the flump

child has the potential capability to vote and is afforded all other human right's,because they are...you guessed it, human. could you suggest how i prove im not an animal right's extremist? because i wouldnt meet anyone i met online and i can't send picture's (not that im sure what either of those would prove) ive met one lad off here who sold me a terrier pup which didnt work out and i gave back to him,but he couldnt testify to me not being an anti because i barely know him. can you prove you arent an anti? pictures=fake people you met online=other anti's etc etc in answ

you find animal 'abuse' disgusting,i find gay people disgusting ,some find having kid's out of marriage disgusting,i could go on should we ban all of these?

regardless of if it feel's emotion's or not it is property,because for now it has no right's it cannot vote etc if and when they do gain right's you will no longer be able to 'imprison' the animal's who live with you and certainly won't be able to kill and eat them. if you feel strongly on the subject research it.

ok why dont i have the right to do with my property as i see fit (in 1 sentence please) and how am i an animal right's activist's dream? by trying to spread the idea that animal right's (and welfare legislation) infringe human right's? i have the capability to understand your emotion based argument,you cannot understand my logic based one.

so i can safely say you do not believe you should be able to treat your property as you see fit, and that we should have the moral's of the government of the time imprinted onto our human right's. thanks for clarifying.

i agree with your last line scothunter,but different people have different moral's,can you agree with that? And as long as it doesnt affect people or infringe on our right's we should be able to live,think ,act and treat our property as we see fit. now i wouldnt see it as acceptable to treat my property like that,but that's my prerogative,i also personally find gay people disgusting but i would never try to legislate on how they act/think/feel etc do you genuinely not understand my point?

if you truly understand the concept of animal rights and what that would entail and the effect it would have on human right's yet still support it you are imo a deluded freedon hating individual. I have my own morality/opinion's they may not be the same as your's,however, i unlike you would not try to legislate my own moral's/opinion,especially when it concern's PROPERTY.

respect's definition is a matter of opinion, im talking about keeping moral attitudes concerning how you treat property down to the individual,not telling people how to think,feel etc. then the animal right's activist's wouldnt have any room to push through hunting legislation,or be able to harass innocent people like they do.

don't worry though danw there's no need to think for yourself,im sure the government will look after you

i believe a man was recently questioned by the rspca in a police station while a police officer quietly over seen the interview. you dont think they are gaining in power then? and if animal right's take a hold do you not think they will continue to gain yet more power?

I know an animal doesnt think like us,so what you are saying is we should give animals right's and then pander to them and serve them because they cannot comprehend that they must be responsible for the freedom you want to give them? so we should serve and have less right's than animals?

an animal cannot have right's because it cannot be responsible for the freedom's those right's permit.

im not doing any study lol im just blessed to be able to understand and even accept another's argument, unlike many on this thread. i believe that we have to now choose whether animals will have right's or be property. if you disagree that animals are property and should as sentient being's have right's, i'd respect that argument. animal right's activist's are making big step's through animal welfare legislation,soon there will be compulsory inspection's needed from political animal right's organization's (R.S.P.C.A,PETA,LAC's etc etc) to own animal's and i believe eventually this will l

again scothunter, it doesnt have the RIGHT to live thats a fact as it can legally be euthanized. i never said it didnt deserve to as thats down to an individual opinion.

not interested in getting into a slanging match with anyone here's another link against animal right's (which animal welfare legislation leads to) http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html and here's the alternative http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/wildlife/360285/enshrining_legal_rights_for_the_planet.html i'd also like to say imo ive never caused any animal to suffer as I find it morally wrong but thats just me,some believe it's morally wrong to have children out of marriage, again moral's can not and should not be legislated. form an