PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
:sigh: Misanthropy tho.I dunno. Maybe he just doesn't like people.
I would make a nice change to see some decent quality counter arguments rather than the same old crappy recycled ones.
:sigh: Misanthropy tho.I dunno. Maybe he just doesn't like people.
:sigh: Misanthropy tho.
I would make a nice change to see some decent quality counter arguments rather than the same old crappy recycled ones.
It's a bit of a simplistic crappy non argument. Just because he is passionate in his efforts to stop the exploitation of animals doesn't means he hates humans.I can see where he’s coming from tbf
It's a bit of a simplistic crappy non argument. Just because he is passionate in his efforts to stop the exploitation of animals doesn't means he hates humans.
There's definitely a heavy undertone of misanthropy in animal rights activism though.
<insert defensive denial here>
Oh there's no confusion, there's a distinct lack of decent quality comments too, mostly carping and baseless accusations.Your confusion between comments and “counter-arguments” is quite interesting.
Oh there's no confusion, there's a distinct lack of decent quality comments too, mostly carping and baseless accusations.
More like big girls blouses.What have the nasty big boys been saying now, dear?
More like big girls blouses.
Animal rights activism isn’t the same as veganism, though.
And veganism isn’t the same as not eating animals or their secretions.
Veganism is a form of animal rights activism. We covered that pages ago
IIRC, I was having my first barney with old @PabloSanchez, perhaps misguidedly saying that changing diet isn't enough to be an animal rights activist. Jeff Robinson posted something that made me think again and reminded me that yeah, actually, it is a kind of activism because it involves taking active steps to reduce ones contribution to animal suffering. I'd happily go with that now, I think my levels were a bit skewiff because of the years I spent doing rather naughty things in the name of animal rights and it's easy to see just changing diet as a bit of a cop out. But it's not, not really.
On the other hand, I may have remembered the exchange completely wrong. After 138 pages it's more than conceivable.
Examples of the sort of things that psycho hater loons post...
Yeah, I get that thrust. I think wanting to reduce animal suffering doesn't necessarily presume rights, though, and a person could theoretically end up with a default vegan lifestyle without necessarily considering animals.
Purely for circumstantial or cultural reasons.
Even that has to be given a condition, though - 'needless' - acknowledging that, even in a world that was 100% vegan, we'd still have to kill some animals and take away the habitats of others. That's not really much of a right - 'you have the right to live except where we need to kill you' - and is really nothing like a human right as we normally think of it, which doesn't have those conditions attached to it.Yeah OK, but tbf the ''right'' in ''animal right(s)'' is basically the right to live without the needless suffering inflicted by humans. If there are other rights then they come after that one. The aim of veganism is essentially that.
Yeah OK, but tbf the ''right'' in ''animal right(s)'' is basically the right to live without the needless suffering inflicted by humans. If there are other rights then they come after that one. The aim of veganism is essentially that.
Even that has to be given a condition, though - 'needless' - acknowledging that, even in a world that was 100% vegan, we'd still have to kill some animals and take away the habitats of others. That's not really much of a right - 'you have the right to live except where we need to kill you' - and is really nothing like a human right as we normally think of it, which doesn't have those conditions attached to it.
So when i chose at the age of ten to not eat flesh i guess i was just 'dicking around'.
Internet didnt exist back then. Thanks for your advice though it was enlightening.
Even that has to be given a condition, though - 'needless' - acknowledging that, even in a world that was 100% vegan, we'd still have to kill some animals and take away the habitats of others. That's not really much of a right - 'you have the right to live except where we need to kill you' - and is really nothing like a human right as we normally think of it, which doesn't have those conditions attached to it.
Rights ultimately rest on the ability to defend them.
Hmm. No, not really.
The trainee farmer who told the BBC that she had received death threats from vegans because of her work, now admits that she hasn’t received any death threats.
I can't see how animal rights can work, personally.Fair enough, what I was doing there was just talking the language. My own views are a bit more complex, and while I remain vegetarian I'm not entirely sure I agree wholesale with the idea of ''animal rights'' any more, mainly because there can be no ''animal responsibilities'' which rights are usually tied to. That might be fallacious but I've never heard any really convincing argument against it. Life is suffering, after all. And as you say, ''needless'' is a pretty subjective idea. And then, there's pets .. guide dogs .. beach donkeys .. racehorses and racing dogs .. ''animal rights'' gets complicated quickly when you dig into it.
You think not? Rights can be taken away, ignored, subverted as soon as is politically expedient. The court in Hague isn't as busy as it should be is it.
And if you go around punching other people in the face, you lose some of your rights not to be punched in the face back.I mean this in the sense that a right can be ignored or violated or subverted (obviously), but it remains a right in the moral sense.
If I punch you in the face in the street I have not taken away your right to not be assaulted - I have violated it.
It's a moral as opposed to "what is" thing.