At 01:58 AM 1/10/99 +0100, KPJ wrote:
>It appears as if <GBurch1@aol.com> wrote:
>|As for the former, one first has to have a clear idea of what the term
>|"rights" means. I find it hard to conceive of a "right" without an entity
>|capable of asserting that right, so I don't find it useful to speak of
>|"rights" in connection with animals that can't at least let out some kind
>|squeak of protest. However, with that first squeak comes some minimal
>So a human without language skills and voice lacks rights in your model.
>Are these humans to be treated as animals, including owned (slavery) and
>allowed to be terminated at will, too?
IAN: Most humans find the mass murder and exploitation of animals to be very enjoyable and profitable, and therefore find it "good."
But advances in technology could be the best things for animals. For example, one day tons of meat could be grown from one square inch of meat, thus meat could be acquired without murder.
Vegetarians say "NO" to factory-style mass murder.