"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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).

Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us?

And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she
even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year
old grandson.

In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't
*you* the ones who wants control?

>
> 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
>