On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>Rat & Swan wrote:
>> ipse dixit wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>>>> ipse dixit wrote:
>>
[..]
>>>>>>> No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>>
>>>> This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>>> pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>>> human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>>
>>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
>>> right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
>>> the rights of those suffering and dying from it.
>>
>> Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
>> right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
>> to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
>> killed in veggie production.
>
>It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
>specious comparison, as has been explained to you
>dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
>that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
>moral distinction.

There is no moral distinction between animals and
humans where a basic right not to be intentionally
harmed is concerned.