Animal Rights fraggles hit a new low.

[Roadkill]

Who's defending that though? Not me, and not Rune or 4thwrite either. Maybe A-several-numbers (a Class A bonkers merchant) defended this type of stuff (don't clearly remember) but she's long gone.

But William, I never suggested anyone was defending them apart from those few AR1234556789 folk.

Bit in bold : May have been merely in ytoiur own head, but wasn't clearly in most peoples' posts. No clear distinctions were made.

My first post on the subject said this:

"Bloody loonies.

IMO it's a shame that Mrs M and the ed banned all the AR[random numbers] nutters who joined up here for a while. They were so bloody easy to wind up. All you needed to do was say, 'Right, it's lunchtime, I'm off for a bacon sarnie.' By the time you got back they'd have filled half a thread with incoherent invective!"

I think it's pretty clear who that was aimed at - at the few idiots who posted on here, and at the people KJ mentioned in his first post. Any implication that I was criticisng animal rights advocates as a whole was unintended.

If you still pissed off, I'm sorry, but I'm no less pissed off with the often occurring tendancy on Urban (and it's been a good few times in my time) of the mad antics of a crackpot fringe being used as a broad brush condemnation of the entire AR/animal welfare/veggie/vegan movment.

That may not have been your intention, but read the first three pages of this thread and the general effect/tone is to vastly inflate the importance/significance/widespreadness of these extremists and to condemn the whole AR concept pretty much exclusively in terms of them.

I'm not pissed off with you in the least, but I do think you've read a few things into my posts - and maybe others' too - that weren't there.

Broadly, I agree with what kyser_soze has said on most of this thread. I don't believe in the idea of 'animal rights' for the reasons he and Azrael have given: rights presuppose sentience. Besides, humans come first. But from that it shouldn't be assumed that I don't care at all about animal welfare, any more than I should assume from your stance that you sympathise with the people who dig up grannies.

A final observation, if I may: I think the real loonies - and yes, they're a small minority, but everyone knows that and I don't see why I should have to repeat it every time I mention them - are doing a damn good job of discrediting the idea of animal rights themselves.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think the real loonies - and yes, they're a small minority, but everyone knows that and I don't see why I should have to repeat it every time I mention them - are doing a damn good job of discrediting the idea of animal rights themselves.

I've included stuff to the same effect in two of my posts .... they do discredit the animal rights idea sure, never denied that, but far too many other people treat them as more representative as activists/spokespeople than they are (IMO). And because at least some of the condemners want (or that's what it looks like) to leave the distinctions unclear, are happy to have these nutters discredit the whole AR idea. That was my feeling anyway -- hence my pissed off posts.

No time for more, sorry.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

you sound very wound up.

 

[William of Walworth]

you sound very wound up.

And that comment's really going to help isn't it?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

And that comment's really going to help isn't it?

Don't take it out on me sunshine.

 

[Rune]

Did you read the full entry? Since the idea was proclaimed by thinkers such as Hobbes etc it's been modified as philosophy's view of the world has - when Hobbes advanced those ideas, the idea that man creates stuff was only really starting to gain currency, so the idea that a 'natural' law or right exists was a step on the way to 'rights' as we know them now (it's also intellectually and morally comforting, as pretty much anything that involves a higher power is).

However, if you are arguing that all have a 'natural' right to life, then does this only apply to human beings? Life in the 'state of nature is nasty, cruel, brutish and short' - what makes humans so special that they have more of a right to live than say, a springbok being chased across the savannah by a hungry lion?

What you've done quite well is show my poor reasoning and argueing skills. And I've allowed myself to be taken down this path. To be able to argue fully with you, I'd need a far greater understanding of philosphy than I currently have.
I've explained why I believe humans have rights. "Social Contract" "natural" rights or whatever but they are there. I've also said why I beleive animals have rights. I don't know enough about philosophy to be able to argue further.
Sorry

But the idea that rights exist purely because the legislature say so, does not make me comfortable. Are you suggesting that women, for example, had no rights before they were enshrined in law?

 

[William of Walworth]

Don't take it out on me sunshine.

I'm not, nothing against you really, but yours was a thoroughly pointless interjection ....

I've explained pretty clearly why I'm annoyed with the early part of this thread, please reread my posts.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

What's with the snidey rolleyes then?

e2a: see you tonight I hope. I'll be in green jeans and cream shirt... short hair. I'll ask the ed who you are.

 

[Wilf]

you sound very wound up.

Rather like you on the Gymrage thread then