10/27/01 11:13

Comments:

To whomever it may concern:

I recently came up with some interesting ideas (at least i find them to be interesting) regarding the well-known PETA principle that "animals are equal to humans." As a biologist who has studied everything from mammalian anatomy to evolution to research ethics, I find it difficult to believe that this principle in any way, shape, or form supports the idea that humans should not eat animals. The equality of humans with animals, if anything, supports the idea that humans SHOULD eat animals. Moreover, after investigating the logic of this principle to a considerable depth, I've found that groups like PETA are certainly not equating people with animals at all (bare with me on this one). In fact, I propose that animal "rights" groups have actually given animals a much higher priority than humans and have, therefore, produced nothing but INEQUALITY between humans and animals. My argument can be best understand given the following points:

Is it not true that many animals are carnivorous or omnivorous? The last time i checked, this idea was very much the truth, and, if I'm not mistaken, animal "rights" groups like PETA certainly support the "right" of omnivorous (as well as carnivorous) animals to consume other animals. Given that simple truth, would it not logically follow that if humans and animals were truly equal, then humans would be just as entitled to eat animals as any other omnivore? That is, if a bear can eat other animals, and I am truly equal to a bear, then why am I not allowed to eat other animals? Any logically-inclined and rational individual would know that the answer to these questions is that humans would have every right to eat animals if humans were, indeed, equal to animals. Therefore, it is clear that "animal rights groups" prioritize humans (and, of course, themselves) much lower than animals. This is something that has been demonstrated time and time again. For example, I recently read a PETA commentary regarding the recent shark attacks on the east coast. The commentary not only condoned the action of a fish killing a human, but (in the same paragraph!!!) condemned the action of a fisherman killing a fish. I rest my case.

In conclusion, it would seem that people who claim to be "animal rights activists" are, in reality, acting to protect the "rights" of animals by simply lowering humans. Perhaps a PETA activists would see a human as being no more important than the dung of a cow, upon which other animals can tread. For reasons that escape me, such activists have become exceedingly dispassionate to other humans (perhaps without even being aware of this) and live lives that are, in essence, certainly not humane and possibly even inhuman. Moreover, it is incredibly sad that such lack of compassion for humans exists during a time when human suffering dominates much of the world.