Making animal rights and biocentrism a major political topic

[Luddly Neddite]

To afford animals various rights is to ascribe a level of intelligence and reason they simply do not have. Children are not afforded various rights for the same reason they simply cannot reason certain situation until they reach a particular age. Nevertheless, animals have the right not to be abused and be well cared for by their owners.

For example, Animal Welfare Act | Animal Welfare Information Center and ASPCA | State Animal Cruelty Laws

Legislating what people should eat, compelling people to learn about nutrition or forcing them to witness what occurs at a slaughter house would be a failed experiment and borders on a fascist type of government intervention.

We are all species of animal with various skills and deficiencies. What we describe as being "smart" is relative. What we consider to be smart for humans does not always translate accurately to other animal species. Just because a black bear can't build a two story home does not mean it is entitled to treatment that is less than what we would want for ourselves, friends, or family. Put a human in the wilderness and that human is far dumber than the animals that call that specific wilderness home. FYI humans are not that smart. Humans destroy their own planet knowing full well what they are doing....not smart.

I am not calling for legislation that says you can't eat meat, although I would be happy to see that legislation happen. It would never pass though. People SHOULD be knowledgable about how they get their meat however. If a nine year old eating her hamburger knew that a cow was killed to make that burger and if the child witnessed that slaughter then that child would probably not be so thrilled anymore to eat that burger after seeing the cruelty involved.

There is a difference between making bad decisions and lack of intelligence. Do you believe that animals, faced with the possibility that they were destroying the planet, would either understand what that meant or care? Or do most animals simply live with no real understanding of the world?

This is not to say animals should be looked at as unworthy of protection, rather it is just to argue against the idea that humanity is not more intelligent than most or all animal species.

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

 

[Colin]

I'm not doing any terrorist activities and neither does PETA. I do not agree with every single thing that PETA does and i am not even a paying member of PETA, but I do agree with many of their stances but that does not make me a terrorist nor does it make PETA a terrorist group. You are thinking of organizations like the animal liberation front.

Seems you know little of the organisations you support! Peta DOES support terrorist actions...

PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the most well-known animal rights group in the world. For decades, PETA has labored for the well being and rights of animals, with an ultimate goal of "total animal liberation." Unfortunately for America, and the world, PETA has become something entirely un-American: a group dedicated to inflicting fear, terrorism, violence, and suffering upon humanity.

PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.

PETA: When Animal Rights Becomes Terrorism and Crime - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Once again, thanks for confirming your support of terror tactics to force your views on others.

I don't support terror tactics

Yeh, right!

 

[AlexWA]

Seems you know little of the organisations you support! Peta DOES support terrorist actions...



Once again, thanks for confirming your support of terror tactics to force your views on others.

I don't support terror tactics

Yeh, right!

Why don't you try focusing on the topic and not me

 

[jillian]

We are all species of animal with various skills and deficiencies. What we describe as being "smart" is relative. What we consider to be smart for humans does not always translate accurately to other animal species. Just because a black bear can't build a two story home does not mean it is entitled to treatment that is less than what we would want for ourselves, friends, or family. Put a human in the wilderness and that human is far dumber than the animals that call that specific wilderness home. FYI humans are not that smart. Humans destroy their own planet knowing full well what they are doing....not smart.

I am not calling for legislation that says you can't eat meat, although I would be happy to see that legislation happen. It would never pass though. People SHOULD be knowledgable about how they get their meat however. If a nine year old eating her hamburger knew that a cow was killed to make that burger and if the child witnessed that slaughter then that child would probably not be so thrilled anymore to eat that burger after seeing the cruelty involved.

There is a difference between making bad decisions and lack of intelligence. Do you believe that animals, faced with the possibility that they were destroying the planet, would either understand what that meant or care? Or do most animals simply live with no real understanding of the world?

This is not to say animals should be looked at as unworthy of protection, rather it is just to argue against the idea that humanity is not more intelligent than most or all animal species.

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

seriously?

you know, i love my rabbit. he's a great pal... affectionate, sweet, loving.

but he isn't the equal of my son.

 

[alan1]

Being kind to animals is more than helping a turtle cross the road. When you sit down on thursday to have your turkey remember that it was raised to be killed.

That turkey is serving its purpose, just like the corn, sweet potatoes, green beans, etc. All were raised to be killed and eaten.

 

[alan1]

What is the most effective way of making animal rights a real political and ethical focus in this country? In addition, what is the most effective way to influence the masses towards a biocentric focus towards life instead of the superiority of the human species?

Should people be shown the images of slaughterhouses and processing plants around the country in order to truly know how they got their pork chop? Should people be forced to help kill and gut their cow before they sit down for their steak at a restaurant? Should people be allowed to use animals as entertainment even when that animal has no concept of what it is that is it being exploited for? Should people be allowed to abuse or neglect an animal? Should people experience the same anguish that animals feel when experimented on in order for them to have empathy for that life?

This is not an attempt to change minds. I am genuinely curious what everybody simply thinks on the matter. I myself am a proud vegan and advocate of animal rights and biocentrism, but i am just wondering what your thoughts are.

I'm kind of opposed to forcing people to do anything like that. I am unsure why you think force is a valid option.

Oh, by the way, I grew up raising sheep, goats, hogs and all manner of fowl for the dinner table along with a family vegetable garden.

I don't need to experience heroin to understand that it is a nasty drug to be addicted to. Again, i am unsure why you think experiencing something is necessary to understand it.

 

[Nightson]

What is the most effective way of making animal rights a real political and ethical focus in this country? In addition, what is the most effective way to influence the masses towards a biocentric focus towards life instead of the superiority of the human species?

Should people be shown the images of slaughterhouses and processing plants around the country in order to truly know how they got their pork chop? Should people be forced to help kill and gut their cow before they sit down for their steak at a restaurant? Should people be allowed to use animals as entertainment even when that animal has no concept of what it is that is it being exploited for? Should people be allowed to abuse or neglect an animal? Should people experience the same anguish that animals feel when experimented on in order for them to have empathy for that life?

This is not an attempt to change minds. I am genuinely curious what everybody simply thinks on the matter. I myself am a proud vegan and advocate of animal rights and biocentrism, but i am just wondering what your thoughts are.

I admire the honesty of your beliefs and apparent commitment to them. That said, this is an issue that lacks much traction either in the minds of the masses or the elected officials who represent them. Americans thrive on variety, nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to food. Unfortunately for your belief system or whatever is the underlying motivation behind your chosen lifestyle (vegan), meat is a food most Americans--myself included--cannot imagine living without consuming.

Average response to "shock" deterrents such as images or tours of slaughterhouses, or animal experimentation documentaries likely inflict at best a temporary abstention of the behaviors that offend you. Aversion therapy is definitely not the way to go, nor could I imagine legislation advocating its use taken seriously, let alone passing into law.

I consider myself an animal lover. Our dogs are without doubt full fledged members of the family, and yet I also consder their lives expendable should certain conditions arise. What I think would tip the scales toward animal equality and away from us viewed strictly as their sentient "masters" is either scientific breakthrough in the study of animal intelligence or the emergence of a second sentient species in our world ecosystem. But even then, I think turkeys would still be on the hook.

 

[Montrovant]

We are all species of animal with various skills and deficiencies. What we describe as being "smart" is relative. What we consider to be smart for humans does not always translate accurately to other animal species. Just because a black bear can't build a two story home does not mean it is entitled to treatment that is less than what we would want for ourselves, friends, or family. Put a human in the wilderness and that human is far dumber than the animals that call that specific wilderness home. FYI humans are not that smart. Humans destroy their own planet knowing full well what they are doing....not smart.

I am not calling for legislation that says you can't eat meat, although I would be happy to see that legislation happen. It would never pass though. People SHOULD be knowledgable about how they get their meat however. If a nine year old eating her hamburger knew that a cow was killed to make that burger and if the child witnessed that slaughter then that child would probably not be so thrilled anymore to eat that burger after seeing the cruelty involved.

There is a difference between making bad decisions and lack of intelligence. Do you believe that animals, faced with the possibility that they were destroying the planet, would either understand what that meant or care? Or do most animals simply live with no real understanding of the world?

This is not to say animals should be looked at as unworthy of protection, rather it is just to argue against the idea that humanity is not more intelligent than most or all animal species.

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

And yet still have more intelligence than any other species.....

Again, until you can show me that your dog understands the effect it's actions may have on the environment, or that a cow understands it is destined to be my dinner, the idea that other animals are on equal footing with humans when it comes to reasoning and intelligence is absurd. Mistaking compassion for animal life with equality in intelligence is, in itself, a stupid thing.

 

[AlexWA]

There is a difference between making bad decisions and lack of intelligence. Do you believe that animals, faced with the possibility that they were destroying the planet, would either understand what that meant or care? Or do most animals simply live with no real understanding of the world?

This is not to say animals should be looked at as unworthy of protection, rather it is just to argue against the idea that humanity is not more intelligent than most or all animal species.

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

And yet still have more intelligence than any other species.....

Again, until you can show me that your dog understands the effect it's actions may have on the environment, or that a cow understands it is destined to be my dinner, the idea that other animals are on equal footing with humans when it comes to reasoning and intelligence is absurd. Mistaking compassion for animal life with equality in intelligence is, in itself, a stupid thing.

Somethings intelligence or ability to reason does not determine its value or right to life. All life on this planet has something to contribute to the super-organism that is called Earth. To say that just because the human species is able to do certain things that another species can't do therefore the human species is now superior and has dominion over the other species is not only arrogant but incredibly vicious. Intelligence the way we see it is a human invention. Basically an animal's intelligence is determined based on a comparison to what we deem intelligent, that being a comparison to human intelligence, and from that determination we impose value and worth onto those animals. We are basically an animal acting as a speciest dictator to the natural world just because we can add 2+2 and get 4.

 

[Katzndogz]

To afford animals various rights is to ascribe a level of intelligence and reason they simply do not have. Children are not afforded various rights for the same reason they simply cannot reason certain situation until they reach a particular age. Nevertheless, animals have the right not to be abused and be well cared for by their owners.

For example, Animal Welfare Act | Animal Welfare Information Center and ASPCA | State Animal Cruelty Laws

Legislating what people should eat, compelling people to learn about nutrition or forcing them to witness what occurs at a slaughter house would be a failed experiment and borders on a fascist type of government intervention.

We are all species of animal with various skills and deficiencies. What we describe as being "smart" is relative. What we consider to be smart for humans does not always translate accurately to other animal species. Just because a black bear can't build a two story home does not mean it is entitled to treatment that is less than what we would want for ourselves, friends, or family. Put a human in the wilderness and that human is far dumber than the animals that call that specific wilderness home. FYI humans are not that smart. Humans destroy their own planet knowing full well what they are doing....not smart.

I am not calling for legislation that says you can't eat meat, although I would be happy to see that legislation happen. It would never pass though. People SHOULD be knowledgable about how they get their meat however. If a nine year old eating her hamburger knew that a cow was killed to make that burger and if the child witnessed that slaughter then that child would probably not be so thrilled anymore to eat that burger after seeing the cruelty involved.

Children used to be involved in the slaughter themselves. At one time, that nine year old would be learning how to field dress a deer. They ate just fine. I remember having made it to Granddad's farm in 1958, my 7 year old cousin killed the chickens we had for dinner. It did not spoil his appetite one bit.

 

[AlexWA]

To afford animals various rights is to ascribe a level of intelligence and reason they simply do not have. Children are not afforded various rights for the same reason they simply cannot reason certain situation until they reach a particular age. Nevertheless, animals have the right not to be abused and be well cared for by their owners.

For example, Animal Welfare Act | Animal Welfare Information Center and ASPCA | State Animal Cruelty Laws

Legislating what people should eat, compelling people to learn about nutrition or forcing them to witness what occurs at a slaughter house would be a failed experiment and borders on a fascist type of government intervention.

We are all species of animal with various skills and deficiencies. What we describe as being "smart" is relative. What we consider to be smart for humans does not always translate accurately to other animal species. Just because a black bear can't build a two story home does not mean it is entitled to treatment that is less than what we would want for ourselves, friends, or family. Put a human in the wilderness and that human is far dumber than the animals that call that specific wilderness home. FYI humans are not that smart. Humans destroy their own planet knowing full well what they are doing....not smart.

I am not calling for legislation that says you can't eat meat, although I would be happy to see that legislation happen. It would never pass though. People SHOULD be knowledgable about how they get their meat however. If a nine year old eating her hamburger knew that a cow was killed to make that burger and if the child witnessed that slaughter then that child would probably not be so thrilled anymore to eat that burger after seeing the cruelty involved.

Children used to be involved in the slaughter themselves. At one time, that nine year old would be learning how to field dress a deer. They ate just fine. I remember having made it to Granddad's farm in 1958, my 7 year old cousin killed the chickens we had for dinner. It did not spoil his appetite one bit.

Times change. Hopefully future generations start to see that killing other animals is unnecessary.

 

[syrenn]

There is a difference between making bad decisions and lack of intelligence. Do you believe that animals, faced with the possibility that they were destroying the planet, would either understand what that meant or care? Or do most animals simply live with no real understanding of the world?

This is not to say animals should be looked at as unworthy of protection, rather it is just to argue against the idea that humanity is not more intelligent than most or all animal species.

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

seriously?

you know, i love my rabbit. he's a great pal... affectionate, sweet, loving.

but he isn't the equal of my son.

did ya name him hasenpfeffer?

 

[syrenn]

Humans are animals and a pretty large minority apparently lack the intelligence to see that they are destroying the planet.

And yet still have more intelligence than any other species.....

Again, until you can show me that your dog understands the effect it's actions may have on the environment, or that a cow understands it is destined to be my dinner, the idea that other animals are on equal footing with humans when it comes to reasoning and intelligence is absurd. Mistaking compassion for animal life with equality in intelligence is, in itself, a stupid thing.

Somethings intelligence or ability to reason does not determine its value or right to life. All life on this planet has something to contribute to the super-organism that is called Earth. To say that just because the human species is able to do certain things that another species can't do therefore the human species is now superior and has dominion over the other species is not only arrogant but incredibly vicious. Intelligence the way we see it is a human invention. Basically an animal's intelligence is determined based on a comparison to what we deem intelligent, that being a comparison to human intelligence, and from that determination we impose value and worth onto those animals. We are basically an animal acting as a speciest dictator to the natural world just because we can add 2+2 and get 4.

the aids virus has a right to life then...... any problem with it moving into you and living out its life?

how about some ebola.... it has a right to live out its life too with your reasoning.

Damn.... you do know that yeast is a living thing.... how about bread? Should we be killing the yeast by roasting it to death?

I am also pretty darn sure plants are living.... and yet... do you eat them? How do you know they do have just as many feelings as animals?

 

[AlexWA]

And yet still have more intelligence than any other species.....

Again, until you can show me that your dog understands the effect it's actions may have on the environment, or that a cow understands it is destined to be my dinner, the idea that other animals are on equal footing with humans when it comes to reasoning and intelligence is absurd. Mistaking compassion for animal life with equality in intelligence is, in itself, a stupid thing.

Somethings intelligence or ability to reason does not determine its value or right to life. All life on this planet has something to contribute to the super-organism that is called Earth. To say that just because the human species is able to do certain things that another species can't do therefore the human species is now superior and has dominion over the other species is not only arrogant but incredibly vicious. Intelligence the way we see it is a human invention. Basically an animal's intelligence is determined based on a comparison to what we deem intelligent, that being a comparison to human intelligence, and from that determination we impose value and worth onto those animals. We are basically an animal acting as a speciest dictator to the natural world just because we can add 2+2 and get 4.

the aids virus has a right to life then...... any problem with it moving into you and living out its life?

how about some ebola.... it has a right to live out its life too with your reasoning.

Damn.... you do know that yeast is a living thing.... how about bread? Should we be killing the yeast by roasting it to death?

I am also pretty darn sure plants are living.... and yet... do you eat them? How do you know they do have just as many feelings as animals?

Trying to compare viruses, bacteria, and disease to my argument is just ridiculous. My opinions are sincere and my own personal beliefs. Your comments are not and are meant to mock. Comment on the conversation at hand and leave the ridiculous comparisons to another topic.

 

[Colin]

I'm not doing any terrorist activities and neither does PETA. I do not agree with every single thing that PETA does and i am not even a paying member of PETA, but I do agree with many of their stances but that does not make me a terrorist nor does it make PETA a terrorist group. You are thinking of organizations like the animal liberation front.

Seems you know little of the organisations you support! Peta DOES support terrorist actions...

PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the most well-known animal rights group in the world. For decades, PETA has labored for the well being and rights of animals, with an ultimate goal of "total animal liberation." Unfortunately for America, and the world, PETA has become something entirely un-American: a group dedicated to inflicting fear, terrorism, violence, and suffering upon humanity.

PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.

PETA: When Animal Rights Becomes Terrorism and Crime - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Once again, thanks for confirming your support of terror tactics to force your views on others.

PETA also supports lying if it suits their agenda. if you look at the book Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer, it discusses how lies are justified if it advances the cause.

personally, i think if you have to prevaricate, maybe you have nothing to say.

Did you know that PETA, those wonderful animal liberation folks, kill most of the animals they rescue?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states.

The report, released by non-profit consumer group, claims that PETA - which is known for its outspoken stance on animal rights - were responsible for the deaths of nearly 2,000 adoptable animals last year alone.

The records also show that the animal-rights organization has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia since 1998.

Records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture obtained through public records by the Centre for Consumer Freedom show figures that are quite contrary to PETA’s mission.

Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted.

The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states

The report states: ‘Despite its $37.4million budget, PETA employees make little effort to find homes for the thousands of animals they kill every year.’

PETA 'killed more than 95% of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' | Mail Online

So much for animal rights!

 

[Colin]

Let’s think about what the world would be like based on the goals of people like AlexWA. For a start there would be no farming of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or any other livestock. There would be no meat, eggs or milk, no cheeses, yoghurts or creams in our grocery stores. Apart from losing a major part of our food supply, farmers around the world would lose their livelihoods. The jobless totals would increase significantly.
Fishing and hunting would become criminal acts and materials such as leather and fur would be banned. Welcome to a world of plastic shoes! All zoos would be shut down with the result that the conservation and preservation work done by many zoos in maintaining species that only exist in captivity would end. And, if you factor in the goals of PETA, we would have no pets!
Now where’s my eggs and bacon!

 

[syrenn]

Let’s think about what the world would be like based on the goals of people like AlexWA. For a start there would be no farming of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or any other livestock. There would be no meat, eggs or milk, no cheeses, yoghurts or creams in our grocery stores. Apart from losing a major part of our food supply, farmers around the world would lose their livelihoods. The jobless totals would increase significantly.
Fishing and hunting would become criminal acts and materials such as leather and fur would be banned. Welcome to a world of plastic shoes! All zoos would be shut down with the result that the conservation and preservation work done by many zoos in maintaining species that only exist in captivity would end. And, if you factor in the goals of PETA, we would have no pets!
Now where’s my eggs and bacon!

you do realize that bacteria, viruses, yeasts and molds are ..... living organisms. They should have a right to live.

how about plants... they are living too....don't they have a right to live?

 

[AlexWA]

Let’s think about what the world would be like based on the goals of people like AlexWA. For a start there would be no farming of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or any other livestock. There would be no meat, eggs or milk, no cheeses, yoghurts or creams in our grocery stores. Apart from losing a major part of our food supply, farmers around the world would lose their livelihoods. The jobless totals would increase significantly.
Fishing and hunting would become criminal acts and materials such as leather and fur would be banned. Welcome to a world of plastic shoes! All zoos would be shut down with the result that the conservation and preservation work done by many zoos in maintaining species that only exist in captivity would end. And, if you factor in the goals of PETA, we would have no pets!
Now where’s my eggs and bacon!

My goal is not to force a vegan lifestyle on people or force PETA's philosophy onto people. Would I love it if people could see the cruelty that we inflict on animals and change their way of living, of course, but I am realistic enough to know that not everybody, people like you for example, are capable of a vegan lifestyle or seeing animals as more than just test dummies for products, food for barbecues, and disposable property for entertainment.

With regards to your pet comment I have a dog that lives in my apartment with me that I rescued from abandonment, so from that alone I am not saying that you can't have pets, but it should be for the right reasons. Zoos are a double edged sword as well. They do help breed endangered species which is great but at the same time they keep animals behind cages for human entertainment. I am not saying shut them down, but their practices should be adjusted in my opinion.

I know you want to try and cast me as some sort of eco-terrorist but you are basing that on just a very few comments on mine regarding animals and the environment. You can be for something with a lot of passion and motivation without being a "terrorist". For example I did a summer semester working with Greenpeace in Washington a couple of years ago when I was in college and at no point did we radicals do anything evil or dangerous, nor were we taught to be evil or dangerous. I have never been arrested at any the various environmental protests and rallies that I have attended since high school. The only thing that comes close is that i've been what the police call "detained" before but released a short time later, so I don't go around causing harmful trouble or doing illegal things. I think that sometimes a person needs to challenge barriers and confront with a loud voice and action towards established ways of thinking but you will not see me physically harm anybody.

 

[syrenn]

My goal is not to force a vegan lifestyle on people or force PETA's philosophy onto people. Would I love it if people could see the cruelty that we inflict on animals and change their way of living, of course, but I am realistic enough to know that not everybody, people like you for example, are capable of a vegan lifestyle or seeing animals as more than just test dummies for products, food for barbecues, and disposable property for entertainment.

With regards to your pet comment I have a dog that lives in my apartment with me that I rescued from abandonment, so from that alone I am not saying that you can't have pets, but it should be for the right reasons. Zoos are a double edged sword as well. They do help breed endangered species which is great but at the same time they keep animals behind cages for human entertainment. I am not saying shut them down, but their practices should be adjusted in my opinion.

I know you want to try and cast me as some sort of eco-terrorist but you are basing that on just a very few comments on mine regarding animals and the environment. You can be for something with a lot of passion and motivation without being a "terrorist". I have never been arrested at any the various environmental protests and rallies that I have attended since high school. The only thing that comes close is that i've been what the police call "detained" before but released a short time later, so I don't go around causing harmful trouble or doing illegal things. I think that sometimes a person needs to challenge barriers and confront with a loud voice and action towards established ways of thinking but you will not see me physically harm anybody.

first off.... you have a goal. That is agenda.

the agenda... your goal...as you clearly stated....is to force people to view and or slaughter animals.... to make them see where there meat comes from. To change them by guilt or disgust.


so ive asked you before...lets try again..

do you or anyone you know use over the counter or prescription drugs?
How about makeup, hair products or deodorants?

 

[AlexWA]

My goal is not to force a vegan lifestyle on people or force PETA's philosophy onto people. Would I love it if people could see the cruelty that we inflict on animals and change their way of living, of course, but I am realistic enough to know that not everybody, people like you for example, are capable of a vegan lifestyle or seeing animals as more than just test dummies for products, food for barbecues, and disposable property for entertainment.

With regards to your pet comment I have a dog that lives in my apartment with me that I rescued from abandonment, so from that alone I am not saying that you can't have pets, but it should be for the right reasons. Zoos are a double edged sword as well. They do help breed endangered species which is great but at the same time they keep animals behind cages for human entertainment. I am not saying shut them down, but their practices should be adjusted in my opinion.

I know you want to try and cast me as some sort of eco-terrorist but you are basing that on just a very few comments on mine regarding animals and the environment. You can be for something with a lot of passion and motivation without being a "terrorist". I have never been arrested at any the various environmental protests and rallies that I have attended since high school. The only thing that comes close is that i've been what the police call "detained" before but released a short time later, so I don't go around causing harmful trouble or doing illegal things. I think that sometimes a person needs to challenge barriers and confront with a loud voice and action towards established ways of thinking but you will not see me physically harm anybody.

first off.... you have a goal. That is agenda.

the agenda... your goal...as you clearly stated....is to force people to view and or slaughter animals.... to make them see where there meat comes from. To change them by guilt or disgust.


so ive asked you before...lets try again..

do you or anyone you know use over the counter or prescription drugs?
How about makeup, hair products or deodorants?

Physically forcing someone to watch or view is different from making it difficult for them not to see something. I am not saying we should take a person against their will and force them into a chair and show the footage of cruelty but people should know what happens behind the scenes. Every day people get bombarded with advertisements and marketing strategies. I am wanting that same thing but for a better purpose.

As for your question of course I know people that use those products. Any product that is tested on animals or that come from the use of animals is wrong in my opinion. I don't deny using products at one point in my life that were like that but now I try my best to use products that are not.