Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

James R said:
Will you also eat human babies until they walk into a courtroom and demand their rights?
Click to expand...
babies are human, not animals.
I don't think you comprehend what a right is. A right is a recognition of an interest, supported by law.
Click to expand...
have you discussed this with your dog, cat, or goldfish? do you know what their interests are?
you can only define what is right from a human standpoint, and more specifically from your standpoint.
Do you believe that prosecuting people who hurt animals for their pleasure makes a mockery of the legal system?
Click to expand...
i can not speak for all the cultures of the planet.
some cultures allow dog fights, some do not.

i can see it now. a lawyer standing in the courtroom with his client, a dog, telling the judge his client has been wronged. the judge agrees and awards the dog millions of dollars. does the dog feel any better? does the dog sit back and think "well, i got my day in court"?
furthermore how does an animal know when it has been wronged?

we, as humans, can define what is right for us because we can discuss it, hash it out.

what's next? trees and grass?
 
MetaKron said:
They should not be allowed to do so. What does this have to do with the persecution of a person who was doing the best she could to keep her cattle healthy with the resources that she had, or the persecution of someone who used flea powder on a dog when it needed other treatment, or the persecution of a man who waited to see if a damaged tail needed treatment?

On the other hand, the RSPCA went to Ruth Downey's place and gut-shot her cattle for the sheer fun of it, right out of A Clockwork Orange. They should not be allowed to do that and they should be in jail on multiple felony counts.
Click to expand...

So really all you are arguing is that there is some corruption within the RSPCA.
 
voyager said:
babies are human, not animals.

have you discussed this with your dog, cat, or goldfish? do you know what their interests are?
you can only define what is right from a human standpoint, and more specifically from your standpoint.

i can not speak for all the cultures of the planet.
some cultures allow dog fights, some do not.

i can see it now. a lawyer standing in the courtroom with his client, a dog, telling the judge his client has been wronged. the judge agrees and awards the dog millions of dollars. does the dog feel any better? does the dog sit back and think "well, i got my day in court"?
furthermore how does an animal know when it has been wronged?

we, as humans, can define what is right for us because we can discuss it, hash it out.

what's next? trees and grass?
Click to expand...

I fear that some sort of mental retardation is at the basis at these kind of ramblings.
 
MetaKron said:
The RSPCA knowingly persecuted innocent people and wasted the court's time and resources.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. The RSCPA put the facts of the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, who decide whether to take the matter to court or not.

The facts are presented in the case, the defendant states their case, and magistrates or a jury decide. Guilt or innocence is decided at this point, therefore you are lying when you say the RSPCA prosecute innocent people.

If you need to tell lies you make your point, you have already lost the debate.
 
faunacation said:
If you listen to the File at 4 program you will be able to hear many of the problems I have with that story, as well as further stories. It's the way RSPCA do things, and the heavy handed punitive attitude with which they do them which I find objectionable.
Click to expand...

People found guilty will always spin a story. I trust the judicial system enough to believe that those found guilty in animal cruelty cases, were guilty. That latter part, the determination of guilt or innocence, is nothing to do with the RSCPA, by the way.

You have a handful of cases, vs the thousands of good deeds the RSPCA do each year. IE, your gripe is lost in the noise.
 
phlogistician said:
That's a lie. The RSCPA put the facts of the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, who decide whether to take the matter to court or not.

The facts are presented in the case, the defendant states their case, and magistrates or a jury decide. Guilt or innocence is decided at this point, therefore you are lying when you say the RSPCA prosecute innocent people.

If you need to tell lies you make your point, you have already lost the debate.
Click to expand...

Go on pretending. I'm not buying it. Had there been sufficient evidence against Ruth Downey they would have entered a conviction against her in the record. There is no justice in forcing her to pay for her own mugging.

In several of the other cases mentioned here, the people being persecuted were eventually found innocent after they spent god-awful in legal fees, suffered death threats, loss of jobs, and had to leave town. The RSPCA has been caught knowingly perverting the course of justice by manipulating evidence, and it has put people through a year or more of hell over very piddling little things. They get caught often enough to demonstrate that they do these things on purpose.
 
Can you repeat what kind of intolerance you are accusing animal right supporters of, please ?
 
Enmos said:
Can you repeat what kind of intolerance you are accusing animal right supporters of, please ?
Click to expand...

They can't tolerate life and the living. That's why they want to rule other humans and they want animals the hell away from them.
 
MetaKron said:
They can't tolerate life and the living. That's why they want to rule other humans and they want animals the hell away from them.
Click to expand...

And you are claiming that this is true of all people that support animal rights ? Or just a small group of fundamental protesters ?
 
Enmos said:
And you are claiming that this is true of all people that support animal rights ? Or just a small group of fundamental protesters ?
Click to expand...

It's a contagious mental disease that most of them have. If they didn't have it they couldn't stand to be animal rights. That's the biggest reason why AR hijacked the animal welfare organizations.
 
MetaKron said:
It's a contagious mental disease that most of them have. If they didn't have it they couldn't stand to be animal rights. That's the biggest reason why AR hijacked the animal welfare organizations.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you think that all people that support rights for animals are affiliated to one of these groups ?
What most people mean by animals rights is that animals should not be mistreated. Are you opposed to that notion ?
 
the 2 cases I refered to earlier only were dismissed at appeal, 2 innocent people dragged through the court system by the RSPCA.
You are wrong that the RSPCA present a file to the CPS, this is how it should happen in a civilised country with social justice and a respectable, just legal system.
NOT HERE, the RSPCA scrutinise their own prosecutions, mmm room for abuse ? they decide who they prosecute, so if some career minded inspector wants to doctor and embelish the evidence, there is no safeguard or protection from stopping them doing so.
The CPS would not bring half the cases to court that the RSPCA do, take a look at the figures of how many of their prosecution cases go to appeal compared with CPS prosecutions, and more importantly how many are thrown out at appeal !!!
 
Enmos said:
Perhaps you think that all people that support rights for animals are affiliated to one of these groups ?
What most people mean by animals rights is that animals should not be mistreated. Are you opposed to that notion ?
Click to expand...

Define "mistreated."
 
Enmos said:
The dictionary.. :D

Look pal, if you can't even tell when someone is mistreating an animal there's not much hope for you.
Click to expand...

I can tell when some idiot is going to falsely accuse me of mistreatment and the court might be unable to tell the difference because there is a twisted way of calling anything mistreatment.

You don't have a good answer to a simple question and you would advocate putting me in jail for committing a crime that you can't even define.
 
MetaKron said:
I can tell when some idiot is going to falsely accuse me of mistreatment and the court might be unable to tell the difference because there is a twisted way of calling anything mistreatment.

You don't have a good answer to a simple question and you would advocate putting me in jail for committing a crime that you can't even define.
Click to expand...

I gave you the definition.
 
voyager said:
babies are human, not animals.
Click to expand...

Humans are animals.

have you discussed this with your dog, cat, or goldfish? do you know what their interests are?
Click to expand...

As far as basic rights such as the right to life, yes.

If a cow could talk and you asked it "Would you rather live or die?", what do you think its response would be? I don't have any doubt.

You can only define what is right from a human standpoint, and more specifically from your standpoint.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Non-human animals are not total aliens. They share many interests in common with humans, for obvious reasons.

i can not speak for all the cultures of the planet.
some cultures allow dog fights, some do not.
Click to expand...

Do you think that anything sanctioned by at least one culture is morally right, automatically?

i can see it now. a lawyer standing in the courtroom with his client, a dog, telling the judge his client has been wronged. the judge agrees and awards the dog millions of dollars. does the dog feel any better? does the dog sit back and think "well, i got my day in court"?
Click to expand...

Nobody has suggest that dogs have a right to litigate.

furthermore how does an animal know when it has been wronged?
Click to expand...

How do you know if somebody hits you over the head with a baseball bat?

what's next? trees and grass?
Click to expand...

Please read:

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

and get back to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top