1 posted on
07/01/2002 5:27:40 AM PDT by
kattracks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: kattracks
Where do these people come from? The World of Oz?
2 posted on
07/01/2002 5:29:32 AM PDT by
marvlus
To: kattracks
My post earlier goes along well with this - good timing on your part :) although mine was a personal rant.
I don't where these people come from - amazing what boredom leads to. If they had to work hard each day to survive they might have a little more common sense.
To: kattracks
It's a sad time when we value the "rights" of animals more than the rights of unborn babies.
4 posted on
07/01/2002 5:32:10 AM PDT by
splach78
To: kattracks
I think Singer should spend thirty days sequestered with a hungry grizzly and her cubs and study the relationship between humans and animals.
5 posted on
07/01/2002 5:33:40 AM PDT by
Movemout
To: kattracks
What a disgusting individual.
Problem is, these wacko theories get started in academia, then slowly make their way into the mainstream. 30 years ago, the concept of "Animal Rights" was absurd, now it's not. Who's to say if Singers beliefs won't be mainstream in another 30 years?
6 posted on
07/01/2002 5:35:52 AM PDT by
Guillermo
To: kattracks
"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people...
Yeah, and we hope to continue to be a problem for animals like you, you jerk.
Notice that the brilliant Singer thinks that a spider is an insect. Of course, the clymers he was talking to in the workshop probably don't know any better either.
7 posted on
07/01/2002 5:37:09 AM PDT by
Bigg Red
To: kattracks
Adolf Hitler was a big animal rights supporter, but had no respect at all for humans.
To: kattracks
Singer also reiterated one of his most controversial positions regarding the right to kill a newborn infant within 28 days of birth if the infant is deemed "severely disabled."
WHAT in the world is he talking about?????
9 posted on
07/01/2002 5:37:40 AM PDT by
TxBec
To: kattracks
What was the final score when the lions faced the Christians back in the old days?
10 posted on
07/01/2002 5:39:48 AM PDT by
Consort
To: kattracks
I suppose if your comparison is Buddhism or certain Hindu sects, then the fact that most of us enjoy eating meat might strike some as cruel.
But compassion toward all living things is more of a tenet of Christianity than of any of the other major world religions. At least we don't make a ceremony of slitting the throat of a goat during our major festivals as is standard practice in Islam.
These people have far too much time on their hands and far too little grey matter to figure out what to do with it.
11 posted on
07/01/2002 5:40:24 AM PDT by
katana
"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people
100 people!!! Oh, what a MASSIVE turnout!!! This idiot's family showed up to hear the little talk and it's news?
Regarding Christianity being a problem for the animal movement: Yes, Christianity is a problem for many false god worshiping movements. The movements that want to worship toadstools, and volcanoes, and make them their gods hate Christianity too. Satan worshipers hate Christianity because Christians refuse to worship Satan and put Satan on a level higher than Jesus.
To: kattracks
Washington(AP)- Warning - Pointy-headed college professors using up valuable oxygen and replacing it with hot air.
13 posted on
07/01/2002 5:45:29 AM PDT by
Bryan24
To: kattracks
He explained that his mission is to challenge "this superiority of human beings," and he conceded that his ideas go very much against the grain of a country that mostly still believes in human superiority. When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.
Why can't these supposedly intelligent, academic types see Singers hypocracy! He blatantly contradicts himself in his presentation. On one hand, he doesn't believe humans are superior to anumals, yet humans must be held to a higher standard! This implies humans are superior to animals and his entire arguement is rendered moot.
15 posted on
07/01/2002 5:46:29 AM PDT by
doc30
To: kattracks
criticized American Christianity for its fundamentalist strain that takes the Bible too "literally" and promotes "speciesism." He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species.When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard. "Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can.
I guess he doesn't see the obvious contradiction of these two statements.
To: kattracks
It's hard when the Gospel According to Man collides with Holy Writ, ain't it? Hmmmmm. A bunch of moonbeam-chasers challenging the supremacy of the institution that created Western Civilization ...
I know who MY money's on!
18 posted on
07/01/2002 5:48:15 AM PDT by
IronJack
To: kattracks; dighton
"He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."AND ...
"...why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard. "Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices..."
Okay, now, maybe someone much smarter .. or more able to decypher spin .. can explain to me how these two statements could both be true.
If we're not superior to animals, then how can we be expected to be held to a higher standard.
If we ARE superior to animals, that answers all of the questions raised by this nitwit, categorically.
To: kattracks
Today's news always seems to come down to this. It's always the fault of the Christians and/or Jews, eh? Gee, at some point society is going to have to "put them in their place." May even have to require them to "get with the program" if they expect to take part in any of our institutions or economy, eh? Why, look how much "cleaner" it is right here on FR, since "those folks" have been relegated to their own forum....
To: kattracks
and a T-shirt featuring a cow with the slogan "I died for your sins." These are very disturbing juxtapositions.
To: kattracks
If I remember right didn't Jesus Christ come to save humanity and not the animal kingdom? I wonder why (not really)?
23 posted on
07/01/2002 5:51:43 AM PDT by
dnandell
To: kattracks
Singer is exhibit "A" that some people are educated well beyond their intelligence.
24 posted on
07/01/2002 5:52:37 AM PDT by
mc5cents
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson