Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

MetaKron said:
Intolerance is the philosophy of animal rights.
Click to expand...
Can you back that up in some way other than pointing to the behavior of some people who advocate for animal rights or to the texts of some people who advocate animal rights?

The truth is most people believe in restrictions around the treatment of animals. You will find this in guidelines in the scientific community and in the rules for the treatment of animals in a variety of religions, Buddhism not the least, but also Islam, for example.
 
MetaKron said:
You don't want people to know what the animal rights philosophy actually is.
Click to expand...

??? More baseless accusations against me because I am calling you out on you bull shit. The part is not the whole you seem to not be able to grasp that. You have attacked the whole animal rights/ anti animal abuse people with no evidence against them as a whole.
 
Simon Anders said:
Can you back that up in some way other than pointing to the behavior of some people who advocate for animal rights or to the texts of some people who advocate animal rights?

The truth is most people believe in restrictions around the treatment of animals. You will find this in guidelines in the scientific community and in the rules for the treatment of animals in a variety of religions, Buddhism not the least, but also Islam, for example.
Click to expand...

Simon, that doesn't leave anything. No matter how many references I give, "it" will always be something else, not what Ingrid Newkirk says, not what Peter Springer says, or what Richard Wagner says, and when you finish the circle it won't be anything but "obey the animal rights movement or be destroyed."
 
pjdude1219 said:
??? More baseless accusations against me because I am calling you out on you bull shit. The part is not the whole you seem to not be able to grasp that. You have attacked the whole animal rights/ anti animal abuse people with no evidence against them as a whole.
Click to expand...

Would you just stop? I have given a lot of evidence. There is a lot of evidence out there. Playing your games will not fix that.
 
MetaKron said:
Would you just stop? I have given a lot of evidence. There is a lot of evidence out there. Playing your games will not fix that.
Click to expand...

Nothing against the whole as I stated earlier you have provided evidence for isolated instances but nothing to support you assertions of it is standard procedure of the RSCPA to act without evidence, that the RSPCA wants to hurt people, that the RSCPA goes out of it way to hurt people, that the RSCPA actively abuses people, that the sins of one animal rights group means that all of them are guilty. I will not stop until you start providing proof that actually backs up your assertions instead of assertions that are far smaller in scope.
 
pjdude1219 said:
Nothing against the whole as I stated earlier you have provided evidence for isolated instances but nothing to support you assertions of it is standard procedure of the RSCPA to act without evidence, that the RSPCA wants to hurt people, that the RSCPA goes out of it way to hurt people, that the RSCPA actively abuses people, that the sins of one animal rights group means that all of them are guilty. I will not stop until you start providing proof that actually backs up your assertions instead of assertions that are far smaller in scope.
Click to expand...

I feel like you know that I am right about them and you are trying to cover for them.
 
MetaKron said:
I'm sorry for you. In your intolerance you don't understand a thing.
Click to expand...

Another baseless accusation. I am not intolerant. All I want is for you to provide evidence for your actual assertions. Which you are clearly not going to do.


Your extreme hatred and intolerance of people who think animals shouldn't be abused is awe inspiring.
 
It actually is hard to "prove" that what the RSPCA does is intentional. How many "isolated incidents" make a pattern? Why should I allow someone like PJ to define what constitutes proof, after he has already made finger-waving dismissals of evidence that I have put up here, and had been making personal attacks?
 
MetaKron said:
It actually is hard to "prove" that what the RSPCA does is intentional.
Click to expand...
in other owrds you can't prove you claims but their still true we just have to take your word for it.
How many "isolated incidents" make a pattern?
Click to expand...
depends on size of group and and size of jurisdiction.
Why should I allow someone like PJ to define what constitutes proof, after he has already made finger-waving dismissals of evidence that I have put up here, and had been making personal attacks?
Click to expand...
Because others have asked for more proof and your proof doesn't prove your claims. Also someone like you arguing essentially that no one should try and stop animal abuse should be personally attacked.
 
You do not have the status to require me to provide "proof." I have already provided substantial evidence, and it is verbal trickery to say that there is "no evidence" and to say that there is "no proof." You don't have a rebuttal that means a thing.
 
MetaKron said:
You do not have the status to require me to provide "proof." I have already provided substantial evidence, and it is verbal trickery to say that there is "no evidence" and to say that there is "no proof." You don't have a rebuttal that means a thing.
Click to expand...

No but I can ask you to provide proof that actually backs up your point that all animal rights activists are out to hurt people. Something you have steadfastly refused to do. I can't rebut something that has yet to be proven. I have not said there is no proof just that you haven't provided any.
 
MetaKron said:
Simon, that doesn't leave anything. No matter how many references I give, "it" will always be something else, not what Ingrid Newkirk says, not what Peter Springer says, or what Richard Wagner says, and when you finish the circle it won't be anything but "obey the animal rights movement or be destroyed."
Click to expand...
Let me know when I say obey the animal rights movement or be destroyed. And then you would need to know which part of that movement to listen to. As far as I can tell, many animals are similar to us. That is why they are interesting to scientists because of the similarity. But due to that similarity I think they suffer pain and experience what happens to them. Therefore I want these similar creatures to not be needlessly hurt and to have decent lives. Opinions vary widely about how much priority this has and what other factors must be weighed and how much. And these opinions vary throughout the beliefs of people who believe in animal rights. I don't know the RSPCA. It is the equivalent to the ASPCA, an organization that as far as I know is hardly radical or violent.

What is it you wish to do to animals that you think the RSPCA will destroy you for doing?
 
pjdude1219 said:
??? this is supposed to be unbiased proof that all animal rights people want to hurt people?
Click to expand...

I am not going to accede to any demand from you. I do not consider you to be a person who is entitled to make that demand.

You are playing games when you make that demand.

You are only part of this thread to try to mess it up anyway. And I am presenting evidence, and that does not require that I "prove" anything except that the evidence exists.
 
Last edited:
So I have to ask the rhetorical question: Why are animal rights activists allowed to lie so much? Why are they allowed to pretend that just because some animal rights activists might not use violence, the movement as a whole is not violent, and is not inherently violent? Why pretend that any claim made against them is false when they know very well that it's true, and most of the audience knows it? Why do the moderators back them up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top