Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:26:47 -0600
From: Sandi and Scott Spaeth <vespass-AT-swbell.net>
Subject: RE: Ann Hansen talks shite


At 08:40 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Dave Coull wrote:

>Now that I agree with. Agreement breaking out!
>We can't have this! Surely we can find  _something_
>to disagree about? Where do you stand on this
>fraudulent idea of "animal rights"?  Would
>you agree with me that
>
>
> >> there is a major difference between, on the one hand,
> >> "animal rights", and, on the other hand, "women's rights"
> >> or "queer rights". The major difference is that  _women_
> >> initiated the women's rights movement. WOMEN  took direct
> >> action in support of (for instance) their right to vote.
> >> The same applies to queer rights. Homosexuals took direct
> >> action to assert their rights. But most animals are quite
> >> incapable of understanding the concept of "rights". In fact,
> >> most animals are quite incapable of understanding the concept
> >> "animals". If you take a cat and a dog, for instance, they
> >> are incapable of understanding the idea that together they
> >> form a class which is oppressed by humans. Now, this is
> >> not to deny that animals  _are_  oppressed by humans. As
> >> a matter of fact I am all in favour of compassionate treatment
> >> of animals. But that is a different matter from "rights".
> >> Rights are something you fight for. When Tom and Jerry
> >> (and Fido) all band together and take collective action,
> >> not in a cartoon but in real life, I will believe in
> >> "animal rights".

I'm closer to carnivore than omnivore.  I don't believe in making my lunch 
suffer needlessly, but it's still my lunch.

cheers,
scott