In article <CqAHKx.1Ao at news.Hawaii.Edu> davef at ahi.pbrc.hawaii.edu (Dave Featherstone) writes:
>I have found that most extremist animal rights arguments are based on
"Extremist" is anyone who does not agree with you? Try making your arguments
without ad-hominens, it's considered bad practice by most scholars.
>If one's value system is such that an animal life (and the
>quality of that life) is as important as a human life, then I don't
>thing a scientist has any good arguments, since the best model for
>human biology is, of course, humans. And a clever animal rightist
>will point out that cruel, most politically-incorrect fact.
You are departing from logic here and indulging in emotional biases.
Don't forget the cruelty to the animals, and as far as political
correctness goes, do you decide the validity of a hypothesis by
taking a vote?
>We scientists and extremist animal rightists simply have different
Don't you mean "We extremeist scientists and animal rightists.."?
If not, is it just because they disagree with you?
>[...] As I said, I have found most animal rights literature to
>be propaganda based on misinformation/misconception. This can be
>countered with education. Differences in values (i.e. the PETA
>founder's statement that 'a dog is a pig is a boy') cannot.
Ingrid Newkirk's quote in full is "When it comes to having a central
nrevous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a
rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." This is neither remarkable nor absurd.
Who is indulging in misinformation/misconception by taking the quote
out of context?????
I'd be happy to hear your rebuttal.