Animal Rights Disproving Itself
 

I agree that in many ways this doesn't make much sense, but your average person is eating a steak because they are hungry. This scum was just practicing sadism. If he had gone as far in trying to cause serious injury to a person, with the same mindset, then **** yes he'd be going to jail, as that would be a serious case of assault. We make distinctions between regular assault and a hate crime, so it's not unreasonable to make distinctions between eating a steak and kicking a cat like you would a football.

I don't think it's disproving itself so much as trying to find a balance between protecting animals used for their products and pets/wildlife. The subject has been around for a long time but it's really only now becoming a main topic for debate; similar to homosexuality.

I like how the newscaster and professor saying it's just "a kick" as if the damage it can cause to the cat versus an adult is even comparable. Do that sh*t to a baby or little kid and then tell me the police wouldn't do anything.

And whatever the legal inconsistencies, I'd still be perfectly fine if I found out that he'd had his legs broken with a piece of rebar.

video wouldn't play all the way through but there's no way a 2 and a half minute discussion can result in all of animal rights activism being in some way self-disproving. Larehip fails again, what a surprise.

:laughing:

I think they should ban him from getting animals again if they want to make a reasonable punishment.

Maybe if he combined it with swastikas it would convince all of us.

:laughing:

Guys I'm supposed to be studying, you're distracting me!

but animals think swastikas are ok why don't you??