Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:30:16 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:12:57 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [..]
> >> > No. What you're saying is that, "The AWA is probably
> >> > the best piece of legislation that is there to protect
> >> > lab animals", and this claim rests on your memory of a
> >> > copy of something you had 14 years ago, and though
> >> > you've been shown recent evidence proving 90% of the
> >> > animals used in labs aren't protected by the AWA, for
> >> > the simple reason that they aren't listed as animals, you
> >> > choose to just snip that evidence away and carry on
> >> > insisting your claim is correct nevertheless, so why is
> >> > that?
> >> [you]
> >> I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently
> >> there to protect lab animals ....
> >> [end]
> >
> >I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently there to
protect
> >lab animals because I can't think of one other single piece of
legislation
> >that does more than it does. Can you? If so, I'll stand corrected.
> >
> If your claim now rests on the fact that it is the
> ONLY piece of legislation to protect lab animals,
> even though it excludes 90% of them on the weird
> basis of them not being animals, then you have won
> your argument in that it is the best.

I think there has to be more legislation out there if only at the state
level, but that's basically what I meant, that currently, it's the best we
have.

Could it be improved? Sure.

Do we need more? Definitely.

-Rubystars