Why isn’t Derleth concerned every anti-animal rights activist is associated with Curlcoat as long as people can find stuff like hers online?
Doesn’t the mere existance of a person like Curlcoat inevitably and indelibly taint every person who isn’t an animal rights activist?
Patsies. Someone took everything about them and put it into a computer where they created this model of their mind. Using that model they generated every thought they’d could possibly have in the next, say, 10 years, which they then filtered through a probability matrix of some kind to determine everything they were gonna do in that period. So you see, they knew they was gonna lead the Army of the Twelve Monkeys into the pages of history before it ever even occurred to them …
I don’t need to be convinced that treating animals as animals, as we have been doing, is the right way. It is the animal “rights” people that are trying to convince us that we are wrong, and they are not doing it using anything other than emotions. For example, they have zero proof that giving animals rights would even make their lives better!
Well, that’s pretty sad. You can’t think of any facts, most likely based on science, regarding rights such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Or to make it more specific, you aren’t aware of any science that can prove that minorities and women have the right to the same things as white males?
Exactly Animals have no concept of rights - to want to award them rights is to consider them human. Which, if nothing else, tends to be unfair to the animals themselves.
I have no religious beliefs at all, I am merely aware that animals do not think, react, live, etc the way that humans do, and to try to cram them all into the limitations of human life is wrong. Handing any animal rights is a slippery slope - how far do you want to take it?
Jerk.
(Despite this being the Pit, I assume one cannot call a moderator an asshole even if they are not posting as such.)
Asshole.
I didn’t say i couldn’t think of facts or science regarding human rights. I said that the idea of human rights does not have an objective factual or scientific basis. It is a human construction.
You are correct that animals don’t have any concept of rights. But humans do have a concept of rights, and there would be nothing inherently inconsistent or objectively wrong in extending those rights to animals.
Personally, i don’t believe that we should assign animals the same rights as human beings. But this is, i’m fully willing to admit, a subjective judgment.
Maybe, in all your erudition, you can explain to me your fact- and science-based rationale for the notion of objective human rights?
This is not a factual or scientific assertion; it is a subjective moral conclusion.
Do you understand the difference between these things? Because if you don’t, there’s no point in us having any further conversation on this subject. Or on anything, for that matter.
Though I have no actual power to do so, and despite the fact that it is a completely imaginary award, I hereby nominate this post for Best SDMB Insult of 2011.
You are welcome to call me an asshole for any post that I’m not making as part of my moderating duties.
The mere existence of a person like curlcoat taints all of humanity.
I’ll bet you could write an equation that predicts the “highly unfavorable” opinion numbers for activist groups that would predict the number within 90% based on two variables: (1) how likely the average person is to have engaged in or directly benefited from the criticized conduct and (2) the intensity of criticism of that activity (i.e. you should probably recycle vs. you shouldn’t kill animals for sport or tasty meals). I’ll bet less than 5% of that number is explained by the presence of extreme rhetoric or conduct on the part of small portions of the movement. But people like to blame the extreme conduct, because it makes them seem less defensive, and saves them from having to address the merits of the position.
Curlcoat: humanity’s taint.
I like it.
I second Miller’s nomination. And I’ll point out that, if every time you post on a topic, the topic becomes about you, you’re doing it wrong.
Or right.
Well, yes, that’s true. However, I was trying to point out that facts and/or science can be used to justify applying rights to humans that should not be applied to animals.
There is because that would involve treating animals as humans, which is not a good thing for animals. For example, you are aware that some animal “rights” folks insist that all animals, including those who have been domesticated for hundreds of years, should have the “right” to run free, to choose their own mates and have as many offspring as they want? Any study of populations of feral dogs or cats will show that this is definitely not in the best interests of the dogs or cats.
Other animal “rights” folks want to give rights to animals that the animals themselves cannot even be aware of, such as the idiocy over how chickens are kept in egg farms. It was all emotionalism about how chickens have the “right” to run free and “bask in the sun”, but none of the advocates have actually had chickens. If they had, they would be aware that chickens are incredibly stupid creatures that don’t really pay much attention to things like space and sunlight. They are aware of it, but don’t seem to notice the lack of it all that much. Many times I saw one of my hens stand in a corner for longer than I cared to stick around and watch, for no apparent reason. But because of people who think of chickens as humans, all egg farms in this state are leaving - if eventually they get the same laws passed in all states, I suppose it will mean that we will all pay a lot more for eggs, for no real reason.
Then you probably shouldn’t identify yourself as an animal “rights” advocate. If nothing else, it doesn’t sound like you are aware of what PETA, ALF and the USHS want, both their stated goals and their hidden agendas. Animals already have all of the “rights” that they need as fact of law - we are not allowed to torture them, deny them food and shelter or any medical care they might need to remain comfortable and whatever passes for happy in the species in question. Do you really want to give them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
As I said above, facts/science was involved in deciding that, for example, blacks deserved the same rights as whites and women deserved the same rights as men. Hopefully, eventually, facts and science will win out over emotions and bigotry and gays will also have those same rights.
I said that “animals do not think, react, live, etc the way that humans do” and you don’t think that is factual or based on science?
This one never ceases to amaze me - “you think differently than I do, therefore there’s no point in us having any further conversation”.
Since I am not doing that in any way, obviously it is folks like you who are doing it wrong.
If you think about it, the taint does usually have a coat of curls. Unless you shave it off because it’s annoying, but whatever.
I don’t know if this is a reference to one of the conversations about chickens and eggs on this board or not. FTR, the comments I made in support of free-ranging hens were based on my own personal experience. I’ve had as many as 40 laying hens at a time, both growing up and in recent years.
Though as I recall that conversation was more about egg (and meat and dairy) quality than animal rights as such. I do think that “happy” animals, animals living in a more natural state with access to sun and grass and so forth, yield better food products.
This may be true in certain ways but it is of no importance. Holding any controversial idea (or even a quite uncontroversial idea) whatever will get you “dirty” in this sense. There is someone committing violence in the name of almost everything. There are plenty of people who have committed violent and illegal acts in the name of very good causes.
You say: “those of us who love animals and wish to be able to continue to interact with them in our homes are not going to give up those (real) rights up without a fight”. You better hope that every single person on your side fights legally and non-violently, because if *one *of them doesn’t you are going to get dirty.
What you really mean to say is that you disagree with certain ideas so you are going to tar anyone who has those ideas with the same brush as the worst of them. Seems more than a little jerkish to me, and I doubt it is a tarring you would accept as appropriate if the tables were turned.
No, it’s not in reference to anything on the board - I don’t recall seeing any discussion on that bill here. OTOH, there are many things I don’t recall these days…
Anyway, I realize that free range chickens do lay much tastier eggs and it may even be because they have access to sun and grass and so forth, but given the lack of chicken brains, I highly doubt that they are actually “happy”, which was the claim of the proponents of the bill. To wipe out a whole industry in a state that is very much in the hole, on the very off chance that chickens can feel “happy” is, IMO, taking animals “rights” much too far.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that is true.
The difference here is I wasn’t the one siding with, and apparently working for, a bunch of organizations with long histories of violence, and then claiming to “firmly distance myself from violent and illegal activities”.
Actually, what I said was it is near impossible to be “politically active” and an “activist” as the OP said WRT animal “rights” and to also be able to “firmly distance myself from violent and illegal activities”. Indeed, I can’t imagine that one can be an activist for anything without getting dirty, but if nothing else, anyone who is trying to force their politics into my home and lifestyle should expect that things are going to get rough.
OTOH, since “my” side hasn’t been involved in violence (well none that they have started) I’m not sure I would mind being “tarred”. 
So, you concede that you were wrong in precisely the way that i said you were wrong, and yet you still feel the need to make a long post talking about how you would have been right if you had only said something different from what you actually said.
Nice selective quotation there, moron. What you said was:
The bolded section is the part that is a moral judgment rather than an objective factual conclusion.
Either you recognized the very clear point that i was making, and you’re too dishonest to admit it, or you didn’t recognize the very clear point that i was making, and you’re too stupid to realize it.
Which one of those is closer to the truth?
Like I said, your point may be true for certain definitions, but it is unimportant. You have defined “dirty” so broadly as to include people with meaningless connections to violence and illegality, and in such a way it encompasses many good people. You may think that Maastricht is “dirty” and cannot dissassociate himself from activities he has said he isn’t involved in, but your opinion teh dumb.
No. Did you read the whole post? It explains what I said.
Say what?
No, it’s not. There are plenty of studies out there that will show you that animals that are required to live like humans are not as well off as those who are allowed to live as animals. Many animals, particularly dogs, can tolerate that sort of life, but they are always better off if they are treated as dogs, and not as “fur children”.
Again, this sort of thing amazes me. You are of the belief that whether or not an animal is treated as a human is a moral judgment, and I am telling you that there are facts out there that prove it is more than that. Because you don’t agree with me, you call me dishonest and stupid. Wow.
Well, here is another one. You feel that mhendo has meaningless connections to the violence and illegality of the animal “rights” movement, despite s/he having stated that s/he is an activist? Okaaaay. I’d say that your opinion is teh dumb except I don’t like to misspell words…
Lying again, i see.
I have not once in this thread described myself as an activist.