Subject:
|
Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:23:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1858 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > No problem, just do your own homework to prove my assertions invalid.
> I would assert that if you wish any success in encouraging people to
> change their views on the way animals are treated in this country that
> the onus is upon you to substantiate your claims.
I was trying to figure out how to say that, but I got hung up on how to
actually do what you're suggesting Dan do. What about it? How would Dan, or
I, substantiate claims of gross cruelty through negligence and intent?
> If the rest of us
> think that things are basically OK, what reason do we have to explore
> them?
Agreed. But do you?
> It's also interesting to me that PETA promotes use of synthetic
> materials over natural. In many ways, I'm more
> concerned about the effects of using synthetic, especially petroleum
> based, materials than totally eliminating use of animal products.
Because of what? Shortage or health issues? I could see either as valid.
> One
> also wonders how many animals were used in research to prove these
> synthetics safe.
Yup. Living ethically is a strenuous balancing act. I wonder how many people
"don't care" simply because it's hard and they don't know how or would at least
"care" more if it were easier.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
