View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

oh oh, two kooks together...

shame it's not profitable.










"Laurie" > wrote in message
abs...
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article >,

>
>> 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
> (temporarily) 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 *******
> 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 support that statement.
>
> Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science