Why Animals Don't Have Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol, agreed. So, Subrosa, what would you find to be gained from doing it your way v/s the current way?
 
It doesn't matter how right you may be, spell check is still your friend.
 
It doesn't matter how right you may be, spell check is still your friend.

that is the most correct statement this thread has seen so far.
 
the plains indians did that to bison (not buffalo, no buffalo is the US, :) ) for food, and used just about every part of the dead animal. the mayans made game sacrifices because of religion. its what they believed was right. im not saying it was right, but there is a difference between that and beating a dog or cat because your cult says thats what you should do. the moa was killed of by europeans.

rant over.

A common name is a common name. Would you prefer next time I use Bison bison? Either way I am sure most animal rights activists would condemn that form of slaughter as much as any practice we have in today's agriculture.

And why is there any difference between something done in the name of religion and something done because in your opinion your dog/cat needs to be beaten because it is of your opinion that it is the right thing to do? It's more a rhetorical question as I do not want to break the TOS.

And on your last misstatement there...please provide me with anything proving that Europeans drove the Moa to extinction and not the Maori people. Even wikipedia says you are wrong.
 
A common name is a common name. Would you prefer next time I use Bison bison? Either way I am sure most animal rights activists would condemn that form of slaughter as much as any practice we have in today's agriculture.

And why is there any difference between something done in the name of religion and something done because in your opinion your dog/cat needs to be beaten because it is of your opinion that it is the right thing to do? It's more a rhetorical question as I do not want to break the TOS.

And on your last misstatement there...please provide me with anything proving that Europeans drove the Moa to extinction and not the Maori people. Even wikipedia says you are wrong.

YOUR mistake is believing wikipedia. and if you are right (wich you probably are) they obviously didnt try to kill off al the moa. and is it possible to "accidentally" beat a dog or cat?
 
YOUR mistake is believing wikipedia. and if you are right (wich you probably are) they obviously didnt try to kill off al the moa. and is it possible to "accidentally" beat a dog or cat?

Is it also my mistake to believe published journal articles that say the exact same thing?

The last moas were thought to exist around 1400. European contact with New Zealand didn't happen until the 1600's.

And how do you know the goals of people that lived a hundreds of years ago?

My point was that not all "native" people (technically the Maori were settlers as well, but in this case most people attribute "native" to anyone of non-european or colonial in origin) live within the boundaries of an ecosystem. To their credit there are other Polynesian cultures that, for example, were master aquaculturists and set up systems that to my knowledge were pretty sustainable.

And how is beating anything unintentional?

I do not follow your logic here at all...
 
Speaking of cud, this thread is resembling it more and more by the minute....

A discussion of the finiteness of fossil fuels and our eminent global destruction have very little to do with the OP's topic. I vote we either we get back to the discussion (specifically, I wish someone [OP?] would explain, or speculate on, what could possibly be gained by revoking animal welfare acts and laws) or we close this thread.
With all due respect Nicole, whether to close this thread is I believe my own business and that of the mods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
AquariaCentral.com