Guy Who Dried His Puppy On Clothesline is Stupid, But PETA and Animal Rights Lunatics Are More Evil!

What about this stupid guy who dried his cutie puppy on clothesline? Well, he’s now one of the most hated online personalities in the

Philippines and the subject of blog attacks, online condemnation, Facebook discussions and angry tweets.

But some group of people believe that the dog owner named  Jerzon Senador does not merely deserve public condemnation and online criticisms; he also deserves to be sued and incarcerated for hurting the ‘feelings (perhaps) of his pet.

I’m not surprised that the so-called “animal rights” advocates emerged and took this opportunity to gain publicity and push for their anti-Man agenda and advocay.

Here’s a news report from ABS-CBN.com:

MANILA, Philippines – Animal rights advocates have filed a case against Jerzon Senador, the young man who hung his pet puppy on a clothesline and posted photos of it on Facebook.

Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) officials accused him of violating the Animal Welfare Act.

The case was filed at the City of Prosecutors office in Calamba, Laguna.

A PAWS official went to Senador’s house to offer protective custody for the puppy but his family refused. 

The family also allegedly rejected a free veterinary service and check-up on the puppy.

May Felix, PAWS humane and education specialist, earlier said any person who will be convicted of violating the Animal Welfare Act will be punished by imprisonment of not less than 6 months or more than 2 years or a fine of not less than P1,000 or more than P5,000, or both at the discretion of the court.

Senador has since posted an apology letter in his Facebook account.

He said he hung the puppy only for a few seconds to take photos, after giving the animal a bath and removing its fleas.

This issue immediately caught my attention that I posted a link on a Facebook group. Expectedly, my combative style gained hundreds of comments from pro-animal rightists and those who agreed with my premise.

Here’s what I posted on this Facebook group:

The guy in this video is SOOOOOOOOOOO STOOOOPEEEED, but I don’t agree with that Animal Welfare Act. The animal rightists are stooopeeed mammals too.

I am an anti-PETA. I darn hate those leftist mammals and environmentalists.

Animals don’t have rights, period!

Here’s part of my Facebook commentary about this issue:

If animals have rights, what kind of right do they have? The right not to be eaten? The right not to be killed? The right to live free? I believe it is UTTERLY WRONG AND STUPID to attribute such rights to animals that humans intrinsically possess by virtue of their nature. Animals have automatic means of survival. Everything they have to survive is given by nature. Lions have extraordinary strength and claws that humans don’t have. Birds have wings to fly and to be able to escape from their predators. All animals have their extraordinary means of survival that humans don’t have.

What do humans have? The human brain to think and to reason. To live as a human being, you have to grow your food. Unlike our “uncivilized” ancestors who had to hunt animals for food, we have discovered farming, agriculture, etc. in order to survive. We now understand that we can’t survive by hunting alone. Our thinking ancestors discovered farming methods to grow animals for food without depleting their population.

How did our ancestors survive, anyway?

Of course it is stupid to torture animals before you kill and eat them. I’m for eating tasty animals. Those who favor animal rights have all the right to live in the jungle and be eaten by their “fellow” animals.

A guy named Carlo Yu made the following comment: “Froilan: So you’re saying, that since we have the ability to think, we are higher? They don’t have the right to live? They don’t have the rights to a home? No rights to live in a planet we are slowly killing?”

My comment: “What do you think would happen on earth if animals had the same “human volition” that only human beings possess? There would be ‘inhumane’ wars between humans and animals. A right is protected by man-made laws. It is useless to say you have rights when there are no legal institutions that protect them. What do you mean by animals’ right to live? You mean to say we have to make laws that would penalize anyone for killing any animals for food? That’s not only stupid; that’s suicidal at best. That’s sacrificing humans to animals.”

Carlo Yu replied: “Obviously, if animals had human volition, then things would be different. Who says that we are the only “intelligent” people to have sanity and rules? That’s a bias. Plus, why the fuck would you do it anyway? Why the hell would you torture something? Doesn’t that already show that you’re messed up? Sadistic? Also, society frowns upon it. Most of the CIVILIZED people anyway. If you think we should just go around and let things like that happen, then sure. Go.”

My comment: Science books tell us that animals survive through the process of food chain. If humans and animals stand on the same footing and that the latter be given the same rights that humans intrinsically have, then I believe that’s utterly stupid.

We now live in a civilized world. Torturing animals is an stupid act. Only irrational and sick-minded human beings would do that. But there’s no such thing as a humane way to kill animals. If that’s the case, what constitutes ‘humane way’? Are you trying to say that our ancestors did not survive by eating animals. Even animals eat their kind. But we are not low-life mammals to eat our fellow human beings.

 Animals’ means of survival is given and automatic. They survive by hunting and through the process of food chain. Humans’ means of survival is NOT given and automatic. You have to grow your food, work and establish a livelihood in order to survive.

The problem with these PETA and environmentalist people is that they believe that animals have the same rights that humans have. These people are tree-huggers. They are sick in the mind. Why don’t they practice what they preach? Why don’t they try to live in the jungle to see how it is to live with their “fellow” animals?

Through this issue, it is now high time to criticize and expose the evil and danger of PETA-philosophy and environmentalism… I condemn the guy who hanged his cutie pet, but I condemn more the environmentalists and the people who call for the encarceration of the immature teenager.

I believe that if the government implemented a law that would penalize people for killing animals for food, that would encourage CANNIBALISM. If PETA poops and the environmentalists had their way and convinced the government to implement their anti-Man programs and policies, I believe that would encourage CANNIBALISM instead, because in a fantastic PETA-world, it would be a lot safer to hut and kill humans for food that humans…

The terms: NOT TO TORTURE ANIMALS and RESPECT FOR ANIMALS sound like a governmental policy that needs to be enforced. What constitutes respect for animals and non-torture of animals?

For instance, what would happen to a butcher who kills and makes chop-chop an animal for food? Would his act constitute non-respect for and torture of animals?

We can’t legislate human behavior. And i believe it’s wrong to do that unless such a behavior is violative of other people’s rights.

If our laws were focused on the welfare of animals, that would be tantamount to disregarding and disrespecting the rights and welfare of humans. i believe that would also lead to unintended consequences, wherein humans need to obtain government permission in order to survive. that would perhaps lead to low production, poor economic activities and even widespread famine and hunger.

Protection of animals should not mean we have to sacrifice human beings for the survival and protection of animals. It should not mean we have to imprison and punish people for killing animals for food. Environmentalism is a political and ideological concept who value animal welfare and so-called nature more than the survival and welfare of human beings.

The PETA lunatics, the environmentalists and animal rights advocates- all these statist collectives are motivated by a hippyish ideology and view man as the enemy. It’s man’s welfare and survival that they try to sacrifice for the sake of preserving what they call natural habitat and the animal world.

Let me make my stance very clear. I believe what Mr. Senador did was stupid, but it would be more idiotic and more evil to incarcerate him for his immaturity and stupidity. No, I don’t believe that animals have rights. Animals are not human beings… and only human beings are entitled to rights.

Again, what the puppy-hanger di was highly idiotic and immature. I’d never do that in my entire life. But the goal/aim/objective of these PETA and animal rights group is ideological and political. They believe that eating animals is not merely bad but immoral. They believe that animals have feelings so they claim that animals have a right to live and perhaps to a decent home as well. They want to restrict not merely economic activities but also our right to live and to survive. They’ve been pushing for laws that would restrict the use of animals in almost all activities, including scientific and medical activities.

Therefore, I’m for the immediate repeal of the Animal Welfare Act or R.A. 8485!

If the publicity-hound Animal Welfare Society were really moved and motivated by compassion, then they should drop their highly outrageous lawsuit against the Mr. Senador.

This article sums up the philosophy and morality that motivate these statist, anti-Man collectives:

Environmentalism insists that we give up the value of material comfort and the expectation of material progress. We must distrust modern science and modern technology, since they only distance us from nature. We must live “in harmony” with nature. We must forgo nuclear power and genetic engineering, luxury cars and food additives, Styrofoam cups and disposable diapers. We must stifle our inventiveness and shrink our cognitive horizons. Our ancient ancestors managed to get by without all these artificial gadgets–so must we. But the only type of existence in true “harmony” with nature is: an existence devoid of the man-made. Which would mean an early death for most people; for the others, it would entail a life of back-breaking, sunup-to-sundown toil and bare subsistence.

…

Environmentalism is altruism unadulterated and uncamouflaged. Before the advent of environmentalism, the call for self-sacrifice was made on behalf of other human beings, such as the poor and the sick. Now, in a faithful extension of the altruist maxim, the term “others” is merely being broadened. Now, we are being urged to sacrifice the human to the non-human. And if it is evil to live for your own sake, how can you resist such a demand? If self-abnegation is noble, what could be more praiseworthy than to subordinate your existence to that of bugs, weeds and dirt?

The premise of self-sacrifice is embedded in the deceptive meaning now attached to the very term “environment.” Logically, there can be no concept of an “environment” that is not the environment ofsomeone (or something)–any more than there can be property that exists independently of the owner of the property. “Environment” properly refers to the surroundings of some entity as they relate to that entity.

But that is not how environmentalists employ the term. They subvert it to denote an “environment” severed from any relationship to man. It is erroneous, they say, to believe that the only “environment” worth caring about is one that is useful to human beings. A vein of iron ore, or a forest or a sunrise should be valued, they insist, not because it benefits man, but because it “benefits” nature. These things have “value”–the environmentalist declares–apart from any connection to human beings.

Thus, even the alleged treasures of environmentalists–such as parks set aside as enclaves of uncommercialized, unindustrialized nature–are not permitted to be used as sources of enjoyment for man.

An update:

Some of my friends call PETA a neo-Nazi group. Lest I/they be accused of committing a new ridiculous fallacy called “argumentum ad hitlerum”, which is actually a smear term and a fallacy unto itself, lemme state here that some historians claimed that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover. The Nazis were the first to implement animal welfare and rights.

This should debunk the so stupid a claim by some people that pet-hanger Jerzon Senador is a wannabe serial killer or whatever.

Section 2 of Nazi Law on Animal Protection states:

It is forbidden:

1. to so neglect an animal in one’s ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one’s domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.

This source narrates the sheer contradiction in the Nazi’s concept of rights and welfare. It states:

Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.

… 

Another point that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the inconsistent actions of the alleged “…friends of animals…” in Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 “liberated” rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal “sanctuary” for reasons of “overcrowding.” One wonders why a portion of their multi-million dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing for those animals.

There is considerable evidence of acceptance of animal “rights” by officials of the Third Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century. They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the “rights” of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish people.