The writer of the article makes a mistake pretty early on. He states that "The so-called "animal rights" movement is relying upon...". Then he puts down these premises that he somehow states are theirs. First of all there is no animal rights movement as one big machine. Animal rights are as human rights, an ideology. Different groups that work towards establishing fundamental rights for animals have different thoughts about many things. Some say: eat organic meat, others say don't eat meat at all. So the writers starts his article with a twisted assumption.
He states that we can kill because it's the way of nature. I think our conscience for one makes us different from animals. The writer probably feels he has more in common with a more primitive version of the homo sapiens than I do. That's fine, but don't speak for all humanity. He says we can kill for the reason of usefullness as long as we don't make a species extinct. Does that authorize him to kill people if he feels there are too many and killing some provides him with anything?
The article gets more ignorant every line, jeez. In short he states that because we are stronger and more intelligent we have the right to use, kill and do whatever we want to those who are not. Survival of the fittest he calls it. This holds no ground, whatsoever. We are indeed superior in intelligence. Because of that we can see and understand that animals know suffering, anxiety, pain etc. We are giving the tools, I say by nature he says through god, to shape the world. That some people, like the writer, use these tools to acknowledge their superiority over animals is a primitive thing. I am stronger, so you are mine to do as I please? Wasn't that the essence of slavery?
"Those people among us who would give lower animals human rights do not do it because they love other animals. They do it because they hate humankind. They hate the fact that their own superior nature as intellectual beings gives them superior challenges which they shrink from by attempting to deny the superiority of their human nature." This is bogus. Maybe I do love animals and maybe I don't. That´s not the point. I accept my ´superiority´ as a human being but with that I also accept the responsibility that comes with it (Spiderman quote anyone?) to do my best that no animals AND humans suffer.
"Animal rights" is just one more diabolic scheme for promoting government control over human lives by destroying our right to private property." Ah, the holy private property thing. I goes very well with the individualism that's getting bigger and bigger. Calling this a daibolical scheme is paranoid, cause governments aren't the biggest animal lovers themselves.
Overall, the article is pretty presumptious and written by someone who apparently is so happy to be a mighthy human being that he looks like the stereotypical bully on the playground. Picking on smaller kids and killing ants along the way.
