Christopher has a good post about Christmas puppies to add to the discussion.  He raises some excellent points and provides lots of references for them.

Luisa tells it like it is about meat here and here in a couple of typically thoughtful and logical posts.  It's always easy for me to differentiate the animal lovers from the anmal rights people mostly because the latter don't love animals much at all and it shows.

I reactivated my Facebook profile, it's been about a year, to see what was shaking.  I note that the high priestess of doom, Newkirk, will be interviewed by George Stroumboulopoulos for the Hour on CBC.  The taping is this afternoon but I don't know when the segment will run.

Naturally, I felt obligated to pass on a few suggested questions to George which he might find useful.  Whether he will hold Newkirk's feet to the fire or not remains to be seen.

While frittering away valuable time at Facebook explaining the rational views of the animal welfare advocate (as opposed to what amounts to religious fanaticism on the part of animal liberationists) the usual cadre of callow youths insisted on spouting the same tired bromides we've heard from Peta supporters for nigh on 25 years now.  I guess they can't come up with anything new.

I honestly don't care what people believe, as my regular readers will know.  However, I've never been a fan of hypocrisy, ad hominem attacks (political and media jackasses excepted) or the mindless repetition of prepackaged catechisms - be they animal liberation-based or not.

Most of these shopworn statements are founded on nothing more substantial than personal beliefs which when examined usually turn out to be based on fallacies and specious reasoning.  A lot of it boils down to "I know you are but what am I'" usually in concert with "You stink" rather than reasoned discourse.

I think my biggest complaint with the liberationists is that while they criticize others for being 'speciesist', they are in fact the biggest proponents of 'speciesism' (ugly word) out there.  They arrogantly assume that they have the right to sterilize, kill, control and otherwise radically alter the lives of domestic animals, rather than engage in a respectful symbiotic relationship as promoted by animal welfare advocates.

In other words they truly believe that humans are superior to other animals, which pretty much lets the air out their balloon, doesn't it?

As I say, I have no problem with what people choose to believe, especially if they adhere to the moral code they espouse.

It's when they try to interfere with the lives of others (likely due to some sort of guilt complex or missionary syndrome) that I become irritated - especially when the movement's own leaders do not follow the philosophy they preach and are nothing but two-faced hypocrites who haven't had an original thought in years, if ever.  Instead they pander to the intellectual weaklings among us through emotional manipulation.

Supporters of these silly groups really should get out more as far as I'm concerned.  There are animal welfare issues that need to be addressed, no question.  The trouble is, the animal rights approach won't get us there because that's not what their agenda is about - it's about rendering domestic animals extinct, which is a horse of a very different colour.

Reality is much more interesting than fantasy once you become an adult - or it should be.