Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing
cracker, lied: On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, wrote: ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing 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. |
#2
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:
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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] "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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] "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...ights/pets.txt ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] 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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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/stori...427010026.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
#3
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote: ****wit 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. |
#4
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?
On 4/3/2006 8:24 AM, ****wit David Harrison lied:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 George Plimpton wrote: ****wit David Harrison lied and didn't "point out" a thing: Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock too. Prove it. LOL! [completely *off-topic* spew snipped] You did not support your claim that "aras" would kill livestock. How could you have supported it? It was a lie. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General |