"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Michael lawson wrote:

Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect.
They are not a reputable organization because for every
legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation
by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer
is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but
milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I
could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much
a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign
echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish
found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting
fish for what they are.

Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes
to
compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call
them, that is the only factor that matters.

So do plants, but I don't see people advocating
the stoppage of agriculture anytime soon.

If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there
would
be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did,
we
could not be hurt.

No, that would make the concept of rights more important,
because we could not understand what we were
doing.

You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but
the concept of treating every other living thing with as much
kindness
and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to
do,
and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life
miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and
for
the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor
ethical.

Ah, but PETA does not stop there, which is why I
said what I said. Relying on PETA for data means
that you are opening yourself up to criticism about
the source, and allow your argument to be lumped
in with the extreme, rather than the mean. I may not
like sprawl very much myself, but I do not in any
way, shape or form want to associate myself with the
eco-terrorists (the Earth First! people, for instance)
who will destroy property in the name of the
environment. That only provides sympathy for the
property owners, and in effect encourages the very
thing that the eco-terrorists don't want.

--Mike L.

Mike, I am simply having a discussion, not trying to battle it out
logically. You are making things complex, when they needn't be. I
disagree with a great deal of your logic, in particular with respect to
rights (tell me straight out, if you cannot be harmed, then what is the
purpose, the good in having a right? When one cannot be downtrodden,
it becomes utterly needless) which seems designed to justify the eating
and cruelty to animals. I don't need meat to survive, therefore I
cannot justify hurting animals that simple. If you need meat or
whatever, then go for it. I am done.

Bruce Jensen