On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:00:13 GMT, "higher elvisarchy"
<higherelvisarchy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>starting to think this rudy is in love with this david dude.
>
>
>
>
>ah, the drama.
Goo is opposed to seeing people point out any of the things
that could be considered as critical of the gross misnomer
"animal rights". He is most opposed to seeing it pointed out
that the misnomer would not provide rights or anything else
for domestic animals. In contrast to the misnomer, providing
decent animal welfare would provide decent lives of positive
value for billions of animals. So the main thing the Goober is
opposed to seeing is anything that suggests providing decent
AW would be ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
ie: the elimination objective.
Another thing Goo is opposed to is seeing it pointed out
that the misnomer would produce *more* suffering for wildlife,
not less. Even though human hunting causes less suffering
for prey animals than starvation, disease and non-human
predators, people like the Goober are still opposed to it
because it disturbs *them* to know that humans deliberately
kill animals. As he has demonstrated such people don't care
at all about the suffering of the animals themselves, but only
about their own mental suffering from something they are
greatly disturbed by. People like Goo would create more
suffering for wildlife--especially for newborns, the very young,
and pregnant females--just because they are mentally
bothered by something they are apparently mentally unfit to
get involved with. That point is made even more clear when
such people do get involved, and carry out their terrorist acts,
or even when they legally manage to cause more suffering
from overpopulation problems.
|
