A lot of people jumped on the anti-animal rights bandwagon after hearing about this. But maybe it's not so crazy .... Listen to the actual speech here.
There's a bandwagon?CC
Do a google search on "canine americans" and see all of the negative comments about animals rights activists, political correctness, and crazies.
I agree, have you loked at: The write up Activist Cash did on the Humane Society?
uupdater,The link you cited is funded by a coalition of corporations operating under the title of “Center For Consumer Freedom.” Other organizations its websites "expose" in the name of freedom for us consumers include the Sierra Club, the Organic Consumers Association, Greenpeace, Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Resources Defense Council, the Pew Charitable Trust, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Well the Humane Society statement says that it was actually a joke at the beginning of the speech not a real recommendation. So I can keep my faith in the Humane Society.But one does have to wonder how Canine Americans would vote. What about Feline Americans? I think this could change the face of American politics. Lassie for President!! (would Canine Americans have to survive to 35 to run for president or just 35 in dog years?)
Feline Americans voting? Would you want to live in a country where the law says you HAVE to take a nap?
powderblue,I do note that you attempt to impune the integrity of Activist Cash, without any attempt to refute any of the facts they quote. For what it is worth I always reserve a healthy amount of skepticism for anything I read on the web.
CC, I know there are lots of crazies in the animal rights movement, but I think lots of movements have their crazies. But I do hate to see the crazy element highlighted while the positive parts of the movement are sort of considered to be good enough or okay or whatever, or not mentioned much at all. I think overall, the idea is to treat all sentient beings with compassion. While all may quibble about what that means, who can argue with treating animals capable of suffering with compassion? At the least, in the time before you kill them.... Just a thought.
I don't mean YOU kill them personally, like CC killing animals. I just meant in general before they are killed. Whoever does it.
If you refer to it as animal *rights*, I see no problem with calling dogs "canine Americans." It's like someone who sincerely thinks there's such a thing as fetal *rights*; make the argument that dogs and fetuses are rights-bearing entities -- i.e., 14th Amendment persons. I don't think animals have rights, because no species other than humans is cognizant of the concept of rights. You can train a dog not to eat a live human baby if the dog is starving, but it's probably tough. I don't think fetuses have rights because they are dependant on a specific person to keep them alive, and that specific person may not wish to perform that task.My rationale for treating dogs and fetuses well is to uphold our own humanity. We are lesser human beings when we treat dogs cruelly, and we are lessening our sense of the sacredness of human life when we do nothing to reduce the number of abortions, particularly ones done late in pregnancy.I suppose this is sort of the dominion argument for environmentalism; having been given (if you're religious) or defaulting to (if you're not) responsibility for the earth, the healthfulness of the earth is both indicative of our fulfillment of that responsibility, and a way to extend our own species's existence.
Post a Comment