Animal Rights Bill - Tom Regan summing up

	Duration: 585 seconds Upload Time: 07-06-26 05:32:21 User: conn6m :::: Favorites
Description: Does the Animal Kingdom need a Bill of Rights? The question poised at a debate at the Royal institute (UK) in 1989. This is my last vid of the debate and features remarks made by the opposition. Mary Warnock a philosopher from Cambridge University (yes Cambridge). Stephen Rose Professor of Biology Who works for the British medical and Science council and Germaine Greer writer, femminist. These people are all Phds, the best the anti Animal Rights brigade could muster. Watch and enjoy how the famous American Philosopher Dr Tom Regan destroys their arguments. Share with friends
Comments
dimoshka8 ::: Favorites I'm not American, but I'll tell you -- it isn't soft mores, but sophomores, that is second-year college or high school students! 07-07-24 08:32:51 _____________________________________________________
conn6m ::: Favorites Thank you very much. Interesting term. 07-07-25 10:27:27 _____________________________________________________
LiveVegan ::: Favorites Thank goodness there was one non-speciesist person in the room who wasn't the walking unconscious like all others PhDs attending. It just shows that intelligence has little to do with justice and ethics. Thank you to Dr Regan for compassionate & ethical breath of fresh air. 07-07-26 01:58:17 _____________________________________________________
LiveVegan ::: Favorites Even the question : Does the animal kingdom need a bill of rights, reminds me of questions like "Should homosexuals be allowed to be married or have children?" Racism, homophobia, sexisim, speciesism - It all the same stroke of the brush. It all causes violence toward that particular group. Speciesism will end. Go vegan. 07-07-26 01:58:34 _____________________________________________________
conn6m ::: Favorites Well said. 07-07-26 06:47:53 _____________________________________________________
TTSinPA ::: Favorites Veldsla: "Like Dr Tom Regan said, the arguments against were vapid and flawed." Hey Veldsla, I have bad news for you. The "vapid & flawed" arguments he mentioned were those FOR animal rights. He's not a 'proponent of animal rights', he just destroyed the pro animal rights debaters. You'd better watch the video again. How did his "We are the master species" and "We have rights, it's the rest of creation that doesn't" ever come across to you as being for animal rights. 07-07-30 06:26:09 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
TTSinPA ::: Favorites Veldsla: "I guess Germaine Greer was angry at the way women were perceived to be lower than men and that's why she advocates (in a flawed way) Feminism yet she hypocritical is against rights for animals? animals which are perceived to be lower than humans for no valid reasons? I'd have to watch again to be sure, but I think Germaine Greer was FOR animal rights. One of us totally missed the boat on this video. Lets watch again and see which one of us it was! 07-07-30 06:28:30 _____________________________________________________
jerrysproehlich ::: Favorites just as some of the omnivores are proud of their domination over animals; The ruler of slaves was proud of his domination over another for his own gain, and his gain alone. 07-07-30 17:38:58 _____________________________________________________
jerrysproehlich ::: Favorites TTSinPA, are you seriously proposing that Regan's last words there were expressing a personal speciesist philosophy? 07-08-02 18:50:23 _____________________________________________________
jerrysproehlich ::: Favorites He was imitating the speciesists around him in presenting their view. Their view is that only humans deserve rights. Obviously Regan doesn't agree with that philosophy. You must be confused if you're really proposing Regan is a speciesist. 07-08-02 18:55:16 _____________________________________________________