Subject:
|
Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2001 02:36:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1712 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Following the subtext of your statement above, reasonably speaking, it's
> obvious you take issue with my opinion or perhaps disagree with part or all
> of my statement.
It's not obvious to *me*. Always looking for the disagreement, eh? I ask for
some reading material because I want to have an open mind and do some
research and you conclude that I disagree apriori.
> If that's the case, perhaps it would be more reasonable if
> you provide cites to counter my statement.
Not interested in *countering* it.
I'm interested in learning more, at least at this point. You have at least a
half dozen times thrown this out in front of the group, which is fine,
people do it all the time with their hot buttons, although different people
do it to different degrees.
No one yet asked for more info on this, but guess what, you piqued my
curiousity. So I asked for more info. Sorry if that means I'm challenging
you, because I am not. All I did was ask for more info. Try not to read
everything as conflict, confrontation, argument, disagreement, hmm? I
phrased this as mildly as anyone could ask for, because my intent is mild in
the extreme.
> Likewise, presenting the case in
> a reasoned way would also be great. Meanwhile, you may find some reasonable
> reading material, as requested, at the following sites:
>
> http://www.peta-online.org
I'm with Frank, I'm pre-biased against these guys. "Murder King"! Please.
Yet I went there and gave it a try.
This site is not quite what I had in mind. I just spent 5 minutes rooting
there and I saw a lot of passion but not a lot of fact. A lot of rhetoric
but not a lot of documentation. And some out and out incorrect or incomplete
statements. For example, this one from their FAQ.
"Plants are completely different physiologically from mammals. If you cut
off the branch of a plant, it grows another one (the same can't be said for
animals' limbs). "
which is in fact incomplete. Some animals DO in fact regrow limbs. So I
would conclude that either they are not as literate as I prefer, because
they didn't know this, or worse, that they are deliberately leaving out
facts in order to make their points.
That's fine, and their site certainly hits hard, but it's not the factual
site I'm looking for.
> http://www.CowsAreCool.com
Also a PETA site and also rhetoric as far in as I dug. (not all that far)
If you have some better sites to cite, go ahead. If not, that's OK too.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
