Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 Can anyone help with a web address? It's a point by point document stating common animal rights abusers arguments for continuing to do so and good rebuttals and things not to argue. He, he. I love that argument (*shoots it out of the air*). So what he's saying is we must go on killing bulls so they don't become extinct. Oxymoron anyone? This also confirms that omni's forget where their food comes from and need reminding. I'm afraid that to birth bulls- first, a cow must become pregnant. That pregnancy has 50/50 of cows and bulls, it's the law of nature. If man decides to kill the bulls for veal, that's a different thing. There's no bull fighting in this country, yet I still see bulls in the countryside. It's amazing. He considers animals commodities when they're used for bull fighting, but then he relies on the 'sentient' argument for the continuation of the 'sport' (sentient argument- they'll be extinct). I don't see him complaining about Buzz Lightyear toys becoming extinct, because they will stop making them. Man's superiority? In what way. The only thing that makes man superior is our ability to engineer there natural world into one suited to us. He would question the bull suffering cause most omni's need to question it to keep their 'ethics' from crashing. As far as I'm concerned, it has a nervous system, it can feel pain like us. You don't "know" 'he' can feel pain, but yet you don't have the strange urge to put him in a ring and throw spears in him. People know when animals (including human animals) are in pain by observing reactions, reading body language and listening for obvious signs of suffering. It's all (the signs) there in bull fighting. As for cultural values, try the link between animal violence and crime. All these are old arguments that were all argued for women not voting and blacks being kept as slaves. Esp. the will/freedom of choice argument. Animals have will/fredom of choice in their own environment. Just like the Grizzly bears I saw on TV last night. Domesticated animals are harder to argue as they are in mans environment. If he argues that, ask why G.White sharks often let go when they mistake humans for seals, but yet Tiger Sharks are more sadistic and will purposely eat human animals. It clearly shows will/freedom of choice as well as personality, just like bears. Ask any one who works with animals not in the food chain if they have personality. Once you stop eating them, it becomes clear calves are no different from dogs. I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning the debate on animal rights. I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity but because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( which he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural values and national identity are more important than the suffering of an animal. If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become extinct ( same for hunting). Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they haven't got any will or freedom of choice. Well, this were basically his main ideas. Could you tell me what you think of this? Regards Joana Fisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 Any animal that can feel pain can suffer .animalls try to escape because they are afraid for their safety or they defend themselves when they can't escape.Otherwise they would do nothing --like plants!! If Bullfighting is O.K. on grounds of tradition then I'd like a slave to do my garden and housework and Iknow a fw people who could be witches ---we could burn them!!! I thought human beings were developing or trying to ,that means minimising deliberate cruelty hence death penalty is not used in many countries now{mistaken identity].Who says Tradition etc are more important than animal sufferingtraditions change they are not universal'they lead to bullying{religios wars etc]Perhaps its the bigots who are wrong .Surely nothing is as bad as losing the only life you have and being tortured in the process. Rape + murder carries the highest penalty for that reason Of course not all men agreed that rape was bad especially those who force their wives.they found it easy to convince others that a woman saying NO 'meant yes!!!A report in an English police magazine showed a strong link with animal cruelty and harming people Children who kill children tortured animals before killing them. the same goes for adults.Its about control over the victimand a lack of eempathy.{dont get too close to your bullfighting supporter!!!--keepsafe Creul people are cruel in many ways--hurtful comments etc] good luckAngie - Thomas and Joana Fisher vegan-network Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:30 PM still about the debate on animal rights I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning the debate on animal rights. I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity but because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( which he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural values and national identity are more important than the suffering of an animal. If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become extinct ( same for hunting). Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they haven't got any will or freedom of choice. Well, this were basically his main ideas. Could you tell me what you think of this? Regards Joana Fisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 Mentally handicapped people shouldn't have rights thenSince they dont usually have responsibilities {jobs understanding about voting etc].Decisions are made for them'but society does its best to give them a reasonable life----but it wasn't always so they were laugh at in circuses /zoos ,or hidden away. thats a tradition too!!!Tradition doesn't mean good. Bad traditions have to goCruel bigots take a long time to realise this --like the ku klux klan! - Thomas and Joana Fisher vegan-network Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:30 PM still about the debate on animal rights I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning the debate on animal rights. I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity but because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( which he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural values and national identity are more important than the suffering of an animal. If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become extinct ( same for hunting). Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they haven't got any will or freedom of choice. Well, this were basically his main ideas. Could you tell me what you think of this? Regards Joana Fisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " <tomjo >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > >I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity but= > because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. >On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( which= > he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural value= >s and national identity are more important than the suffering of an animal. >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become extinc= >t ( same for hunting). >Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they haven't = >got any will or freedom of choice. >Well, this were basically his main ideas. >Could you tell me what you think of this? I think it good that he is willing to put forward several points. However, it is not clear what conclusions could be drawn if his points were allowed. Are they in support of " animals don't have rights " , or are they attempts to weaken " animals have rights " ? It is a lot easier to argue against a proposition than to present an unassailable case _for_ a proposition. It also affects the way one argues. His first point appears to be in favour of treating animals well; a conclusion difficult to argue against. You might (for purposes of argument) allow the point for the moment and help him follow it to see where it might lead. I see he doesn't reject outright the possibility of bulls suffering; he therefore considers it a possibility. Much can be made of this as there has been quite a lot published. You might find some relevant material in amongst the various useful reports produced by Compassion in World Farming at www.ciwf.co.uk, and certainly some further references. The " tradition, cultural values and national identity " points have to be taken seriously because they do have a great impact on peoples' behaviour. One of their weaknesses as argument is their hand-waving nature; they are susceptible to being teased apart until it is difficult to see anything substantial left. Take them one at a time and don't allow them to be used en masse: get him to specify a particular tradition and look at it in detail and see if there really is anything substantial there or not that supports his position (remember to get him to be very clear what his position is and not let him shift it whenever convenient). Then take a second tradition and dissect that. Find out whether " bulls would become extinct " is something he is truely concerned about or whether he is just assuming that you would be shocked and horrified by the possibility; I'm sure together you could find some way to allay his fears. The " don't have duties " point could be bad news for more than just non-human animals. What about rights arising from duties that other creatures have? -- one can't help but think of his first point: does " man's moral superiority " create a duty to the weak, as he appears to claim? I wouldn't necessarily be drawn into arguing specifically on these points though; they may just be leaves that once trimmed will grow again. What really leads him to claim these things? If you can affect something more basic in him then maybe these leaves will fall of their own accord. > " Mccartney, Rowan (R.N.) " <rmccar14 >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:53:43 -0400 > >Can anyone help with a web address? It's a point by point document stating >common animal rights abusers arguments for continuing to do so and good >rebuttals and things not to argue. Are you thinking of The Animal Rights FAQ (www.veganism.com/arpage.htm)? Some useful stuff there. Paul -- Paul Philbrow pp http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~pp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 I dont think there are any extremists in the animal rights movement.the extremists are surely those in the vivisection labs.,the slaughter houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food industry.the animal breeders out to make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot birds ,.the list is endless Animal rights people are kind and caring vegans.We realy shouldn't use such words to describe them leave that to the animal abusers. Angie ,- " mr big " <pervyempire <vegan-network > Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM Re: still about the debate on animal rights > I don`t envy your descision to have this debate. In my experience they > usally end up polarized charades. > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat eaters are either ignorant or > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the person knows and accepts > responsibility then they should be left to the extremists in the animal > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then explain the reasons, (and > offer alternatives). > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot air. > > > MrBog > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " <tomjo > >vegan-network > ><vegan-network > > > still about the debate on animal rights > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning the > >debate on animal rights. > >I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity but > >because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( which > >he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural values > >and national identity are more important than the suffering of an animal. > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become > >extinct ( same for hunting). > >Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they haven't > >got any will or freedom of choice. > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > >Regards > >Joana Fisher > > _______________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 how should we describe them then? surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > " Angie Wright " <angiewright >vegan-network ><vegan-network > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > >I dont think there are any extremists in the animal rights movement.the >extremists are surely those in the vivisection labs.,the slaughter >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food industry.the animal breeders out >to >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot birds ,.the list is >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring vegans.We realy shouldn't >use such words to describe them leave that to the animal abusers. > Angie > > >,- > " mr big " <pervyempire ><vegan-network > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this debate. In my experience they > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat eaters are either >ignorant >or > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the person knows and accepts > > responsibility then they should be left to the extremists in the animal > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then explain the reasons, (and > > offer alternatives). > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot air. > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " <tomjo > > >vegan-network > > ><vegan-network > > > > still about the debate on animal rights > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning >the > > >debate on animal rights. > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity >but > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( >which > > >he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural >values > > >and national identity are more important than the suffering of an >animal. > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they >haven't > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > >Regards > > >Joana Fisher > > > > >_______________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of not appropriate .too far from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called extreme.The suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a cause always callthe other side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we shouldn't call it extreme in my view Angie - " mr big " <pervyempire <vegan-network > Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM Re: still about the debate on animal rights > how should we describe them then? > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > >vegan-network > ><vegan-network > > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the animal rights movement.the > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection labs.,the slaughter > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food industry.the animal breeders out > >to > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot birds ,.the list is > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring vegans.We realy shouldn't > >use such words to describe them leave that to the animal abusers. > > Angie > > > > > >,- > > " mr big " <pervyempire > ><vegan-network > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this debate. In my experience they > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat eaters are either > >ignorant > >or > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the person knows and accepts > > > responsibility then they should be left to the extremists in the animal > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then explain the reasons, (and > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot air. > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " <tomjo > > > >vegan-network > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > still about the debate on animal rights > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice concerning > >the > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his points: > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own dignity > >but > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers ( > >which > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, cultural > >values > > > >and national identity are more important than the suffering of an > >animal. > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would become > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they > >haven't > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > >Regards > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 I noticed that all this rhetoric about 'extreme' AR people started appearing in the mainstream press at the same time as the Terrorism Act was passing unreported through Parliament. Now the same thing's happening with the proposed Criminal Justice and Police Bill. My strategy is to ignore the media. --- Angie Wright <angiewright wrote: > Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of > not appropriate .too far > from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called > extreme.The > suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a > cause always callthe other > side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we > shouldn't call it extreme in > my view Angie > - > " mr big " <pervyempire > <vegan-network > > Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM > Re: still about the debate > on animal rights > > > > how should we describe them then? > > > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > > >vegan-network > > ><vegan-network > > > >Re: still about the > debate on animal rights > > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the > animal rights movement.the > > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection > labs.,the slaughter > > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food > industry.the animal breeders out > > >to > > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot > birds ,.the list is > > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring > vegans.We realy > shouldn't > > >use such words to describe them leave that to the > animal abusers. > > > Angie > > > > > > > > >,- > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > ><vegan-network > > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > > >Re: still about the > debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this > debate. In my experience they > > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat > eaters are either > > >ignorant > > >or > > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the > person knows and accepts > > > > responsibility then they should be left to the > extremists in the > animal > > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then > explain the reasons, > (and > > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot > air. > > > > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " > <tomjo > > > > >vegan-network > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > still about the > debate on animal rights > > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for > their advice concerning > > >the > > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and > here are some of his > points: > > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because > they have their own > dignity > > >but > > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to > be kind to the weak. > > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering > that the bull suffers ( > > >which > > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because > our tradition, cultural > > >values > > > > >and national identity are more important than > the suffering of an > > >animal. > > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all > the bulls would become > > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't > have duties, and they > > >haven't > > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > > >Regards > > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail > at > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2001 Report Share Posted April 9, 2001 that is extremely funny angie xoxox > >Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of not appropriate .too >far >from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called extreme.The >suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a cause always callthe >other >side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we shouldn't call it extreme >in >my view Angie >- > " mr big " <pervyempire ><vegan-network > >Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > how should we describe them then? > > > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > > >vegan-network > > ><vegan-network > > > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the animal rights movement.the > > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection labs.,the slaughter > > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food industry.the animal breeders >out > > >to > > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot birds ,.the list is > > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring vegans.We realy >shouldn't > > >use such words to describe them leave that to the animal abusers. > > > Angie > > > > > > > > >,- > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > ><vegan-network > > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this debate. In my experience >they > > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat eaters are either > > >ignorant > > >or > > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the person knows and accepts > > > > responsibility then they should be left to the extremists in the >animal > > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then explain the reasons, >(and > > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot air. > > > > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " <tomjo > > > > >vegan-network > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > still about the debate on animal rights > > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for their advice >concerning > > >the > > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and here are some of his >points: > > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because they have their own >dignity > > >but > > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to be kind to the weak. > > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering that the bull suffers >( > > >which > > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because our tradition, >cultural > > >values > > > > >and national identity are more important than the suffering of an > > >animal. > > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all the bulls would >become > > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't have duties, and they > > >haven't > > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > > >Regards > > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 I agree we should ignore the media but we can't ignore it if one of our own is using words like " extrerme " when talking about A.R. people. Angie - " Heyman Michael " <Michael_heyman <vegan-network > Monday, April 09, 2001 7:22 PM Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > I noticed that all this rhetoric about 'extreme' AR > people started appearing in the mainstream press at > the same time as the Terrorism Act was passing > unreported through Parliament. Now the same thing's > happening with the proposed Criminal Justice and > Police Bill. My strategy is to ignore the media. > > --- Angie Wright <angiewright wrote: > > Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of > > not appropriate .too far > > from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called > > extreme.The > > suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a > > cause always callthe other > > side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we > > shouldn't call it extreme in > > my view Angie > > - > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > <vegan-network > > > Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM > > Re: still about the debate > > on animal rights > > > > > > > how should we describe them then? > > > > > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > > > > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > > > >vegan-network > > > ><vegan-network > > > > >Re: still about the > > debate on animal rights > > > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > > > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the > > animal rights movement.the > > > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection > > labs.,the slaughter > > > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food > > industry.the animal breeders out > > > >to > > > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot > > birds ,.the list is > > > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring > > vegans.We realy > > shouldn't > > > >use such words to describe them leave that to the > > animal abusers. > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > >,- > > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > > ><vegan-network > > > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > > > >Re: still about the > > debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this > > debate. In my experience they > > > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat > > eaters are either > > > >ignorant > > > >or > > > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the > > person knows and accepts > > > > > responsibility then they should be left to the > > extremists in the > > animal > > > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then > > explain the reasons, > > (and > > > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot > > air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " > > <tomjo > > > > > >vegan-network > > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > > still about the > > debate on animal rights > > > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for > > their advice concerning > > > >the > > > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and > > here are some of his > > points: > > > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because > > they have their own > > dignity > > > >but > > > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to > > be kind to the weak. > > > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering > > that the bull suffers ( > > > >which > > > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because > > our tradition, cultural > > > >values > > > > > >and national identity are more important than > > the suffering of an > > > >animal. > > > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all > > the bulls would become > > > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't > > have duties, and they > > > >haven't > > > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > > > >Regards > > > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail > > at > > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 Angie you really are trying to antagonize me aren't you. Your preconceptions of certain words amuse me, but your draconian assertion is quite annoying. I`m really sorry you (and anyone else) has a problem with the word extreme. I`m sorry you believe it has negative connotations. But as I said, it IS inert. extremely nice, extremely bad, extremely stupid, extremely clever....animal rights extremists do a little more than drinking soya and exchanging linguistic deconstructional emails. For that reason I describe them as extreme....extremely passionate and frustrated people!! ok? MrJesusChristandTheExtremelyLongThorn > " Angie Wright " <angiewright >vegan-network ><vegan-network > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights >Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:14:31 +0100 > >I agree we should ignore the media but we can't ignore it if one of our own >is using words like " extrerme " when talking about A.R. people. Angie >- > " Heyman Michael " <Michael_heyman ><vegan-network > >Monday, April 09, 2001 7:22 PM >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > > > I noticed that all this rhetoric about 'extreme' AR > > people started appearing in the mainstream press at > > the same time as the Terrorism Act was passing > > unreported through Parliament. Now the same thing's > > happening with the proposed Criminal Justice and > > Police Bill. My strategy is to ignore the media. > > > > --- Angie Wright <angiewright wrote: > > > Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of > > > not appropriate .too far > > > from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called > > > extreme.The > > > suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a > > > cause always callthe other > > > side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we > > > shouldn't call it extreme in > > > my view Angie > > > - > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > > <vegan-network > > > > Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM > > > Re: still about the debate > > > on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > how should we describe them then? > > > > > > > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > > > > >vegan-network > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > >Re: still about the > > > debate on animal rights > > > > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > > > > > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the > > > animal rights movement.the > > > > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection > > > labs.,the slaughter > > > > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food > > > industry.the animal breeders out > > > > >to > > > > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot > > > birds ,.the list is > > > > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring > > > vegans.We realy > > > shouldn't > > > > >use such words to describe them leave that to the > > > animal abusers. > > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >,- > > > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > > > > >Re: still about the > > > debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this > > > debate. In my experience they > > > > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat > > > eaters are either > > > > >ignorant > > > > >or > > > > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the > > > person knows and accepts > > > > > > responsibility then they should be left to the > > > extremists in the > > > animal > > > > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then > > > explain the reasons, > > > (and > > > > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot > > > air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " > > > <tomjo > > > > > > >vegan-network > > > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > > > still about the > > > debate on animal rights > > > > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for > > > their advice concerning > > > > >the > > > > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and > > > here are some of his > > > points: > > > > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because > > > they have their own > > > dignity > > > > >but > > > > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to > > > be kind to the weak. > > > > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering > > > that the bull suffers ( > > > > >which > > > > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because > > > our tradition, cultural > > > > >values > > > > > > >and national identity are more important than > > > the suffering of an > > > > >animal. > > > > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all > > > the bulls would become > > > > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't > > > have duties, and they > > > > >haven't > > > > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > > > > >Regards > > > > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail > > > at > > > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 I only try to antagonize the enemy Mr Big. Surely we all have preconceptionsof some words.I still think our using of words like " extreme " plays into the hands of the abusers.It is not inert which would be in the middle of a spectum,its at the far end{Dont try telling me that the Inert{noble] gases are at the far end!!!!]Angie. - " mr big " <pervyempire <vegan-network > Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:17 AM Re: still about the debate on animal rights > Angie you really are trying to antagonize me aren't you. Your preconceptions > of certain words amuse me, but your draconian assertion is quite annoying. > I`m really sorry you (and anyone else) has a problem with the word extreme. > I`m sorry you believe it has negative connotations. But as I said, it IS > inert. extremely nice, extremely bad, extremely stupid, extremely > clever....animal rights extremists do a little more than drinking soya and > exchanging linguistic deconstructional emails. For that reason I describe > them as extreme....extremely passionate and frustrated people!! > > ok? > > > MrJesusChristandTheExtremelyLongThorn > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > >vegan-network > ><vegan-network > > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > >Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:14:31 +0100 > > > >I agree we should ignore the media but we can't ignore it if one of our own > >is using words like " extrerme " when talking about A.R. people. Angie > >- > > " Heyman Michael " <Michael_heyman > ><vegan-network > > >Monday, April 09, 2001 7:22 PM > >Re: still about the debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > I noticed that all this rhetoric about 'extreme' AR > > > people started appearing in the mainstream press at > > > the same time as the Terrorism Act was passing > > > unreported through Parliament. Now the same thing's > > > happening with the proposed Criminal Justice and > > > Police Bill. My strategy is to ignore the media. > > > > > > --- Angie Wright <angiewright wrote: > > > > Extreme is not an inert word it has connotations of > > > > not appropriate .too far > > > > from mainstream,dangerous even.The I.R.A. are called > > > > extreme.The > > > > suffragetteswere considered so.those opposed to a > > > > cause always callthe other > > > > side extreme .we are on the side for A.R. so we > > > > shouldn't call it extreme in > > > > my view Angie > > > > - > > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > > > <vegan-network > > > > > Monday, April 09, 2001 11:31 AM > > > > Re: still about the debate > > > > on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > how should we describe them then? > > > > > > > > > > surely extreme is an inert word anyway? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Angie Wright " <angiewright > > > > > >vegan-network > > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > >Re: still about the > > > > debate on animal rights > > > > > >Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:47:38 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > > >I dont think there are any extremists in the > > > > animal rights movement.the > > > > > >extremists are surely those in the vivisection > > > > labs.,the slaughter > > > > > >houses,the zoos/circuses,the animal food > > > > industry.the animal breeders out > > > > > >to > > > > > >make money,hunters .,fur farmers,Those who shoot > > > > birds ,.the list is > > > > > >endless Animal rights people are kind and caring > > > > vegans.We realy > > > > shouldn't > > > > > >use such words to describe them leave that to the > > > > animal abusers. > > > > > > Angie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >,- > > > > > > " mr big " <pervyempire > > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > >Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:39 PM > > > > > >Re: still about the > > > > debate on animal rights > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don`t envy your descision to have this > > > > debate. In my experience they > > > > > > > usally end up polarized charades. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I used to confront people with the maxim " meat > > > > eaters are either > > > > > >ignorant > > > > > >or > > > > > > > vindictive, which one are you? " ....If the > > > > person knows and accepts > > > > > > > responsibility then they should be left to the > > > > extremists in the > > > > animal > > > > > > > rights movement. If a person is ignorant, then > > > > explain the reasons, > > > > (and > > > > > > > offer alternatives). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise you end up with a room full of hot > > > > air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MrBog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Thomas and Joana Fisher " > > > > <tomjo > > > > > > > >vegan-network > > > > > > > ><vegan-network > > > > > > > > > still about the > > > > debate on animal rights > > > > > > > >Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:30:28 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I would like to thank Paul, Rowan and Rob for > > > > their advice concerning > > > > > >the > > > > > > > >debate on animal rights. > > > > > > > >I've been talking to my main opponent and > > > > here are some of his > > > > points: > > > > > > > >Animals shouldn't be mistreated not because > > > > they have their own > > > > dignity > > > > > >but > > > > > > > >because man's moral superiority tells him to > > > > be kind to the weak. > > > > > > > >On the issue of bullfighting even considering > > > > that the bull suffers ( > > > > > >which > > > > > > > >he questions) that should be allowed because > > > > our tradition, cultural > > > > > >values > > > > > > > >and national identity are more important than > > > > the suffering of an > > > > > >animal. > > > > > > > >If bullfighting was to be prohibited then all > > > > the bulls would become > > > > > > > >extinct ( same for hunting). > > > > > > > >Animals can't have rights because they don't > > > > have duties, and they > > > > > >haven't > > > > > > > >got any will or freedom of choice. > > > > > > > >Well, this were basically his main ideas. > > > > > > > >Could you tell me what you think of this? > > > > > > > >Regards > > > > > > > >Joana Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________ > > > > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail > > > > at > > > > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.