>Yoshie Furuhashi:
>> It seems to me that many Americans care more about non-human animals
>> than human animals. Why not prohibit the standing army & weapons of
>> mass destruction before prohibiting "cruelty to animals"? Are humans
>> not animals also?
>
>There doesn't seem to be any contradiction between
>prohibiting cruelty to animals (no quotes -- I think it is
>possible to be cruel to an animal) and prohibiting standing
>armies and weapons of mass destruction, and which one one
>did first could be selected on a basis of opportunity. So
>the question is completely vacuous.
>
>As for Americans caring more about non-human animals than
>human animals, this seems like a matter of personal choice
>and disposition.
***** http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41733,00.html FBI Goes After Bonsaikitten.com by Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com) 10:10 a.m. Feb. 9, 2001 PST
...In December 1999, President Clinton signed a law that makes it a federal felony to possess "a depiction of animal cruelty" with the intent to distribute across state lines -- such as on the Internet. During a floor debate, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) claimed that "sick criminals are taking advantage of the loopholes in the local law and the lack of federal law on animal cruelty videos."... *****
It's not a matter of personal choice but what is compatible with capitalism. You _can't_ prohibit standing armies & weapons of mass destruction unless you abolish capitalism, whereas you can pass laws prohibiting "a depiction of animal cruelty" (however futile such laws may be), as Clinton, etc. did, without disturbing capitalism at all, merely bringing _hypocrisy_ (it is _cruelty_ to torment cute furry creatures, but it is _patriotic honor or military necessity_ to kill or injure human animals, be they enemy soldiers, enemy civilians, soldiers of one's own & allied armies, or even civilians in whose name one is fighting) in the USA to a higher level.
Yoshie