The Gross National Debt

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

With rights come responsibilities

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you support animal rights?

Before you answer that, think hard about it.

Rights, in this sense, carry with it responsibilities. Rights also mean there are expected behaviors. Violate any of these and the entity with "rights" must be held accountable. That includes punishment.

Still favor animal rights?

Does a lion on the Serengeti have rights? If you say yes, then I ask, does a wildebeest on the Seregenti have rights?

When the lion attacks and kills a wildebeest, are any rights violated?

When a male lion takes over a pride and kills all the baby lions sired by the former pride leader, are the rights of the baby lions violated?

Ain't so easy is it?

What about animal welfare? A far different thing than rights. Me, I strongly support animal welfare.

Me, I do not believe animals have rights.

PETA - not the People Eating Tasty Animals, but the other one, disagrees. Like most people hidebound to an idiotology, PETA members have not bothered to think it through.

ASIDE - I point out here, I have been on the receiving end of death threats from PETA. I have encouraged each and every one of 'em to come over and try. I'm still kicking, still eating deer and wild hogs and the occasional chicken.

Consider this most recent court case filed by PETA. Yes. Most recent. PETA has filed a number of such suits in the past. This news story errs in saying it is the first.
And thank you Lord!

Since this would be a boring piece if I just called PETA what they are, lemme take a step into lunacy and say the court finds the orcas DO have the same rights as enumerated the Constitution as humans.

Some immediate questions come to mind:

1) Will the orcas vote for the current president in the November election? Or will they form yet another political party and put forth their own candidate?

2) Are orcas murderers? In the wild, orcas eat fish and seals and whales, all animals PETA also says have rights. PETA reasons when a human kills a chicken, that's murder. So, under PETA reasoning, orcas are then murderers. Under the Constitution, orcas should be arrested, brought to trial and if found guilty, locked up for a defined amount of time, up to the rest of their life.

Now someone is going to argue these are just animals. Killing each other is what they do naturally and they should not be held accountable for that. They can't understand.

Point of order Mr. Chairman, the PETA brief in this case demands that orcas are capable of reasoning.

Can't have it both ways, except where idiotology reigns supreme.

Idiotology = (a word I coined). An unwavering belief in a system or way of operating and functioning that has only a tenuous relationship with reality and is riddled with fatal flaws. (Arg. Tom Clark rescue me from overly verbose definitions!)


Also, when you start carving out special exceptions in the law, sooner or later the law will be so weak as to be unenforceable. The law must apply equally to all. Otherwise, anarchy.

If I am going to be charged with murder when I shoot a deer, then a coyote that kills a deer must likewise be charger with murder. Otherwise there is a double standard, except PETA refuses to see it that way.
Now this is funny.

PETA also strongly promotes sterilizing pets. The Supreme Court has ruled forced sterilization is a violation of the Constitution. So PETA here is demanding Constitutional protections with their hands and stomping on 'em with both feet at the same time.

Only in the case of idiotology can two contradictory ideas be embraced as a dogma. Idiotology reigns supreme in an organization who's leader Ingrid Newkirk once said "a rat is a pig is a dog is boy."

I fall back on one of my maxims. You set the rules. I'll play by them but I'm also going to make sure the rules apply to everybody equally.

As I conclude, lemme tell you I don't like putting animals in pens. I do think the orcas should be turned loose. Zoos bother me. Hairball, the Clan Baker resident feline, pretty much comes and goes as he pleases.

I accept that some animals need to be confined - extremely rare critters unfortunately need the protection of zoos. Animals used in medical experiments certainly can't be allowed to run loose. However, these animals do need to be treated as well as possible under the circumstances. Animals which will be turned into food do need some sort of enclosure. But we can be reasonable about this.

Reasonable. Rational. This is what I support where animals are concerned. I do not support giving them the same set of rights I have.

No comments:

Post a Comment