Below is the mindset we fight back against. However Ms. Lin became indoctrinated, it is obvious that she was completely brainwashed. We only assume because she is named on the site, that she authored the information and didn’t just copy it from PETA.
Below are just a few excerpts where she attempts to rationalize why ARs are right, in response to the popular “arguments” against the AR movement.
“Animal rights is extreme”
Her answer: The word “extreme” is defined as “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average.” In the case of animal rights, there is nothing wrong with seeking solutions that are “extreme” and far from the ordinary. In the United States, the ordinary treatment of animals causes animals to suffer and die on factory farms, in laboratories, on fur farms, in leghold traps, in puppy mills, and in zoos and circuses. An extreme change is needed to save animals from these fates.
“If animal rights activists had their way, domestic animals would be extinct.”
Her answer: If we stop breeding domesticated animals, some would survive and some would go extinct. No one wants these animals released into the wild, but a few individuals always escape. Feral cat and dog colonies would survive. Established populations of feral pigs already exist. For those animals who are unfit to survive in the wild, extinction is not a bad thing. “Broiler” chickens grow so large, they develop joint problems and heart disease. Cows now produce more than twice as much milk as they did 50 years ago, and domestic turkeys are too large to mate naturally. There is no reason to continue breeding these animals.Change can be scary, but society has evolved over the years due to other social movements and animal rights will be no different.
PD note: Notice how several examples are given, THEN cursory claim concludes that “EXTINCTION IS NOT A BAD THING.” This is simply PURE propaganda, not done well, but some will (as she has) BUY into it. One would have to be an emotional cripple both brain wise and logic wise to even begin to believe this crap.
“AR activists have a right to be vegan, and should respect my right to eat meat”
Her argument: Eating meat infringes on the rights of the animals to live and be free, so animal rights activists do not believe that people have a moral right to eat animals. Regarding legal rights, in the United States, eating meat is legal and our laws allow animals to be killed for food. However, AR activists cannot remain silent in the face of injustice and have a legal right to free speech that is protected by law. To expect AR activists to remain silent is failing to respect their right to express themselves and advocate veganism.
PD note: This is not why ARs believe in animal rights. That “Animals have rights to live and be free” is something ARs like to spout off— and is nothing but a belief which might, if anything, to be applied to wild animals, predatory birds, etc.
ARs lifestyle BELIEF is that animals are NOT property, as shown in the lawsuit Peta filed on Orcas having constitutional rights against “slavery.” Animals are NOT people. Animals have ONLY the legal rights that statutory law gives them, if any. HUMANS create the laws. Thus ARs have moved to creating bad human laws to BENEFIT animals.
“Vegans kill animals, too”
Her answer: It is nearly impossible for a person to live on this planet without causing some suffering and death to animals. Animals are killed and displaced on farms to grow crops; animal products show up in unexpected places like car tires; and pollution destroys wild habitats and the animals who depend on them. However, this has nothing to do with whether animals deserve rights, and being vegan is one way to minimize one’s negative impact on animals.
PD note: Yes, being vegan is a personal choice like choosing Satanism. It’s a free country. However animal owners do not care what vegans eat or don’t eat. We don’t try and force vegans to NOT be vegans. We don’t try and force people to take rescued animals. According to ARs, they need to be extreme. YES they have to be, since such a non realistic theory of belief MUST require misrepresentation, and plain subterfuge. NO LAW can be passed without an ulterior motive by ARs.