Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you had read the whole article a little more carefully, you might have noticed that there are other arguments presented, besides that of genetics. I would agree that the genetics arguments is potentially misleading, if not outright bogus.

    Even worse, in my opinion, it bases animal rights solely on their "resemblence", genetic and behaviorally, on humans, which I think is a terrible position for any animal rights activist to take.

    Animal rights should be based on something more concrete, like their ability to suffer or their ability to be "subjects of a life", as Tom Regan says. These are less speciesist and arbitrary than "well, the chimp picks his nose too."

    But to characterize all animal rights activists on the basis of this one article, and this one action, is quite ridiculous.