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
|
