Rubystars wrote:

> "Offbreed" > wrote in message
> om...

<snip>
>>
>>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of
>>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move
>>the goalposts.

> Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that
> would allow humans to interact with animals.

Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal,
not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the
poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).

They probably wish humans would
> go extinct.

Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the
right situations.

>>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue
>>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power.

Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures.
The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily
give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a
thing, so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the
part of their opponents.

>>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition of
>>a totalitarian government?

Of course it can. You're projecting again.

They are not "liberal" in anything except
>>in throwing around demands that others do as they say.


> Yes, that's true.

No, it's a bunch of nonsense.

Rat