Glorfindel wrote:
> The issue is: the legal status which allows people to

A colon only follows "is" if the verb is intransitive.
which -> that

> buy puppies or hamsters, even if they love them and treat
> them well, is the same legal status which allows commercial
which -> that

> producers to create factory farms. As long as animals are
> property under the law, there will be no way to attack the root
> cause of the inhumane and immoral torture and slaughter
> they face in so many areas, and particularly in food production.

As animals are not human, their treatment cannot be humane unless
someone's out of one's mind. Someone would take it out of literality.

What torture? Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm
and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with"
or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they
"evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans
hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you
against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals?

> The analogy is appropriate: just as human slavery is unjust
> because it treats beings with inherent worth as mere property,
> animal slavery -- the legal status of animals as chattels --
> is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as
> property. The public can see it with regard to humans, and
> presenting the analogy can hopefully allow them to see it with
> regard to animals. It is the way moral progress is made.

Anyone can and will own what one can and will. The world doesn't give
a damn, and morality is a delusion. Men can own wihts and worts, so
they do. The wihts have a choice whether or not to own others, such as
men, but they oftenly cannot own men if they so choose ever since men
made weapons, shields, nets, and traps. (Neanderthal wives wove nets,
and they and the children would hunt wihts together with them and
clubs, sometimes without the wers' help.)

"companion animals" isn't even English. I don't think there's such a
bunch as COMPANIONANIMALA. You show well that PETA is a bunch of
retardarians who can't back up anything they believe, and are liars who
lige. (lige, liges, liged, ligen, lyging, a'lyging--that's how to
spell them--not lie, lies, lied, lied, lying, lying.) I would hand
"furry friends" if not pets. They're not "beasts of burden" that
slaves are (Hmm, is saying of slaves a slur against Slavs?); and if
they wanted to run away, they would, unlike a TV.

Lief shouldn't put down misanthropism. I hold it truly dear to my
heart, as folks are dolts, cretins, fools, scum. People are retards,
and should be haten for what they are. If you want ethic progress, you
would want, as I do, to nuke (neutron bomb--fetch their goods and
buildings afterward) Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Guinea, China, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, and
Colombia. Did I miss any states?

-Aut