Insanity Of The Animal Rights Extremists
Captain Ed provides an enlightening insight into the coldly rational mindset of the moralists of the animal rights movement. A physician named Jerry Vlasak (beware of wearing leather shoes, jacket or belt if you need the services of an ER in San Bernadino or Riverside, CA, where he practices), appeared as the spokesperson for a dingbat outfit called North American Animal Liberation before a committee of the U.S. Senate and promptly and calmly confirmed his prior statement that the murder of 5 - 15 people involved in what he considers the immoral treatment of animals would be morally defensible. You can't make this stuff up.
But all one has to do is to listen to what they say. I have believed for years that the inexorable result of their thought process, such as it is, would be a kind of terrorism akin to the crazies of the anti-abortion movement and the Islamofascists, who have already used murder as an acceptable tactic. It is as sure and predictable as the sun rising in the East.
Follow their logic: They believe there is no difference between human and animal life. They believe that millions of animals are tortured and murdered every day. To stand by and watch this slaughter is the moral equivalent of silence and inaction in the face of the Nazi Final Solution. As in that gross immorality, going to war against and killing some number of Nazis or animal experimenters or fur producers or meat producers is clearly morally justified if a greater number of victims will be saved. Their logic is full of the assertion that their movement is no different than the movements against slavery or for civil rights or women's rights and that like those movements it faces opposition from the ignorant and benighted supporters of evil, but will eventually triumph.
If they are unable to convince enough of their fellow citizens of the rightness of their stance over time, how many animal lives will they tolerate losing before more "direct" tactics are adopted?
To be fair, most of the major groups specifically abjure, as they put it, harming any being, human or animal. But this limitation is surely nothing but a political stance to avoid massive opposition. The "logic" of the movement, once you accept the absolute equality of humans and animals is inescapable. Were they able to engineer legislation consistent with their views, criminal penalties would surely be required for transgressors.
While they are at it, if it is morally wrong to kill cow or experiment on a rat or monkey, why is the widespread slaughter of insects tolerated. Are they a lesser class of beings? Shouldn't exterminators (look at the horrid resonances of the very word) be included on the enemies list?
But all one has to do is to listen to what they say. I have believed for years that the inexorable result of their thought process, such as it is, would be a kind of terrorism akin to the crazies of the anti-abortion movement and the Islamofascists, who have already used murder as an acceptable tactic. It is as sure and predictable as the sun rising in the East.
Follow their logic: They believe there is no difference between human and animal life. They believe that millions of animals are tortured and murdered every day. To stand by and watch this slaughter is the moral equivalent of silence and inaction in the face of the Nazi Final Solution. As in that gross immorality, going to war against and killing some number of Nazis or animal experimenters or fur producers or meat producers is clearly morally justified if a greater number of victims will be saved. Their logic is full of the assertion that their movement is no different than the movements against slavery or for civil rights or women's rights and that like those movements it faces opposition from the ignorant and benighted supporters of evil, but will eventually triumph.
If they are unable to convince enough of their fellow citizens of the rightness of their stance over time, how many animal lives will they tolerate losing before more "direct" tactics are adopted?
To be fair, most of the major groups specifically abjure, as they put it, harming any being, human or animal. But this limitation is surely nothing but a political stance to avoid massive opposition. The "logic" of the movement, once you accept the absolute equality of humans and animals is inescapable. Were they able to engineer legislation consistent with their views, criminal penalties would surely be required for transgressors.
While they are at it, if it is morally wrong to kill cow or experiment on a rat or monkey, why is the widespread slaughter of insects tolerated. Are they a lesser class of beings? Shouldn't exterminators (look at the horrid resonances of the very word) be included on the enemies list?
posted by Joe Hogan at
1:47 PM
