:03:06 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other
> >> >"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat
> >> >and they can look after themselves.
> >>
> >> I won't take your word for it,
> >
> >Name one factor that it is (a) necessary for their survival and (b)
> >can be provided only by humans.
>
> In the case of chickens, food and protection from predators in
> most cases. I've never heard of long term populations of domestic
> chickens surviving anywhere,
You haven't heard of all kinds of worthwhile things, Fuckwit.
Nonetheless, they still exist and are worthwhile.
You committed a classic logical fallacy, Fuckwit: the appeal to
ignorance. Just because you're ignorant of something (and you are
ignorant of lots of things) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>> >> >> >to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
>> >> >
>> >> >They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
>> >> >side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
>> >>
>> >> That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
>> >> opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
>> >> very opposed to "ar"!
>> >
>> >No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
>> >for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
>> >they stopped exploiting and killing them.
>>
>> People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!
>>
>
>So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation
>and killing of animals?
People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>> http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm
>> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
>> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
>> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
>> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
>> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
>> [...]
>> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
>> University
>>
>> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
>> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>>
>> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> _________________________________________________________
>> AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
>>
>> Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
>> animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
>> prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
>> necessary, humane euthanasia.
>>
>> Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
>> statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
>> are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
>> promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
>> endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
>> when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
>> purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
>> benefit of both humans and animals.
>>
>> http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Usually I don't include it but this time I just didn't bother to snip
it out. Since it's there and you reacted to it, would you care to
explain why you reacted to that particular quote?
Leif Erikson
despised, blabbered:
> On 10 Apr 2006 17:57:40 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>>>>>>>>to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
>>>>>>side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
>>>>>opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
>>>>>very opposed to "ar"!
>>>>
>>>>No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
>>>>for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
>>>>they stopped exploiting and killing them.
>>>
>>> People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!
>>>
>>
>>So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation
>>and killing of animals?
>
>
> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock.
No. That absolutely DOES NOT FOLLOW, Fuckwit. People
in favor of decent lives for livestock DO NOT
NECESSARILY think there ought to be livestock in the
first place, FUCKWIT. They *ONLY* are in favor of
humane treatment of livestock IF the livestock exist;
they are not necessarily in favor of the existence of
livestock.
You are so fundamentally stupid, Fuckwit. You really
are an intensely stupid person.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
People who, for some bizarre reason, think it's terribly important that
livestock be brought into existence to have decent lives, can work to
pursue this goal. This is all perfectly consistent with the AR cause.
"Humane" killings, on the other hand, are not. Anyone who thinks that
animals should be killed is in conflict with the AR position.
> >> http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm
> >> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> [...]
> >> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
> >> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
> >> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
> >> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
> >> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
> >> [...]
> >> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
> >> University
> >>
> >> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
> >> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
> >>
> >> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
> >>
> >> Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
> >> animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
> >> prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
> >> necessary, humane euthanasia.
> >>
> >> Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
> >> statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
> >> are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
> >> promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
> >> endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
> >> when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
> >> purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
> >> benefit of both humans and animals.
> >>
> >> http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The point of the quote was supposed to be that animal rights activists
are not sentimental animal-lovers. Neither are animal welfarists. I
couldn't imagine what the relevance of the quote was supposed to be to
your case, so I asked.
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
given that they are raised. It is quite consistent to promote animal
rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
dh
No it's not. You want people to think it is so they'll keep sending money
even when they're not in favor of the elimination "cause", but that's just
another example of "ar" dishonesty.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
>> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
>> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
>> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>
>This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
>high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
>who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
>given that they are raised.
WTF are you trying to talk about?
>It is quite consistent to promote animal
>rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
They are completely different ideas, and the ONLY reason for trying
to confuse them is so that "aras" can exploit AW issues. DUH!!!
Leif Erikson
and despised, lied:
> On 12 Apr 2006 18:23:22 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>
>>>On 10 Apr 2006 17:57:40 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is
>>>>>>>>>>to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They want to eliminate animals raised for food.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a
>>>>>>>>side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the complete
>>>>>>>opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be
>>>>>>>very opposed to "ar"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if
>>>>>>for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as
>>>>>>they stopped exploiting and killing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation
>>>>and killing of animals?
>>>
>>> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
>>>reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
>>>can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
>>>understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>>>
>>
>>People who, for some bizarre reason, think it's terribly important that
>>livestock be brought into existence to have decent lives, can work to
>>pursue this goal. This is all perfectly consistent with the AR cause.
>
>
> No it's not.
Yes, it is. You can do it on your own, Fuckwit,
without worrying whether or not anyone else foolishly
thinks causing animals to exist and "get to experience
life" is doing the animals a favor.
Leif Erikson
and despised, lied:
> On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>
>>
>>> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
>>>reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
>>>can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
>>>understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>>
>>This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
>>high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
>>who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
>>given that they are raised.
>
>
> WTF are you trying to talk about?
He's elaborating on the difference between bizarre
fuckwits like you who think livestock "ought" to exist,
and sensible people like him and me and Dutch who think
that IF livestock exist, they ought to be treated
humanely. THAT'S what he's talking about, Fuckwit.
But you are so terribly behind us in your understanding
that it figures you can't get it.
>>It is quite consistent to promote animal
>>rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>
>
> They are completely different ideas,
No. They are related, Fuckwit. "ar" is an absurd and
untenable extension of the ideas of animal welfare.
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
> >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
> >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
> >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
> >
> >This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
> >high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
> >who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
> >given that they are raised.
>
> WTF are you trying to talk about?
I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
raised
and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
eliminated althogether.
>
> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>
> They are completely different ideas,
Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
them an additional right; the right to life.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Nonsense.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
>> >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
>> >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
>> >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>> >
>> >This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
>> >high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
>> >who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
>> >given that they are raised.
>>
>> WTF are you trying to talk about?
>
>I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
>raised
>and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
>eliminated althogether.
They necessarily should be.
>> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
>> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>>
>> They are completely different ideas,
>
>Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
>the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
>natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
>to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
>as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
>them an additional right; the right to life.
You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
Dave
dh@. wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2006 17:03:48 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
> >> >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
> >> >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
> >> >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
> >> >
> >> >This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
> >> >high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
> >> >who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
> >> >given that they are raised.
> >>
> >> WTF are you trying to talk about?
> >
> >I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
> >raised
> >and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
> >eliminated althogether.
>
> They necessarily should be.
False. The following position is entirely consistent: "The livestock
that
we raise for food should be raised and killed humanely. it doesn't
matter
if livestock are not raised for food."
>
> >> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
> >> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
> >>
> >> They are completely different ideas,
> >
> >Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
> >the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
> >natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
> >to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
> >as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
> >them an additional right; the right to life.
>
> You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
I think many people who adopt the position described above would
identify themselves as animal rights advocates.
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:
> On 14 Apr 2006 17:03:48 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any
>>>>>reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
>>>>>can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
>>>>>understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
>>>>
>>>>This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
>>>>high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
>>>>who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
>>>>given that they are raised.
>>>
>>> WTF are you trying to talk about?
>>
>>I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
>>raised and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
>>eliminated althogether.
>
>
> They necessarily should be.
No, Fuckwit. That is utterly illogical.
Once again, Fuckwit: being in favor of humane
treatment for livestock is CONDITIONAL on the livestock
existing in the first place. Being in favor of humane
treatment for livestock does NOT mean one is in favor
of the livestock existing in the first place. You are
UTTERLY wrong, Fuckwit.
>>>>It is quite consistent to promote animal
>>>>rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>>>
>>> They are completely different ideas,
>>
>>Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals
...IF they exist...
>>have the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
>>natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
>>to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
>>as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
>>them an additional right; the right to life.
>
>
> You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
No.
dh
You/"aras" can't understand, but it does matter to people in favor
of livestock being raised for food.
>> >> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
>> >> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>> >>
>> >> They are completely different ideas,
>> >
>> >Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
>> >the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
>> >natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
>> >to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
>> >as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
>> >them an additional right; the right to life.
>>
>> You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
>
>I think many people who adopt the position described above would
>identify themselves as animal rights advocates.
They're not promoting "ar". People in favor of decent AW should
be opposed to the elimination of the animals they want to promote
decent lives for. For some reason you can't quite understand that,
but that's how it is regardless of your ability or inability to understand.
dh
You want people who are in favor of decent lives for domestic animals,
to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals by mistakenly sending
money to "ar" organizations.
Leif Erikson
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you
> >> >> >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't
> >> >> >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
> >> >> >high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
> >> >> >who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
> >> >> >given that they are raised.
> >> >>
> >> >> WTF are you trying to talk about?
> >> >
> >> >I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
> >> >raised
> >> >and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
> >> >eliminated althogether.
> >>
> >> They necessarily should be.
> >
> >False. The following position is entirely consistent: "The livestock
> >that
> >we raise for food should be raised and killed humanely. it doesn't
> >matter
> >if livestock are not raised for food."
>
> You/"aras" can't understand,
He isn't an "ara".
There is *NOTHING* you understand that your opponents do not, Fuckwit.
You're an ignorant cracker, barely a high school graduate (and you
didn't learn anything there anyway).
> >> >> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
> >> >> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> They are completely different ideas,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
> >> >the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
> >> >natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
> >> >to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
> >> >as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
> >> >them an additional right; the right to life.
> >>
> >> You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
> >
> >I think many people who adopt the position described above would
> >identify themselves as animal rights advocates.
>
> They're not promoting "ar". People in favor of decent AW should
> be opposed to the elimination of the animals
False. That simply is not a logical conclusion.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
I want more people to support the AR cause, and I want those who do to
contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
they don't approve of.
Leif Erikson
Why? "ar" is a pernicious dogma of illogic that leads to
totalitarianism. Why do you want people to support it?
> and I want those who do to
> contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
> they don't approve of.
I don't want people to support totalitarianism in any way. "ar" is
inherently totalitarian.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
I don't agree that it's illogical and leads to totalitarianism. I think
it's a just cause. That's why I want people to support it.
> > and I want those who do to
> > contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
> > they don't approve of.
>
> I don't want people to support totalitarianism in any way. "ar" is
> inherently totalitarian.
I don't agree.
Leif Erikson
You don't have a very well thought out basis of your support for it.
In fact, Fuckwit is largely right about one thing: what you really
support is some form of animal *welfare*, not animal rights.
You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
what the limits of those rights might be. The reason "ar" becomes
totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar" means
whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right allegedly
acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what they say.
You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in your
confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that animals have
some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but they do
not, and they cannot.
>
> > > and I want those who do to
> > > contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
> > > they don't approve of.
> >
> > I don't want people to support totalitarianism in any way. "ar" is
> > inherently totalitarian.
>
> I don't agree.
Of course not, but you can't coherently say why not.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
What's your evidence for that?
> You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
> what the limits of those rights might be.
I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights. I
can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
> The reason "ar" becomes
> totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar" means
> whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right allegedly
> acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what they say.
>
I don't see any evidence for that.
> You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in your
> confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that animals have
> some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but they do
> not, and they cannot.
>
Why not?
>
> >
> > > > and I want those who do to
> > > > contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
> > > > they don't approve of.
> > >
> > > I don't want people to support totalitarianism in any way. "ar" is
> > > inherently totalitarian.
> >
> > I don't agree.
>
> Of course not, but you can't coherently say why not.
I think the burden of proof is on you. I think it's a prime facie
implausible claim.
rick
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145325782.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
You'd have a real hard time explaining how animals hold ANY
rights while you continue
to kill them for your entertainment. There is no comparison
between the rights of people,
and the lack of rights for animals. In fact, your continued
posts keep proving that
you do not support, nor believe in animal rights, killer.
>> The reason "ar" becomes
>> totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar"
>> means
>> whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right
>> allegedly
>> acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what
>> they say.
>>
>
> I don't see any evidence for that.
========================
LOL Then tell us why ar loons only push for the "rights" of
animals that others eat, and
totally ignore their own bloody footprints. AR loons always
focus only on the animals they think
others are killing.
>
>> You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in
>> your
>> confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that
>> animals have
>> some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but
>> they do
>> not, and they cannot.
>>
>
> Why not?
=====================
You prove they do not, will not, and cannot by your continued
posting to usenet, killer.
Leif Erikson
You only support better treatment for them. You don't
support some "right" for them not to be used at all.
Most particularly, you don't support - by your own
action - some "right" not to be killed.
>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
>>what the limits of those rights might be.
>
>
> I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
> animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
notion of rights in which entire species are
"exceptions" doesn't work. Rights fundamentally depend
on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
given much thought to rights theory at all.
> I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
No, or else you would have done.
>>The reason "ar" becomes
>>totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar" means
>>whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right allegedly
>>acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what they say.
>>
>
>
> I don't see any evidence for that.
You turn a blind eye to it.
>
>
>>You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in your
>>confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that animals have
>>some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but they do
>>not, and they cannot.
>>
>
>
> Why not?
See above. Start with 'reciprocity', then move on to
the idea that no animal, not merely a few exceptions
within generally rights-aware species, can even
conceive of them.
Anyway, you don't even seriously advocate the most
basic right for them, the right to life - *equal* to
the human right to life - so all the rest of your hot
air is just advocating for animal welfare.
>
>
>>>>>and I want those who do to
>>>>>contribute money. I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
>>>>>they don't approve of.
>>>>
>>>>I don't want people to support totalitarianism in any way. "ar" is
>>>>inherently totalitarian.
>>>
>>>I don't agree.
>>
>>Of course not, but you can't coherently say why not.
>
>
> I think the burden of proof is on you.
"ar" is advocated by a tiny minority who most commonly
support other highly statist solutions. People are not
moving in the direction of adopting an animal rights
regime, even if animal welfare laws are getting
stricter. In order to implement "ar", it would have to
be rammed down the throats of people, the vast majority
of whom do not accept the basic premise of the absurd
enterprise.
These extremists who push "ar" also and virtually
always push an extreme leftwing form of government that
involves the destruction of private property rights and
the promotion of group rights for politically favored
ethnic/sex/reglious/etc. groups, all requiring
heavy-handed state force to make unwilling majorities
go along. "ar" is just one more unpopular aspect of
extremist leftwing politics that would necessarily
require harsh state action to be implemented.
You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
the most basic right for animals.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Yes, well, we've been through this before. Animals have the right not
to be killed unnecessarily, and they have the right against me that I
make every *reasonable* effort not to provide financial support for
practices which kill them unnecessarily.
It is of course complete nonsense to say that my act of posting on
Usenet proves that I do not believe in animal rights. What it *might*
prove is that I am hypocritical. But I'm not particularly clear that it
proves that. To prove I am hypocritical, you would have to show that I
am not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial support
for practices which kill animals unnecessarily. It's not clear to me
that you've proved that.
In any case, whether or not I am hypocritical is not particularly
relevant to any issue of real interest.
>
>
> >> The reason "ar" becomes
> >> totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar"
> >> means
> >> whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right
> >> allegedly
> >> acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what
> >> they say.
> >>
> >
> > I don't see any evidence for that.
> ========================
> LOL Then tell us why ar loons only push for the "rights" of
> animals that others eat, and
> totally ignore their own bloody footprints. AR loons always
> focus only on the animals they think
> others are killing.
>
False.
>
> >
> >> You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in
> >> your
> >> confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that
> >> animals have
> >> some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but
> >> they do
> >> not, and they cannot.
> >>
> >
> > Why not?
> =====================
> You prove they do not, will not, and cannot by your continued
> posting to usenet, killer.
>
Nonsense.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
I believe that animals have the right not to be killed unnecessarily,
and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them. Whether or
not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
I believe.
>
> >>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
> >>what the limits of those rights might be.
> >
> >
> > I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
> > animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
>
> Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
> rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
> can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
> babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
> dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
> rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
> notion of rights in which entire species are
> "exceptions" doesn't work.
Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights. Why does their
species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
> Rights fundamentally depend
> on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
> majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
> behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
>
Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
that, an assertion, and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
exceptions to this rule. The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
best to abandon it altogether.
> Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> given much thought to rights theory at all.
>
Nonsense. Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
about the issue than me is laughable.
>
> > I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
>
> No, or else you would have done.
>
Nonsense.
>
> >>The reason "ar" becomes
> >>totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar" means
> >>whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right allegedly
> >>acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what they say.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't see any evidence for that.
>
> You turn a blind eye to it.
>
Nonsense.
>
> >
> >
> >>You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in your
> >>confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that animals have
> >>some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but they do
> >>not, and they cannot.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> See above. Start with 'reciprocity', then move on to
> the idea that no animal, not merely a few exceptions
> within generally rights-aware species, can even
> conceive of them.
>
> Anyway, you don't even seriously advocate the most
> basic right for them, the right to life - *equal* to
> the human right to life - so all the rest of your hot
> air is just advocating for animal welfare.
>
Yes, I do.
AR and the extent to which we should respect private property rights,
etc., are separate issues. It's all very well to say implementing AR
would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
totalitarian?
> You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
> don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
> the most basic right for animals.
Nonsense.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> given much thought to rights theory at all.
>
My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
very least. I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
normality:
> You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
> don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
> the most basic right for animals.
If this were right, that would mean that no-one who gives any financial
support to practices that cause unnecessary harm believes in animal
rights. And that is obvious nonsense.
Leif Erikson
No, you don't. You don't live your own life that way,
and you also are equivocating on "unnecessarily". It's
a weasel-word - you deliberately keep it vague so that
whatever you do that kills animals is - presto! -
"necessary".
> and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
> financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them.
There's another weasel word: "reasonable". But you DO
support "unnecessary" killing of animals all the time.
Fact: you do not live your life in a way that accords
non-human animals the same respect for life and safety
that you accord humans.
> Whether or
> not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
> I believe.
It has every bearing: your beliefs are filthily
hypocritical. Nothing but self-flattery.
>
>
>>>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
>>>>what the limits of those rights might be.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
>>>animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
>>
>>Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
>>rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
>>can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
>>babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
>>dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
>>rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
>>notion of rights in which entire species are
>>"exceptions" doesn't work.
>
>
> Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
> individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights.
Because they are exceptions within the group of people
that evolved rights for *our* survival and benefit.
> Why does their
> species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
Because the entire concept falls apart if there are too
many exceptions, and *all* members of non-human animal
species would have to be exceptions. The biggest class
of human exceptions, of course, is temporary:
children. The vast majority of them will become fully
independent, autonomous, reciprocating adults. If the
majority of humans were not capable of being moral
agents, the entire concept of rights never would have
evolved.
But anyway, you already don't live your life in
accordance with a demonstrated belief in animal rights,
so all this is just dancing around. You're a hypocrite.
>>Rights fundamentally depend
>>on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
>>majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
>>behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
>>
>
>
> Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
> that, an assertion,
It is fundamental to almost any theory of rights you
care to read about (which, of course, you haven't done.)
> and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
> exceptions to this rule.
They're not ad hoc at all.
> The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
> best to abandon it altogether.
>
>
>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense.
Nope. Not nonsense at all. It's just feel-good-ism.
> Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
> these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
> about the issue than me is laughable.
>
>
>>>I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
>>
>>No, or else you would have done.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense.
You overuse that word. It isn't an argument, rupie.
>
>
>>>>The reason "ar" becomes
>>>>totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that "ar" means
>>>>whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right allegedly
>>>>acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what they say.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see any evidence for that.
>>
>>You turn a blind eye to it.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense.
Same again.
>>>
>>>>You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and in your
>>>>confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that animals have
>>>>some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but they do
>>>>not, and they cannot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>See above. Start with 'reciprocity', then move on to
>>the idea that no animal, not merely a few exceptions
>>within generally rights-aware species, can even
>>conceive of them.
>>
>>Anyway, you don't even seriously advocate the most
>>basic right for them, the right to life - *equal* to
>>the human right to life - so all the rest of your hot
>>air is just advocating for animal welfare.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I do.
No, you don't. You don't live your life in accord with
the "ar" bullshit you preach, so you're just a
garden-variety sanctimonious hypocrite. A liar.
You simply DO NOT accord animals the same rights you
accord humans. You don't the same care and caution
concerning animals that you do for humans.
Not entirely. But the main point is, rupie, that "ar"
advocates almost always are extremely hostile to
private property rights as well. Belief in "ar" is a
very strong marker for belief in extreme leftwing
politics in general. Not all extreme leftists are
believers in "ar", but virtually all believers in "ar"
are extreme leftwingers.
> It's all very well to say implementing AR
> would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
> ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
> totalitarian?
Not us - they don't have rights.
>
>
>>You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
>>don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
>>the most basic right for animals.
>
>
> Nonsense.
See above.
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>
>
>
> My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
> very least.
You give no evidence of it in your non-case for "ar".
> I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
> advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
> trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
>
> You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
> normality:
>
> http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
This is really funny, because "ar" and "al" both are
extremely "speciesist". Singer in particular seems to
want to make much of a desire to condemn speciesism,
which is really bizarre because to condemn it
categorically is more of a deontological or
rights-based view rather than utilitarian; in fact,
there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in
utilitarianism that would prohibit speciesism.
"ar" and "al" are speciesist because they want to
dictate human behavior based on our species. Humans
are held to a different standard than other species.
>
>
>>You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
>>don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
>>the most basic right for animals.
>
>
> If this were right,
It *IS* right, rupie.
> that would mean that no-one who gives any financial
> support to practices that cause unnecessary harm believes in animal
> rights. And that is obvious nonsense.
Not at all. It is practically a dictionary definition
of santimonious hypocrisy; yours, in other words.
You DON'T believe in "ar", rupie, because you *do* give
lots of financial support - unthinkingly but entirely
voluntarily - to operations that violate the "rights"
you claim to believe animals have or ought to have.
You personally do not exercise the same level of care
not to harm animals that you do not to harm humans. If
you see a dead dog by the side of the road, you don't
phone the police to report a potential hit-and-run
accident. You don't do anything, not one single thing,
to avoid causing or contributing to collateral animal
deaths. You simply don't believe your own bullshit.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Yes I do. I don't kill animals unnecessarily. Financial support of
practices that kill animals is another issue. I'm not equivocating on
"unnecessarily".
>
> > and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
> > financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them.
>
> There's another weasel word: "reasonable". But you DO
> support "unnecessary" killing of animals all the time.
>
Sure. The question is whether I am making every reasonable effort not
to. There could be room for debate on this.
> Fact: you do not live your life in a way that accords
> non-human animals the same respect for life and safety
> that you accord humans.
>
To demonstrate that, you would have to show that if the processes which
support my current lifestyle caused unnecessary harm and death to
humans, in the same way that they do in fact cause unnecessary harm and
death to nonhuman animals, then I would stop financially supporting
those processes, or would think that I morally ought to. This is not
altogether clear to me.
>
> > Whether or
> > not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
> > I believe.
>
> It has every bearing: your beliefs are filthily
> hypocritical. Nothing but self-flattery.
>
Self-flattery has nothing to do with it. It would be my actions, not my
beliefs, that would be hypocritical and should be changed. But this is
not the point. You were trying to claim that it would somehow imply
that I don't believe in animal rights. That's not the case.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
> >>>>what the limits of those rights might be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
> >>>animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
> >>
> >>Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
> >>rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
> >>can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
> >>babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
> >>dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
> >>rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
> >>notion of rights in which entire species are
> >>"exceptions" doesn't work.
> >
> >
> > Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
> > individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights.
>
> Because they are exceptions within the group of people
> that evolved rights for *our* survival and benefit.
>
But who is the "group of people that evolved rights"? Why not restrict
that to the humans who can actually understand the concept of rights?
Why arbitrarily extend it to the whole human species? And if we do, why
stop there?
>
> > Why does their
> > species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
>
> Because the entire concept falls apart if there are too
> many exceptions, and *all* members of non-human animal
> species would have to be exceptions. The biggest class
> of human exceptions, of course, is temporary:
> children. The vast majority of them will become fully
> independent, autonomous, reciprocating adults. If the
> majority of humans were not capable of being moral
> agents, the entire concept of rights never would have
> evolved.
>
What about the people who permanently lack the capacity to understand
the concept of rights? *Why* make an exception for them? By making an
exception for them, you are tacitly admitting that there is something
wrong with your theory.
> But anyway, you already don't live your life in
> accordance with a demonstrated belief in animal rights,
> so all this is just dancing around. You're a hypocrite.
>
Well, maybe I am. So what? That has no bearing on our discussion.
As a matter of fact, you haven't demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite. If
you ever succeed in doing that, then you can have fun masturbating
about it for the rest of your life. But it won't have any actual
bearing on the point at issue.
>
> >>Rights fundamentally depend
> >>on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
> >>majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
> >>behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
> > that, an assertion,
>
> It is fundamental to almost any theory of rights you
> care to read about (which, of course, you haven't done.)
>
Absolute nonsense. You are just demonstrating your ignorance.
>
> > and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
> > exceptions to this rule.
>
> They're not ad hoc at all.
>
Of course they are.
>
> > The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
> > best to abandon it altogether.
> >
> >
> >>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> >>given much thought to rights theory at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Nope. Not nonsense at all. It's just feel-good-ism.
>
>
> > Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
> > these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
> > about the issue than me is laughable.
> >
> >
> >>>I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
> >>
> >>No, or else you would have done.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> You overuse that word. It isn't an argument, rupie.
>
I use it in response to ludicrous assertions which are not backed up by
any argument any sane person could take seriously.
False.
Yes, entirely.
> But the main point is, rupie, that "ar"
> advocates almost always are extremely hostile to
> private property rights as well. Belief in "ar" is a
> very strong marker for belief in extreme leftwing
> politics in general. Not all extreme leftists are
> believers in "ar", but virtually all believers in "ar"
> are extreme leftwingers.
>
I'd be interested to see if you can quote any research to support that.
But if it's the case, so what?
>
> > It's all very well to say implementing AR
> > would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
> > ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
> > totalitarian?
>
> Not us - they don't have rights.
>
Well, obviously that's the point at issue, and this shows that you
can't claim AR is totalitarian without begging the question.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> >>given much thought to rights theory at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> > My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
> > very least.
>
> You give no evidence of it in your non-case for "ar".
>
Think what you like. However, the more you post the more your lack of
philosophical sophistication becomes apparent, and the more I laugh at
your presumption in thinking you have given more serious thought to
this issue than I have.
>
> > I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
> > advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
> > trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
> >
> > You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
> > normality:
> >
> > http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
>
> This is really funny, because "ar" and "al" both are
> extremely "speciesist". Singer in particular seems to
> want to make much of a desire to condemn speciesism,
> which is really bizarre because to condemn it
> categorically is more of a deontological or
> rights-based view rather than utilitarian;
False.
> in fact,
> there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in
> utilitarianism that would prohibit speciesism.
>
> "ar" and "al" are speciesist because they want to
> dictate human behavior based on our species. Humans
> are held to a different standard than other species.
>
Rubbish. Those who are capable of understanding moral concepts are
morally judged, those who are not - human and nonhuman alike - are not,
because it's incoherent to do so. Nothing speciesist about it.
> >
> >
> >>You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
> >>don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
> >>the most basic right for animals.
> >
> >
> > If this were right,
>
> It *IS* right, rupie.
>
>
> > that would mean that no-one who gives any financial
> > support to practices that cause unnecessary harm believes in animal
> > rights. And that is obvious nonsense.
>
> Not at all. It is practically a dictionary definition
> of santimonious hypocrisy; yours, in other words.
>
Claiming they are hypocritical is one thing. Claiming they don't
believe in animal rights is obvious nonsense. As discussed elsewhere,
you haven't proved your charge of hypocrisy against me, if you
succeeded, no matter how much joy it would bring you, it really
wouldn't have any bearing on any issue of any interest.
> You DON'T believe in "ar", rupie, because you *do* give
> lots of financial support - unthinkingly but entirely
> voluntarily - to operations that violate the "rights"
> you claim to believe animals have or ought to have.
It simply does not follow from this that I don't believe in animal
rights. You're talking obvious nonsense again. *Everyone* gives
financial support to such operations. It doesn't follow that no-one
believes in animal rights. Whether or not people can be morally
criticized for doing it is a separate issue.
> You personally do not exercise the same level of care
> not to harm animals that you do not to harm humans.
Do so.
> If
> you see a dead dog by the side of the road, you don't
> phone the police to report a potential hit-and-run
> accident.
Because they wouldn't do anything about it.
> You don't do anything, not one single thing,
> to avoid causing or contributing to collateral animal
> deaths.
Rubbish. How about being vegan for a start? That's a fairly major
reduction in contribution.
Leif Erikson
No, you don't.
> I don't kill animals unnecessarily.
There's that weasel word again! It means whatever you
want it to mean, in the moment. It's worthless as a
moral guide.
And you *still* don't take the same precautions not to
kill animals that you take not to kill humans. But if
the basic right to safety isn't there, then there are
*no* rights.
> Financial support of
> practices that kill animals is another issue. I'm not equivocating on
> "unnecessarily".
Yes, you are. It varies by the moment. The only thing
at issue is your ease and comfort, not any objective
"necessity".
>>>and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
>>>financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them.
>>
>>There's another weasel word: "reasonable". But you DO
>>support "unnecessary" killing of animals all the time.
>>
>
>
> Sure.
Right. *Now* we're getting somewhere, rupie!
> The question is whether I am making every reasonable effort not
> to. There could be room for debate on this.
No, there's no debate: you are not. You could easily
do something more, at any given time, but you don't.
>>Fact: you do not live your life in a way that accords
>>non-human animals the same respect for life and safety
>>that you accord humans.
>>
>
>
> To demonstrate that, you would have to show that if the processes which
> support my current lifestyle caused unnecessary harm and death to
> humans, in the same way that they do in fact cause unnecessary harm and
> death to nonhuman animals, then I would stop financially supporting
> those processes, or would think that I morally ought to. This is not
> altogether clear to me.
The processes that support your current lifestyle
*already* do not cause anything close to the same
amount of harm to humans that they cause to animals,
but you aren't doing *anything* to stop participating
in the ones that cause great harm to animals. Your
participation is 100% voluntary, and seemingly you know
that the harm occurs. Yet you do nothing to reduce
your participation.
>>>Whether or
>>>not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
>>>I believe.
>>
>>It has every bearing: your beliefs are filthily
>>hypocritical. Nothing but self-flattery.
>>
>
>
> Self-flattery has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it, rupie. You are
flattering yourself as a morally superior person, and
it's just massively sanctimonious hypocrisy and falsehood.
> It would be my actions, not my
> beliefs, that would be hypocritical and should be changed.
It would be the phony beliefs that necessarily must be
abandoned, because they're empty posturing.
> But this is
> not the point. You were trying to claim that it would somehow imply
> that I don't believe in animal rights. That's not the case.
It is the case. The beliefs have no bearing on your
behavior, so they're crap. They aren't *really*
beliefs, just posturing. Holding and acting on the
beliefs clearly isn't important to you, rupie; the only
thing that's important is *stating* the beliefs.
That's the essence of vile sanctimony.
>>>
>>>>>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
>>>>>>what the limits of those rights might be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
>>>>>animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
>>>>
>>>>Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
>>>>rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
>>>>can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
>>>>babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
>>>>dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
>>>>rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
>>>>notion of rights in which entire species are
>>>>"exceptions" doesn't work.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
>>>individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights.
>>
>>Because they are exceptions within the group of people
>>that evolved rights for *our* survival and benefit.
>>
>
>
> But who is the "group of people that evolved rights"?
Human society.
> Why not restrict
> that to the humans who can actually understand the concept of rights?
Because many of the exceptions are temporary; because
those that aren't are few enough in number that they
don't undercut the basic concept; because people have a
sense of "that could be me." None of that is true with
non-human animals.
> Why arbitrarily extend it to the whole human species? And if we do, why
> stop there?
Because if rights evolved to help us survive, they are
only applicable to us. Nothing is gained in terms of
our survival by projecting them onto non-humans.
>
>
>>>Why does their
>>>species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
>>
>>Because the entire concept falls apart if there are too
>>many exceptions, and *all* members of non-human animal
>>species would have to be exceptions. The biggest class
>>of human exceptions, of course, is temporary:
>>children. The vast majority of them will become fully
>>independent, autonomous, reciprocating adults. If the
>>majority of humans were not capable of being moral
>>agents, the entire concept of rights never would have
>>evolved.
>>
>
>
> What about the people who permanently lack the capacity to understand
> the concept of rights? *Why* make an exception for them?
Because of their participation in the human race, for
whose survival rights evolved in the first place.
> By making an
> exception for them, you are tacitly admitting that there is something
> wrong with your theory.
No, I'm not.
>>But anyway, you already don't live your life in
>>accordance with a demonstrated belief in animal rights,
>>so all this is just dancing around. You're a hypocrite.
>>
>
>
> Well, maybe I am. So what? That has no bearing on our discussion.
It has every bearing. It shows that your beliefs are
empty posturing intended to flatter your vanity.
> As a matter of fact, you haven't demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite.
I have, rupie. You don't live your life in a way that
respects the animal "rights" in which you claim to
believe. It all starts with the most basic right, the
right to physical security. You participate
voluntarily and knowingly in activities that violate
that "right" with respect to animals in ways that you
would not tolerate if the violations were against
humans. For example, rupie, animals die all the time
in the course of producing your food, and you know it.
Very few, if any, humans die in the course of
producing your food. But you keep right on stuffing
your mouth with food figuratively drenched in animal
blood. Shame.
>
>>>>Rights fundamentally depend
>>>>on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
>>>>majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
>>>>behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
>>>that, an assertion,
>>
>>It is fundamental to almost any theory of rights you
>>care to read about (which, of course, you haven't done.)
>>
>
>
> Absolute nonsense. You are just demonstrating your ignorance.
No to both: it is not nonsense, but fact, that you
haven't read rights theory; and it is fact that
reciprocity figures crucially in most analyses of the
origin and development of rights.
>>>and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
>>>exceptions to this rule.
>>
>>They're not ad hoc at all.
>>
>
>
> Of course they are.
No, they're not.
>>>The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
>>>best to abandon it altogether.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>
>>Nope. Not nonsense at all. It's just feel-good-ism.
No comment, rupie? Hit a little too close to home, eh?
>>>Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
>>>these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
>>>about the issue than me is laughable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
>>>>
>>>>No, or else you would have done.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>
>>You overuse that word. It isn't an argument, rupie.
>>
>
>
> I use it in response to ludicrous assertions which are not backed up by
> any argument any sane person could take seriously.
No, you use it when you don't have an argument to make.
You can't say *anything* intelligent about the limit of
rights, rupie. I was right: if you could have done,
you would have done. One thing's for certain, rupie -
you sure as hell can't say why the limits of animals'
"right" to physical safety is greatly different, in the
way you lead your life, than the corresponding right
for humans; but there is no doubt that there *is* a
vast difference.
Nope - absolutely true.
You're running out of steam, aren't you? More and more
one word answers. Pretty soon you'll literally be
writing "harrumph", won't you?
No. You would like to imagine it, but no.
>>But the main point is, rupie, that "ar"
>>advocates almost always are extremely hostile to
>>private property rights as well. Belief in "ar" is a
>>very strong marker for belief in extreme leftwing
>>politics in general. Not all extreme leftists are
>>believers in "ar", but virtually all believers in "ar"
>>are extreme leftwingers.
>>
>
>
> I'd be interested to see if you can quote any research to support that.
It is demonstrated 100% of the time in these
newsgroups, rupie.
> But if it's the case, so what?
It shows consistency with a belief in authoritarianism
and authoritarian methods among advocates of "ar".
>>>It's all very well to say implementing AR
>>>would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
>>>ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
>>>totalitarian?
>>
>>Not us - they don't have rights.
>>
>
>
> Well, obviously that's the point at issue, and this shows that you
> can't claim AR is totalitarian without begging the question.
I haven't begged any question about "ar" being
totalitarian. We don't "ram" anything down animals'
throats in asserting our right to exploit them, rupie -
we just do it. There really isn't any resistance that
merits any "ramming".
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
>>>very least.
>>
>>You give no evidence of it in your non-case for "ar".
>>
>
>
> Think what you like.
You simply haven't, rupie. Blabbering "nonsense"
several times per post certainly doesn't provide any
support for the idea that you have any familiarity with
the literature at all.
> However, the more you post the more your lack of
> philosophical sophistication becomes apparent,
How about I just write "nonsense" here, rupie?
> and the more I laugh at
> your presumption in thinking you have given more serious thought to
> this issue than I have.
>
>
>>>I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
>>>advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
>>>trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
>>>
>>>You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
>>>normality:
>>>
>>>http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
>>
>>This is really funny, because "ar" and "al" both are
>>extremely "speciesist". Singer in particular seems to
>>want to make much of a desire to condemn speciesism,
>>which is really bizarre because to condemn it
>>categorically is more of a deontological or
>>rights-based view rather than utilitarian;
>
>
> False.
No, true, you reflexive ape. Try this:
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusgfrancione1997.htm
That's by Gary Francione, a noted "ar" advocate.
Francione specifically addresses the inconsistency
between Singer's categorical condemnation of speciesism
and his broader utilitarian framework.
You see, rupie, you *really* aren't familiar with the
literature.
>>in fact,
>>there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in
>>utilitarianism that would prohibit speciesism.
>>
>>"ar" and "al" are speciesist because they want to
>>dictate human behavior based on our species. Humans
>>are held to a different standard than other species.
>>
>
>
> Rubbish.
That's not an argument, rupie.
> Those who are capable of understanding moral concepts are
> morally judged, those who are not - human and nonhuman alike - are not,
> because it's incoherent to do so. Nothing speciesist about it.
EVERYTHING speciesist, rupie: only humans are able to
understand moral concepts. Both "ar" and "al" *demand*
that we acknowledge something the practitioners believe
about animals, simply because we can.
>>>>You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
>>>>don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
>>>>the most basic right for animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>If this were right,
>>
>>It *IS* right, rupie.
>>
>>
>>
>>>that would mean that no-one who gives any financial
>>>support to practices that cause unnecessary harm believes in animal
>>>rights. And that is obvious nonsense.
>>
>>Not at all. It is practically a dictionary definition
>>of santimonious hypocrisy; yours, in other words.
>>
>
>
> Claiming they are hypocritical is one thing. Claiming they don't
> believe in animal rights is obvious nonsense.
The actions belie the claimed belief. We go by the
actions, not the statements of belief. Actions, or the
lack thereof, trump statements of belief.
> As discussed elsewhere,
> you haven't proved your charge of hypocrisy against me,
I have, rupie. You claim to believe in animal
"rights", but your behavior is grossly inconsistent
with that belief being real and meaningful. You're a
hypocrite.
> if you
> succeeded, no matter how much joy it would bring you, it really
> wouldn't have any bearing on any issue of any interest.
It has lots of bearing, rupie. The issue of interest
is your hypocrisy, and by extension that of every
sanctinonious self-flattering "animal rights advocate".
>>You DON'T believe in "ar", rupie, because you *do* give
>>lots of financial support - unthinkingly but entirely
>>voluntarily - to operations that violate the "rights"
>>you claim to believe animals have or ought to have.
>
>
> It simply does not follow from this that I don't believe in animal
> rights.
Yes, it does, rupie. If your belief were meaningful -
that is, if it were sincere and legitimate - then you
wouldn't participate in animal death. But you *do*
participate, willingly and knowingly. The belief isn't
real; the statement of belief is a self-flattering lie.
> You're talking obvious nonsense again.
No.
> *Everyone* gives
> financial support to such operations.
For most of us, there's no inconsistency.
Your participation in animal death, of course, goes
beyond mere financial support. There is the entire
lifestyle choice.
> It doesn't follow that no-one
> believes in animal rights.
It does. Stated belief that is grossly contradicted by
observable behavior means the statement of belief is
worthless; empty posturing.
> Whether or not people can be morally
> criticized for doing it is a separate issue.
The statement of belief is rubbish.
>>You personally do not exercise the same level of care
>>not to harm animals that you do not to harm humans.
>
>
> Do so.
No, rupie, you do not.
>>If you see a dead dog by the side of the road, you don't
>>phone the police to report a potential hit-and-run
>>accident.
>
>
> Because they wouldn't do anything about it.
Oh, so now your failure to abide by your alleged
beliefs is due to someone *else's* moral failings, is
it? The simple fact, rupie, is that you don't exercise
the same degree of caution concerning potential harm to
animals that you do for humans. No one does. But most
others don't lie and say that their diligence is the
same irrespective of species. You, being a liar and a
hypocrite, do.
>>You don't do anything, not one single thing,
>>to avoid causing or contributing to collateral animal
>>deaths.
>
>
> Rubbish. How about being vegan for a start? That's a fairly major
> reduction in contribution.
No, it isn't, but I'm glad you brought that up.
"veganism" is not based in principle *at all*. It is
nothing but blind adherence to a rule that is
fundamentally flawed because it is based on a logical
fallacy, the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
"veganism" also is a blatant demonstration that what
motivates "ar" thinking is self flattery and
aggrandizement: "veganism" is predicated on the
morally repulsive idea that one shows virtue by means
of a comparison with others.
The fact is, rupie, that being "vegan" says *nothing*
about your death toll, because you haven't counted.
You're merely trying to exalt yourself by means of an
invidious and loathsome comparison with others. But
virtue is *never* demonstrated by comparing oneself
with others, rupie; virtue consists solely in adhering
to right moral principles, and "veganism" has nothing
to do with that.
>>You simply don't believe your own bullshit.
But it makes you feel good to state it, doesn't it, rupie?
rupertm...@yahoo.com
False. A general principle "Don't kill animals" would be incorrect,
just as a general princple "Don't kill humans" would be incorrect. It's
necessary to add the qualifier "unnecessarily".
But, as a matter of fact, I don't kill animals at all. What you
probably have in mind is that I financially support processes which
kill animals unnecessarily.
> And you *still* don't take the same precautions not to
> kill animals that you take not to kill humans. But if
> the basic right to safety isn't there, then there are
> *no* rights.
>
No, that's a non sequitur.
I do take the same precautions. If I lived in a world where all the
nonhuman animals were replaced by a group of humans, and our behaviour
had the same impact on those humans as it does now on nonhuman animals,
I would do the same as what I do now. I would stop financially
supporting the most egregious forms of abuse, I would make every
reasonable effort not to financially support any abuse at all, and I
would try to do research to find out about the impact of processes I
financially support and modify my behaviour accordingly. I might
occasionally have nagging doubts that maybe I should do even more,
maybe I should buy my own property and grow my own food, make my own
electricity, and so forth. But I probably wouldn't actually do it, not
without further deliberation anyway. And maybe this would be a moral
flaw, maybe it wouldn't. The point is, I would respond to the situation
in the same way I presently respond to the situation vis-a-vis nonhuman
animals.
>
>
> > Financial support of
> > practices that kill animals is another issue. I'm not equivocating on
> > "unnecessarily".
>
> Yes, you are. It varies by the moment. The only thing
> at issue is your ease and comfort, not any objective
> "necessity".
>
False.
>
> >>>and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
> >>>financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them.
> >>
> >>There's another weasel word: "reasonable". But you DO
> >>support "unnecessary" killing of animals all the time.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sure.
>
> Right. *Now* we're getting somewhere, rupie!
>
>
> > The question is whether I am making every reasonable effort not
> > to. There could be room for debate on this.
>
> No, there's no debate: you are not. You could easily
> do something more, at any given time, but you don't.
>
Tell me what I could do *easily*.
>
> >>Fact: you do not live your life in a way that accords
> >>non-human animals the same respect for life and safety
> >>that you accord humans.
> >>
> >
> >
> > To demonstrate that, you would have to show that if the processes which
> > support my current lifestyle caused unnecessary harm and death to
> > humans, in the same way that they do in fact cause unnecessary harm and
> > death to nonhuman animals, then I would stop financially supporting
> > those processes, or would think that I morally ought to. This is not
> > altogether clear to me.
>
> The processes that support your current lifestyle
> *already* do not cause anything close to the same
> amount of harm to humans that they cause to animals,
> but you aren't doing *anything* to stop participating
> in the ones that cause great harm to animals. Your
> participation is 100% voluntary, and seemingly you know
> that the harm occurs. Yet you do nothing to reduce
> your participation.
>
That's not quite true, sometimes I find out about something and modify
my behaviour accordingly. The point is, I would act in the same way if
it were humans that were affected, as noted above.
>
> >>>Whether or
> >>>not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
> >>>I believe.
> >>
> >>It has every bearing: your beliefs are filthily
> >>hypocritical. Nothing but self-flattery.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Self-flattery has nothing to do with it.
>
> It has everything to do with it, rupie. You are
> flattering yourself as a morally superior person, and
> it's just massively sanctimonious hypocrisy and falsehood.
>
No, it's just that I have moral opinions which I am trying to live up
to.
>
> > It would be my actions, not my
> > beliefs, that would be hypocritical and should be changed.
>
> It would be the phony beliefs that necessarily must be
> abandoned, because they're empty posturing.
>
No. The only reason to abandon a belief is if you have some reason to
think it's not true. The fact that you fail to live up to a moral
belief that is very demanding is no evidence that it's not true. This
is a fundamental fallacy in your thinking, and it's very clearly a
fallacy.
>
> > But this is
> > not the point. You were trying to claim that it would somehow imply
> > that I don't believe in animal rights. That's not the case.
>
> It is the case. The beliefs have no bearing on your
> behavior, so they're crap. They aren't *really*
> beliefs, just posturing.
Rubbish.
> Holding and acting on the
> beliefs clearly isn't important to you, rupie;
Rubbish. I have these moral beliefs and I am trying to make a good
faith effort to live up to them. You have no basis for questioning the
sincerity of my effort, it is just effrontery on your part.
> the only
> thing that's important is *stating* the beliefs.
> That's the essence of vile sanctimony.
>
>
> >>>
> >>>>>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
> >>>>>>what the limits of those rights might be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
> >>>>>animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
> >>>>
> >>>>Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
> >>>>rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
> >>>>can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
> >>>>babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
> >>>>dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
> >>>>rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
> >>>>notion of rights in which entire species are
> >>>>"exceptions" doesn't work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
> >>>individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights.
> >>
> >>Because they are exceptions within the group of people
> >>that evolved rights for *our* survival and benefit.
> >>
> >
> >
> > But who is the "group of people that evolved rights"?
>
> Human society.
>
Why not just the members of human society who can understand the
concept of rights? What are your grounds for arbitrarily including
those who permanently lack that capacity? And if you are going to
include *some* individuals who permanently lack that capacity, why not
others too?
>
> > Why not restrict
> > that to the humans who can actually understand the concept of rights?
>
> Because many of the exceptions are temporary;
Ignore those ones. I'm talking about the ones that are permanent.
> because
> those that aren't are few enough in number that they
> don't undercut the basic concept;
Why make any exceptions at all? You're only making this concession
because you recognize that if you don't people will regard your theory
as totally implausible. If a theory has unacceptable consequences, it
should be abandoned. It's no good making ad hoc adjustments to the
theory in a futile attempt to save it.
> because people have a
> sense of "that could be me." None of that is true with
> non-human animals.
Clearly false for the last one.
>
>
> > Why arbitrarily extend it to the whole human species? And if we do, why
> > stop there?
>
> Because if rights evolved to help us survive, they are
> only applicable to us. Nothing is gained in terms of
> our survival by projecting them onto non-humans.
>
*Whom* are rights supposed to help survive? It doesn't help white's
survival to grant rights to blacks. The only basis for them doing so is
the recognition that no good reason can be given in the nature of
things for them claiming rights but denying it to blacks. Similarly, no
good reason can be given in the nature of things for humans claiming
rights but denying it to nonhumans. Unless you want to maintain that
the capacity to understand the concept of rights is relevant, but you
don't really believe that, because you acknowledge the need to make
exceptions. All you have left is the argument from species normality.
That argument is implausible on the face of it. Why should what is
normal for one's species be relevant? Furthermore, I've linked you to a
critique of that argument and you haven't given a very good reply yet.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Why does their
> >>>species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
> >>
> >>Because the entire concept falls apart if there are too
> >>many exceptions, and *all* members of non-human animal
> >>species would have to be exceptions. The biggest class
> >>of human exceptions, of course, is temporary:
> >>children. The vast majority of them will become fully
> >>independent, autonomous, reciprocating adults. If the
> >>majority of humans were not capable of being moral
> >>agents, the entire concept of rights never would have
> >>evolved.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What about the people who permanently lack the capacity to understand
> > the concept of rights? *Why* make an exception for them?
>
> Because of their participation in the human race, for
> whose survival rights evolved in the first place.
>
I've no idea what "their participation in the human race" is supposed
to refer to if not the brute fact of species membership. So you're
falling back on pure speciesism. But why does species matter? If the
capacity to understand the concept of rights is relevant, fine, you
should bite the bullet and go with that, and exclude those who
permanently lack that capacity. Appealing to what's normal for the
species is just a desperate ad hoc maneuvre.
>
> > By making an
> > exception for them, you are tacitly admitting that there is something
> > wrong with your theory.
>
> No, I'm not.
>
Then you've got to come up with some motivation for the exception other
than a desperate attempt to rescue the plausibility of a theory with
unacceptable consequences.
>
> >>But anyway, you already don't live your life in
> >>accordance with a demonstrated belief in animal rights,
> >>so all this is just dancing around. You're a hypocrite.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well, maybe I am. So what? That has no bearing on our discussion.
>
> It has every bearing. It shows that your beliefs are
> empty posturing intended to flatter your vanity.
>
It has no bearing on whether the beliefs are true or not. Surely that's
the issue.
>
> > As a matter of fact, you haven't demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite.
>
> I have, rupie. You don't live your life in a way that
> respects the animal "rights" in which you claim to
> believe. It all starts with the most basic right, the
> right to physical security. You participate
> voluntarily and knowingly in activities that violate
> that "right" with respect to animals in ways that you
> would not tolerate if the violations were against
> humans. For example, rupie, animals die all the time
> in the course of producing your food, and you know it.
> Very few, if any, humans die in the course of
> producing your food. But you keep right on stuffing
> your mouth with food figuratively drenched in animal
> blood. Shame.
>
As I say, if I had to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid financially
supporting unnecessary harm to humans, I would probably permit myself
to financially support some unnecessary harm to humans. I would think
myself obliged to make every reasonable effort not to, and would try to
live up to this. And that's what I'm trying to do now vis-a-vis the
situation with nonhuman animals.
>
> >
> >>>>Rights fundamentally depend
> >>>>on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
> >>>>majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
> >>>>behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
> >>>that, an assertion,
> >>
> >>It is fundamental to almost any theory of rights you
> >>care to read about (which, of course, you haven't done.)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Absolute nonsense. You are just demonstrating your ignorance.
>
> No to both: it is not nonsense, but fact, that you
> haven't read rights theory; and it is fact that
> reciprocity figures crucially in most analyses of the
> origin and development of rights.
>
No, you are demonstrating your ignorance and showing laughable
presumption. I have read more ethics than you. The theory you are
talking about is called "contractarianism". It is just one type of
theory of rights among many others. And it is plagued by precisely the
problem we are talking about: the problem of marginal cases.
>
> >>>and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
> >>>exceptions to this rule.
> >>
> >>They're not ad hoc at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Of course they are.
>
> No, they're not.
>
What justifies them, then, if not the desire to rescue a theory from
unpalatable implications?
>
> >>>The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
> >>>best to abandon it altogether.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> >>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>Nope. Not nonsense at all. It's just feel-good-ism.
>
> No comment, rupie? Hit a little too close to home, eh?
>
Er, no, just have better things to do than endlessly exchange
non-arguments. Of course I am perfectly well aware that I have read a
lot more ethics than you and given a lot more serious thought to this
issue than you. If you choose not to believe me (or to pretend not to
belive me), then fine, I couldn't care less.
>
> >>>Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
> >>>these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
> >>>about the issue than me is laughable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, or else you would have done.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>You overuse that word. It isn't an argument, rupie.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I use it in response to ludicrous assertions which are not backed up by
> > any argument any sane person could take seriously.
>
> No, you use it when you don't have an argument to make.
>
No, my description of how I use it was accurate. When you see me say
"nonsense", take that to mean, "As far as I am concerned, this is a
ludicrous assertion which is not backed up by any argument that any
sane person could take seriously". That ought to clear up any
confusion.
> You can't say *anything* intelligent about the limit of
> rights, rupie. I was right: if you could have done,
> you would have done.
Nonsense.
> One thing's for certain, rupie -
> you sure as hell can't say why the limits of animals'
> "right" to physical safety is greatly different, in the
> way you lead your life, than the corresponding right
> for humans; but there is no doubt that there *is* a
> vast difference.
>
No, there isn't.
I'm only going to bother to reply in any depth when you've produced
something worth replying to in depth.
Nonsense.
>
> >>But the main point is, rupie, that "ar"
> >>advocates almost always are extremely hostile to
> >>private property rights as well. Belief in "ar" is a
> >>very strong marker for belief in extreme leftwing
> >>politics in general. Not all extreme leftists are
> >>believers in "ar", but virtually all believers in "ar"
> >>are extreme leftwingers.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'd be interested to see if you can quote any research to support that.
>
> It is demonstrated 100% of the time in these
> newsgroups, rupie.
>
I think you need a bit more education in the principles of sample
selection. I also doubt even this claim.
>
> > But if it's the case, so what?
>
> It shows consistency with a belief in authoritarianism
> and authoritarian methods among advocates of "ar".
>
I think that depends on what you mean by "extreme leftwingers". It's
not my experience that most ARAs are "extreme leftwingers" in that
sense. In any case, this still wouldn't be enough to demonstrate your
original claim that AR is intrinsically totalitarian.
ARAs are no more authoritarian than the general population. You are
talking through your hat.
>
> >>>It's all very well to say implementing AR
> >>>would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
> >>>ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
> >>>totalitarian?
> >>
> >>Not us - they don't have rights.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well, obviously that's the point at issue, and this shows that you
> > can't claim AR is totalitarian without begging the question.
>
> I haven't begged any question about "ar" being
> totalitarian. We don't "ram" anything down animals'
> throats in asserting our right to exploit them, rupie -
> we just do it. There really isn't any resistance that
> merits any "ramming".
>
AR is not totalitarian. The status quo is arguably a form of
totalitarianism. To deny that it is, you would have to prove animals
don't have rights, which you have failed to do so far.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
> >>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
> >>>very least.
> >>
> >>You give no evidence of it in your non-case for "ar".
> >>
> >
> >
> > Think what you like.
>
> You simply haven't, rupie. Blabbering "nonsense"
> several times per post certainly doesn't provide any
> support for the idea that you have any familiarity with
> the literature at all.
>
Yes, thank you for repeating yourself. Let me return the favour: think
what you like.
Perhaps if you posted things that are worth replying to in depth more
often I would have had more opportunity to evince my familiarity with
the literature.
>
> > However, the more you post the more your lack of
> > philosophical sophistication becomes apparent,
>
> How about I just write "nonsense" here, rupie?
>
Fine by me.
>
> > and the more I laugh at
> > your presumption in thinking you have given more serious thought to
> > this issue than I have.
> >
> >
> >>>I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
> >>>advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
> >>>trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
> >>>
> >>>You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
> >>>normality:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
> >>
> >>This is really funny, because "ar" and "al" both are
> >>extremely "speciesist". Singer in particular seems to
> >>want to make much of a desire to condemn speciesism,
> >>which is really bizarre because to condemn it
> >>categorically is more of a deontological or
> >>rights-based view rather than utilitarian;
> >
> >
> > False.
>
> No, true, you reflexive ape. Try this:
> http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusgfrancione1997.htm
>
> That's by Gary Francione, a noted "ar" advocate.
> Francione specifically addresses the inconsistency
> between Singer's categorical condemnation of speciesism
> and his broader utilitarian framework.
>
Great. I'll have a look. I haven't seen this one before. Not having
looked at Francione's argument yet, I don't currently agree with his
position. We'll see what I think after I've read it.
> You see, rupie, you *really* aren't familiar with the
> literature.
>
False.
>
> >>in fact,
> >>there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in
> >>utilitarianism that would prohibit speciesism.
> >>
> >>"ar" and "al" are speciesist because they want to
> >>dictate human behavior based on our species. Humans
> >>are held to a different standard than other species.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> That's not an argument, rupie.
>
Yes, but what follows is, so what is your point?
>
> > Those who are capable of understanding moral concepts are
> > morally judged, those who are not - human and nonhuman alike - are not,
> > because it's incoherent to do so. Nothing speciesist about it.
>
> EVERYTHING speciesist, rupie: only humans are able to
> understand moral concepts. Both "ar" and "al" *demand*
> that we acknowledge something the practitioners believe
> about animals, simply because we can.
>
Is it a form of discrimination to grant rights to humans who
permanently lack the capacity to understand moral concepts when they
can't return the favour? Or to refrain from morally judging humans who
permanently lack this capacity?
>
> >>>>You don't really believe in "ar", though, because you
> >>>>don't live your own life in such a way that you respect
> >>>>the most basic right for animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If this were right,
> >>
> >>It *IS* right, rupie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>that would mean that no-one who gives any financial
> >>>support to practices that cause unnecessary harm believes in animal
> >>>rights. And that is obvious nonsense.
> >>
> >>Not at all. It is practically a dictionary definition
> >>of santimonious hypocrisy; yours, in other words.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Claiming they are hypocritical is one thing. Claiming they don't
> > believe in animal rights is obvious nonsense.
>
> The actions belie the claimed belief.
False, for reasons explained several times.
> We go by the
> actions, not the statements of belief. Actions, or the
> lack thereof, trump statements of belief.
>
If moral hypocrisy were logically impossible, that would be a good
methodology. As it is, it's pretty stupid. But in any case, it's not
true that the actions are necessarily inconsistent with a belief in
animal rights.
>
> > As discussed elsewhere,
> > you haven't proved your charge of hypocrisy against me,
>
> I have, rupie. You claim to believe in animal
> "rights", but your behavior is grossly inconsistent
> with that belief being real and meaningful. You're a
> hypocrite.
>
False.
>
> > if you
> > succeeded, no matter how much joy it would bring you, it really
> > wouldn't have any bearing on any issue of any interest.
>
> It has lots of bearing, rupie. The issue of interest
> is your hypocrisy, and by extension that of every
> sanctinonious self-flattering "animal rights advocate".
>
Yes, I know this is the issue of interest to you. It's one of the
strange things about you. The issue of interest to me is what our moral
obligations towards nonhuman animals actually are. If we don't have any
interests in common then maybe there's no basis for our conversation.
>
> >>You DON'T believe in "ar", rupie, because you *do* give
> >>lots of financial support - unthinkingly but entirely
> >>voluntarily - to operations that violate the "rights"
> >>you claim to believe animals have or ought to have.
> >
> >
> > It simply does not follow from this that I don't believe in animal
> > rights.
>
> Yes, it does, rupie. If your belief were meaningful -
> that is, if it were sincere and legitimate - then you
> wouldn't participate in animal death. But you *do*
> participate, willingly and knowingly. The belief isn't
> real; the statement of belief is a self-flattering lie.
>
No it doesn't. It's possible to hold a sincere moral belief, yet not
fully act in accordance with it. People do it all the time. Also, as a
matter of fact you haven't yet shown that I am not acting in accordance
with my stated beliefs.
> > You're talking obvious nonsense again.
>
> No.
>
>
> > *Everyone* gives
> > financial support to such operations.
>
> For most of us, there's no inconsistency.
>
> Your participation in animal death, of course, goes
> beyond mere financial support. There is the entire
> lifestyle choice.
>
I'm afraid I'm not following you.
>
> > It doesn't follow that no-one
> > believes in animal rights.
>
> It does. Stated belief that is grossly contradicted by
> observable behavior means the statement of belief is
> worthless; empty posturing.
>
Well, it doesn't. But also, the actions are not in fact necessarily
inconsistent with the belief. You can believe that animals (human and
nonhuman) have the right not to be made to suffer and be killed
unnecessarily, and also that they have the right against us that we
make every *reasonable* effort not to give financial support to
practices that do this. Perhaps you think that if, in order to avoid
financial supporting practices that cause unnecessary human harm, you
had to buy up your own property and grow all your own food, make your
own electricity, and so forth, you would do it. Well, good for you. But
I think you'll find reasonable minds may differ on this issue.
>
> > Whether or not people can be morally
> > criticized for doing it is a separate issue.
>
> The statement of belief is rubbish.
>
>
> >>You personally do not exercise the same level of care
> >>not to harm animals that you do not to harm humans.
> >
> >
> > Do so.
>
> No, rupie, you do not.
>
>
> >>If you see a dead dog by the side of the road, you don't
> >>phone the police to report a potential hit-and-run
> >>accident.
> >
> >
> > Because they wouldn't do anything about it.
>
> Oh, so now your failure to abide by your alleged
> beliefs is due to someone *else's* moral failings, is
> it?
The example you gave was not a failure to abide by said beliefs.
> The simple fact, rupie, is that you don't exercise
> the same degree of caution concerning potential harm to
> animals that you do for humans.
Do so.
> No one does. But most
> others don't lie and say that their diligence is the
> same irrespective of species. You, being a liar and a
> hypocrite, do.
>
>
> >>You don't do anything, not one single thing,
> >>to avoid causing or contributing to collateral animal
> >>deaths.
> >
> >
> > Rubbish. How about being vegan for a start? That's a fairly major
> > reduction in contribution.
>
> No, it isn't, but I'm glad you brought that up.
> "veganism" is not based in principle *at all*. It is
> nothing but blind adherence to a rule that is
> fundamentally flawed because it is based on a logical
> fallacy, the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
> "veganism" also is a blatant demonstration that what
> motivates "ar" thinking is self flattery and
> aggrandizement: "veganism" is predicated on the
> morally repulsive idea that one shows virtue by means
> of a comparison with others.
>
> The fact is, rupie, that being "vegan" says *nothing*
> about your death toll, because you haven't counted.
Rubbish. You yourself have observed that animal products require more
crop inputs than plant food products. Of course being vegan reduces
your contribution to collateral deaths, not to mention the suffering
and death involved in animal agriculture.
> You're merely trying to exalt yourself by means of an
> invidious and loathsome comparison with others. But
> virtue is *never* demonstrated by comparing oneself
> with others, rupie; virtue consists solely in adhering
> to right moral principles, and "veganism" has nothing
> to do with that.
>
I'm not comparing myself to others. You said I did nothing to reduce my
impact on collateral deaths, and I pointed out that you were wrong.
Veganism is part of my attempt to live up to the principle that we
should make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support
for practices that cause unnecessary harm.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> No, true, you reflexive ape. Try this:
> http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusgfrancione1997.htm
>
> That's by Gary Francione, a noted "ar" advocate.
> Francione specifically addresses the inconsistency
> between Singer's categorical condemnation of speciesism
> and his broader utilitarian framework.
>
Yes, I had a look at this. I don't agree with Francione that there's a
tension between Singer's rejection of speciesism and his
consequentialism. Francione claims Singer has a view that "speciesism
can be morally acceptable if the aggregation of consequences so
indicates." But this is logically impossible. The rejection of
speciesism is an aspect of the methodology for evaluating the
consequences. If you evaluate consequences according to this
methodology, you can't get conclusions that are in conflict with it.
rick
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145337255.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
SNIP...
===========================
They have NO rights if you are able to kill them with no
consequences for
nothing more than selfishness and entertainment.
>
> It is of course complete nonsense to say that my act of posting
> on
> Usenet proves that I do not believe in animal rights.
======================================
No, it is not nonsense, its complete truth. You know that
animals die
yet you don't care. YOUR entertainemnt comes before their lives.
Proving
that you know they have no rights, and that you do not support
their supposed rights.
What it *might*
> prove is that I am hypocritical.
=========================
Completely...
But I'm not particularly clear that it
> proves that. To prove I am hypocritical, you would have to show
> that I
> am not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial
> support
> for practices which kill animals unnecessarily. It's not clear
> to me
> that you've proved that.
========================
I suggest you look up the term. It means you SAY one thing and
do quite another.
'Reasonable effort' has no bearing on the hypocrisy that you
display.
>
> In any case, whether or not I am hypocritical is not
> particularly
> relevant to any issue of real interest.
> =============================
LOL Yes, it is. All usenet vegans are blatent hypocrites.
Sanctimonious
fools trying to control everyone else, but exempting themselves
from
their own bloody footprints, killer.
>>
>>
>> >> The reason "ar" becomes
>> >> totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that
>> >> "ar"
>> >> means
>> >> whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right
>> >> allegedly
>> >> acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what
>> >> they say.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't see any evidence for that.
>> ========================
>> LOL Then tell us why ar loons only push for the "rights" of
>> animals that others eat, and
>> totally ignore their own bloody footprints. AR loons always
>> focus only on the animals they think
>> others are killing.
>>
>
> False.
===================
Completly true, killer. You ignore the animals YOU kill and
focus soely on what you think others are doing.
You have expressed zero concern for the animals that die by your
hands, hypocrite.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> You want animal welfare laws to be enforced strictly, and
>> >> in
>> >> your
>> >> confusion you have come to embrace the silly belief that
>> >> animals have
>> >> some kind of "right" to a particular form of treatment, but
>> >> they do
>> >> not, and they cannot.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why not?
>> =====================
>> You prove they do not, will not, and cannot by your continued
>> posting to usenet, killer.
>>
>
> Nonsense.
============================
Truth, fool. Too bad your brainwashing won't allow you to see
the truth, killer.
Dave
Missing the point. Being in favour of livestock leading decent lives.
is not the same as being in favour of animals being raised for food.
>
> >> >> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
> >> >> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> They are completely different ideas,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
> >> >the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
> >> >natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
> >> >to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
> >> >as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
> >> >them an additional right; the right to life.
> >>
> >> You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
> >
> >I think many people who adopt the position described above would
> >identify themselves as animal rights advocates.
>
> They're not promoting "ar". People in favor of decent AW should
> be opposed to the elimination of the animals they want to promote
> decent lives for.
AW doesn't require livestock animals to exist. Wild animals can also
enjoy decent AW.
dh
Then we agree.
>I don't want anyone to contribute money to something
>they don't approve of.
I'm certainly not convinced of that. And even IF you do feel that way,
there are others who do not. One of your brothers specifically stated that:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
Because of his support for that situation, observe how he reacts when
someone points out the huge difference between AW and "ar":
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <UePS9.244372$Qr.70...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
dh pointed out:
> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Goo wrote:
>>
>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My good chap, I have read as much ethics and philosophy as you, at the
>> very least.
>
>You give no evidence of it in your non-case for "ar".
>
>
>> I have seen the same tired and flawed arguments you are
>> advancing discussed in detail countless times. I would not recommend
>> trying to put on airs of intellectual superiority with me.
>>
>> You might be interested in this discussion of the argument from species
>> normality:
>>
>> http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/A%20Libertarian%20Replies%20to%20Tibor%20Machan's%20'Why%20Animal%20Rights%20Don't%20Exist'.htm
>
>This is really funny, because "ar" and "al" both are
>extremely "speciesist". Singer in particular seems to
>want to make much of a desire to condemn speciesism,
>which is really bizarre because to condemn it
>categorically is more of a deontological or
>rights-based view rather than utilitarian; in fact,
>there doesn't seem to be anything inherent in
>utilitarianism that would prohibit speciesism.
>
>"ar" and "al" are speciesist because they want to
>dictate human behavior based on our species. Humans
>are held to a different standard than other species.
How does all that prove that life is never of positive
value to any of the animals we raise for food, Goo?
dh
>dh pointed out:
>
>> People in favor of decent AW should be opposed to the elimination
>>of the animals they want to promote decent lives for.
>
>False. That simply is not a logical conclusion.
>
LOL!!! You poor, stupid Goober!
dh
>Goo wrote:
>> rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > I don't kill animals unnecessarily.
>>
>> There's that weasel word again! It means whatever you
>> want it to mean, in the moment. It's worthless as a
>> moral guide.
>>
>
>False. A general principle "Don't kill animals" would be incorrect,
>just as a general princple "Don't kill humans" would be incorrect. It's
>necessary to add the qualifier "unnecessarily".
"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo
"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any
moral consideration." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's
your answer. " - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock; but consideration of their
deaths does warrant some moral consideration." - Goo
"the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
As we can see, you and Goo agree about this issue.
Goo sometimes claims to disagree with himself, but
regardless of what he says from one sentence to the
next the above quotes undoubtedly explain how he
wants people to feel about raising animals for food.
Leif Erikson
despise, lied:
> On 18 Apr 2006 01:50:29 -0700, rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> rupertm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > I don't kill animals unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> There's that weasel word again! It means whatever you
> >> want it to mean, in the moment. It's worthless as a
> >> moral guide.
> >>
> >
> >False. A general principle "Don't kill animals" would be incorrect,
> >just as a general princple "Don't kill humans" would be incorrect. It's
> >necessary to add the qualifier "unnecessarily".
>
> "We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing"
Not what I wrote. As usual, Fuckwit, you lied.
Of course, in reading the thread, you see that I *do*, of course,
oppose "ar", so your bullshit claim that I am an "ara" is clearly a
deliberate lie.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
I don't kill animals. We've installed solar panels, so I'm not
financially supporting the killing of animals when I use electricity.
I explained my position. It's a consistent position.
>
>
> >
> > It is of course complete nonsense to say that my act of posting
> > on
> > Usenet proves that I do not believe in animal rights.
> ======================================
> No, it is not nonsense, its complete truth. You know that
> animals die
> yet you don't care. YOUR entertainemnt comes before their lives.
> Proving
> that you know they have no rights, and that you do not support
> their supposed rights.
>
No, I'm afraid it's nonsense. It doesn't prove any such thing. It might
prove that I don't always live in accordance with my moral principles.
However, we've now installed solar panels and so are actually saving
animals' lives.
>
> What it *might*
> > prove is that I am hypocritical.
> =========================
> Completely...
>
>
> But I'm not particularly clear that it
> > proves that. To prove I am hypocritical, you would have to show
> > that I
> > am not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial
> > support
> > for practices which kill animals unnecessarily. It's not clear
> > to me
> > that you've proved that.
> ========================
> I suggest you look up the term. It means you SAY one thing and
> do quite another.
Yes, well I've told you what I say, now it's your job to show me I'm
doing something else.
> 'Reasonable effort' has no bearing on the hypocrisy that you
> display.
>
Yes it does, because it's what I say. It's your job to show there's a
conflict between what I say and what I do.
Tell me something. Suppose you were in my position, only it was humans
rather than nonhumans who were being hurt and killed. What would you
do?
>
>
> >
> > In any case, whether or not I am hypocritical is not
> > particularly
> > relevant to any issue of real interest.
> > =============================
> LOL Yes, it is.
To you, perhaps.
> All usenet vegans are blatent hypocrites.
> Sanctimonious
> fools trying to control everyone else, but exempting themselves
> from
> their own bloody footprints, killer.
>
Are you in favour of it being illegal to commercially distribute videos
of children being raped? If so, you are "trying to control everyone
else" in the same sense as I am while "exempting yourself from your
bloody footprints".
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The reason "ar" becomes
> >> >> totalitarian is its adherents eventually come to say that
> >> >> "ar"
> >> >> means
> >> >> whatever they want it to mean, and they assert the right
> >> >> allegedly
> >> >> acting on behalf of animals to make the rest of us do what
> >> >> they say.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any evidence for that.
> >> ========================
> >> LOL Then tell us why ar loons only push for the "rights" of
> >> animals that others eat, and
> >> totally ignore their own bloody footprints. AR loons always
> >> focus only on the animals they think
> >> others are killing.
> >>
> >
> > False.
> ===================
> Completly true, killer. You ignore the animals YOU kill and
> focus soely on what you think others are doing.
> You have expressed zero concern for the animals that die by your
> hands, hypocrite.
>
Well, I am concerned about the animals which are killed by processes
which I financially support. I don't want things to be that way. But
I'm not convinced I'm morally obliged to withdraw my financial support.
If it were humans who were being hurt and killed, I think there would
be limits on the sacrifices I would be obliged to impose on myself in
order to avoid financially supporting the processes which were hurting
and killing them. Perhaps you think differently. I'd be interested to
know what *you* would do if you had to make great sacrifices in order
to avoid financially supporting processes which hurt and killed humans.
rick
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145407570.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
No, the only nonsense is yours, fool. Animals cannot have rights
as
long as you can kill them without ANY consequences. Trying to
claim
they do by focusing only on the animals that you think others are
killing
is just foolishness and stupidity. But then, you've proven that
you are
full of those anlong with your hypocrisy, killer.
>
>>
>> What it *might*
>> > prove is that I am hypocritical.
>> =========================
>> Completely...
>>
>>
>> But I'm not particularly clear that it
>> > proves that. To prove I am hypocritical, you would have to
>> > show
>> > that I
>> > am not making every reasonable effort not to provide
>> > financial
>> > support
>> > for practices which kill animals unnecessarily. It's not
>> > clear
>> > to me
>> > that you've proved that.
>> ========================
>> I suggest you look up the term. It means you SAY one thing
>> and
>> do quite another.
>
> Yes, well I've told you what I say, now it's your job to show
> me I'm
> doing something else.
=====================
Here you are fool.
>
>> 'Reasonable effort' has no bearing on the hypocrisy that you
>> display.
>>
>
> Yes it does, because it's what I say. It's your job to show
> there's a
> conflict between what I say and what I do.
====================
Here you are fool.
>
> Tell me something. Suppose you were in my position, only it was
> humans
> rather than nonhumans who were being hurt and killed. What
> would you
> do?
===========================
Analogy is really hard for you, isn't it? that makes no sense,
because it cannot happen, fool.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > In any case, whether or not I am hypocritical is not
>> > particularly
>> > relevant to any issue of real interest.
>> > =============================
>> LOL Yes, it is.
>
> To you, perhaps.
================
To the animals you kill for convenience and entertaunment,
killer.
I could care less. You've already proven your ignorance and
hypocrisy to me.
>
>> All usenet vegans are blatent hypocrites.
>> Sanctimonious
>> fools trying to control everyone else, but exempting
>> themselves
>> from
>> their own bloody footprints, killer.
>>
>
> Are you in favour of it being illegal to commercially
> distribute videos
> of children being raped? If so, you are "trying to control
> everyone
> else" in the same sense as I am while "exempting yourself from
> your
> bloody footprints".
=========================
Again, anaologies are really really hard for you, aren't they?
What you apparently engage in,
as it's your example, is already illegal, and children DO have
rights. Animals don't, and
never will as long as you can kill them for convenience and
entertainment, fool.
=====================
Of course your not conveinced. That's the point of your proven
hypocrisy, fool.
You preach that animals do/can/should have rights, and then live
in a way that
eliminates the possibility that ever happening.
> If it were humans who were being hurt and killed, I think there
> would
> be limits on the sacrifices I would be obliged to impose on
> myself in
> order to avoid financially supporting the processes which were
> hurting
> and killing them. Perhaps you think differently. I'd be
> interested to
> know what *you* would do if you had to make great sacrifices in
> order
> to avoid financially supporting processes which hurt and killed
> humans.
======================
LOL We all do make efforts to keep from killing people fool.
There are all kinds of laws
and much money spent on keeping people safe. And, when something
does happen, there are consequences,
legal and monetary. There are no such actions or consequences
when animals are killed, and in fact, many animals are targeted
directly for death on an ongoing systematic basis just to keep
your lifestyle convenient and entertaining, killer.
rupertm...@yahoo.com
No, I'm afraid not. To infer from the way I *act* that I do not
*believe* in animal rights is complete nonsense.
> Animals cannot have rights
> as
> long as you can kill them without ANY consequences.
Let me interpret your claim as charitably as possible. If it is morally
permissible for me to buy a product and service whose production
unnecessarily caused the death of some nonhuman animals, then those
nonhuman animals could not have had the right to life. This is your
claim at its most plausible. The trouble is, it's still not true. It's
possible that those animals could have had the right to life (i.e. the
right not to be killed unnecessarily) and the right against me that I
make every *reasonable*, not every *possible* effort, to avoid
financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them. You've
never answered this argument. You've just responded by re-asserting
your claim. You've got to tell me what is wrong with this position.
*Why* is it inconsistent?
Why not?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > In any case, whether or not I am hypocritical is not
> >> > particularly
> >> > relevant to any issue of real interest.
> >> > =============================
> >> LOL Yes, it is.
> >
> > To you, perhaps.
> ================
> To the animals you kill for convenience and entertaunment,
> killer.
> I could care less. You've already proven your ignorance and
> hypocrisy to me.
>
If you couldn't care less, then why is it just about all you talk
about?
Sure, the fact that those animals are killed matters to them. And the
people who are directly responsible for their deaths violate their
rights. I maintain, however, that I do not.
>
>
> >
> >> All usenet vegans are blatent hypocrites.
> >> Sanctimonious
> >> fools trying to control everyone else, but exempting
> >> themselves
> >> from
> >> their own bloody footprints, killer.
> >>
> >
> > Are you in favour of it being illegal to commercially
> > distribute videos
> > of children being raped? If so, you are "trying to control
> > everyone
> > else" in the same sense as I am while "exempting yourself from
> > your
> > bloody footprints".
> =========================
> Again, anaologies are really really hard for you, aren't they?
> What you apparently engage in,
> as it's your example, is already illegal, and children DO have
> rights. Animals don't, and
> never will as long as you can kill them for convenience and
> entertainment, fool.
>
Yes, I know that's your belief: children have rights and animals don't.
Well, I have my belief: I am obliged to make every reasonable, not
every possible effort, not to financially support practices that cause
unnecessary harm. You think my belief makes an arbitrary distinction
for which in the nature of things no good reason can be found. Well, I
think the same about your belief. We're in the same boat.
Yes, of course, because you haven't given me any good reason why I
should be.
> That's the point of your proven
> hypocrisy, fool.
> You preach that animals do/can/should have rights, and then live
> in a way that
> eliminates the possibility that ever happening.
>
No, I don't.
>
> > If it were humans who were being hurt and killed, I think there
> > would
> > be limits on the sacrifices I would be obliged to impose on
> > myself in
> > order to avoid financially supporting the processes which were
> > hurting
> > and killing them. Perhaps you think differently. I'd be
> > interested to
> > know what *you* would do if you had to make great sacrifices in
> > order
> > to avoid financially supporting processes which hurt and killed
> > humans.
> ======================
> LOL We all do make efforts to keep from killing people fool.
> There are all kinds of laws
> and much money spent on keeping people safe. And, when something
> does happen, there are consequences,
> legal and monetary. There are no such actions or consequences
> when animals are killed, and in fact, many animals are targeted
> directly for death on an ongoing systematic basis just to keep
> your lifestyle convenient and entertaining, killer.
>
Yes, but I do believe I should make efforts not to kill animals, and
not to financially support processes which kill them, and I do. And I
believe the law should protect their rights, and I make efforts to
campaign for that as well. It's true that I don't make every possible
effort not to financially support practices which unnecessarily harm
animals. Well, suppose that, in order not to financially support
practices which unnecessarily harm humans, you had to go as far out of
your way as I would have to go in order not to financially support
practices which unnecessarily harm nonhuman animals. What would you do
then? Would you make *every possible effort* not to financially support
such practices? Or would you stop somewhere short of that? That's the
thought-experiment I'm asking you to address honestly. So far you've
just dodged it.
Leif Erikson
>>>>>I believe that animals have the right not to be killed unnecessarily,
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't. You don't live your own life that way,
>>>>and you also are equivocating on "unnecessarily". It's
>>>>a weasel-word - you deliberately keep it vague so that
>>>>whatever you do that kills animals is - presto! -
>>>>"necessary".
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I do.
>>
>>No, you don't.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't kill animals unnecessarily.
>>
>>There's that weasel word again! It means whatever you
>>want it to mean, in the moment. It's worthless as a
>>moral guide.
>>
>
>
> False. A general principle "Don't kill animals" would be incorrect,
> just as a general princple "Don't kill humans" would be incorrect. It's
> necessary to add the qualifier "unnecessarily".
So do you also not kill humans "unnecessarily", rupie?
Why do you find it to kill more animals than humans?
>
> But, as a matter of fact, I don't kill animals at all.
Directly, hands on, no; probably not. But you
participate willingly in processes that do. The issue,
rupie, is that there are no protections for animals as
there are for humans, so animals are killed commonly
and casually in the production of all kinds of things
you use. More particularly, many of the animals are
killed or used *deliberately*.
Do you ever take prescription drugs, rupie? Every one
of them was tested on animals. Do you eat any cereal
products, rupie? Cereal products are stored at
facilities that actively exterminate rodents.
> What you
> probably have in mind is that I financially support processes which
> kill animals unnecessarily.
What I have in mind, rupie, is that animal usage and
animal killing are intricately woven into more aspects
of your "lifestyle" than you could possibly imagine.
Your participation is either ignorant, in which case
you aren't doing "all you can" to get animal
exploitation out of your life; or it is knowing, in
which case you are a willful liar about your "beliefs".
>>And you *still* don't take the same precautions not to
>>kill animals that you take not to kill humans. But if
>>the basic right to safety isn't there, then there are
>>*no* rights.
>>
>
>
> No, that's a non sequitur.
No, it isn't. If the basic rights aren't there, the
non-basic ones are irrelevant.
>
> I do take the same precautions.
"Some" - more weasel words from rupie. I presume you
don't aim your car at stray dogs; good for you. There
are all kinds of precautions you do take regarding
people that you don't take regarding animals.
> If I lived in a world where all the
> nonhuman animals were replaced by a group of humans, and our behaviour
> had the same impact on those humans as it does now on nonhuman animals,
> I would do the same as what I do now.
You can't possibly know that. What a worthless,
self-justifying thought experiment that was.
> I would stop financially
> supporting the most egregious forms of abuse, I would make every
> reasonable effort not to financially support any abuse at all, and I
> would try to do research to find out about the impact of processes I
> financially support and modify my behaviour accordingly.
Why don't you do that *now*, rupie?
> I might
> occasionally have nagging doubts that maybe I should do even more,
> maybe I should buy my own property and grow my own food, make my own
> electricity, and so forth. But I probably wouldn't actually do it, not
> without further deliberation anyway. And maybe this would be a moral
> flaw, maybe it wouldn't. The point is, I would respond to the situation
> in the same way I presently respond to the situation vis-a-vis nonhuman
> animals.
You're not doing those things now, rupie, and as a
result all kinds of animal exploitation goes on in
which you participate quite cheerfully, if cluelessly.
>>>Financial support of
>>>practices that kill animals is another issue. I'm not equivocating on
>>>"unnecessarily".
>>
>>Yes, you are. It varies by the moment. The only thing
>>at issue is your ease and comfort, not any objective
>>"necessity".
>>
>
>
> False.
No, true.
>
>
>>>>>and that I have an obligation to make every reasonable effort not to
>>>>>financially support practices that unnecessarily kill them.
>>>>
>>>>There's another weasel word: "reasonable". But you DO
>>>>support "unnecessary" killing of animals all the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>
>>Right. *Now* we're getting somewhere, rupie!
>>
>>
>>
>>>The question is whether I am making every reasonable effort not
>>>to. There could be room for debate on this.
>>
>>No, there's no debate: you are not. You could easily
>>do something more, at any given time, but you don't.
>>
>
>
> Tell me what I could do *easily*.
Come on, rupie - at the margins some small improvement
is *always* easy. How much rice do you eat, rupie?
>>>>Fact: you do not live your life in a way that accords
>>>>non-human animals the same respect for life and safety
>>>>that you accord humans.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>To demonstrate that, you would have to show that if the processes which
>>>support my current lifestyle caused unnecessary harm and death to
>>>humans, in the same way that they do in fact cause unnecessary harm and
>>>death to nonhuman animals, then I would stop financially supporting
>>>those processes, or would think that I morally ought to. This is not
>>>altogether clear to me.
>>
>>The processes that support your current lifestyle
>>*already* do not cause anything close to the same
>>amount of harm to humans that they cause to animals,
>>but you aren't doing *anything* to stop participating
>>in the ones that cause great harm to animals. Your
>>participation is 100% voluntary, and seemingly you know
>>that the harm occurs. Yet you do nothing to reduce
>>your participation.
>>
>
>
> That's not quite true, sometimes I find out about something and modify
> my behaviour accordingly. The point is, I would act in the same way if
> it were humans that were affected, as noted above.
No, rupie. "Above" you said you would *increase* your
efforts if there were only humans. So clearly, you
don't see animals as having the same basic rights as
humans: QED
>>>>>Whether or
>>>>>not I live up to that is another matter. But it has no bearing on what
>>>>>I believe.
>>>>
>>>>It has every bearing: your beliefs are filthily
>>>>hypocritical. Nothing but self-flattery.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Self-flattery has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>It has everything to do with it, rupie. You are
>>flattering yourself as a morally superior person, and
>>it's just massively sanctimonious hypocrisy and falsehood.
>>
>
>
> No, it's just that I have moral opinions which I am trying to live up
> to.
You have notions of self-flattery on moral pretexts.
>>>It would be my actions, not my
>>>beliefs, that would be hypocritical and should be changed.
>>
>>It would be the phony beliefs that necessarily must be
>>abandoned, because they're empty posturing.
>>
>
>
> No. The only reason to abandon a belief is if you have some reason to
> think it's not true.
If you have a so-called "belief" that demands a course
of action and you're not doing it, then you're a
hypocrite. It means you don't *really* hold the
belief. We're not talking about true/false, you idiot;
we're talking about what is morally right.
> The fact that you fail to live up to a moral
> belief that is very demanding
It certainly doesn't seem to be!
> is no evidence that it's not true.
Your so-called belief about "ar" is not of the
true/false variety, rupie, and you know it.
> This is a fundamental fallacy in your thinking, and it's very clearly a
> fallacy.
No, rupie. You have intentionally misstated the nature
of your belief.
Your behavior indicates you don't really hold the
belief. Because a sincere belief of that kind requires
particular behavior that you don't do, the implication
is you don't really hold the belief.
>>>But this is
>>>not the point. You were trying to claim that it would somehow imply
>>>that I don't believe in animal rights. That's not the case.
>>
>>It is the case. The beliefs have no bearing on your
>>behavior, so they're crap. They aren't *really*
>>beliefs, just posturing.
>
>
> Rubbish.
No, it's so.
>>Holding and acting on the
>>beliefs clearly isn't important to you, rupie;
>
>
> Rubbish.
No, rupie. It's obvious: you don't do the things the
belief, if sincerely held, would demand.
> I have these moral beliefs and I am trying to make a good
> faith effort to live up to them.
No, you don't.
> You have no basis for questioning the
> sincerity of my effort, it is just effrontery on your part.
I have *every* basis for it, rupie - you're not
behaving consistently with the alleged belief.
>>the only
>>thing that's important is *stating* the beliefs.
>>That's the essence of vile sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>You really can't say how animals might conceivably hold "rights", nor
>>>>>>>>what the limits of those rights might be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't see why there's a greater problem explaining how nonhuman
>>>>>>>animals hold rights than there is explaining how humans hold rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Very much a problem. Rights are a concept that the
>>>>>>rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
>>>>>>can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
>>>>>>babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
>>>>>>dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
>>>>>>rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
>>>>>>notion of rights in which entire species are
>>>>>>"exceptions" doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not? You've already admitted that we should extend rights to some
>>>>>individuals who cannot understand the concept of rights.
>>>>
>>>>Because they are exceptions within the group of people
>>>>that evolved rights for *our* survival and benefit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But who is the "group of people that evolved rights"?
>>
>>Human society.
>>
>
>
> Why not just the members of human society who can understand the
> concept of rights? What are your grounds for arbitrarily including
> those who permanently lack that capacity?
There's nothing arbitrary about survival of the species.
> And if you are going to
> include *some* individuals who permanently lack that capacity, why not
> others too?
I've patiently explained it to you already, rupie.
Those individuals are either temporary exceptions, or
are a very small number of permanent ones. Non-human
animals *all* are permanent "exceptions", and
considering them rights-holders does nothing to further
our survival.
>>>Why not restrict
>>>that to the humans who can actually understand the concept of rights?
>>
>>Because many of the exceptions are temporary;
>
>
> Ignore those ones. I'm talking about the ones that are permanent.
See above.
>>because
>>those that aren't are few enough in number that they
>>don't undercut the basic concept;
>
>
> Why make any exceptions at all? You're only making this concession
> because you recognize that if you don't people will regard your theory
> as totally implausible. If a theory has unacceptable consequences, it
> should be abandoned. It's no good making ad hoc adjustments to the
> theory in a futile attempt to save it.
Not what's being done. Once you realize that there is
something unique about *humans* that allowed us to
conceive of rights, then there's no problem saying that
humans are the rights-bearing class.
>>because people have a
>>sense of "that could be me." None of that is true with
>>non-human animals.
>
>
> Clearly false for the last one.
You could be a giraffe? How is that?
>>>Why arbitrarily extend it to the whole human species? And if we do, why
>>>stop there?
>>
>>Because if rights evolved to help us survive, they are
>>only applicable to us. Nothing is gained in terms of
>>our survival by projecting them onto non-humans.
>>
>
>
> *Whom* are rights supposed to help survive?
Humans as a species and as individuals. Rights help to
regulate human behavior in ways that increase the
survival prospects of all of us, thus of the species.
> It doesn't help white's
> survival to grant rights to blacks.
Rights are not granted A recognition of rights helps
to reduce conflict among groups within the species.
> The only basis for them doing so is
> the recognition that no good reason can be given in the nature of
> things for them claiming rights but denying it to blacks.
Because we share the same mental and moral
characteristics.
> Similarly, no
> good reason can be given in the nature of things for humans claiming
> rights but denying it to nonhumans.
Yes, there is: they *don't* share the characteristics.
> Unless you want to maintain that
> the capacity to understand the concept of rights is relevant,
It generally is relevant, rupie: without it, rights
could not have evolved.
> but you
> don't really believe that, because you acknowledge the need to make
> exceptions.
The exceptions can be handled precisely because they
are exceptions, rupie. This is elementary stuff you're
failing to grasp.
> All you have left is the argument from species normality.
Which is not the bad thing you've been misled by your
professors into believing.
> That argument is implausible on the face of it.
Ipse dixit; and false.
> Why should what is
> normal for one's species be relevant?
It's relevant for *every* species, rupie.
> Furthermore, I've linked you to a
> critique of that argument
crap
It was a link to a defense of a deontological position
strangely held by utilitarians.
> and you haven't given a very good reply yet.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Why does their
>>>>>species matter? Seems totally irrational to me.
>>>>
>>>>Because the entire concept falls apart if there are too
>>>>many exceptions, and *all* members of non-human animal
>>>>species would have to be exceptions. The biggest class
>>>>of human exceptions, of course, is temporary:
>>>>children. The vast majority of them will become fully
>>>>independent, autonomous, reciprocating adults. If the
>>>>majority of humans were not capable of being moral
>>>>agents, the entire concept of rights never would have
>>>>evolved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What about the people who permanently lack the capacity to understand
>>>the concept of rights? *Why* make an exception for them?
>>
>>Because of their participation in the human race, for
>>whose survival rights evolved in the first place.
>>
>
>
> I've no idea what "their participation in the human race" is supposed
> to refer to if not the brute fact of species membership. So you're
> falling back on pure speciesism.
Which *you* can't intelligently critique. Very much as
the PC sheep you are, you simply bleat "speciesism
baaaaaaaad."
> But why does species matter?
Go ahead and try to mate with a goat if you like, rupie.
> If the
> capacity to understand the concept of rights is relevant, fine, you
> should bite the bullet and go with that, and exclude those who
> permanently lack that capacity.
No. There is a valid species argument to be made for
including them.
> Appealing to what's normal for the
> species is just a desperate ad hoc maneuvre.
No, rupie.
>
>
>>>By making an
>>>exception for them, you are tacitly admitting that there is something
>>>wrong with your theory.
>>
>>No, I'm not.
>>
>
>
> Then you've got to come up with some motivation for the exception other
> than a desperate attempt to rescue the plausibility of a theory with
> unacceptable consequences.
No, rupie - YOU have got to justify your handwaving
away of speciesism as a valid moral distinction.
>>>>But anyway, you already don't live your life in
>>>>accordance with a demonstrated belief in animal rights,
>>>>so all this is just dancing around. You're a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, maybe I am. So what? That has no bearing on our discussion.
>>
>>It has every bearing. It shows that your beliefs are
>>empty posturing intended to flatter your vanity.
>>
>
>
> It has no bearing on whether the beliefs are true or not. Surely that's
> the issue.
It is NOT the issue, rupie. The issue is whether you
truly hold beliefs, the sincere holding of which
*demands* certain behaviors. Your failure to behave in
the prescribed way shows you *cannot* really hold the
beliefs. *Stating* that you hold them, perhaps even
deluding yourself into thinking you hold them,
apparently makes you feel good about yourself (because
it leads you to the false conclusion that you're
"better" than those who don't claim to hold them.) But
your behavior reveals the truth: you don't really hold
the beliefs.
>
>>>As a matter of fact, you haven't demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite.
>>
>>I have, rupie. You don't live your life in a way that
>>respects the animal "rights" in which you claim to
>>believe. It all starts with the most basic right, the
>>right to physical security. You participate
>>voluntarily and knowingly in activities that violate
>>that "right" with respect to animals in ways that you
>>would not tolerate if the violations were against
>>humans. For example, rupie, animals die all the time
>>in the course of producing your food, and you know it.
>> Very few, if any, humans die in the course of
>>producing your food. But you keep right on stuffing
>>your mouth with food figuratively drenched in animal
>>blood. Shame.
>>
>
>
> As I say, if I had to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid financially
> supporting unnecessary harm to humans,
It isn't simply "financial" involvement, rupie. It is
active participation in a "lifestyle" that has
animal-harming consequences.
>>>>>>Rights fundamentally depend
>>>>>>on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
>>>>>>majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
>>>>>>behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your assertion that rights fundamentally depend on reciprocity is just
>>>>>that, an assertion,
>>>>
>>>>It is fundamental to almost any theory of rights you
>>>>care to read about (which, of course, you haven't done.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolute nonsense. You are just demonstrating your ignorance.
>>
>>No to both: it is not nonsense, but fact, that you
>>haven't read rights theory; and it is fact that
>>reciprocity figures crucially in most analyses of the
>>origin and development of rights.
>>
>
>
> No, you are demonstrating your ignorance and showing laughable
> presumption. I have read more ethics than you.
Doubtful. As I say, your participation here gives zero
evidence of it. Your lack of awareness of some
well-worn paths in this by now sterile "debate" also
seems to suggest little knowledge.
>
>>>>>and you've already admitted you have to make ad hoc
>>>>>exceptions to this rule.
>>>>
>>>>They're not ad hoc at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course they are.
>>
>>No, they're not.
>>
>
>
> What justifies them, then, if not the desire to rescue a theory from
> unpalatable implications?
Tom Regan himself helps to supply the answer. Humans
*as individuals* have a particular kind of inherent
value or worth directly derived from the fact that
humans *generally* are moral agents. But this inherent
value does not depend on the individual himself being a
moral agent; it is derived from the fact that humans,
generally, are moral agents. Thus, exceptions are
easily made.
Other species do not have this same inherent value,
although by a gross equivocation on the term "inherent
value", late in his book, Regan attempts to assert that
they do. But Regan himself recognizes the differing
moral status of different species of animals, even if
he quite predictably shies away from analyzing it.
>>>>>The rule doesn't work. Seems to me it'd be
>>>>>best to abandon it altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't kid around with us, rupie - you really haven't
>>>>>>given much thought to rights theory at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Not nonsense at all. It's just feel-good-ism.
>>
>>No comment, rupie? Hit a little too close to home, eh?
>>
>
>
> Er, no,
Er, um, YES, rupie.
>>>>>Your insufferable arrogance in assuming that tossing out
>>>>>these flawed arguments somehow proves you have thought more deeply
>>>>>about the issue than me is laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can say a few things about what the limits of the rights are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, or else you would have done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>You overuse that word. It isn't an argument, rupie.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I use it in response to ludicrous assertions which are not backed up by
>>>any argument any sane person could take seriously.
>>
>>No, you use it when you don't have an argument to make.
>>
>
>
> No,
Yes, rupie.
> my description of how I use it was accurate.
No, rupie, it wasn't. You use it when you don't have a
case.
> When you see me say
> "nonsense", take that to mean,
I take it to mean what it in fact means: that you
can't make an intelligent response.
>>You can't say *anything* intelligent about the limit of
>>rights, rupie. I was right: if you could have done,
>>you would have done.
>
>
> Nonsense.
Another instance of your inability to make an
intelligent response. Thanks for the confirmation.
>>One thing's for certain, rupie -
>>you sure as hell can't say why the limits of animals'
>>"right" to physical safety is greatly different, in the
>>way you lead your life, than the corresponding right
>>for humans; but there is no doubt that there *is* a
>>vast difference.
>>
>
>
> No, there isn't.
Another lack of intelligent response.
You DO lead your life, droning rupie, in ways that
reflect differential consideration for the safety of
humans - for their rights - versus the consideration
you give animals.
>>>>>>Anyway, you don't even seriously advocate the most
>>>>>>basic right for them, the right to life - *equal* to
>>>>>>the human right to life - so all the rest of your hot
>>>>>>air is just advocating for animal welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I do.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't. You don't live your life in accord with
>>>>the "ar" bullshit you preach, so you're just a
>>>>garden-variety sanctimonious hypocrite. A liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>>Nope - absolutely true.
>>
>>You're running out of steam, aren't you? More and more
>>one word answers. Pretty soon you'll literally be
>>writing "harrumph", won't you?
>>
>
>
> I'm only going to bother to reply in any depth when you've produced
> something worth replying to in depth.
You haven't replied in any depth even when you have
used multi-word sentences, rupie. You CAN'T. You're a
dilettante, and it shows.
>>>>>>These extremists who push "ar" also and virtually
>>>>>>always push an extreme leftwing form of government that
>>>>>>involves the destruction of private property rights and
>>>>>>the promotion of group rights for politically favored
>>>>>>ethnic/sex/reglious/etc. groups, all requiring
>>>>>>heavy-handed state force to make unwilling majorities
>>>>>>go along. "ar" is just one more unpopular aspect of
>>>>>>extremist leftwing politics that would necessarily
>>>>>>require harsh state action to be implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>AR and the extent to which we should respect private property rights,
>>>>>etc., are separate issues.
>>>>
>>>>Not entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, entirely.
>>
>>No. You would like to imagine it, but no.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense.
Lack of ability to make intelligent response noted, rupie.
>
>
>>>>But the main point is, rupie, that "ar"
>>>>advocates almost always are extremely hostile to
>>>>private property rights as well. Belief in "ar" is a
>>>>very strong marker for belief in extreme leftwing
>>>>politics in general. Not all extreme leftists are
>>>>believers in "ar", but virtually all believers in "ar"
>>>>are extreme leftwingers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd be interested to see if you can quote any research to support that.
>>
>>It is demonstrated 100% of the time in these
>>newsgroups, rupie.
>>
>
>
> I think you need a bit more education in the principles of sample
> selection. I also doubt even this claim.
There is no sampling at work, rupie. I'm talking about
*all* participants in these newsgroups.
You're a newbie, rupie, so you wouldn't know.
>
>>>But if it's the case, so what?
>>
>>It shows consistency with a belief in authoritarianism
>>and authoritarian methods among advocates of "ar".
>>
>
>
> I think that depends on what you mean by "extreme leftwingers".
I've defined it. Go back and look.
> It's not my experience that most ARAs are "extreme leftwingers" in that
> sense.
Only because you're one yourself, and in your limited
circle you don't see it as extreme.
> In any case, this still wouldn't be enough to demonstrate your
> original claim that AR is intrinsically totalitarian.
>
> ARAs are no more authoritarian than the general population.
They are. Most of them won't even contest it. They're
absolutely certain of their rightness, and they believe
they have a moral right to dictate to the rest of us.
>>>>>It's all very well to say implementing AR
>>>>>would involve ramming it down the throats of people, but aren't we
>>>>>ramming our right to exploit animals down their throats? Who is the
>>>>>totalitarian?
>>>>
>>>>Not us - they don't have rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, obviously that's the point at issue, and this shows that you
>>>can't claim AR is totalitarian without begging the question.
>>
>>I haven't begged any question about "ar" being
>>totalitarian. We don't "ram" anything down animals'
>>throats in asserting our right to exploit them, rupie -
>>we just do it. There really isn't any resistance that
>>merits any "ramming".
>>
>
>
> AR is not totalitarian.
It is.