Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Toro, Jan 16, 2008.
Who would have thought?
A few years ago there was a huge movement to remove animals from chattel status, and making them companions instead. Which would ultimately open the door for obtaining "rights" (think voting and financial, etc.) for animals. San Francisco went gaga over it.
The furor seems to have died, thank goodness.
Any bad news for Animal Activists and Tree huggers are good news for me..
It used to be the line of thought that we could teach Chimps to become intelligent and use language. But they simply don't have the facilities that encourage that, something called the "language acquisition device". They only learn to communicate whenever presented with rewards for doing it, and once the rewards stop they soon forget.
I see that in the American workforce that is at least mostly inhabited by humans. Cut off the rewards and I really don't believe the work will continue at least in a productive way. So far the American people have been genuine TROOPERS in the face of declining rewards. I wonder how long that will last?
Are you confusing forgetfullness with lack of compensation, wm? Even the monkeys figured that old con game out.
But chimps do the work humans won't do!
Declining rewards? What make believe world are you living in? Have you seen the things companies are offering employees these days? Matching 401ks, on-site day care, membership to health clubs, tuition reimbursement, health insureance, paid time off, just to name a few.
It's hard to understand why conservatives are so angered at animal activists. Surely you guys aren't stupid enough to think that one day an animal will be voting, or earning a paycheck, or getting married. So on the assumption that you guys can't be THAT stupid, I think the only reason you guys hate animal activists so much is that they scare you. It's conservative nature to be scared by anything new or different. History is riddled with examples that prove this.
Would anyone debate that conservatives hate animal activists because they fear change or progression?
I don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue. Anyone who has ever dealt with them knows they don't care what lies they tell if it suits their agenda. And before you say that isn't true, I'd suggest you go read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. It's part of the playbook.
A fish is not a pig is not a dog is not a BOY. Sorry. That's insane. And any group that would deny testing to possibly cure diseases like diabetes isn't rational. I remember the late Cleveland Amory standing on a podium saying how if his child could only live if it got a baboon heart, he'd allow the child to die. Total and complete lunacy.
And, mostly, you know what? I think we should absolutely be kind to animals. But there are so many real problems in the world... children starving, people homeless. Don't you think being an activist on behalf of a mink is a bit silly given those realities?
Conservatives don't like animal activists because #1, they break the law; #2, animal rights by definition water down human rights, and #3, it's a matter of a small minority attempting to force their way upon the majority.
That's why they have a problem. Anybody who doesn't equate children with animals should have a problem with animal rights.
Separate names with a comma.