I challenge the fundamental premise of the animal rights movement that animals are superior to human beings. That premise is inescapable when you examine the policies they advocate & their invariable preference for the well-being of animals, and their disregard for humans and their livelihoods. But let me make it perfectly clear that my belief that animals have no fundamental rights is not equivalent to saying that human beings have no moral obligation to protect animals when they can. The animal rights movement knew what it was doing when it deliberately adopted the label “animal rights.” The concept of “rights” is very powerful in the American political lexicon.

Animals often treat each other with no respect, and they have no redress, absent human intervention on their behalf. Regardless of that, I believe that if people use animals to achieve their goals, they must do so responsibly, so that we don’t eliminate any species from the planet. That would be wantonly stupid and selfish.

Animal rights movement is secular humanism vs. Bible
In my opinion, at the root of the assertion that animals have rights is the belief that animals and men are equal in creation, that man evolved from apes, and that creation is an allegorical myth contained in the Bible. There is no escaping the connection between secular humanism and animal rights activism.

The Bible teaches that God created man in His own image and that He gave him dominion over animals and nature. God did not create animals in His own image. Even if you reject the Bible as the Word of God-even if you believe in evolution and disbelieve in creation-you must still admit that man is the only earthly creature capable of rational thought.

Human beings are the primary species on this planet. Animals and everything else are subspecies whose position is subordinate to that of humans. Humans have a responsibility toward lower species and must treat them humanely. Humanely. Why not treat them animally? Because that would mean killing them.

I once asked a long-haired maggot-infested FM-type environmentalist wacko: “Would you say the owl has evolved to a superior position over the mouse?” He answered, “Oh yeah, man, an owl can fly, he sees at night.”

So I have the environmentalist in a corner: “So it is not the responsibility of the mouse to adapt to the potential threat of the owl?” “Oh yeah, man, but that’s nature.” Well, there you have it, I told him. If the owl can’t adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it. If a spotted owl can’t adapt, does the earth really need that particular species so much that hardship to human beings is worth enduring in the process of saving it? Thousands of species that roamed the earth are now extinct.

Of course, we do care about owls. Why isn’t it possible for both of us to coexist in harmony? There’s no reason to put the timber business out of commission just because of 2,200 pairs of one kind of owl [at the expense of] 30,000 jobs. That’s the wrong set of priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

Sigh... Groups that harbor, support, and encourage people who destroy things and hurt people are just as guilty. I don't see ALF cooperating with investigators when looking into an arson. They hide their people, while quitley and fraudulently denouncing these actions.

If you look into the fundamental philosophies of ALF they do not endorse violence or harm to others. In the history of the ALF there has never been a documented case of a human being physically injured.

furthermore, do unbiased research into the ALF and you'll find that the members work independently from the group and therefore will commit acts in the name of the ALF without the ALF endorsing it. I agree that the organization should not cooperate with officials on apprehending individuals that work independently and take matters into their own hands. Once again, the ALF is primarily a philosophy .

The ALF as an organised group ended with the incarceration of Ronnie Lee and others.

anyway, lets move on....

quote:

Myself and so many others believe that it is because of the unfortunate event of 9-11, that has caused the labelling of the ALF and other organizations as terrorist groups by Government bodies. Shucks, even peaceful demonstrators are starting to be labelled as being of terrorist persuasion (and I've seen it first hand).

Sigh... Groups that harbor, support, and encourage people who destroy things and hurt people are just as guilty. I don't see ALF cooperating with investigators when looking into an arson. They hide their people, while quitley and fraudulently denouncing these actions.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Anyone who uses destruction as a means to accomplish a peaceful goal is going about it in the wrong way. That's what I'm saying. I've heard more bad things than goid things about the ALF.

I can understand where you're coming from and understand how you feel. It makes me cringe when I hear about certain actions by certain ALF members, but to classify the organization and its principles on the same level as another group known to be proud of taking innocent lives and teaching its members to do so as a doctrine, is inaccurate.

I agree with you that using aggressive means to accomplish a peaceful goal is not the way to go. Not all actions are destructive, but the negative actions are given more attention than those that aren't.

Furthermore, taking it that you're someone who is anti-animal rights, it would be natural that you would come to that conclusion

Myself and so many others believe that it is because of the unfortunate event of 9-11, that has caused the labelling of the ALF and other organizations as terrorist groups by Government bodies. Shucks, even peaceful demonstrators are starting to be labelled as being of terrorist persuasion (and I've seen it first hand).

Anyone who uses destruction as a means to accomplish a peaceful goal is going about it in the wrong way. That's what I'm saying. I've heard more bad things than goid things about the ALF.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Al Qaeda isn't a unified group, either, but I don't think anyone would say it's not a terrorist group.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, ALF is classified as a terrorist group. Their actions are intended to push their viewpoint, often in quite terrifying ways (including vandalism, destruction of private property, etc.). If they truly believe that everyone should live without fear, they should try spreading their message without attacking anyone who disagrees.

that's only one establishment's viewpoint and in my opinion should not be used to signify the identity of a philosophy. I'm not American so whatever this Dept Homeland Security signifies as being terrorism doesn't persuade me any. the rest of the world does not evolve around the U.S and its ideals.

Don't equate ALF to the Al Qeada. They're not the same at all. The Al Qeada commit random acts of violence and killing of people. ALF don't kill and abhor the idea. .

Yes, I agree that individuals can take things too far, but don't label the principles of an ideal on extremists. if that was the case, then Christianity has alot to answer for.

terrorism exists in all forms, and has existed since the beginning of mankind.

if you're going to think like that, perhaps people who thought in abolishing slavery, or fought for womens rights, were also terorists as they also destroyed property and carried out acts that could be seen as being of terrorist persuasion.

Al Qaeda isn't a unified group, either, but I don't think anyone would say it's not a terrorist group.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, ALF is classified as a terrorist group. Their actions are intended to push their viewpoint, often in quite terrifying ways (including vandalism, destruction of private property, etc.). If they truly believe that everyone should live without fear, they should try spreading their message without attacking anyone who disagrees.

quote clpo13:

"The Animal Liberation Front is a terrorist group. Of course they'd be opposed to anyone not pro-animal rights."

you see that's where ignorance is once again a common theme. the ALF as a philosophy does not believe in terrorism, as one of the fundamental principles is that ALL living things (that includes both humans and non-human animals), deserve the freedom to live from fear, terror etc. the ALF is not a single group, but made up of different cells or individuals that may take some actions too far. it's similar to saying that all meat eaters are selfish speciests who believe that animals are for the use of humans for whatever purpose.

if you're thinking of terrorism, just think of what humans are doing to animals...that in itself can be defined as a sort of "terrorism"

ter-ror-ism (noun):the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization

and opposed to anyone not pro-animal rights? the same could be said of you and others on some of these threads. at least ppl of pro animal rights are having a go on here. y not u on an opposing site?

Animals are being treated like a nobody when the never did anything to hurt you?!? So are we hurting or helping these poor animals by animl testing or are we making it worse in my oppinion we are making it worse not better!!!! Animals have the right to be treated fair and animal tests should be illegal , you hear me ILLEGAL OK!!!!! Animals need a voice , let them borrow yours!!!!!!!

quote:

Wolves do not hunt the weakest. They hunt the sick and old.

hmmm, sick and old animals not the weakest?? gee, that makes sense!!!

The Animal Liberation Front is a terrorist group. Of course they'd be opposed to anyone not pro-animal rights. They certainly aren't as bad as the Earth Liberation Front, but I still don't think they're going about their mission the most effective way.

to bushsuppoter:

i can write very well, thank you very much. thought i'd lower my standards so the mass could comprehened more easily. my error.

is this an animal rights board? or a place for those who practice and believe in specieism to meet?
btw animals do 'respect' life. their own. thats why it is called survival. from my experience the average human really doesnt give a damn about other peoples lives. not enough to leave their own privileged worlds to do something about it. humans only value those lives that can give them something in return. i'd also like to raise this question: don't claim that humans respect life because there are many out there that do not...either others or their own. stop painting humans as being this "superior" species full of love, compassion, intelligence, production. as a species it's not. its only the few individuals out of the millions that can claim of benefitting others and the world.


on this board it appears that those that favour human worth over that of animals (for any reason) far outnumber those that do not.

check out the animal liberation front boards and see how you guys fair there. it'd be interesting....

animals are just as important as you or I. In fact, Animals are better than you chaoscontrol because they don't go around bashing you!!!!!! So give animals the voice they don't have and be PRO-ANIMAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:

quote:

That is the difference, we respect life and animals don't.

Talk to me about the hunting techniques of wolves? There's a certain point I'm wondering if you know.

I am assuming that they get in a pack and hunt the weakest of their prey. I, however, do not claim to be a wolf expert and really have no idea what you are looking for. If you have a point to make, why not just make it instead of going through these shenanigans.

Wolves do not hunt the weakest. They hunt the sick and old. They do the prey herd a courtesy by letting them increase their numbers, because they don't have to take care of the ones slowing them down. They respect life. I could talk to you about their family structure, and outward signs of love, yes love. But why stop with wolves? Why not talk about ravens, who mate for life? Or some of the great apes?

The difference between animals and humans is animals understand life, and respect it in a different way. Humans demean it, and murder members of its own species. That. Is the difference you're looking for.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:
alrighty, animals have rights, every living creature has rights by being alive, the right to live, to grow and prosper, etc.

animals do not have exactly the rights we do because they cannot reason like we do, however don't they at least deserve the right to follow their instincts and be free and all that hippie crap? is it really fair to make them suffer because we are more intelligent?

is that what we have come to? making things that are weaker than us feel pain? torture them?

mannnnn we're f***ed as a race, lol...

I am not an advocate of burning puppies alive or animal cruelty. I think there should be harsher punishments for that stuff. That doesn't change the fact that humans are superior.

that's exactly what i said just paraphrased...

You aren't answering my questions.

i didn't say I want you to grow your own food! (though you could and still have time for a job by joining a CSA!)

And just because you relize something doesn't mean other people do. And to your last statement, we get food from across the world at the expence of of some random poverty struck farmer in Guetamala! (unless you go fair trade) Why do you think we can get bananas for $1.99? I sugjest you read the book I'm reading. "Bananas: The fate of the fruit that changed the world". I think that will change your prespective.
Sorry I can't e-fight anymore now. I have to go. bye.

quote:

In other countries only the royals or extremely wealthy can have ipods and such. Most Americans do, and we don't even relize it.

We do realize it. I realize that in those other countries, things are terrible. Only the rich can afford 3 meals a day too. There is no middle class. The beauty is that in America, technology is so affordable that even the poor can use it. It is no longer about class in America.

And I asked you, "Do you really want to farm all of your own food? How would there be time for a real job? There wouldn't be real jobs. We would be just like we were in the 14th century." Who made you the King to tell all of us what we have to do for food. If I want to buy beef and corn from all the way accross the country I should be able to.

You see, in colonial America, people only ate regional item and experienced regional culture. Today, the food/culture of the all our regions is available in all places. That is what is so wonderful. I guess you disagree. If you had your way, I would only be able to eat the things that could be produced in my area.

I am not going to quote your whole post, so I'll just right a reply.

I find it to be a wonderful quality too, that our pour are rich, what I was saying is that many Americans, even the the families that go to my Christain school, take that too often for granted. We are greedy with that.
We don't have to go back to the stone age to limit the ammount of space we use. We don't need for everyone to have ipods, DSes, and use so much electricity either. We will always be gready, for that's human nature, and Americans will always (well, maybe no always, but at the time being) use more land because we can. But I said it before, I'll say it again: We live like kings. In other countries only the royals or extremely wealthy can have ipods and such. Most Americans do, and we don't even relize it.

quote:

it's tells you how many earths there would have to be if everyone on earth lived like you did

That was your original quote. Look down to confirm.

quote:

Even our pour are rich.

I find that to be one of the best qualities of our country, not a blight.

quote:

Many people in different regions can live and support all thier needs on one acre of land. We can too, but we don't.

I will repeat what I said, "Would you expect people to live with homemade candles instead of using electricity. The incandescent light is not "natural" in the sctrict sense of the word, but it is natural now as our society changed." How far will you go telling me what technology I can and can't use. Many of the so called "progressive environmental" groups actually go into poor countries and take away their tractors and mills. They think they have the right to tell people how to farm. I think it is doing a diservice to people by telling them they now have to toil their fields using manual labor. Our society and technology is way beyond that and unlike you I appreciate it.

Do you really want to farm all of your own food? How would there be time for a real job? There wouldn't be real jobs. We would be just like we were in the 14th century. I don't support that. Technology is good and should be embraced and defended, not thrown out.