Obama czar pick: 'Raving animal rights nut'

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 responding....

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.

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 .

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? 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 conscience?

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.

reply to post by rich23

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.

FYI, I copied the title from the source article.

Second, if you do not think that the views listed below are bizarre, I wonder what would faze you:

Martosko told Beck, "When you embrace this whole utilitarian idea, guess what else comes in the back door? Some animals, according to Singer, are worth more than some humans. A smart border collie, he says, is worth more, inherently, than a retarded child. Cass Sunstein has embraced the whole enchilada. He believes that animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people including the right to follow lawsuits."

Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

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.

There is nothing to prevent you from doing your own independent research, except your own unwillingness to do it.

Google is your friend.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating." He also proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

www.thefirearmsforum.com...