|
Related Topics:
| Animal/Human Rights - Hi, I have been sort of stuck in a quagmire with regards to animal for a while now, and I thought I'd post to this group to see if anyone can guide me out of it. I am in hearing from many sides of the issue,..
Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? - Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans rather than trying to force..
Magpie has rights too, judge rules - Malcolm Ogilvie hooligan often advocates the trapping and slaughter of corvids, one of his nazi style pet hates. It would seem the law is helping old Mags out a little. RSPB, Woodland Trust etc regularly trap and kill corvids too, next time..
animal abuse - I found this article at if anybody is puppies - recently seized from a decrepit puppy mill - whimper from within their pens. Moca, a mare who is nearly 200 pounds under her normal weight, stands in..
Question: animal DNA cataloging - Does anybody know of a specific project that has involved as many DNA samples from the every remaining specimen left of an highly (near species?.
|
|
|
Next: Animals Rights: GregGeorg...WankHar's whiffs off AGAIN (moral incoherence)
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 01, 2003
Posts: 178
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 8:09 pm
Post subject: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics.
Archived from groups: alt>animals>ethics>vegetarian, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"What do you expect "government" to do? Animal
rights is an impossible, unreal fantasy. I know it
begins out of a desire to be kind to animals but
when it crosses over political ideas it falls to pieces.
Dutch Date: 2003-03-18
"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Today 2003-09-18
"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch. Date: 2001-02-12
I don't believe in Animal Rights
Dutch Date: 2002-02-17
"I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown
to have been developed using human subjects
against their will."
Dutch 2002-11-26
"I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed
long ago even if those treatments were obtained
unethically."
Dutch 2002-12-01 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 8:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Derek is as thick as a brick [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote
> "What do you expect "government" to do? Animal
> rights is an impossible, unreal fantasy. I know it
> begins out of a desire to be kind to animals but
> when it crosses over political ideas it falls to pieces.
> Dutch Date: 2003-03-18
>
> "I recently signed a petition online supporting an
> 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
> Dutch. Today 2003-09-18
>
> "I am an animal rights believer."
> Dutch. Date: 2001-02-12
>
> I don't believe in Animal Rights
> Dutch Date: 2002-02-17
Makes perfect sense to anyone with an open mind.. you don't qualify.
> "I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown
> to have been developed using human subjects
> against their will."
> Dutch 2002-11-26
>
> "I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed
> long ago even if those treatments were obtained
> unethically."
> Dutch 2002-12-01
Derek's (non) stance: ummm, It's bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Dutch is as thick as a brick and won't explain his inconsistencies [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message news:ZEoab.986322$3C2.22173164@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > "What do you expect "government" to do? Animal
> > rights is an impossible, unreal fantasy. I know it
> > begins out of a desire to be kind to animals but
> > when it crosses over political ideas it falls to pieces.
> > Dutch Date: 2003-03-18
> >
> > "I recently signed a petition online supporting an
> > 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
> > Dutch. Today 2003-09-18
> >
> > "I am an animal rights believer."
> > Dutch. Date: 2001-02-12
> >
> > I don't believe in Animal Rights
> > Dutch Date: 2002-02-17
>
> Makes perfect sense to anyone with an open mind.. you don't qualify.
>
Then if I were to write, "I am an human rights
believer." on 2001-02-12, and then wrote, "I
don't believe in animal rights" on 2002-02-17,
would that make perfect sense to you too, or
would you conclude, as I have done, that a lie
has been told?
> > "I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown
> > to have been developed using human subjects
> > against their will."
> > Dutch 2002-11-26
> >
> > "I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed
> > long ago even if those treatments were obtained
> > unethically."
> > Dutch 2002-12-01
>
> Derek's (non) stance: ummm, It's bad.
>
How do you explain the inconsistencies in your
views on using unethical treatments, Dutch? >> Stay informed about: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Derek ducks and hides [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Derek" <f RemoveThis @chance.com> wrote
>
> "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote
> > > "I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed
> > > long ago even if those treatments were obtained
> > > unethically."
> > > Dutch 2002-12-01
> >
> > Derek's (non) stance: ummm, It's bad.
> >
> How do you explain the inconsistencies in your
> views on using unethical treatments, Dutch?
I've explained my position already, look THAT up.
How do you explain your NON-position? >> Stay informed about: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:36 am
Post subject: Re: Dutch snips, ducks, and runs for cover [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Derek" <f.DeleteThis@chance.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote
> > "Derek" <f.DeleteThis@chance.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > "I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed
> > > > > long ago even if those treatments were obtained
> > > > > unethically."
> > > > > Dutch 2002-12-01
> > > >
> > > > Derek's (non) stance: ummm, It's bad.
> > > >
> > > How do you explain the inconsistencies in your
> > > views on using unethical treatments, Dutch?
> >
> > I've explained my position already, look THAT up.
> >
> You haven't explained these inconsistencies
Yes I have, look harder.
[..]
> > How do you explain your NON-position?
> >
> I've made my position perfectly clear on this issue
> many times.
No you haven't. The only time I asked you completely avoided the
question.
> I believe that using treatments which
> are later found to have been perfected by unethical
> means to be a morally neutral act.
That wasn't the question I asked.
> The patient carries
> no moral burden for how his meds are produced.
Say I had a medicine that would cure your chronic condition and restore
you to perfect health. You could walk, play cricket with your kids, run
with your dogs, all pain-free. The only hitch is that I must violate the
rights of other people order to obtain it. Do you want it? According to
your theory above, whether you agree to purchase the treatment or not is
of no moral significance.
> [unsnip]
> > > "What do you expect "government" to do? Animal
> > > rights is an impossible, unreal fantasy. I know it
> > > begins out of a desire to be kind to animals but
> > > when it crosses over political ideas it falls to pieces.
> > > Dutch Date: 2003-03-18
> > >
> > > "I recently signed a petition online supporting an
> > > 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
> > > Dutch. Today 2003-09-18
> > >
> > > "I am an animal rights believer."
> > > Dutch. Date: 2001-02-12
> > >
> > > I don't believe in Animal Rights
> > > Dutch Date: 2002-02-17
> >
> > Makes perfect sense to anyone with an open mind.. you don't qualify.
> >
> Then if I were to write, "I am an human rights
> believer." on 2001-02-12, and then wrote, "I
> don't believe in animal rights" on 2002-02-17,
> would that make perfect sense to you too, or
> would you conclude, as I have done, that a lie
> has been told?
It makes no sense at all, maybe you want to re-word it. >> Stay informed about: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 6:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Dutch snips, ducks, and runs for cover [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > Nope, I explained it thoroughly,
>
> You have never explained them, ever.
Yep, I did. I did it once and that's all I'm going to. If you want to
read it go find it, it's there on Google.
[..]
> To make things even worse, you keep claiming
> you've explained them when in actual fact, you
> never have, so why don't you take this opportunity
> to make me look really stupid and show me where
> you did explain them?
I don't need to make you look stupid, you do a fine job of it all by
yourself. >> Stay informed about: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:46 am
Post subject: Re: Dutch snips, ducks, and runs for cover; ironic subject line eh? PING Derek [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote
> "Derek" <f.DeleteThis@chance.com> wrote
[..]
> > I've made my position perfectly clear on this issue
> > many times.
>
> No you haven't. The only time I asked you completely avoided the
> question.
>
> > I believe that using treatments which
> > are later found to have been perfected by unethical
> > means to be a morally neutral act.
>
> That wasn't the question I asked.
>
> > The patient carries
> > no moral burden for how his meds are produced.
>
> Say I had a medicine that would cure your chronic condition and restore
> you to perfect health. You could walk, play cricket with your kids, run
> with your dogs, all pain-free. The only hitch is that I must violate the
> rights of other people order to obtain it. Do you want it? According to
> your theory above, whether you agree to purchase the treatment or not is
> of no moral significance.
Well Derek? Would you take the offer or not? If you refuse on ethical
grounds you are conceding that you bear a moral burden for how your meds are
produced. If you knowingly accept this medicine you are encouraging and
complicit in deliberate violations of human rights. >> Stay informed about: Dutch's inconsistencies on animal rights and ethics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
