Thursday, 5 November 2009

More animal crackers...

Proving my point, my animal-worshipping correspondent shews himself yet more obstinate.

Obstinate in refusing even to address the points I make and so - inevitably - obstinate in maintaining his false argument.

Logic escapes animal libbers yet the position is quite simple.

If animals and humans must be accorded the same rights then either animals must be given the full gamut of rights contained in human fundamental law codes like the UN Declaration of Rights, the European Convention and so on, or - which is the real truth - those charters must be changed or interpreted so that humans do not get more rights than animals.

That is what animal libbers like Professor Peter Singer believe.

Animals routinely commit infanticide and euthanasia and shun and reject the weak in total opposition to chivalry, honour and decency. But that is not surprising. They are dumb beasts, act on instinct and do not have the ability to chose right from wrong. It is ridiculous to talk about "rights" without also admitting duties and how can one expect an animal to have any kind of duty?

The result of "equality" between men and animals will mean that men will be reduced to the level of animals and will behave with the same savagery and brutality as animals.


Peter and the pig.
Prof Singer believes animals should be accorded human rights. In reality, that means that human rights should be reduced to the level of animals and, as Singer believes, infanticide and euthanasia should be allowed, as in the animal kingdom, er..., except, of course, for Peter's mother. Somehow he felt a bit different about euthanasia for her!
(Oh, and note that you never see our Pete getting cosy with a crocodile, tiger or shark!)


The difference is that man has a rational soul and can make moral choices.

Thus if he chooses to act like an animal, which cannot make such choices, then he become infinitely worse than any animal, which is but a dumb beast.

Men who behave like animals become far worse than animals and much more resemble devils.

Victorian animal lovers were classically more concerned with dumb beasts than with the fate of starved, sick, abandoned children forced to work in filthy and horrible conditions.

They were but the beginning of the malaise.

She had a lucky escape - the shark only "nibbled" her!


...

3 comments:

Brad Evans said...

"PETA-when the ordinary psychotic delusions just aren't enough anymore!"

Shame that you didn't hear that fish are now "sea kittens".

Andrea G said...

Oy vey!
So, if all animals had "human rights", we would be forbidden from eating them? But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stop some of them from eating us! I happen to love the advantages of being up on the food chain: delicious hamburgers, great Italian sausages, and of course tasty bacon! :)

I'm dreading the day when people are fighting for equal marriage "rights" between a human and animal...I hope I'm not around!

Tribunus said...

Thanks, again, to Brad and to the lovely Andrea.

Spot on, as ever!