Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (7156)	12/5/2003 2:05:42 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

OK. The historical landmark is a societal holding. So the legalities would not apply to rights granted by creation but to an interest held by society. "One is not per se answerable to the animal, but to the community that upholds certain standards of behavior.......... Agreed. The interests of the animal to eat, breed, grow, live long, etc. are not inherent in what I consider animal rights. Interests of the individual are beside the point. A creek does not have a conscious interest of any sort. Yet we oppose pollution of creeks. We oppose this partly because it would sicken human beings and other creatures who came into contact with the creek. When considering any type of right to be associated with a creature we can not help but consider the part and parcel effects on all of creation were human beings not to take a responsible hand in the matter. So rights of cows are not the rights of creeks or the rights of human beings. Yet responsible care and treatment is understood and a violation of that is a violation of the cow...even though we are only accountable legally to society for our bad conduct or lack of responsible conduct. Human beings are responsible, and there is a right associated with every kind of creature that can be placed in our care, including other human creatures.