Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

I should have told you that I don't accept that definition. It is an unacceptable definition in mainstream human society. You gave me the definition that the idea degrades to, not the right definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what is the right definition ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is what you said:

This is pretty much the definition that the animal rights organizations like the SPCA want to use. "Offensive" is a really good one because it is possible to contrive to take offense at literally anything. Thus a little bit of dirt becomes a felony, even if that dirt doesn't exist. Since dirt might be there, we have a prosecution. Too many judges are too lazy to think.

Harmful and injurious are the same thing. The SPCA, the RSPCA, the HSUS, PETA, and other animal rights groups want humans to inflict no injury on animals. The actual rule is "no unnecessary harm or injury" to use the redundant wording. "Necessary" is a subjective measure. What you think is necessary is not what I think is necessary. If the organization doing the persecution keeps their exact definition of the term "necessary" close to their chest and the judge lets them get away with dissembling, the court can be persuaded to act as if no injury or pain can be seen as necessary, even without declaring that principle. This is very important to know.

There is also the problem that if the RSPCA decides to kill an animal, even by the torturous method of gunshot, by default it is deemed necessary. They have been wrongly allowed to decide what is necessary as if they are the judiciary and something seems to allow them to get away with it.

Fur, leather, meat, and other animal products are generally necessities. When an organization declares them unnecessary that declaration is in contempt of humanity. It also abuses the definition of "necessary" and uses it as a tool to establish dominance. Every person who has gone vegetarian or vegan for PETA's sake has helped establish PETA's dominance. By PETA I mean PETA, the HSUS, API, Born Free USA, the anti-vivisection societies, Friends of Animals, and the whole ugly list. The only thing that inspires these people to say that meat is unnecessary is their contempt for humanity. Many of them have also said that they have no particular affection for animals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We know that food, clothing, and medicine are necessities. I don't even think that I can grant the idea that fur is not necessary. Petroleum derived substitutes aren't all that good even after more than sixty years of trying to make better patent leather and fake fur.

 

The food, clothing, and medicines that are made from animals are necessities. I myself look forward to when I can have a transplanted heart or pancreas from a chimera.

 

And?

There are some hypothetical possibilities that a vegan diet might provide all essential nutrients, but that kind of diet must be thoroughly medically tested AND if it actually works, it can't just be "not meat." Something is going to have to provide the cholesterol and B-12 and everything else, and since plant sources are often mildly toxic and the molecules aren't exactly the same, it's going to be a poor fit. The so-called ethical vegans don't seem to care how many can't make it on a vegan diet and for that matter I don't think they do that well on it either and they probably cheat.

 

speak for yourself.
i am more than an animal. i don't hike my leg and piss all over peoples feet.
i don't defecate in the middle of the yard. my sex is a private matter.

the lions and tigers and most other animals are screwed then.
how so? because they are MEAT EATERS.

i have no clue as to what a cow would say.
i CAN say they have a basic survival instinct.

for that culture? yes. of course that wouldn't necessarily make it right for mine.

to be honest i'm not into all this animal rights stuff. i consider it a load of BS and i find it very hard to carry on an objective discussion about it.

i wouldn't claw someones face off because they wanted to take my picture.
i've seen the aftermath of a lion doing just that.
think the lion felt any remorse?

 

Rspca Not Vetted By Cps

Let me make this perfectly clear, The RSPCA do not have to refer a prosecution to the CPS or anyone else, this is why their appeal rate and the susequent acquital rate is so high compared to CPS cases.
Combine this with witness coaching, paid witnesses and the conflict of interest because of the revenue the RSPCA generate from publicity around prosecutions and you have a massive problem, oh and did I mention that the RSPCA have a conviction for the perversion of justice !!! Bet the CPS dont !!!

 

The RSPCA makes a lot of money when it publicizes its cases. When its victims tell their stories I don't know how the new donations balance against the donations that people decide never to send to them again. I think that when I read about a case concerning "dog fighting paraphernalia" in Omaha was when I decided never to donate to a humane society. I cannot trust people who even think of "equipment that might be used to train fighting dogs" as a prosecutable item, let along people who gut-shoot cattle for the fun of it.

 

Can anyone agree to this:
It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative, or to prevent one self from starving to death when there is no reasonable alternative.

 

Not as phrased, no.

 

Rephrase it then.

 

has anyone bothered to define what an animal is?

 

Uh.. that's a bit obvious isn't it ?

 

uh . . . no.