Posted on 06/02/2005 7:21:14 PM PDT by smoothsailing
I once heard a PETA spokeswoman on my local radio show state that if there was a baby and a snake on the road that she would swerve to hit the baby in order to miss the snake. Absolute demonic freaks.
In principle, I agree with the article's premise.
We do slide down a little bit of a slippery slope when the concept of "rights" is tied to being capable of reason and choice.
The mentally ill, children, are not able to meet the criteria.
Do they drop down to the level of the animal???
Objective viewpoints often follow down a narrow path.
We have a responsibility,of course,to reason well,and choose wisely.A responsibility at which PETA fails miserably.
Many commonsense, compassionate people who love their animals do not understand the true nature of the animal rights movement. They care about their animals and want to insure they are treated humanely. Because they have been misled into believing that the movement is about something else (helping animals), they "think" they are for animal rights. What they actually believe in is animal welfare, from a responsible animal ownership perspective. They own and love animals and care for them and do not want to see any animal abused.
Do not confuse these feelings of compassion for animals with a movement that actually has no true regard for the protection of an animal's or a human's rights. If a person truly cares about animals, it is critical to realize the difference between the two philosophies. Every person who thinks he/she is for animal rights, when they are actually for animal welfare, poses a threat to themselves and others when it comes to our continued right to own animals. They help perpetuate a philosophy that has the potential to legally change our relationships with animals, permanently. This can happen because those laws that are passed by the animal rights people put us closer and closer to the place where our right to own any animals, for any purpose, has been legislated away.
True animal rights people hate humans and feel they are a blight on the planet. They only tolerate themselves and each other so they can carry on their campaigns against the rest of humanity. They don't particularly like non-human animals but by constantly claiming "animal abuse" they can play on the emotions of softhearted animal welfare people and solicit money from them to promote their agenda.
A part of the animal rights movement is to legally elevate the animal to a level as high as, or higher than, that of a person. When this happens those animals that depend upon us for their food, shelter, vet care, and affection are actually put at risk because the animal rights sponsored law has decreased the expected responsibilities of the animal owner.
If animals are to have the same legal rights as people then they will be expected to have the same level of responsibility as people, also. Is not one of the most important differences between humans and animals that humans are expected to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of the animals owned by them? If the legal system sees fit to place animals on a par with people then might I ask that my pets take their turn paying the rent, buying my food as well as their own and paying my doctor's bills as well as their vet bills? Think about it the next time you get a solicitation from one of those "animal rights" organizations, such as HSUS or PETA or one of the others, that neither helps or likes animals, and does not pay the rent for you or your pets.
These organizations care about only two things: (1) making more money for themselves and to (2) support and promote an extremist agenda that advocates no interaction whatsoever between humans and animals.
PETA and sop-called animal rights advocates have properly been placed on our federal domestic terrorist list. The entire environmental movement is fundamentally flawed. Its advocates place human beings outside the nature system.
Environmental extremists portray all human activity (with the possible romanticized exception of primitive cultures) as in conflict with mother earth. This pathologic atavistic view can only be maintained in the presence of a fundamentally flawed understanding of nature.
If mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution are we to assume that nature has produced the instrument of its destruction? If so, then why should anyone assume that this destruction should not move forward with due diligence. The position is absurd on its face.
By virtue of evolutionary thought Nature must be considered good. If it is not then mankind is placed in the position of claiming his own good as supreme. In either case the role of humans in nature can only be given priority for the use of the resources of the earth.
By any logic there is no controversy about the use of nature by humans for their good. It is the illogical reactionaries who have the problem. Ignoring their irrational hysterics and placing them in therapy are long overdue.
In politics whoever wins the battle of semantics, wins the war
You are correct, the word "rights" in this day and age has been so corrupted of it's true meaning, just about anything these days has the tag "rights" attached to it to give it air of importance
bump!
Thank You!
That is my PETA thread signature. I think it is a justly, funny tribute.
:^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.