[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Should Animals Have Rights?
- From: "Paula Cooke" <pcooke212@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 03:56:53 GMT
Animals could be represented by attorneys, but, I don't know any lawyers who
would take a check, or even a credit card, from a dog. I am sure Evan
wouldn't!! :-) Maybe Dawn knows more liberal lawyers?? :-)
Hmmm.....More liberal than Evan??? Is that an oxymoron???
Many humans on this planet have no rights. NO animal on this planet has
rights. Rights are intellectual uses of one's freedoms to act one way or
another.
Humans have moral, implied obligations to treat animals humanely. Obligations
are definitely NOT rights!! LOL
Humane is a word that many people, many cultures, view differently. Some
people train dogs with negative reinforcement methods, including electric shock
collars. Some people consider this to be inhumane. If it were remotely
possible to give dogs "rights" :-) :-) would they then be able to start a
class-action suit against manufacturers of such collars? That is, if they
could get a lawyer to take a retainer check. Oh, yeah, and then if the
lawyer screwed up, would the dog-client then be able to file a malpractice suit
against the lawyer?? How fun.
Some cultures eat dogs. Some don't. Some eat horses; some don't. Some of us
are vegetarians, some of us are vegans; some of us would dine with Hannibal
Lector. Who is correct? Who has any RIGHT, whatsoever, to declare one culture
correct and another incorrect? Cows have it made in India, but, not in New
Jersey!!
This whole discussion is really stupid!!
Humane treatment of animals has NOTHING to do with rights!
If dogs get rights, I think I will go to work for one. What a great boss
Harley would be!!! :-)
As far as I can see, anyone who is pro-Animal Rights, is pro-PETA!! Rights
have NOTHING to do with humane treatment of animals.
PETA abuses our rights to own personal property. Period.
Paula, 252 days and counting
---------- Original Message ----------
From: BAERENTATZE312@xxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:15:21 EST
Subject: Should Animals Have Rights?
Dave is absolutely correct. The difference between what Dawn refers to as
rights and what the ARists consider rights in the dictionary is the
following:
Dawn's version - That which is conventionally moral or appropriate.
(what we call welfare)
Peta and HSUS version - An entitlement granted under the law.
(what they want to give animals to pry them from being owned) Incidently
Cass Sunstein, who is the regulatory czar, subscribes to this belief. He
feels animals should be represented by an attorney and has written a book
supporting animal rights.
Both definitions above are of rights, however, the ARists subscribe to the
latter and want to eliminate animals from human ownership, etc. They use
their donations (most of which are contributed because of their blatant
deception of helping animals) for high paid lobbyists to enact anti-animal
legislation.
Regards,
Pat
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2009. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
