Vegetarian Discussion: Animal Welfare Or "animal Rights"?

Animal Welfare Or "animal Rights"?
Posts: 41

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

N*@getitstraight.com
2006-03-29 13:40:33 EST
On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad wondered:

>in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
>"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
>animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
>on.

They're the enemies of the livestock group(s), Goob. Just as
something that wants to deliberately eliminate the human race
could be thought of as an enemy of humans, "aras" who want
to deliberately eliminate domestic animals can be thought of as
an enemy of domestic animals.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There's more to it than that, but if you can't get that far then
considering details would be of no use to you. For anyone who can
understand though, it's good to keep in mind the huge difference
between decent Animal Welfare and the gross misnomer "animal
rights".

People who are in favor of decent AW for any--and especially
for all--domestic animals should be *very much* opposed to the
"ar" objective to eliminate them. That much everyone should be
able to understand.

>Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
> they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.

We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
kill unwanted pets:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
>From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
they would kill livestock as well:
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Try to get it straight.

R*@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 20:12:50 EST

n*a@getitstraight.com wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad wondered:
>
> >in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
> >"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
> >animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
> >on.
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s), Goob. Just as
> something that wants to deliberately eliminate the human race
> could be thought of as an enemy of humans, "aras" who want
> to deliberately eliminate domestic animals can be thought of as
> an enemy of domestic animals.
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
> [...]
> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
> University
>
> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>
> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> _________________________________________________________
> AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
>
> Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
> animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
> prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
> necessary, humane euthanasia.
>
> Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
> statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
> are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
> promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
> endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
> when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
> purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
> benefit of both humans and animals.
>
> http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
> by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
> Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
> 1988, p. 50.
>
> "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
> first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
> oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
> oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
> Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
> February 1991, p. 20.
>
> "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
> jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
> by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
> Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
> Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>
> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
> domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
> more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
> exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
> Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
> of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
> [...]
> "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
> theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
> changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
> prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
> call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
> The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
>
> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
> pp. 40-42.
> [...]
> http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> There's more to it than that, but if you can't get that far then
> considering details would be of no use to you. For anyone who can
> understand though, it's good to keep in mind the huge difference
> between decent Animal Welfare and the gross misnomer "animal
> rights".
>
> People who are in favor of decent AW for any--and especially
> for all--domestic animals should be *very much* opposed to the
> "ar" objective to eliminate them. That much everyone should be
> able to understand.
>
> >Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
> > they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
>
> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
> kill unwanted pets:

No they wouldn't. They're just opposed to exploiting them.
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
> government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
> of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
> those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
> [...]
> http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> _________________________________________________________
> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
> the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
> no sign of changing.
>
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> they would kill livestock as well:
> _________________________________________________________
> Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
> State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
> [...]
> On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
> of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
> in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
> existence and the slaughterhouse.
>
> A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
> the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
> livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>
> [...]
> In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
> hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
> U.S. shores.
>
> ''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
> if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>
> People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
> ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
> means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
> start to finish.''
> [...]
> http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Try to get it straight.


D*@.
2006-03-30 14:37:42 EST
On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>*a@getitstraight.com wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad insisted:

>> >Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
>> > they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
>>
>> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
>> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
>> kill unwanted pets:
>
>No they wouldn't.

Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
sane.

>They're just opposed to exploiting them.

Yeah, and I'm sure they're opposed to exploiting dogs and cats
too, but that doesn't stop them from killing dogs and cats just as they
would kill livestock.

>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>> In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
>> government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
>> of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
>> those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
>> [...]
>> http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> _________________________________________________________
>> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
>> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
>> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
>> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
>> the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
>> no sign of changing.
>>
>> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> they would kill livestock as well:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
>> State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
>> [...]
>> On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
>> of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
>> in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
>> existence and the slaughterhouse.
>>
>> A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
>> the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
>> livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
>>
>> [...]
>> In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
>> hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
>> U.S. shores.
>>
>> ''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
>> if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
>>
>> People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
>> ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
>> means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
>> start to finish.''
>> [...]
>> http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Try to get it straight.

Leif Erikson
2006-03-30 15:58:48 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid lying pig-fucking cracker, stupidly
tried to evade:
> On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson tied Fuckwit David Harrison up in knots:
>
> >in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
> >"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
> >animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
> >on.
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s),

No, Fuckwit. Let's review:

1. They don't wish to inflict any harm on existing livestock animals.

2. Animals that don't exist cannot have any enemies.


Try again, Fuckwit: in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
the "enemies" of livestock animals? To which specific animals are they
doing anything injurious? Hint for Fuckwit: it has nothing to do with
any non-existent animals. Now see if you can answer without saying
something absurd.


R*@yahoo.com
2006-03-31 02:12:43 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >nopEda@getitstraight.com wrote:
> >> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad insisted:
>
> >> >Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
> >> > they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
> >>
> >> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
> >> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
> >> kill unwanted pets:
> >
> >No they wouldn't.
>
> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
> too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
> mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
> missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
> enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
> cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
> sane.
>

I'm not sure exactly what PETA's position on euthanasia is - I could
try and find out for you. Animal rights activists do support euthanasia
for animals who are so sick that their lives will be utterly miserable.
I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.

> >They're just opposed to exploiting them.
>
> Yeah, and I'm sure they're opposed to exploiting dogs and cats
> too, but that doesn't stop them from killing dogs and cats just as they
> would kill livestock.
>
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> [...]
> >> In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
> >> government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
> >> of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
> >> those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
> >> [...]
> >> http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
> >> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
> >> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
> >> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
> >> the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
> >> no sign of changing.
> >>
> >> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> they would kill livestock as well:
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
> >> State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
> >> [...]
> >> On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
> >> of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
> >> in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
> >> existence and the slaughterhouse.
> >>
> >> A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
> >> the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
> >> livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
> >> hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
> >> U.S. shores.
> >>
> >> ''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
> >> if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
> >>
> >> People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
> >> ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
> >> means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
> >> start to finish.''
> >> [...]
> >> http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> Try to get it straight.


Leif Erikson
2006-03-31 02:28:38 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid lying pig-fucking
cracker, stupidly tried to evade:

> On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson beat hell out of Fuckwit David Harrison:
>
>
>>Fuckwit, in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
>>"enemies" of livestock animals? There are two classes of livestock
>>animals: those that exist, and those that don't exist but might later
>>on.
>
>
> They're the enemies of the livestock group(s),

You're merely repeating your false claim, Fuckwit. I
asked you IN WHAT WAY they are "enemies", Fuckwit.
Only *existing* entities can have "enemies", Fuckwit.
Keep that in mind in trying to answer next time.




> People who are in favor of decent AW

That excludes *you*, Fuckwit:

...but I would just ignore their suffering.

Fuckwit David Harrison
Message-ID: <384211a6.1806202111@news.mindspring.com>

You don't care about "decent 'aw'", Fuckwit, and you
never did.

>>Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
>>they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
>
>
> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here, not all
> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock

False. In fact, not just false - a deliberate lie.

Try again, Fuckwit: In what way are "aras" the
"enemies" of livestock, Fuckwit, GIVEN that:

- "aras" do not wish to harm existing livestock in
any way
- non-existent entities cannot have enemies

Try to make some sense this time, Fuckwit.

Leif Erikson
2006-03-31 02:30:06 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-fucking
cracker, lied:

> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-fucking cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 28 Mar 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
>>>>they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
>>>
>>> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
>>>vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
>>>kill unwanted pets:
>>
>>No they wouldn't.
>
>
> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
> too.

Prove it. You're lying, of course.

D*@.
2006-04-03 11:23:43 EST
On 30 Mar 2006 23:12:43 -0800, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2006 17:12:50 -0800, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >nopEda@getitstraight.com wrote:
>> >> On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad insisted:
>>
>> >> >Vegetarians are not the "enemies" of currently existing livestock:
>> >> > they don't want to inflict any harm on them at all.
>> >>
>> >> We're talking about "animal rights" activists here Goo, not all
>> >> vegetarians. "aras" would *kill* livestock Goober. Just as they
>> >> kill unwanted pets:
>> >
>> >No they wouldn't.
>>
>> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
>> too. They probably started the latest European outbreak of foot and
>> mouth disease, since a container of it just happened to turn up
>> missing right before the outbreak. LOL, and if that's not suspicious
>> enough, we have Newkirk herself admitting that she "thinks" US
>> cattle would benefit from getting sick with it too! You people are not
>> sane.
>>
>
>I'm not sure exactly what PETA's position on euthanasia is - I could
>try and find out for you. Animal rights activists do support euthanasia
>for animals who are so sick that their lives will be utterly miserable.

It seems anyone in favor of doing so for animals who can't decide
one way or the other, should at least be in favor of it for humans who
can decide what they want.

>I'm not sure whether some employees of PETA went beyond that. If they
>did, they probably did something which you wouldn't really say is
>consistent with an animal rights position. There's no reason to think
>animal rights activists would be in favour of killing livestock.

As yet there is only reason to believe they would. If you can provide
reason to believe they would not, then please include how they would
deal with them along with your example(s).


D*@.
2006-04-03 11:24:07 EST
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
>> too.
>
>Prove it.

LOL!
_________________________________________________________
"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it
people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the
animals somehow mitigates the harm.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat]
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world. - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
>From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Leif Erikson
2006-04-03 12:38:39 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
>
> >> Try to think. Since they kill dogs and cats, they would kill livestock
> >> too.
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> LOL!

Of course you couldn't do it. We knew that.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron