On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:

>> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue
>
>1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
>minds because of the Law of Derek

The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the
problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth
while at the same time criticising those who do
promote animal rights genuinely.

Over the years, since venturing onto animal-related
groups pretending to promote the proposition of
animal rights, he's changed his stance on this
proposition so many times that it's difficult to know
when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes
below come with a date and a link, and I've
arranged them in chronological order so you can
see his changes in position yourself.

He first came here claiming to be a believer in
the proposition of animal rights.

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

But within just a few months he started writing
things like;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights, and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and, even more recently;

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and, only a couple of days ago

> "sentient" > wrote
> No, I believe that animals should have rights.
> Currently they have none in the eyes of the law....
[Dutch]
That is incorrect. I measure my right to be free
from physical assault by looking if laws and
sanctions exist against anyone who would assault
me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect
domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude
that they hold rights against humans who would
abuse them.
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

And he's still insisting today that he doesn't support
the proposition.

>> , not a counter-argument, stupid.
>
>That, at least, is true.

Yor damn right it is.