The Myth Of Animal Rights
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
John

Albany Creek, Australia

#1 Nov 14, 2012
Part 1

A recent Rivera Live television talk program hosted several animal rights advocates who were given considerable air time defending their position in both analytical and emotion terms. Only a couple of sceptics offered some doubts about the idea that was the focus of the program.
I watched and listened closely and found that the program offered hardly any measure of balance during the discussion. There was a law professor, for example, who raised some questions but gave no clear cut argument against the idea that animals have rights akin to human beings, the position widely shared about those who got nearly all the air time on the program.
One legal specialist defending the notion of animal rights made the flat out claim that animals must be considered to have the right to freedom just as individual human beings. He gave his own example of offering shelter to six dogs as the model that ought to be emulated throughout the world. He even characterized his practice as giving asylum to the dogs, as one might give asylum to a political refuge from a totalitarian society.
I filed the spectacle away, having dealt with the issue both in Op Ed essays and scholarly pieces I have written and even had reprinted in ethics text books on the topic. But I wasn’t permitted to leave it at that since the next day, watching a National Geographic Explorer program on CMBC, my attention was returned to the topic. On this program a polar bear’s hunt for baby seals was depicted in extensive detail. First we saw how the bear managed to capture and kill a baby seal. Next we saw a mature polar bear fighting off a young one as they both had their eyes on the carcass of a dead seal. Suddenly my ears perked up: the narrator made a comment that brought to mind the animal rights program the night before. He said, "The older males are known to kill younger ones when fighting over carcasses." No, they do not share even a bit of the scavenged pickings but either chase the young bears away or out and out kill them as they attempt to preserve for themselves everything they found. Of course, human beings have been known to battle it out over scarce resources throughout history, but in most regions of the world it is a crime to kill a young person even in defence of one’s property, let alone over wild prey. Killing youngsters, while it does occur, is deemed to be a crime in nearly all – especially civilized – societies. Where it isn’t, the bulk of world opinion considers the region barbaric and brutal.
John

Albany Creek, Australia

#2 Nov 14, 2012
Part 2

Given this, how can we seriously entertain the idea that animals have rights like human beings do? If this were true, all the inter-species brutality in the animal world would have to be construed as out and out criminal. But, quite sensibly, it isn’t. Why so? The reason is that animals operate as their instincts dictate, and in many cases instincts dictate that animals kill their own kind. Fish often eat their young, as do lions when they are impelled to do so by their genetic disposition, presumably to rid their pride of bastard offspring.
Why, on the other hand, do human beings get prosecuted if they engage in similar conduct? Why is it brutal, barbaric – and should be criminal – to kill children for fun, profit or even survival? The reason is that human beings are fundamentally different from their animal kin in the wild. They have the capacity to make choices, they possess free will and have the responsibility to act ethically and respect the rights of other human beings. Why? So these others can carry out their morality responsibilities on their own initiative. Human beings, in short, are free and morally responsible. And it is this fact that gives rise to their having basic rights that others ought to respect and they may protect with force and law. These rights carve out a kind of fence – or sphere of personal authority – around persons, something they all require in order to carry on in a dignified manner when in one another’s company.
There are many ways human beings can be guilty of mistreating animals. Perhaps even the law should make some provisions to ensure that wanton torture and mistreatment of animals are minimized. But this is not because animals have rights, which they cannot have given their nature as instinctually driven beasts instead of moral agents. Talking, therefore, about animal rights is a confusion and misguides our thinking about our proper relationship with the rest of the animal world.

Tibor R. Machan

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS

Virginia Beach, VA

#3 Nov 14, 2012
What a mentally disturbed FREAK. You have NOP IDEA how effing insane you prove yourself to be. how many more times is widdle self humiliating johnny going to prove what an insecure, witless, spineless, sackless COWARD he is?? effing hilarious that the sackless slob continues to make an a$s of himself---he is even an embarrassment to his own cowardly ilk!! Get lost you worthless PoS and quit your pathetic pansyass whining. A toddler has more wit and intelligence and spine than an ever flailing/FAILING COWARD like you ever will. Quit wasting space on the ANIMAL RIGHTS forums with your whiny hissy fits you spineless PoS COWARD. You know NOTHING about ANIMAL RIGHTS or being VEGAN yet you cry and whine about it every minute of your pointless, cowardly 'life'.

Time for another hissy fit, COWARD? of course it is because like all COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence, a sack and a spine and you will prove this FACT in 10..9..8..7..6...
John

Albany Creek, Australia

#4 Nov 14, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
What a mentally disturbed FREAK. You have NOP IDEA how effing insane you prove yourself to be. how many more times is widdle self humiliating johnny going to prove what an insecure, witless, spineless, sackless COWARD he is?? effing hilarious that the sackless slob continues to make an a$s of himself---he is even an embarrassment to his own cowardly ilk!! Get lost you worthless PoS and quit your pathetic pansyass whining. A toddler has more wit and intelligence and spine than an ever flailing/FAILING COWARD like you ever will. Quit wasting space on the ANIMAL RIGHTS forums with your whiny hissy fits you spineless PoS COWARD. You know NOTHING about ANIMAL RIGHTS or being VEGAN yet you cry and whine about it every minute of your pointless, cowardly 'life'.
Time for another hissy fit, COWARD? of course it is because like all COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence, a sack and a spine and you will prove this FACT in 10..9..8..7..6...
Blah blah blah.
You have no argument so you rant.
HUNTERS ARE COWARDS

Virginia Beach, VA

#6 Nov 14, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah blah blah.
I have no argument so I rant and throw pansyass hissy fits all day and night and no one gives a sh#t but I keep humiliating myself anyway!
that sums it up! By all means do keep making an a$& of yourself anyway! Ready? 10..9..8..7..6....

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7 Nov 15, 2012
HUNTERS ARE COWARDS wrote:
<quoted text>that sums it up! By all means do keep making an a$& of yourself anyway! Ready? 10..9..8..7..6....
Damn Lumpy! You're lookin' seriously lame here. Like a one legged man in an asskicking contest..........Score: Lumpy - 0.
hunters are COWARDS

Virginia Beach, VA

#8 Nov 15, 2012
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Damn I am Lumpy! I'm lookin' seriously lame here. Like a one legged man in an asskicking contest..........Score: Lumpy - 0.
Well, well, well widdle impotent squatty is STILL coming here for your daily doses of humiliation. Of course you are because like all spineless, witless, sackless, insecure COWARDS you lack dignity, pride, and intelligence. The fact that you keep coming here full well knowing that I will NEVER converse seriously or respectfully to you PoS TROLLS speaks volumes. Your flabby old asses are kicked around and you still keep coming back for more because you are a self humiliating spineless COWARD.

Suit yourself, scumbag. Here ya go...

As can be predicted, the spineless, insecure, sackless squatty is back for more daily humiliation! like all spineless, witless, sackless, insecure COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence, and confidence. Suit yourself, squatty, and I will continue to slap your pathetic flabby old ass around.
Matter of fact let me repeat:
widdle insecure, spineless, sackless squatty had himself another uncontrollable hissy fit! Because squatty is a spineless, witless, frightened COWARD who spends every waking hour obsessing over ANIMAL RIGHTS because widdle squatty knows that the big bad VEGANS are a threat to sackless COWARDS like him!
You can't stop yourself from repeated SELF HUMILATION! YOU can't even control your pathetic daily pansyass hissy fits. Every day you prove what an spineless, insecure, witless frightened COWARD you are, and every day you get your pathetic, spineless ass kicked yet here you are day after day after day---typical glutton for punishment. Don't you ever get tired of proving what an insecure, spineless, self humiliating COWARD you are? Obviously not. The factthat VEGANS exist infuriates pitiful frightened COWARDS like you. the fact that you obsess every waking hour of our miserable 'life' over the big bad VEGANS/ARAs proves what a frightened, spineless, insecure COWARD you are. You are obviously too dense to grasp what an ass you make of yourself EVERY DAY and EVERY NIGHT. No MAN would be so insecure and frightened and self humiliating to infest the ANIMAL RIGHTS forums first thing every day, all day and last thing . ARAs/ VEGANS are all you ever think about and the PROOF is strewn through the ANIMAL RIGHTS forums every page, every day, for YEARS now. You are even a disgrace to your own despicable ilk and that is a FACT. Keep proving what a spineless, insecure COWARD you are because like all sackless COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence, confidence and a spine. It's despicable that a sixty something year old acts like such a socially inept, mentally disturbed slob.
Be sure to throw another predictable pansyass hissy fit...we know you thrive on self humiliation. Ready for your next uncontrollable pansyass hissy fit, sackless COWARD? Of course you are because like every day, you are slobbering over your filthy keyboard waiting for a 'big bad vegan' to post so you can't scream and pound your gnarly, nicotine stained fists!
Be sure to come back for more!LOL!!! We know you will because after all, you aren't even a mere shell of a man!!!'tis true!!!!! Come on squatty, you are being ORDERED to throw a hissy fit and we KNOW you will obey like a good little COWARD!lol!! Nothing like a past middle aged loser repeatedly humiliating himself! Ready widdle insecure squatty? 10..9..8..7..6.

Keep banging your empty head into the wall and keep proving what a spineless, witless, sackless, insecure COWARD you are!!!!
John

Coorparoo, Australia

#10 Nov 16, 2012
Rights can only be held by beings who are capable of reasoning and choosing.

Human life versus animal life. This fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of research on animals, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has just launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research lab in Vienna, Va., that uses animals for drug testing.

It is an indisputable fact that many thousands of lives are saved by medical research on animals. But animal rightists don't care. PETA makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Such is the "humanitarianism" of animal rights activists.

How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single -- invalid -- syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty -- which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men -- free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves -- a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them -- at our expense.

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.

Edwin A. Locke
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS

Virginia Beach, VA

#11 Nov 16, 2012
and the widdle insecure, witless, frightened COWARD from oz is STILL throwing pansyass hissy fits begging for attention and still NO ONE CARES.

You can't even think for yourself, you tub of sh#t, so you copy and paste some twisted moron speciesists trash.
Face it, you are nothing but a disgusting waste of space on this planet. You sit on your flabby a$s spitting, bitching, whining and stomping your filthy fists because you can't stand the fact that ANIMAL RIGHTS is a reality and VEGAN are increasing every day and there is NOTHING that a sackless, spineless, insecure witless COWARD like you can do about it! You fret and obsess day and night over the 'big bad VEGANS' and you cringe at the words VEGAN and ANIMAL RIGHTS. effing hilarious and pathetic that you slobs waste away your pointless, miserable 'lives' freaking out over people who CARE about animals. Get lost you worthless PoS TROLL because NO ONE of sane mind will ever converse seriously with you despicable PoS TROLLS. Gonna come back for more humiliation? Of course you are because like all spineless, witless, sackless COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence and confidence. You will prove this fact again and again....probably in 10..9..8..7..6...

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#12 Nov 16, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
and the widdle insecure, witless, frightened COWARD from oz is STILL throwing pansyass hissy fits begging for attention and still NO ONE CARES.
You can't even think for yourself, you tub of sh#t, so you copy and paste some twisted moron speciesists trash.
Face it, you are nothing but a disgusting waste of space on this planet. You sit on your flabby a$s spitting, bitching, whining and stomping your filthy fists because you can't stand the fact that ANIMAL RIGHTS is a reality and VEGAN are increasing every day and there is NOTHING that a sackless, spineless, insecure witless COWARD like you can do about it! You fret and obsess day and night over the 'big bad VEGANS' and you cringe at the words VEGAN and ANIMAL RIGHTS. effing hilarious and pathetic that you slobs waste away your pointless, miserable 'lives' freaking out over people who CARE about animals. Get lost you worthless PoS TROLL because NO ONE of sane mind will ever converse seriously with you despicable PoS TROLLS. Gonna come back for more humiliation? Of course you are because like all spineless, witless, sackless COWARDS you lack pride, dignity, intelligence and confidence. You will prove this fact again and again....probably in 10..9..8..7..6...
If that's your rebuttal, John wins by complete default. Which is, of course, why..........get ready........wait for it........here it comes.......Yours is a lost cause and you are a pathetic loser. Have fun storming the castle.......

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#13 Nov 16, 2012
"Let me begin by pointing out a few self-evident facts-- in other words, facts that can't be denied (other than as meaningless noise) by anyone advocating for elevating the status of animals.

First, human beings are the dominant species on this planet, making decisions regarding use of the land, the sea, the air, and the near space above the air. Man rules and animals have to take what we do with them and lump it.

Second, there are no animals petitioning mankind, their "oppressor," for an elevated status or recognition of their rights.

Third, this entire discussion is made by some human beings attempting to play on the ethics and esthetics of other human beings so as to cause them to alter the way they act with respect to animals."

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/fifty.html

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#15 Nov 16, 2012
John wrote:
Rights can only be held by beings who are capable of reasoning and choosing.
Human life versus animal life. This fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of research on animals, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has just launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research lab in Vienna, Va., that uses animals for drug testing.
It is an indisputable fact that many thousands of lives are saved by medical research on animals. But animal rightists don't care. PETA makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Such is the "humanitarianism" of animal rights activists.
How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single -- invalid -- syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty -- which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men -- free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.
None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.
Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves -- a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them -- at our expense.
The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.
The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.
There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
Edwin A. Locke
Thank you, John. Brilliant and factual essay by Mr. Locke

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#17 Nov 16, 2012
John wrote:
Rights can only be held by beings who are capable of reasoning and choosing.
Human life versus animal life. This fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of research on animals, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has just launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research lab in Vienna, Va., that uses animals for drug testing.
It is an indisputable fact that many thousands of lives are saved by medical research on animals. But animal rightists don't care. PETA makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Such is the "humanitarianism" of animal rights activists.
How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single -- invalid -- syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty -- which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men -- free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.
None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.
Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves -- a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them -- at our expense.
The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.
The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.
There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
Edwin A. Locke
Thank you John. Brilliant and factual essay by Mr. Locke.
HAP is a GRUNTING BABOON

San Angelo, TX

#18 Nov 16, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS - LUMPY wrote:
LOL, As the fugly moron from PETA HQ, I - LUMPY keep decorating my own asinine posts over and ocver AGAIN!!!! I'm going to keep my butt-fugly monkey ass very busy!!! Unbelievable what a mentally disturbed, witless piece of sh#t I am.
Yes LUMPY, you are an unbelievable shitstain.
HAP is a GRUNTING BABOON

San Angelo, TX

#21 Nov 16, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS - LUMPY wrote:
How many mentally disturbed, insecure, witless, dlckless TROLLS will continue to infest the ANIMAL RIGHTS forums today?? watch them scurry about mindlessly......
I guess you're upset because you are all alone and such a pathetic loser, peddling a lost cause.

Sorry LUMPY, but it won't be getting any better for you.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#22 Nov 16, 2012
hiss of death wrote:
50 things animls can't do...
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/fifty.html
I do have some opposition to this. I am not convinced that ARA activists are human haters (I will acknowledge that some of them are though). Instead, the vast majority of ARA activists are attempting to rationalize using emotion rather than logic. They have also over generalized human empathy and have illogically and erroneously empathize with non human critters.

I do like the question about what an ARA would do if their dog and a baby were drowning and they could only save one of them. If they choose the human, they are acknowledging human superiority. If they choose the dog, they are a danger to society and our children should never be left alone in their presence as they are dangerous due to their warp sense of values.

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#25 Nov 16, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have some opposition to this. I am not convinced that ARA activists are human haters (I will acknowledge that some of them are though). Instead, the vast majority of ARA activists are attempting to rationalize using emotion rather than logic. They have also over generalized human empathy and have illogically and erroneously empathize with non human critters.
I do like the question about what an ARA would do if their dog and a baby were drowning and they could only save one of them. If they choose the human, they are acknowledging human superiority. If they choose the dog, they are a danger to society and our children should never be left alone in their presence as they are dangerous due to their warp sense of values.
While I can agree that not all ARs are human-haters, I believe Mr. Schulman is refering to the most warped and deviant among ARAs like HAC - HAP. No parent should, under any circumstances, allow their children to be in proximity to this psychopath.

Joe USA

“"Fortitudine Vincimus"”

Since: Oct 09

USA

#26 Nov 16, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
<quoted text>We know. You really should just stick to decorating posts...especially your own asinine loser posts!!! You will always be just a worthless self humiliating PoS TROLL. Matter of fact you will prove it AGAIN and again...in 10..9..8..7..6....
Do tell, Tina!

Joe USA

“"Fortitudine Vincimus"”

Since: Oct 09

USA

#27 Nov 16, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have some opposition to this. I am not convinced that ARA activists are human haters (I will acknowledge that some of them are though). Instead, the vast majority of ARA activists are attempting to rationalize using emotion rather than logic. They have also over generalized human empathy and have illogically and erroneously empathize with non human critters.
I do like the question about what an ARA would do if their dog and a baby were drowning and they could only save one of them. If they choose the human, they are acknowledging human superiority. If they choose the dog, they are a danger to society and our children should never be left alone in their presence as they are dangerous due to their warp sense of values.
The baby and dog drowning question has been posed to ARs many times, on a thread that was in the Hunting forum oppose to Bow Hunting created by an AR.
The ARs dance around the question or stick to an anti-Human agenda/philosophy. Disgusting.

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#28 Nov 16, 2012
HUNTERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS wrote:
<quoted text> The scenario of having to choose one or the other is ludicrous...
Not true.

So which would you choose, psycho, the baby or your dog ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Animal Rights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Grab a Pussy!': PETA Billboards Urging Pet Adop... (Oct '16) 9 hr Reporter 2,700
News PETA Targets Celebrity Chef Fans With New 'Sile... (May '12) Fri Reporter 10,805
Make Forced Molting Illegal in the US! Nov 9 Common sense 2
Input wanted for a project Nov 3 Designer26 1
News Locals charged with dogfighting and animal crue... (Jul '10) Oct '17 Bill Honeycutt 28
News Veganism - doing the right thing (Jul '11) Oct '17 weti 984
Greyhounds in spain need your help Sep '17 Common Sense 2
More from around the web