From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: A rat is a pig-headed moron is a ...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:33:12 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <C0pn31.DBo@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>You seem to be saying that the rights of "minor" humans stem from their 
>guardians, rather from some quality which they themselves possess.   Would

You got it, bucko.  Spread your buttcheeks and catch a clue, Russ.
Rights are won, not granted.  Parents, or those responsible for a
minor or invalid have taken the responsibility for those in their
care.  


>it be ethically acceptable to torture minors if/when they lack guardians?
>If not, how does this fit in with your prior allegation that 
>a "concept of legal discourse" is a pre-requisite for the possession of
>rights?

You just don't get it, do you?  It's a very simple idea to understand,
but you feel certain that you can find the true meaning down in the
last line of the OED definition for every word that's
written.  Let's just cut to the chase, and sum it up this way: no
responsibility, no rights.  If you, or someone else doesn't take
personal responsibility, then nobody is there to give the animal
rights.  If you, personally, are going to wave your magic wand, and
individually prang the head of each animal you give rights to, then I
want you, personally, carry insurance for each one of these animals,
to cover any property damage they may incur.  That's just for
starters.  I'll grant that my idea is bogus, but no more bogus than
the idea that animals have inate rights.  In shorts, er, short (sorry,
Russ, I can't keep my mind off your underwear), animals can have
rights when they come claim them from me.

Moan about the insane and the guardian-less minors, and every other
special case you can think of, it still won't wash as a general case.

>If animals were dependent on people, would they have rights?

"If pigs can fly, then why, oh why, can't I?"

When animals are dependent on people, they *are* treated like any
other piece of property.  Property isn't assigned rights, the owner of
property is entitled to certain rights.

>that you confine your comments to facts and reasons 
>rather than making assumptions about my personal character.

Now where's the fun in that?

>> Until you can provide something other than an emotional premise for
>Again, you're entitled to your opinion.  

Then how about providing a non-emotional basis for your points?
How about not throwing a hissy-fit every time someopne says they
enjoyed a steak or <gasp> derived pleasure while killing an animal.

>My name isn't Jethro.   I'm sure that Shaw would be thoroughly
>cynical about many of the statements that you've made so far.

And I'm so glad to hear of your appointment as his spokesman.

>I'd suggest that you learn to control your emotions.  Your interest
>in my underwear size seems to be out-of-control.

I can control myself quite well, thank you.  Truth of the matter is
that picking on people like you, the differently clued, is some of the
best fun I've had this morning.  It comes close to the fun I had was 
running over a squirrel on my street.
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals