PETA's fundraising efforts must be terrifyingly effective. They can afford all this nonsense.

I wonder where one could get ahold of a donors list.

RED ALERT!
I was not aware that this was a problem until my eyes were opened by PETA. If we name a place after something, then it must mean that we eat the thing for which that place was named.

Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Lousiana, Maryland, Columbus, Rome, Harrisburg...

The list goes on and on! In Atlanta, we actually renamed our airport recently after passed (as in "away") Mayor, Maynard Jackson! THE HORROR!

We should not support cannibalism with these names any longer.

Further, due to the health problems that could be caused by eating inedible things, names such as "Rock Springs," "Haines City, and "Ivory Coast" should be changed as well.

Finally, misleading names like "Colorado", "Belle Glade," and "Los Angeles" should be changed as they may lead people to think that we eat things which we cannot or do not and any attempts to do so may lead to injury.

I need to start now composing my letter of thanks to PETA. Without their help, I may have been mislead down a path of misery and stomachache!

The only thing I would help PETA with is to pack their sorry butts up to get out of the country...nay, out of the universe.
Useless, annoying buggers.

We could start with the Dog Days of Summer, followed by dog tired. How about Katmandu? I realize it's spelled with a "K", but it's obviously sounds offensive to felines. What else? Dunno. I saw this article earlier and it made my head hurt so much that it's difficult to think clearly. Ain't that a bitch? Oh no, I've offended female dogs everywhere! It never ends!

We could start with the Dog Days of Summer, followed by dog tired. How about Katmandu? I realize it's spelled with a "K", but it obviously sounds offensive to felines. What else? Dunno. I saw this article earlier and it made my head hurt so much that it's difficult to think clearly. Ain't that a bitch? Oh no, I've offended female dogs everywhere! It never ends!

We could start with the Dog Days of Summer, followed by dog tired. How about Katmandu? I realize it's spelled with a "K", but it obviously sounds offensive to felines. What else? Dunno. I saw this article earlier and it made my head hurt so much that it's difficult to think clearly. Ain't that a bitch? Oh no, I've offended female dogs everywhere! It never ends!

Sorry about the double posting, Heather. Mouse button spasm caused a double submit. Whoops.

Of course, it's campaigns like this that makes PETA so effective.

You can't buy publicity this cheaply.

Think about it; you could produce some ad copy that nobody will read and pay big bucks to run in the newspapers or in magazines. Or you could stage a stunt like this--costing you next to nothing--and get those very publications to run your message for free.

It's called 'guerilla marketing.'

Yes, it turns off those who are pre-disposed to dislike PETA and its cause--but I guarantee the message gets out and converts/donors are cultivated.

If you get the chance, you should do a little research on PETA and how it operates. For a grassroots/barebone political lobby, there are few such advocacy groups that are as effective.

As cynical as that position is, it's probably true. People have to be unbelievably stupid to give any credence to the organization undertakes absurd efforts such as this.

Unfortunately, stupid does happen with shocking frequency as illustrated by PETA’s relative success.

JadeGold:

I know it. Because of aforementioned animal activisim (comments in post yesterday), I get all of the mushy mushy send-us-money stuff from every animal organization.

PETA's got its hooks in celebrity, and so it's got money, and when it's got money, it can hire people and somehow inspire others to do odd things like change their names to, oh, say, GoVeg.com.

I've complimented PETA once because there was actually a press release that made it appear to be a "normal" animal advocacy organization. But otherwise, it's a big irrational bully. And bullies shouldn't win.

I throw out the PETA address labels.

hln

Bullies? I think not. Bullies are large corporations or lobbies who buy politicians. Bullies are the folks with the offices on K Street who produce glossy ads or commercials with paid voiceovers by Hollywood celebrities.

No, PETA is very much in the mom&pop store category of political lobbies. They're merely highly successful at what they do.

I note you didn't dispute the irrational part.

hln

I'd dispute they're irrational; they've a plan of action and they're executing it very well.

Again, if your pre-disposed to oppose PETA's message--they'll drive you up the wall. You'll hate them. You're not their target audience.

Having a plan should not be mistaken for being rational.

One should also not mistake economic power with the power of force.

I may not be their target audience but I would wager that I'm their target.

Having a plan doesn't mean you're rational. Of course, there's nothing irrational about PETA's objectives. Certainly their accomplishments have been impressive.

And make no mistake--economic power can be force. And force isn't always bad or good; even in the libertarian utopia, force is a vital component.

I doubt you're PETA's target, Trey. Unless you feel threatened by an inability to harm animals or other peoples' diets.

PETA's accomplishments are not certainly impressive and their objectives are patently irrational.

PETA explicitly pursues rights for animals but animals do not have rights. That contradiction is the very definition of irrational.

And this statement "economic power can be force" is false. There really isn't anything else one can say about that as the very definition of economic power divorces it from coercive efforts. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The question about force isn't that whether or not it does exist but where the right to wield it should lie. It lies only in the hands of the government and should be used only to protect the rights of individuals.

In PETA's efforts to support the myth of "animal rights" they seek to use the power of the government to infringe upon the rights of humans.

That makes all of us their targets.

To the contrary, Trey; PETA has done some amazing things considering they're very much a mom&pop advocacy group. Just a few, off the top of my head, include changing the US consumer attitudes toward fur, reducing the use of animal testing in consumer products (notably cosmetics), expanding the number of vegetarians/vegans, getting tougher legislation in animal adoption and breeding.

Perhaps their biggest victory has been the development of animal rights (vice animal welfare) as a viable legal concept. You can deny animals have rights but the courts do not agree with you.

WRT economic power being coercive--of course it can be. Coercion, by definition, is to compel an act or a choice. Given enough economic power, an individual or an organization can easily run roughshod over the rights of an individual.

To claim PETA's efforts to promote animal rights "infringes" on human rights is rather funny. How does not being able to torture an animal infringe on your rights?

Trey,

One quick thing that really doesn't have much to do with PETA (as I'll explain).

Animals don't have rights, correct, but they do have something that I can't quite define in a quick sentence, so I'll provide you with an illustration.

You break into my house. You steal a houseplant, one of my cats, and a very rare expensive book. Two of the three things are replaceable, and I'll just shrug it off - the houseplant and the book.

But that cat - that cat has a personality. That cat is more than just my property, he or she is an everyday part of my life - you will have taken a part of my life from me. When my house was broken into a couple of years ago, the glass door was smashed to bits. Once Brian and I ensured no one was in the house, you can guess what we looked for - the cats. They all stayed and did not run away.

The reason this isn't relevant to PETA is because PETA is so radical that it would, as its true aim, take away my cats. It doesn't believe that animals should be kept as pets (though the propaganda PETA sends you often shows a kitten in the arms of a little girl). I believe it thinks humans and animals should have no interaction.

So when you see PETA asking for KFC to better the slaughterhouse conditions of its suppliers, what you must also know is that if KFC caves and kowtows to PETA's whim of the week, THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. The ultimate goal is that there IS no KFC. (And I don't think that really fits in with Yum!'s business plans, heh.)

hln

I think you've definitely highlighted an important issue here - the uniqueness and personal value of a pet - that make PETA's goals all that more personal and offensive.

Not ONLY are they trying to take away your rights for the sake of giving animals free-riegn, they want to deny you snuggles.

Can you imagine anything more fiendish?

ALSO, I know lots of animals that really can't survive on their own. They're super nice, but egads they aren't fit for the wild.

PETA would have them just die.

PETA is haters.

I have to disagree with the assertion that economic power isn't coercive.

Since we all seem to be educated here, I'm presuming it's understood that government can be defined as the social institution that holds exclusive rights to exert coercive force, in the name of justice. I like to point out that I only obey laws because, if I don't, I will be shot. (Try it: ignore that parking ticket, and the summons that follows, and the warrant after that, then evade the police, and when they do catch up, resist the arrest. Eventually, you comply, or you get shot.)

Economic "incentive" can be coercive in two ways. It may lead to the use of force (I didn't pay that ticket because I couldn't afford to) or it may coerce directly. Dying of hunger is just as scary as being shot, and in our culture, not being able to afford the right clothes, home or car might incite more fear than having your physical freedom restrained.

Indeed, if there were no coercive quality to economic power, where would that leave free market theories? I believe capitalism is firmly rooted in the coercive power of economics, as controlled by the people through the market, in an equilibrium with the coercive power of government (ostensibly also controlled by the people).

To deny the coercive power of economics is to deny the viability of capitalism. That makes Trey a communist. So there's my conclusion: Trey Givens is a pinko socialist!

Oh, and back on topic. PETA asserts that animals have as many, if not more, rights than humans. This is a bit bizarre, and certainly qualifies as a radical viewpoint. I don't think "irrational" is fair, though.

If I shared that particular viewpoint, I would be quite pleased with their efforts to expand the reach of it throughout society. In many cases, I wish the issues that are dear to me had as strong a social lobbying group behind them. There is nothing irrational with attempting to sway public opinion by drawing attention to your cause with outlandish statements and enlisting celebrity endorsement.

If PETA is irrational, then so is Madison avenue and the western economy it drives. Once again, we can only conclude that Trey is a Marxist.

WRT pets, you're placing the cart before the horse. Pets are domesticated animals; most couldn't or cannot survive in the wild because man created this situation. We've bred this condition into certain animals.

This raises an interesting contradiction in Heather's post about animal personalities: isn't it a bit more than bizarre to hug, pamper, and generally fawn over one animal and, OTOH, subject other animals to live in filthy conditions, slaughter them and then stick a fork in them?

As to pets, PETA isn't calling for everyone to toss their pets into the woods. PETA recognizes the fact this would be cruel and inhumane conduct to subject animals--many of whom have no hunting or survival skills--to the wild. Instead, PETA is at the forefront of spaying/neutering, cracking down on unscrupulous breeders (puppy mills), and ensuring animals who are pets are treated well.

As for animals having more rights than humans, I think we can agree this was an unfortunate bit of hyperbole. Nobody could seriously believe this. And the fact is, animal rights--however limited--does exist. In fact, a number of rather prominent law schools offer courses or programs in animal rights law including Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers, Northwestern. The Bar Associations of several states including Texas, California, New York, and Michigan have animal rights sections.

I like to point out that I only obey laws because, if I don't, I will be shot. (Try it: ignore that parking ticket, and the summons that follows, and the warrant after that, then evade the police, and when they do catch up, resist the arrest. Eventually, you comply, or you get shot.)

I like to point out that even in a libertarian utopia, this would be true. Any viable social system will have a means of enforcing its laws and regulations. Said means will certainly involve coercive force.

Wow! So much has been said since I check last!

Well, first let me address Hans because he's closer to right than JadeGold.

Economic power is not in any way coercive. This point is not counter to Capitalism but, in fact, a cornerstone of market economics.

You not paying your bill, no matter your reason, is an act of theft, or in gentler terms, a breach of contract at best. That constitutes the initiation of the use of force and can only be justly addressed with force in return. (It is the equivalent of self-defense.) JadeGold actually has this right. So, this is why your property is seized in payment and you lose court cases over it. In extreme cases, the police may come and kick in your door.

The indirect argument you posed doesn't hold because regardless of your need, no one owes it to you to lower prices so you can afford their goods. You don't have a right to anyone else's property. Period.

So, yes, you may starve. But no one is forcing you to starve. What if no one had any food? Who is the criminal then? It is actually this somewhat innocuous thought that leads to the ugliness of communism.

Part of the mistake here is the definition that is being used: According to JadeGold “Coercion, by definition, is to compel an act or a choice.” That's not wholly true because it is perfectly valid to say, "I am compelled by a rational argument to act in certain ways" without referring to having been forced. Coercion is more accurately defined as “compelling someone to act by threat or force.”

Capitalism, you see, is not rooted in the coercive power of economics. Capitalism and the free market are established by removing the use of force to the proper realm of government only and withholding it from the market.

The role of the government is to protect our rights from acts of force like theft and fraud. Because I’m not allowed to beat you up and take your money, I am obliged to trade you something for it if I want it. And the market economy is born in the moment that you and I realize that we cannot deal with one another as warlords, but rather as traders; businessmen.

This is why libertarians and classical liberals support a separation of trade and state. It is because economic power is not coercive.

So, let it be established and accepted that economic power is not coercive.

As for JadeGold’s position, clearly no agreement will be met here.

Rights are distinct and unique to a single species on this planet – humans, by virtue of the nature of their consciousness. Animals do not posses this consciousness and simply do not have rights. That’s why we’re allowed to own them, eat them, raise them, and treat them literally as we please because animals are our property.

So, to answer your question, “How does not being able to torture an animal infringe on your rights?” I would say, “Because it’s my animal to do with as I please.”

PETA’s accomplishments without any regard due to their size and solely this reason are not impressive, admirable, or in any way virtuous, but utterly and categorically counter to the establishment and protection of human rights. You may call this hyperbole but it is the logical extension of the argument that animals have rights.

And finally, I am not interested in whether or not the court agrees with this position. I am interested, rather, in the truth and the rational position. I’ve established that both the position of the court and that of PETA are unsound.

Here's an interesting article that addresses the myth of animal rights if anyone is interested:

http://www.objectivistcenter.com/articles/smcpherson_amimal-rights-circus.asp

So, Trey, what you're really trying to say is that the follow-up to this post has turned into a circus? :)

You haven't addressed my three property items stolen from my home - the book, the plant, and my cat.

hln

Um... I don't have those things of yours.

I do have some nice plants, though. Since the people-hating peoples of the world haven't started waging battles for plant's rights, I would be more than happy to give you some cuttings if you want.

Trey engages in breathtaking variety of logical fallacies. Let's look at a few.

Rights are distinct and unique to a single species on this planet – humans, by virtue of the nature of their consciousness. Animals do not posses this consciousness and simply do not have rights.

False premise. Who says rights are distinct and unique to a single species? Segregationists say rights are distinct and unique to whites. Going still further back, it was asserted rights should only be afforded to white, male, land-owning, Christians. Their assertion is as valid as Trey's.

I would say, “Because it’s my animal to do with as I please.”

Ignores reality. Take your pet to your frontyard and take a blowtorch to it in full view of your neighbors. It should be amusing to listen to your assertions of "it’s my animal to do with as I please" in court.

PETA’s accomplishments without any regard due to their size and solely this reason are not impressive, admirable, or in any way virtuous, but utterly and categorically counter to the establishment and protection of human rights.

Subjective and opinion not based upon supporting evidence. To date, Trey has not shown how his rights in any way would be mitigated--with the possible exception of some vague desire to torture animals.

As for PETA's accomplishments; they cannot be denied. And size does matter--remember, PETA is an advocacy group whose constituency can't write a check. As to whther PETA is "admirable" or "virtuous"--those are highly subjective terms. For example, I don't consider country/western music to be good music--but I can't deny it's a multi-billion dollar business and that it attracts a lot of redneck yahoos, er, fans.

And finally, I am not interested in whether or not the court agrees with this position.

Sloppy argument. One could use this very same line of reasoning to defend racial discrimination, violence, etc.

So, let it be established and accepted that economic power is not coercive.

And this has been amply demonstrated in all those nations which have adopted and embraced the libertarian ideal. Like...uh...welll...er..

Of course, economic power is coercive. In fact, I'll take a step further: economic power is more coercive than military might or police force.

I've gotta hit the gym but I'll leave with these two thoughts WRT the idea of "we cannot deal with one another as warlords, but rather as traders; businessmen" : the very nature of capitalism is to destroy competition, and has anyone ever heard of the 1950's Princeton game/experiment known as The Prisoners' Dilemma?

Alright, I was just having fun calling you a commie, but I can't let this one go. Three comments for three points:

"So, let it be established and accepted that economic power is not coercive."

This is absurd. Coercion is based on force, and power is force. You might as well say "economic coercion is not power." Your assertions would make "economic power" a meaningless concept: if there is no coercive component, what do you mean, exactly, when you say "economic power?"

No more Richard Salsman for you.

You read into my earlier comment that I believed I had a right to the property of others. It's as if you took my assertion that there is a coercive component to economic power and read the entire Communist Manifesto between the lines and decided I was a Marxist. Just because I'm left of you socially doesn't mean I'm left of you economically, careful with the generalizations.

I still hold that capitalism (and communism) rests on the force of economics. I also agree that another cornerstone is the delegation of physical force to government. In fact, these two play off each other in a delicate balance.

The government is to use physical force to keep the marketplace focused entirely on economic power. By preventing the thug from robbing the wage earner, we try to maintain an ecosystem where fitness selection is based on the ability to earn, not the ability to beat up others. If you let the anarchists have their way and distribute all power to the people, physical force will quickly reign and we are not rewarded for merit, but for muscle.

That ability to earn, though, is still a power. In fact, a lot of our legal foundations seem dedicated to maintaining the balance the other way: keep the government out of the economic sphere... this prevents the conversion of physical force into economic force. If you let the economic liberals have their way, the government becomes the locus of both forms of power, and people are rewarded not for merit, but for birthright (monarchy), social connections (communism), or popularity (democracy).

I presume this is why you despise anti-trust legislation: it shifts too much power into the government, which in the present state of our society, rewards those who have the right connections at the expense of those who have the best product. [Don't get me started about your favorite case of application, though, for it's far from that simple and quite debatable whether merit has played a role at all.]

I contend that the rise of economic power has enabled civilization, and the unique balance achieved by allocating physical power to representative government (for enforcing personal rights and protecting the market) and economic power to and open market is the recipe that has led to the success of western republics.

We have (had?) a great check-and-balance in our society. A representative government looks after the common good, because every person gets one vote. The open market, though, rewards the clever (thus not stifling motivation to work and innovate) and pushes forward guided only towards economic growth. Hence, our wealth and our liberty are both cared for, sometimes at odds, sometimes in harmony, but not at each other's expense.

Please, no blowtorches, conceptual or otherwise, to prove points.

JadeGold - I disagree with one thing, and that's the concept of actual rights with animals. Rights, like morality, are man made; they are not inherent. I think what we who believe they are more than mere property would aim to ascribe to them is something else. But I'm not sure what that is. It's like you said, they can't vote. But they're obviously living, breathing beings, and I assert that they feel pain and love and have some intuition as to how "their humans" are feeling as well. So, I'm not sure how to properly objectify what that is, but I also cannot elevate animals to the same status as human beings. That being said, for those who abuse animals (acid thrown on dogs seems quite popular here), I'm in favor of the strictest possible non-incarceration punishment; make these people social pariahs for the rest of their lives within their current social settings.

And, Trey, until you return my proverbial cat and explain why it's the same as my proverbial book and my proverbial plant, I can't buy your argument completely.

What I do agree with: "The indirect argument you posed doesn't hold because regardless of your need, no one owes it to you to lower prices so you can afford their goods. You don't have a right to anyone else's property. Period." From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Pleh!

hln

For the record, I am not an advocate of animal rights, and if I even find myself agreeing with PETA it would be for health or environmental impact purposes. Regardless, I think you need to defend your assertion that rights are unique to humans as a species. Can you isolate the genes that grant us this status?

Rights, like morality, are man made; they are not inherent. I think what we who believe they are more than mere property would aim to ascribe to them is something else.

Congratulations, Heather. You're making progress away from the libertarian notion of natural law/inherent rights.

Truly, rights (and laws) are man made; as such, they evolve over time. As I mentioned previously, were it not for evolving rights--the only people who would enjoy such rights would be white, Christian, land-owning males.

Currently, animals enjoy (if that's the word) approximately the same degree of rights as slaves. But that's evolving.

If animals gain greater rights, it has no impact on human rights. Those who use such an argument are pretending there's a discrete, finite quantity of rights and if you give some to one party--it's at the expense of another.

Don't be so quick to place labels on things you don't know. One, because it's my blog. Two, because it's bad argument and bad form to attack a person instead of a concept. This has the potential of going downhill fast and for no good reason. I thought we'd covered that and moved on. You're certainly capable of good discourse, JadeGold. Stay within that realm, please. So long as you do, you're welcome to comment on anything.

That being said, I finally found the word I'm looking for. I'm fighting for (working for might perhaps be a better way of putting it) animal welfare, not animal rights. I'll have a post up on this in the next few days based on a discussion I had last evening and some surrounding events.

hln

It wasn't a label, Heather. It was an observation and my congratulations were sincere. It's refreshing to see self-described libertarians move away from the idea of natural law and inherent rights.

I don't really have time to get into a long post this time. I may not post again either, due to the fruitlessness that is coming to bear on this line, which I’ve previously predicted.

Here's a quote from the article I mentioned that sums up my position succinctly:

Animals do not have rights. The entire concept of rights is an invention of man’s rational faculty, a moral concept that denotes the requisite conditions under which human beings must be allowed to live, if they wish to do so, according to their nature. In order for this to take place it is often necessary that men and women use animals, like other resources around them, to accomplish their ends. This can be for food, clothing, and yes, even entertainment.

This doesn't mean that it's not possible for there to be some non-human creature with rights (Should such a creature exist, it should be granted full protection under reason as well as the law.) and it's not to say that there aren't humans without all the rights I have. (Prisoners, for example, do not have freedom of movement any more.) It is simply that rights are not requisite for the survival of animals as animals. Animals survive "by tooth and claw."

If you disagree, what do you suppose a "right" is? Where does it come from?

I would gather from the insistence on the examples regarding legalities of animal torture that the response may be that rights are granted to us by the government and the law-making bodies in particular. Suffice it to say that I'm glad that others, including our founding fathers had the insight to disagree.

I'd also add that rights do not literally "evolve." It would be more accurate to say that over time our understanding of the conditions required for humans to survive among one another as humans has grown. (I suppose that I'm engaging in epistemological hair-splitting here.) That is to say, the concept of rights may change, but rights themselves, do not.

The other implication made in above posts is that perhaps rights are developed by some consensus. That is actually how rights were ever restrained to white, Christian, land-owning males in the first place.

It is because animals do not have rights that we as humans with rights can own them and do with them as we please. To refer to animals as "slaves" is simply a misappropriation of the word "slave" which only refers to humans. (Heather, it actually isn’t proper that your cat be treated as more important than your plant or book in the eyes of the law. But I have no doubt that it is more important to you.)

It isn't sloppy to say that I'm not interested in the agreement of the court or anyone else, ultimately. (Point of fact, also, that's not really a debatable argument. I'm simply telling you about my interest which is as I stated it.) It would, in fact, be a betrayal of my integrity to accept any other authority over my own. So, sure, some people might use such a position to defend all sorts of horrors. That's precisely why that line of argumentation should be abandoned. An "appeal to authority" is actually faulty argumentation in itself.

As our case stands at present, I have established what a right is, where it comes from, why animals are excluded from possessing such, and rest on these as evidence of our right to ownership of animals much in the same way that we can own anything. The specious granting of rights to animals, thus, represents the treacherous “liberation” of our property. Thieving, if you will, which, as we agree, is a violation of our rights.

Nope, Trey, you haven't established a thing--other than you hold an opinion you can't defend.

I do think it very amusing, however, when you haughtily assert it "would, in fact, be a betrayal of my integrity to accept any other authority over my own" when you have previously adnmitted that you only obey laws out of a fear of "being shot."

It must be difficult to live in a constant state of alternating between the betrayal of your own integrity and a fear of being shot.

JadeGold engages in a breathtaking variety of logical fallacies – here and in other forums. Let's just look at his/her most consistent error (aside from just being wrong.):

Nope, Trey, you haven't established a thing...

"Nah-ah" and "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" are not counter-arguments.

And Jade, I didn't say that I obey laws to keep from getting shot, Hans did.

I'm starting to get the impression that you aren't really reading the arguments here but that you're simply being contrary. As I recall, you have actually stated on another website that you comment to sites just to stir up conflict because you think agreement is boring.

“There's nothing more boring than a forum where everyone is singing the same tune. I actively seek controversy; it engages my attention and I think I learn more simply by virtue of having to think through a variety of viewpoints.”

It’s too bad that you’ve haven’t shown a propensity for actually thinking through those arguments counter to your own or else we would have gotten somewhere by now.

Taking an irrational position in order to exercise one’s skills in debate and demonstrate the strength of the rational position is perhaps a helpful exercise in some situations, but if you hold to it by simply denying the arguments counter to your own position you’re exercising nothing but obstinacy and demonstrating the nature of what can only be properly named “evil.” Given my observations of past discussions in which you’ve participated, though, practicing obstinacy along with generating blatantly stupid assertions to the end of frustrating those who would practice reason does seem to be your business.

I suppose congratulations are now in order. Ever the optimist, I would say that your success in being stupid and obstinate is rivaled only by your jaw-dropping lack of manners.

The fruitlessness of this debate has now come to pass in accordance with prophecy.

Trey:

I recall those are my words but I can't seem to get the link to work; would you be so kind as to furnish the URL? TIA.

The fact is, Trey, that you post an opinion--often with little or no supporting evidence--then you puff out your chest and proudly proclaim you have established an immutable fact. Example: you claim animals have no rights. That's fine. It's an opinion. But you then you assert this as a fact beyond any dispute or discussion and that anyone who disagrees is stealing your rights, evil, stupid, hater, etc.

It's a prime example of newspeak.

And it's not the hallmark of an educated person. You have a marked tendency to attack the person, or group, and not the argument.

You've mischaracterized PETA's positions on a number of issues (e.g., claiming PETA wants all pets to be forcibly returned to the wild); a simple Google search would have proven you wrong.

You're even above the law, Trey. You only recognize your own internal justice system. So, when the US legal system does actually confer some small measure of rights to animals--it's not part of Trey's mental jurisdiction.

But Trey's misconceptions, errors, misstatements and fabrications are Trey's opinions. And Trey regards his opinions as facts. Thus, we have come full circle in Trey's Brave New World. It is as He, Trey, has prophesized.

It's like watching The Matrix without the special effects but many more laughs.

Heh heh heh...

"You continue to affirm my opinion of you."

Neener Neener!

I should have heeded the signs, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Trey:

You forgot to roll your eyes, sigh dramatically, exclaim "whatever," and flounce away.

Wouldn't want to lose drama queen points, you know.

See?

So, Hans.... where were we?

See?

So, Hans.... where were we?