You know, I don't really care for some of the animal rights people myself. But when I see this kind of post that passes for thinking, I can't help
Originally posted by readerone
the real world is brutal .
Stated as fact. Well, I don't live in a brutal world. You might: but perhaps it's just your projection of your own brutality. I live in a world
where most people exercise their free choice not to be brutal.
It's generally regarded as more intelligent and civilised.
this is not a deisney movie , and your not living in a cartoon .
your wareing plant fiber , you live among people .
do you for one moment beleive that people are more brutal than other animals .
This is a truly extraordinary question to even ask.
Let's take it slowly. The online dictionary says "extremely ruthless or cruel". Most of the actions you could cite from the animal world would be
to do with survival: eating other creatures, or using them for repoductive purposes as parasites.
Human beings are far more brutal than animals. To try to deny it is ludicrous. Have animals destroyed entire communities of other animals, like
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do they make snuff films? Do they kill each other for abstract profits? Is genocide a widely reported animal vice?
I've seen a lot of foolish statements on ATS... and the contention that people are less
brutal than animals is up there with the best of them
because it flies in the face of the available, and MOST OBVIOUS, evidence.
in point of debate , I submit , the greatest harm is being done by primitive cultures .
Yeah,,, usually, in debate, you might have to come up with some facts to back up that submission. Again, it's a ludicrous "point". "Harm" is
undefined, but consider for example the damage done to the environment by a really big pig farm. There's so much waste that you can't dispose of it
properly, so groundwater gets polluted. Then, of course, because you're keeping animals closely confined, you have to dose them with antibiotics,
thus helping to breed a superbug.
It kind of goes on from there. Next to an industrial civilisation, primitive cultures are small beer.
that ALL the animal rights organizations are nothing more that shake down artists , who will and do sell their beleifs
to the highest bidder...
As a statement of faith, this is so out of kilter with the real world it's almost touching. But in debate you actually have to bring some facts to
back this up. Please provide at least one example of this happening. It's still not the same as proving ALL
such organisations are corrupt,
but it would be good discipline for you to have to back up your fatuous assertions once in a while.
and they ALL use deisney land , as their point of refreance .
wake up and smell the coffee...
bambi is not real , domestic animals are un-natural , you are alive because of un-natural acts , and you could not live in
the world you seek to create .
you have never thought this out .
you have never created a logical end to your thinking that includes the people who will pay your bills .
I would suggest that if you criticise others for their thinking that you yourself could learn to be a little more logical and rigorous.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
we have every right , when the animal rights people play their song , remember who is playing the music ...
the people who want money for their silance .
Do tell, I really want to know.
when you can feed the third world , get back to me on fair treatment of animals .
Another statement of quite dizzying idiocy.
If you're serious about feeding the Third World, then you need to understand that agriculture produces far more food per acre than grazing. It's
really simple. Meat takes a lot of land to produce, so if you want to feed as many people as possible, agriculture is the way to go.
You might notice that I've stayed off the moral grounds for treatment of animals. You can make a utilitarian argument for treating them badly:
that's the capitalist ethic, after all, in which profit is pursued no matter what the cost. But I think it depends on what sort of person you want
to be. Do you want to be someone who can easily ignore the suffering of others, whether human or animal, or do you want to be someone with a
I actually looked at this thread to find out the "bizarre" beliefs of Obama's latest "czar", but predictably, the thread is not really about
that, it seems.
I'd really like independent confirmation of this idea that animals can sue with human representatives, as it does seem like a dumb'un. But the
sourcing so far doesn't give me confidence it's true.