|
Stronger2day -> RE: Spanish court grants apes rights. (6/28/2008 1:53:07 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux quote:
We will hear more of this in the future, and it will be more than preventing animal cruelty. By evaluating the specific terminology used to explain their position, one can easily see that the gates have been opened to push the issue further in the future. If I may ask, what do you believe the consequences in the future might be? OK, allow me to locate my thinking cap….and some coffee. If I were to theorize a possible route…. First, get the majority of the population agreeing to protect animals under the guise of eliminating animal cruelty when in fact the language may suggest intent to press evolutionary theory. Once that ‘comfort’ has been obtained, now we give more protection over time some of the primates. The ‘rights’ may first be afforded with those sharing 95% DNA similarities, next monkeys up to 88%. We may then argue that rodents shouldn’t be excluded (while only 25% or so shared DNA). Now let’s apply rights, not based on DNA groupings, but to all animals- because we are ALL just animals-right? We are eventually, even if over a significant period of time, in a place where animals are extended comparable rights to humans. In short can’t eat them and don’t think about accidentally running over one. Again, PETA would LOVE to start pushing this thinking through. Take a look at what they are pushing through in some of the (US) states now. It looks innocent, but I do feel there will be more to come from this. Had the language of the proposed law excluded: "...our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans”, and "This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades” I would be much less skeptical. Also, I feel that this language represents a thumbing of noses to our Savior with evolutionary references. While I admit my ‘draft theory’ may be significantly flawed, I am demonstrating a route by which the envelope could be pushed. One may use the homosexual marriage as an example. It took one ‘brick’ at a time, but somehow that ‘wall’ has been built (using previous poster’s verbiage). The ‘majority’ doesn’t agree, yet somehow our lovely US courts have opined it though. Combine US courts and unscrutinizing citizens and anything is possible.
|
|
|
|