oh oh, two kooks together...
shame it's not profitable.
"Laurie" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:rKWdnS4e1rqUqszVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <483b0ee8$0$25027$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>> The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you try to pin down
a
>> good reason *why* animals should not have rights, you either end up
with
>> reasons that apply to
>> <sic> narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded humans would not
have
>> rights), or you end up with arguments that sound uncomfortably like the
>> arguments that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as
slaves,
>> or committing genocide on Jews.
> Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
> not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
> (tem****arily) to those of less standing by those who assume
> they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
> "races" or species.
> Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
> the names of the oppressors have only changed.
> The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
> in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.
>
>> pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should have the right to
>> be free of human-inflicted suffering.
> Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
> infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little bastard
> who is trying to manipulate others?
>
>> That is, without predators, their herds would become unhealthy and
>> overpopulated, and then die.
> How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
> animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.
>
>> So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the
> role of the
>> predators.
> NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
> ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
> that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
> It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
> we learn anything?
>
>> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
>> bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.
> You can not sup****t that statement.
>
> Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science
|
