Ok.. I've led a sheltered life. I'm wondering if there is really THAT much of a difference between AR and AW? Maybe if someone could be kind enough to explain it to me (sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but I honestly have never paid much attention to animal rights/welfare people much in the past.) I thought AW people wanted to make sure all animals were treated humanely and that if they were taken as food or in sport that they didn't suffer. AR people I thought are vegetarians and want pretty much the same as the AW people, except they don't want animals to be killed for sport or food?

I'm probably missing a lot.. but I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

Well, sounds to me that's pretty much the basic idea. Only other difference I can think about is that (over here anyway) AW is mostly done by organisations that try to get things done via changing laws and they usually go about it in a quiet and legal way and AR is more of a direct, loud approach, liberating and destroying property kinda way. There are plenty of grey areas I guess, some organisations say they are AW but border AR and vice versa. I guess you should look at it per organisation, but that's not easy either because some of them downright lie about what they do exactly... nothing new there I guess!
So no, you are not missing much :mrgreen:

You've already got the definitions down. But since the welfare view want's to prevent unnessary suffering before death and the rights view is to end those deaths altogether, the two are mutually exclusive and always in conflict.

Animal Welfare allows the use of animals while encouraging a certain level of " humane " treatment, while animal rights simply does not allow the use of animals.

I was using the word "death" while T4T is correct in using "use"

LOL

T4T said in 1 sentence what I couldn't explain in a whole post! Geesh! :mrgreen:

I also must put in that for me, and I can't speak for other ARAs or AR organizations, the ultimate goal is the ending of the use of animals. However, that is not eminent. So until then, I am all for AW as long as humans feel they have to use animals, for food and such. That's why, yes, I wish animals would stop being used for food, but I am all for advocating the ending of the battery cages until then.

Yup me too :bootyshake:

xVeggiePunkx,,,,,,, welcome to the boards .

Hello and welcome. :mrgreen:

Welcome, xVeggiePunkx!!!

Hey xVeggiePunkx. What bands do you like?

Well even if you were for AW and not AR I would still suggest being a AR because the AR's have gotten so much more accomplished then the AW's have.

Please explain.

Alan,
Please give some examples. Also please tell us how much land ARAs have had restored and protected for animals.

I'm also curious to learn -- in your own words -- exactly what lengths [ie: violence and deception] are acceptable in furthuring the AR cause?

I obviously can't debate here, but I think the question has some relevance.

When did I ever say anything about violance? Do you assume since I am an Animal Rights Activist that I'm a terrorist bent on maliciously attacking anyone or anything that gets in my way?

No one said that, and you still haven't answered the questions put to you. You claim that AR has done more for animals than AW, back it up with some facts and/or why you personally think this is so, in your own words (no copying and pasting from peta/ar websites).

You never said anything about violence, and neved did I insinuate you condoning it.

THUS, THE QUESTION.

When you start freshman year in the fall, take an comprehension class, please.

I don't agree with direct action or what alf does. But I do think a living being is worth more then mere property.

plants bactira viruses insects

i feel bad when i sneese and throw all those little lives away to die as the klenex dries up :

Arent you forgetting a fifth one there?

Believe it or not, I'm with you so far...........

Well I'm not sure.. I've been reading about ghandi and how violance only creates more violance. I see the ARA movement as sort of a revolution where people defy what is thought to be right and just. I do believe in order to get the things most ARA's share is through social change, changing the way people think about what's going on in the world.

I started a debate in another forum

http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/boards/view...p?p=31938#31938

Me above.

Sorry, my machine stalled and I somehow got a reply to another thread stuck here :oops:

In which case, if God had a sense of humor, it would promptly lodge itself in an SUV and blow itself to pieces.

Wrong forum... eh?

My machine went buck-wild. Excuse me. I'll promptly delete it.

Maybe this will clear it up. Animals don't have rights (contrary to what ARA believe) but if you own one, you shall be responsible to care for it in a humane manner (animal welfare).

If anyone would care to debate this post (I would, but don't really have time now ), please start another thread in the DEBATE veggie board.

Please do not make statements that could inflame or provoke an ARA, vegan, or vegetarian on this board. Questions are fine, but this should be a "safe zone" for the above groups. If you have any questions, please ask me or the "all knowing One" Frankie.