"Sleepyhead" > wrote

> Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
> you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!
>
> So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
> confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
> audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
> changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
> with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
> set of arguments about animal-rights et al.

Simon, let me just explain one thing and you can take it from there.

In my view there are at least two distinct understandings of the phrase
"animal rights". Most people I would submit take it to mean the movement to
recognize that animals can suffer, that they have needs, and that they are
not mere objects. The idea is to address conditions where animals such as
livestock are made to endure insufferable pain, abuse and indignity, NOT to
end all use of animals. This is also called "AW" or animal welfare, but in
common parlance it is called animal rights, and we say for example that
'pets have a right to be protected from abusive owners'. The other meaning
is a movement which believes that all use of or domestication of animals is
inherently unjust. These people, called "ARAs", also vegans, do not believe
in eating meat, using animal products in any way, animal research, in many
cases even keeping of companion animals is considered immoral. I refer to
this as "Animal Rights", or "AR" with capitals. I place myself in the first
group, Derek is in the second group. He undertands this distinction fully,
but ignores it deliberately when he produces all these quotes that purport
to show that I am inconsistent. Derek is very dishonest, it is apparently
the only way he thinks he can win arguments, and in that he may be right.