Animals Are Not Ours To Wear

[Human Shield]

Animals are property, they are a renewable resource. They can't hold responsiblity.

"That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don’t respect the “rights” of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is “evil” because he exists by devouring and “aggressing against” lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who “aggresses against” other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men “aggress against” cows and wolves as to say that wolves “aggress against” sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an “evil aggressor” or that the wolf was being “punished” for his “crime.” And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that “we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them.” The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their “rights” is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can’t petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not."

 

[bluejake01]

Now We're getting somewhere.
Thanks all for reminding me of why it is that I come here when I can't sleep at night.

Pancakes?

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Animals are property, they are a renewable resource. They can't hold responsiblity.

"That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don’t respect the “rights” of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is “evil” because he exists by devouring and “aggressing against” lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who “aggresses against” other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men “aggress against” cows and wolves as to say that wolves “aggress against” sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an “evil aggressor” or that the wolf was being “punished” for his “crime.” And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.

There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that “we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them.” The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their “rights” is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings. And if it be protested that babies can’t petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not."

not even gonna bother reading this, because youre wrong.

 

[bluejake01]

not even gonna bother reading this, because youre wrong.

I concur...for once.

 

[Batty for Bats!]

Pancakes?

incase doesn't have a freakin idea to anything that i said. www.weebls-stuff.com

 

[bluejake01]

Except I did read it...still thought it was flawed.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

I concur...for once.

first sign of the apocalypse..

 

[bluejake01]

incase doesn't have a freakin idea to anything that i said. www.weebls-stuff.com

So now there is a world OUTSIDE the HYPE? Damnit.

 

[Winter Spleen]

first sign of the apocalypse..

Ya'll must make love now and watch the world implode.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

id rather eat my hair

 

[bluejake01]

Ya'll must make love now and watch the world implode.

But she's a bottom feeder and I am at the top of the food chain with the other humans...that would be interspecies relations...and it would be wrong. Just ask PETA.

 

[bluejake01]

id rather eat my hair

Better your hair than a defenseless plant.

 

[Human Shield]

not even gonna bother reading this, because youre wrong.

Bull****. There is no explanation for the source of animal rights.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Better your hair than a defenseless plant.

im going to sneak into your house at night and eat all your defenseless houseplants.

 

[Batty for Bats!]

first sign of the apocalypse..

Did anyone else think of Jay from Dogma at the end? Anyone... I'm a lost soul.

 

[Cyclops]

Well, if you stand up against cruelty to animals, you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't stand up against cruelty to plants.

Both are living beings. Both are part of the natural world and deserve the right to live. We are in no position to take life away from either animals or plants because it is immoral and unethical.

Which is bull****. PETA and Animal Rights activists are stupid. There.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

id rather eat my hair

YUM! with Ranch on the side?

 

[Batty for Bats!]

YUM! with Ranch on the side?

I also prefer BBQ sauce whenever I eat my hair. But thats just me. you can be 'weird' and eat it with Ranch.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

yeah. I'm an Iconoclast.

 

[TheAlmightyFuzz]

There is NOTHING instinctual about raising livestock for consumption. That is what sets man apart. Butchering, preparing and cooking, also not instinct. I am a pagan and can't stand the way livestock is treated for mass consumption. Besides being cruel, the meat tastes bad. I also believe when I eat meat I am ingesting that animals suffering, which is why I am sure to buy only free range chicken, and pork or beef raised on small farms, in good conditions, slaughtered humanely. I pray to the father god and mother goddess in thanks for the meat, and thank and bless the animal. I prepare the meat with love, and do my best to give back to the earth when I take from it. There are alternatives to mass production and animals cruelty. I have gone hunting, and when I kill an animal I eat the meat and tan the hide for shoes, belts and clothing. Nothing should be wasted. Practicality makes it impossible for me to hunt my own food often, but I do what I can where I can. What I hate about PETA is the extreme nature of their beliefs and actions.

What the **** are you talking about, freak? I'm talking about eating meat, not raising livestock, I'm not a ****ing farmer. You'd let deer overtake your house.

 

[Batty for Bats!]

What the **** are you talking about, freak? I'm talking about eating meat, not raising livestock, I'm not a ****ing farmer. You'd let deer overtake your house.

I think I lost you.

 

[bluejake01]

What the **** are you talking about, freak? I'm talking about eating meat, not raising livestock, I'm not a ****ing farmer. You'd let deer overtake your house.

I have been banned for less than what you just said...

 

[Avalanche]

*struts in wearing a bear, a mink, an elephant and a seal*

Don't I look pretty?

In all seriousness, I wouldn't do it myself, but that's possibly because animal skins really don't look that good. That said, I own leather belts.

 

[Mr. Smash'n Bash]

i agree with PETA, if people wont listen...then make them listen.

Yes, make them listen by adopting bunchs of homeless little puppies, then killing them and stuffing their dead decaying bodies in dumpsters.

 

[Atrax robustus]