View Single Post
  #3   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 11:07 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch[_2_] Dutch[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands
of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals
in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make
which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for
traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine.
It's a
diversion.


It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

So there is a difference between being in a position where animals
including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which
is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population.

That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are
killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally,
directly,
indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our
desire
for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There
is
no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field,
apple
orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of
chicken. I
understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally
significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of
"necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you
consume
from what I consume.

I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans.

If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought.

[..]

Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing
an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc.

Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption
habits?
Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is
the
impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments?

He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years.

Which is what?

See above.

You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble
hand-wringing
we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




See my other response.


All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked.