Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".
you two get a room.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:47:36 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>>> 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.
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
|