« on: December 23, 2007, 07:03:41 PM »
Ohstacey, what are your numbers if you don't mind me asking? I've got a friend who has Mercer as their top choice so I'm just trying to compare numbers.
all I know is naturallybeyoutiful's avatar is on pizzoint. Lauryn Hill is fine.
also, it goes both ways harlem. I've dated dark skinned women many a time and have heard comments to the affect of I was only doing so to be more "black" and to compensate..and grass is greener comments etc...wtf??? I guess people should just date people that look like them
This is a long post, but I'll try to be concise.
Animals, as they are not humans, are not entitled to all the rights that humans are entitled to (IMO). Whereas it is never appropriate to kill or even harm humans to help, protect or save other humans, it is sometimes appropriate to impose physical suffering (or even death) upon animals.
I am most disturbed by Vick (and dogfighters in general) because of their motives. In this situation, animals aren't being tortured to further any goal, they are only suffering so that sick people can delight in their torment. This is wrong.
If dogfighting were necessary to cure AIDS or cancer or in some other way benefit humans, I would say go for it, even though these dogs would still have to endure the same pain and suffering. Humans are just more important.
This is why I am less upset about the USDA's practices. Humans are naturally omnivorous and animal flesh is a necessary part of most people's diets. I don't believe, as you claim, that farm animals are "tortured" - I do agree that they suffer physical discomfort and I think this is ok, if unfortunate, because as I said, human needs eclipse animal rights.
That said, humans should not have license to cause gratuitous pain and suffering for animals. Though not human, they have the capacity to feel pain and we should try to keep their discomfort to a minimum.