Comments on: We the Animals: Legalize the Constitution

By: Melissa

Melissa — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:02:29 +0000

No one should be a slave. EVERYONE owns themselves. Ban speciesism.

By: Laurella Desborough

Laurella Desborough — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:46:08 +0000

The sad thing is that the average person is being duped by the propaganda of the animal rights which has been promoted for the past 25 years in the media and even in the schools! I believe the average person likes animals and wants animals to be well cared for…just as most animal owners do. We people who like animals and who work with animals enjoy them and care about them. We often put their care ahead of our own. The average person would be shocked to know the truth about the animal rights agenda…and in my opinion, they would NOT support it.

By: Noah

Noah — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:15:03 +0000

In the Bible, before God destroyed the earth with a flood, he ordered Noah and his family to gather the animals 2 x 2, male and female, and place them on the ark so that their species could reproduce and survive to replenish the earth.

With the animal’s natural habitat again being threatened with destruction from poaching, logging, bush meat, human encroachment, disease, and even civil war, these animals today have the same ‘right’ to survive as a species….to be gathered and protected by human caretakers, much as God ordered Noah to do.

The animal’s needs today are the same as they were on the ark: food, water, shelter, a safe environment, the companionship of each other and the humans who labor to care for them.

People truly concerned with the welfare and survival of animals are the ones who provide this care; whether it be on an ark, in a sanctuary, a zoo, or their homes, but most importantly, in their hearts.

It is labor, not lip service, that will save the animals from destruction, and for most who provide it, it is truly a labor of love.

By: SM

SM — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:52:35 +0000

ardeth, please tell me: if all animals are ‘freed’ from ’slavery’ by humans, what happens to all the pets? Do you think domestic cats and dogs will survive such release? Do you care? What about the exotic pets which were not born in the wild - do you honestly think they’d survive? If you do, please: check out the research on these topics.

How free from cruelty is the wild anyway, hm? Do you honestly think ‘freed animal slaves’ would all eat grass and flowers to survive?

How cruel it would be to grant false ‘freedom’ - DEATH - and destroy millions of animals whose main joy in life is to be with and please their human owners. That’s the ultimate goal of the Animal Rights Industry: complete separation of humanity from everything else alive on this planet. Oh - you don’t think PeTA, HSUS, ALF and their friends wouldn’t eventually demand such a thing, should caring humanity not wake up and demand the HUMAN rights our Constitution guarantees? Think again - and do some research.

A world without humans interacting with animals. Think about it. Do you really want to live there?

By: Tannim

Tannim — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:17:23 +0000

Sorry, ardeth, you’re comparing apples and oranges. You’re also very naive if you think human and non-human animals are the same thing, because they aren’t. There is no such thing as “animal slavery”. Never has been, either. Animals are domesticated for human companionship, assistance, and in some cases food. ARistas are ignorant of the symbiotic and beneficial relationship betweeen humans and domesticated animals. Right now my wife is fast asleep on the sofa with our whippet, hardly a slave, fast asleep with her, and he luxuriates in being with her. Our dogs provide us with sanity in an insane world, unconditional love, protection, and we are repsonsible for them by taking care of them and loving them back. They benefit and we benefit, so WTF is the problem???

I feel kind of sorry for you that you’ll never understand the love of a pet. You really have no idea what you are missing, and it’s quite a lot.

I just want to protect that little bit of happiness I have and protect my loving and loved pets from ignoranuses like you who think they know what’s best for me but really have less of a clue than a Milton Bradley factory.

One last thing: property rights exist only in the human world. So do inalienable constitutional and human rights. They exist as a means to separate us from the animal world, so we can coexist. They don’t exist in the animal world where it’s eat or be eaten. If you understodd human history you’d know that.

By: pork chop

pork chop — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:07:24 +0000

Yo animals rights people.. looks like someone has been reading Peter Singer and that someone think maybe sex with animals is OK.. as long as no one is harmed.. and both animal and human have their “interests protected”.. That is what Singer.. a leader in the Animal Rights “movement” espouses..Do you agree?

“The rights of animals to exsist wihtout being exploited”???? Sure.. so let’s not let the lion eat the zebra.. nor the fox eat the chicken.. nor the chicken eat the worm.. after all that is one “non human animal” exploiting another..right dowm the food chain…

You are right about one thing.. humans are thinking feeling beings.. I think I feel like a burger…

By: ardeth

ardeth — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:52:09 +0000

Yo Rexano, If you really believe your biggest enemies are “extreme” animal rights activists, then you’re not keeping up with current events. Here’s a working definition of animal rights: “the rights of animals to exist without being exploited by humans.” What part of that do you have a problem with? The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it was passed when the U.S. still legally condoned human slavery. Slaves were considered property by such otherwise enlightened gentlemen as Thomas Jefferson. Eventually human slavery was declared illegal. And eventually, animal slavery will be declared illegal. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but it’ll happen. Animals, like humans, are thinking, feeling beings. That people like you want to selfishly keep them as property (slaves) with no more legal protection than a plasma screen TV is unconscionable, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that.

By: NorCalTim

NorCalTim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:58:07 +0000

PROTECT YOUR NEIGHBOR
Hello fellow American. I will keep this short. The American Pit Bull Terrier is a proud part of American history. Remember “Our Gang”? Spanky and friends had a dog named Pete. He was an APBT. They represent everything that is is to be American. This is “to be smart, strong and family orientated”. Please do not let the actions of a few punish the many. I spoke with a man who delivered a Fed Ex package to me. He liked my dog (although she looks intimidating as well as friendly). With 30 years of delivering packages for Fed Ex he had NEVER come across a vicious APBT.
Do some cold calling and surveys of delivery people. See what kind of experiences they have had with the APBT.
PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED
Just as Hitler came for those who could not stick up for themselves, BSL is trying to eradicate (as well as take away rights never to be brought back - rights Americans and theirs dogs fought and died for) an entire species.
Please vistit The Connecticut Military Department web site at http://www.ct.gov/mil/site/. There you will find an article to read about Stuby the war dog. It is under “History and Adventure”.
May god forgive us for the attempt to kill off a species (1,ooo+ killed off in Colorado with a 1 year jail term for dog owners). To limit one APBT per family is like China limiting people to one child. A limit like this WILL create puppy mills. This breed loves to play. To watch two American Pit Bull Terriers at play is pure joy (especially a momma and her pup). This is a property right issue. If property rights continue to be limited, owners are forced to leave and seek a new life else where.
Remember, the rights that are “THE MOST IMPORTANT TO PROTECT, ARE THE RIGHTS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN”. Sincerely, Another American under constant attack

By: timbalionguy

timbalionguy — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:52:07 +0000

It is obvious from the language that Eric used in the first sentence of his post that his his (ungiven) definition of ‘acceptable contact’ is apparently pretty narrow. On one hand, he says that AR activists are ‘not for eliminating all human and non-human animal contact’, and then he says ‘Sounds like someone is upset their slaves might be taken from them’. If Eric is subscribing to typical AR beliefs, then simply having a pet is ‘exploitation’. You do not have to do much research to realize that the big AR groups are for the total elimination of any contact between humans and animals. Furthermore, notice that Eric is using the term ‘non-humans’ to describe animals. This terminology is an example of a ‘loaded phrase’ designed to ascribe some ‘right’ to animals they simply do not have, or to evoke strong emotions in the reader.

I believe that all animals, whether they are being petted, shown, worked, or eaten should be treated humanely. Animals should never be treated in an overtly cruel manner. Animals need to be treated with respect for who they are– not elevated to the same level as humans, with human rights. Yet, the AR groups are trying their darndest to change the meaning of words and pharases to make what would be considered by most people to be humane treatment to instead imply things like ‘torture’ or ‘exploitation’.

Don’t believe everything you read. Do research, get the facts. Ask questions. Watch for abusive use of language. And you will quickly see the sham the AR folks are trying to pull over on you!

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:44:51 +0000

Sounds like someone’s upset their slaves might be taken away from them.

And just so your readers know, AR activists don’t want to eliminate human and non-human animal contact. They want to eliminate the human exploitation and harm of animals. If humans and non-humans interact beyond that, with their interests respected, then there’s little to fault.